< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 21 OF 21 ·
|Oct-13-15|| ||Petrosianic: Some of the other matches didn't fit the pattern very well either. Like 1951 and 1954.|
If you remember Botvinnik-Bronstein, there are three decisive games in a row near the beginning and again near the end, with scattered victories in between. I think Kalme cut the numbers by calling Games 17-24 the "Shootout" stage, and 1-17 the Quiet Stage. But it was totally arbitrary, and if his theory had allowed it, you could just as easily have cut the numbers to make it look like there were two shootout stages.
|Oct-13-15|| ||Howard: Here we go again with this Woulda Shoulda Coulda game....Kalme was not necessarily "completely disproven" by the score after 24 games of Karpov--Korchnoi 1978. Wouldn't those two have played differently if it'd been a best-of-24 match ? |
God only knows what the score after 24 games would have been in that case.
|Oct-13-15|| ||diceman: <Gypsy: Hort's assessment of each game: |
(1) Ficher's only serious blunder in the match.>
<(11) Clear game: Suspect opening variation that Fischer has been playing for years does not hold up.>
If Game 1 was Fischer's <only serious blunder> he wouldn't have lost Game 11.
Mednis calls (Game 11) Fischer's 15...d5 "probably the worst move on the board"
...losing the d-pawn for nothing.
The "poisoned pawn" was played for decades with Kasparov even playing
it against Short in the 1993 WC Match.
|Oct-13-15|| ||RookFile: Nothing wrong with the poisoned pawn Sicilian.|
|Oct-13-15|| ||diceman: <Petrosianic:
Korchnoi match after 24 games of a Pure Wins format was almost identical to what it had been after 24 games of a Wins or Points format (only a half point differnce).
And then six years later, KK-I totally nuked him.>
interesting how the guy who was going to destroy Fischer,
...who would have no problem generating the 10 wins necessary,
...is the only constant in drawfests.
|Oct-24-15|| ||PJs Studio: I understand your point completely that game one showed Spasski's skill as a player but you are ENTIRELY MISSING MY POINT. Spasski was a fantastic World Champion. I expected even a better result from him. Fischer played so well that after a silly blunder and no chess he stood 0-2, Spasski (a tactically sharp World Champion) only scored one win after that. One!|
Fischer was a hell of a buzzsaw at that time. Now, I'm a huge Spasski fan and can only defend his play in 72 not by saying he was week, but by saying "wow...Fischer was just...wow" because to say a anything less of Fischer besmirches Spasski's image. I won't have it. You're not twisting my words and then also not offer an explanation for what happened in 72 yourself?
|Oct-24-15|| ||Zonszein: I think it's not the same to play to become WC than to defend the title.
Had this match been played in 1969 rather than 1972..
Spassky would have won a couple of games in which he had a bid advantage. Say, 4th, 14th...perhaps 17th...|
|Oct-24-15|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: <Zonszein: I think it's not the same to play to become WC than to defend the title.>|
Yeah, just compare Fischer's games in the '72 match with his games here:
Karpov - Fischer World Championship Match (1975)
|Oct-25-15|| ||Joshka: <chessgames.com> Also, this match should be titled Spassky-Fischer. Spassky was World Chess Champion! Thank you.|
|Dec-26-15|| ||morfishine: <Petrosianic> On this eloquent comment: <...People have a hard time wrapping their heads around that concept> Thats because it isn't even a "concept" at all, but the rambling musings and murky opinion coming from somebody who really doesn't know what they are talking about.|
|Dec-26-15|| ||CygnusX1: At the time, I wanted Fischer to win but now I wish Spassky had won! Then, for the 1974 Candidates Matches, we would have had: Fischer v Byrne (surely an almost certain win for Fischer), Fischer v Karpov and then (assuming Fischer beat Karpov) Fischer v Korchnoi!|
Also, I feel that Fischer deliberately avoided Spassky by not playing during the 1963-1966 and 1966-1969 World Championship Cycles (when Spassky was in his prime). Fischer chose to play during the 1969-1972 cycle (after Benko was paid off!) when, having already won the World Championship, Spassky would be less motivated. After all, since 1948, only one incumbent had won a World Championship Match (Petrosian in 1966) and that was by the narrowest possible margin. Another thought is that the right to a return match for Spassky would have probably been a good idea. Then, we wouldn't have the ludicrous situation of a World Champion who did not play a single competitive game during the specified period (1972 to 1975). As mentioned elsewhere, with hindsight, Fischer's retirement from the game was not too surprising. - During 1971 and 1972, he only played the World Championship Cycle games. So, in 1971 he only played 21 games and in 1972 he only played the 20 games (not counting the default) against Spassky. Contrast this with Karpov, for example, who played in the 1974 Nice Olympiad, in spite of his Candidates Matches!
