If Russia knew the location of every command center bunker with less than 100% certainty, then it did work. If instead of the actual command center they knew the location of the 10 potential alternate locations, then they would need to spend 10 nukes instead of 1 (pretty much any concrete bunker is able to withstand anything but a direct hit from a megaton-size nuclear bomb). That complicates a lot the nuclear calculus, even when you have thousands of warheads. In the end, this may have been a small factor in the fact WW3 never happened.
Virtually all nukes nowadays are thermonuclear bombs. If your question is how many bombs have a yield at or above 1 MT TNT, and how many below, then the majority of the current warheads is below. More precisely, currently maybe 90% of the US warheads have a yield between 100 and 455 kT TNT. The largest active warhead in the US inventory has 1.2 MT TNT yield. A rule of thumb is that the more advanced a nuclear program is, the lower the yield of their nukes, the reason being that the a more precise missile can destroy an ICBM silo with a lower yield.
Nuclear bombs (both fission and fusion) direct energy symmetrically in all directions. So any bomb detonated at or above ground level will direct half of its energy towards space. The other half eventually produces damage on the ground, but there are 2 models: surface burst, and air burst. The air burst produces a shock wave that hits the ground and is reflected, and then interferes constructively with the front of the wave that comes at an angle. Generally strikes are designed to maximize the effect of this constructive interference, this was the case with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, even this "doubled up" shock wave front is not really that destructive, so any half backed blast resistant shelter can survive it (it doesn't even need to be a concrete bunker, a well designed dug-out shelter will still do it). A surface burst will vaporize a semi-sphere of ground, and no bunker will survive, including even a missile silo, but then the blast effects will be much more localized while the radioactive fall-out will be increased maybe one thousand fold.
If Russia knew the location of every command center bunker with less than 100% certainty, then it did work. If instead of the actual command center they knew the location of the 10 potential alternate locations, then they would need to spend 10 nukes instead of 1 (pretty much any concrete bunker is able to withstand anything but a direct hit from a megaton-size nuclear bomb). That complicates a lot the nuclear calculus, even when you have thousands of warheads. In the end, this may have been a small factor in the fact WW3 never happened.