< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 20 OF 21 ·
|Oct-12-15|| ||Gypsy: <Petrosianic: Fischer and Spassky both had winning positions in Game 15, and Spassky's came first. Spassky also botched Game 14.|
That's why it's the actual results that matter, not the Woulda Coulda Shoulda stuff. So many people still don't get that and think they can get a better result than what actually happened by selectively fudging only the games they want to fudge. ...>
Vlastimil Hort wrote a book about this match (it also includes the preceding candidates matches and, a bit less congruently, the USSR-World match, Belgrad, 1970). In his book, Hort muses about how much better Spassky played in the second half of the WC match than in the beginning. Hort also counts 'imaginary pluses', that is, missed opportunities of both players.
Hort gives Spassky his 'imaginary plus' nod for games 4, 13, 14, 18, 20; Fischer for games 7, 15.
|Oct-12-15|| ||diceman: <AylerKupp: <diceman>
I don't know why you say that folks try to make Fischer results "normal/pedestrian">|
...folks like you:
<AylerKupp: Contrary to what you and others might think, to the Soviets Fischer was just another strong player, undistinguishable from all the other non-Soviet strong players, and it was not necessary to do anything special to prepare for him.>
...this sounds <"normal/pedestrian"> to me:
<undistinguishable from all the other non-Soviet strong players, and it was not necessary to do anything special to prepare for him.>
Also, the Fischer "riddles."
<AylerKupp:The outcome of the Fischer – Petrosian match was not a foregone conclusion>
Yeah, only a "fanboy" would think:
1) Petrosian's stellar 15 draws and 2 wins up to that point
(vs. Fischer's 12-0)
2) Fischer beating Petrosian in USSR vs. Rest of the World
3) Fischer beating Petrosian twice in Herceg Novi blitz
4) Fischer crushing the field in the Interzonal
5) Fischer crushing Taimanov 6-0
6) Fischer crushing Larsen 6-0
...were indicators Fischer would have an advantage.
There were simply no clues Fischer would perform well.
|Oct-12-15|| ||Howard: Oh, yes, that Kalme article ! It appeared in November, 1975, and it almost certainly holds the record for the LONGEST article ever to appear in Chess Life & Review, or in Chess Life.|
Still have that issue though I haven't looked closely at the article in decades.
|Oct-12-15|| ||Petrosianic: Is "Imaginary Pluses" Hort's word for it or yours? It's a good term. I'd call it "Imaginary Pluses and Minuses", but it sounds like Hort is trying to put both under the same banner (counting a missed win in Game 4 and a missed draw in Game 13 equally).|
Assuming there was a missed win in Game 4. Has that ever been clearly settled? I remember Gligoric gave an intermezzo that he said would have won, and someone else said his move wouldn't have won. I'll have to check it out. I don't really consider it a "Blown Win" unless the win can be pointed out immediately. If it takes years or decades, then no.
I'd still count Game 15 as an Imaginary Win for both players. (And if that doesn't seem to make sense, it makes as much sense as Imaginary Pluses do in the first place.)
I remember after the 1977 Korchnoi-Petrosian Match, Mednis did the same kind of thing, and tried to rationalize that the score was "correct", because Petrosian "shouldn't" have lost Game 8, but "should" have lost Game 12. Of course you can play this Game all day, because the only reason he "should" have lost Game 12 is because he was taking chances in a Must Win situation, which he wouldn't have done if he <hadn't> lost Game 8. That's why it's simplest to just accept the results that actually occurred.
When people play this game, they tend to think of a match as a series of isolated games, rather than a continuous series. If someone has a bad game (misses a win or loses a game they should have held), it can affect the way they play in future games. I remember someone once did a study on how World Champions play in the game immediately AFTER a defeat. I don't remember the exact results, except Karpov topped the list. Fischer was fairly low; defeats disturbed him more. And I imagine Petrosian was only about middle of the road, since he usually deliberately played for a draw after a loss. Fischer's career is short enough, and all the games easily accessible, that I keep meaning to run the numbers myself and see what they were.
|Oct-12-15|| ||Gypsy: <Petrosianic: Is "Imaginary Pluses" Hort's word for it or yours? ...> |
It is Hort's.
