Yes, I notice that & the AWESOME defence. Every piece & every pawn is protected! Also RJF is a rook up! Q+N+2P=14 for DB. 2B+N+5P=14 for RJF & I didn't count the rook.

You can consider here Nh4. After g5, Nf5 at least threats to check and exchange the white bishop. Not that this would save white.

...patient, and a direct threat to move Bd6, pinning the knight and threatening the queen. After Qe8, Nf6...

what would have happened if kh1? or kh2?

instead of Kf1, Nd7 flashes. If Bd6, Qe8 at least makes a counter threat (if black moves the knight, Qf6 check, with no hopes.

37...Bb3 would force mate more quickly, but who can forgive Fischer for winning in style?

yup... and the best part is the thoughts had a lot of references to female dogs...  

Very humurous!

Rofl!

Lol.

Lol!

I have to wonder why a player wouldn't have resigned long ago from such a miserable position. Not giving the year of this game (you say 14 years before you were born and your gameknot profile lists you as being 5 years old  , I looked it up and it was played in 1956. I am guessing that rather than resign Byrne had a big smile on his face thinking this 13 year-old played with great brilliance and deserved to win in style, otherwise Byrne would have resigned much earlier.

Or 41...Ba3# I'm too lazy to move a rook 2 squares when I can move the bishop only 1 square!  

This is a very famous game I've seen commented, and it sure was in many chess books. It's a typical example of a very complex tactic melée, and Fisher managed it the right way. Of course, Byrne was caught by surprise, and probably spent less effort in calculating, thinking it was impossible a little boy went so deep in analysis. That's no excuse, anyway... very nice for tactic puzzles, somewhere after Na5's sac by black. It must be proven (I've no Fritz or else on my pc) that the knight sac was winning, anyway, I've incurred myself, by chance, in such tactically complex positions (but on the losing side, of course). I'd like people to give a look at gameknot.com. Comments are in Italian (and Italian notation, sigh!), but still I think it is a very rich game, and the question "Could have black survived, or even won? It was sound his sacrifice in the early midgame?". Anyway, sorry for the "self-publicity". tag, thank you for sharing this. I can perfectly understand your enthusiasm about this fantastic game, which I share as well. Be confident, be creative when analyzing, and in timed games you will have the chance to step into such tactic melées... they are really fun (but you have to devote a lot of time and concentration to unravel them properly). Please keep sharing what you want!

@markb56 I was very happy you made that comment. And it was indeed very much to Byrne's credit that he did not deprive the "kid" of his very well deserved in style victory. Well, that was in 1956 and I quite doubt that anyone these days would be so noble as Byrne was. Just go through each of the games in the latest world chess championship between Anand and Carlsen...

As others have said, this is from the Rosenwald 1956 (I have the tournament book), and Byrne was probably astounded that a young boy could have foreseen the rich and complex tactics in the game. I have only one such experience myself and that was back in 1974, I sacrificed my Q for 3 minor pieces against a future Ohio chess champion, (we were both younger). It was exciting and the only time I ever had the opportunity to make such a move in more than 100k games. The problem in such positions is always coordination of pieces. If you make the minor pieces work well together, they are better than the Q, if you don't, you lose. I told myself "make the sac" back in 1974, "you'll probably never get another chance" I never did get another chance, but that one was a nice win for me in which I mated my opponent in the center of the board with a pawn, and he still had his Queen.