|Dec-26-15|| ||Howard: Regarding Cygnus's comment, if Spassky had won the 1972 match, it would have been a very open question as to how the 1974 Candidates would have shaped up. Fischer would not really have "taken" Spassky's spot, necessarily.|
I don't recall how the pairings were done back then, but ratings had something to do with it---in other words, the pairings weren't done by drawing names out of a hat. Thus, Fischer would probably have been the top seed (depending on his tournament results during 1973 and early 1974--assuming he was playing during that time).
That would have affected whom he would have been paired up against.
|Dec-26-15|| ||CygnusX1: Perhaps we could check up on how the pairings were done. I thought Fischer would have just taken Spassky's place. Nevertheless, I think that it would have been highly likely that Fischer would have had to play Karpov, Korchnoi or both in the 1974 Candidates. Curiously, Fischer could have played in the 1977 Candidates matches but in this case Spassky took his place (and reached the final against Korchnoi).|
|Dec-26-15|| ||CygnusX1: Can you imagine Wimbledon (say) being delayed for 10 days because Andy Murray doesn't turn up on time?|
|Jan-14-16|| ||zanzibar: Some video footage of a game from the match:
|Jan-15-16|| ||Petrosianic: <the pairings weren't done by drawing names out of a hat.>|
I believe they WERE, at least into the 1980's.
|Jan-15-16|| ||Howard: Let me check Kasparov's MGP---I believe in Volume 4 or Volume 5, he states that they weren't done at random---there was a certain way the pairings were made.|
Besides, it would only make sense. Otherwise, in the 1977 Candidates (just to give an example) you could have had Korchnoi and Hort playing in the finals---talk about anti-climatic !
Or in the 1980 version, it could have been Korchnoi-Adjoran (sp) in the finals---hell, talk about a foregone conclusion !
|Jan-15-16|| ||perfidious: <---talk about anti-climatic !>|
Yup, woulda been agin the climate, right enough!
|Jan-15-16|| ||diceman: <CygnusX1: Can you imagine Wimbledon (say) being delayed for 10 days because Andy Murray doesn't turn up on time?>|
If Andy Murray was Fischer, there'd be a chance.
There was talk in 72, of moving New Years Eve to January 10, because Fischer was "busy."
|Feb-20-16|| ||A.T PhoneHome: <diceman> I doubt Wimbledon would be delayed like that simply because it isn't the kind of political must Fischer's participation in 1972 was.|
I wonder if Fischer felt himself purposeless after this match, having won the title. No idea what to do afterwards.
|Feb-20-16|| ||Joshka: <A. T PhoneHome> Well he seemed to be in a very relaxed mood when talking with Dick Caveat, and when the question was asked of him he said something like "well first things first, I want to win the title first, then I'll think about (girlfriend other things non chess) all the other things in life." In a way, he did exactly as he kind of really wanted. He won the title, then he started doing other things. Except they were done in private, and we didn't have the 24 hour news format that we all see now.|
|Feb-20-16|| ||A.T PhoneHome: Well yes, I give you that, but part of me can't help but feel that to Fischer living life after chess wasn't such an obviousness.|
|Feb-20-16|| ||diceman: <A.T PhoneHome: <diceman> I doubt Wimbledon would be delayed like that simply because it isn't the kind of political must Fischer's participation in 1972 was.>|
Well, that was the point of my somewhat tongue-in-cheek response.
It was really about Fischer.
Folks say things like it only had a lot of publicity because of the "Cold War."
...but Spassky vs. Evans, Byrne, or Benko, wouldn't seem to cut it.
|Feb-20-16|| ||A.T PhoneHome: Cold War did have an effect on the popularity of chess (say, Soviets saw it as a way to promote communism).|
But Fischer also contributed greatly, not only with his playing, but also by making demands etc. which benefited players and made chess appear more serious plus other stuff which I'm too tired to list here.
|Mar-25-16|| ||Stonehenge: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 21 OF 21 ·