(<Pomyslne plus> in Czech.)
|Oct-12-15|| ||Gypsy: Hort's assessment of each game:
(1) Ficher's only serious blunder in the match.
(3) Conceptually week from Spassky.
(4) Excellently begun by Spassky; but he lets a likely win get away.
(5) Probably the worst game by Spassky;
his cause is probably already lost when he blunders.
(6) Fischer's technical tour de force. One sided game against week defense.
(7) Wild game. Spassky pushes too hard in his attack; then desperately defends pawn down. Draw, but American deserved a win.
(8) World champion (Spassky) is not playing like world champion: One serious error and the fight is over.
(9) Least interesting game of the whole match. Draw in 30 moves.
(10) Qualitative break in the match -- Spassky begins to play better. In 10th game Spassky gets a promising position in Spanish (Ruy), but a 'wobble' -- queen briefly stranded during a 'hunt' -- lets Fischer superbly collect another full point.
(11) Clear game: Suspect opening variation that Fischer has been playing for years does not hold up.
(12) Balanced draw.
(13) A critical game. Fischer plays Alekhine D for the first time. Spassky does not open well, but then he plays as expected from World Champion. Yet, he lets the game slip away after a steady and resilient defense was about to bring the game to a draw.
At this point, Fischer led by 3pts and chess community at large assumed that he was safely drawing the match to overall victory. I [Hort] do not share this opinion. Player of Fischer qualities should not have problems drawing with White pieces if draw is all he desires. Yet, in the match, it was a problem for him. Besides, playing for draws in not in Fischer's temperament. He always want to break his opponent(s) with relentless pressure.
(14) Spassky went to endgame pawn up. But one weaker move from him nd his chance for win went away.
(15) Spassky plays an 'all or nothing' game and he finds himself in a lost position. This time, it is Fischer who misses his chance.
(16) Spassky holds a small advantage from the beginning till the end of the game. Fischer draws in technically perfect manner.
(17) About the same as (16).
(18) Spassky has winning chances: He outplays Fischer conceptually; but one mistake lets Fischer to draw.
(19) A break-neck game, probably the prettiest from the whole match. Fischer successfully defends via a sequence of precise maneuvers.
(20) Last real chance for Spassky. He repeatedly declines repeating moves, but he is unable to convert the small advantage he got.
(21) A game played by a resigned man. Spassky could have drawn it a number of times, but, in his head, Spassky was probably still contemplating the now only theoretical chances he had to tie the match; and he lost.
|Oct-12-15|| ||Howard: In response to Petrosianic's inquiry, the closest that Spassky came to a win in Game 4, was probably when he overlooked 31...Rh4. That was certainly the best move in that position, but as far as I know, no forced win has been discovered.|
Anyone wanna challenge that claim ?
|Oct-12-15|| ||Petrosianic: This is interesting stuff. I don't mind playing the Woulda Coulda Shoulda game, as long as we admit that that's what we're doing. And the name "Imaginary Pluses" makes that very clear.|
<(1) Ficher's only serious blunder in the match.>
Yeah, I'd agree, although I'm not sure he'd have lost without further help.
A serious blunder of sorts.
<(3) Conceptually week from Spassky.>
Yes, although he might have held on with a little stiffer defense.
<(4) Excellently begun by Spassky; but he lets a likely win get away.>
Yes, but still a significant game, as it put 6. Bc4 on the shelf for the remainder of the match.
<(5) Probably the worst game by Spassky;
his cause is probably already lost when he blunders.>
Yeah, maybe. He had a long fight to get a draw at the least.
<(6) Fischer's technical tour de force. One sided game against week defense.>
Spassky helps, with some weak moves, like d4?, but this is probably the best game.
