I wanted to review some ideas in the King’s Gambit before showing it to some of my students, and accordingly looked for Fischer’s famous article A Bust to the King’s Gambit and had no trouble finding a PDF of it. However, it was in descriptive notation, which I can read though it is a pain- without any diagrams or clear delineation between the mainline and the sidelines.

After searching the internet for a few minutes I couldn’t find it in algebraic notation anywhere- nor could my more web-savvy friends who have access to nearly any printed thing within a moments notice it seems (where exactly do you find all of these chess books, Boris?).

In any case, rather than waste another minute trying to find the document I wanted, I decided to make it myself. In the link below you can download a copy of the famous article by fischer entitled “A Bust to the King’s Gambit,” in algebraic notation and with a few diagrams and formatting changes to make it easier to read for the 21st century chess player. **Here it is**: a bust to the king’s gambit

No thanks necessary, but a smiley face in the comments would make me feel like it was time well spent.

## 10 Responses to ““A Bust to the King’s Gambit” By Bobby Fischer in Algebraic Notation”

Very nice, exactly what I was looking for. I can read descriptive, but like you said, it’s kind of a pain given that I’ve always read algebraic notation. I put a link to your page on my blog: http://www.welearnchess.com/a-bust-to-the-kings-gambit-algebraic-notation/

Thanks again!

Thank you! Fischer is always an interesting read, though here he seems a little bit dogmatic. That 1960 loss against Spassky…!

Thanks for this algebraic version of Bobby Fischer’s famous article.

Best Wishes,

Collin

ðŸ™‚

ðŸ™‚

ðŸ˜‰

Nice work!

Thank you Sir,

You are the true SAVIOR of Chesskind !!!!!!!

8) better late than never. Cheers, Jim Takchess

ðŸ™‚

Maybe there is a typo in the paragraph just after the second diagram?

Where it reads “7 g3 is always met by 7…g5.” I think it should read “(…) 7…g4”.

you are correct- thank you for pointing this out. I will see if I can find a copy of the original word document i used to correct it.

Thanks. Its really hard to read without Algebraic Notation.