<(7) Wild game. Spassky pushes too hard in his attack; then desperately defends pawn down. Draw, but American deserved a win.>
<(8) World champion (Spassky) is not playing like world champion: One serious error and the fight is over.>
Worst game of the match, although I'm still not clear whether the initial exchange sac was a real sac or a blunder.
<(9) Least interesting game of the whole match. Draw in 30 moves.>
I find it interesting, just because of the Nc6 innovation in the Semi-Tarrasch.
<(10) Qualitative break in the match -- Spassky begins to play better. In 10th game Spassky gets a promising position in Spanish (Ruy), but a 'wobble' -- queen briefly stranded during a 'hunt' -- lets Fischer superbly collect another full point.>
Is that where the game was won, or later on?
<(11) Clear game: Suspect opening variation that Fischer has been playing for years does not hold up.>
Yeah, maybe. Although the Nb1 move was overly-praised, and even GM's who had praised it loudest didn't play it when they had the chance. The whole Nb3 line seems to have been supplanted by Rb1 after this game.
<(12) Balanced draw.>
<(13) A critical game. Fischer plays Alekhine D for the first time. Spassky does not open well, but then he plays as expected from World Champion. Yet, he lets the game slip away after a steady and resilient defense was about to bring the game to a draw.>
Best FIGHT of the match, but not the best game.
<(14) Spassky went to endgame pawn up. But one weaker move from him nd his chance for win went away.>
This may have been the end. Even when Spassky is playing well, he can't bring the point home.
<(15) Spassky plays an 'all or nothing' game and he finds himself in a lost position. This time, it is Fischer who misses his chance.>
Yeah, but both players missed opportunities in this game.
<(16) Spassky holds a small advantage from the beginning till the end of the game. Fischer draws in technically perfect manner.>
Spassky had a small advantage, but never any serious winning chances.
<(17) About the same as (16).>
Yeah, although he should have pressed longer. Fischer would have.
<(18) Spassky has winning chances: He outplays Fischer conceptually; but one mistake lets Fischer to draw.>
I need to look at this one again.
<(19) A break-neck game, probably the prettiest from the whole match. Fischer successfully defends via a sequence of precise maneuvers.>
Looked like it SHOULD have been a win for White, but nobody's ever found anything. A well played game on both sides.
<(20) Last real chance for Spassky. He repeatedly declines repeating moves, but he is unable to convert the small advantage he got.>
There was nothing to convert. He had a small advantage, but couldn't turn it into more.
<(21) A game played by a resigned man. Spassky could have drawn it a number of times, but, in his head, Spassky was probably still contemplating the now only theoretical chances he had to tie the match; and he lost.>
Still should have taken the draws.
|Oct-12-15|| ||Petrosianic: <Howard>: <Still have that issue though I haven't looked closely at the article in decades.>|
You should read it if only to see how completely insane even intelligent people can get when they're fixated on an idea. Kalme's idea was that there was a fixed "Draw Expectation" in any match, that was 100% determined by the conditions of the match. Not by how evenly matched the players were, the era, or anything else. He genuinely believed that a match to 10 Wins in 1975 would not go any longer than 23 games, because that's how long they went in the 19th century.
Draw Expectancy is completely unscientific in the first place. We know scientifically why a perfectly balanced coin comes up heads 50% of the time. But there's no way to prove how a chess game OUGHT to come out. His whole argument was based on the idea that that's the way it's always worked (in the very small sample of data we have), therefore all future matches will have nearly identical results, just as if it were a coin toss.
Of course, there are other things besides match rules that determine how likely a draw is. Also, his data pool was small and he whittled it down further. Capablanca-Alekhine was impossible to ignore (A Pure Wins match with a lot of draws), so he threw it out as being a one-time exception. Never happen again. Who knows why it happened even once? But then he made an excuse and quietly tossed out Steinitz-Tchigorin I (A Best Of Match with only one draw).
He also had to toss out the 1961 match because it didn't fit his claim that a Best Of Match would have a "Shootout Phase" and a quiet phase with a lot of draws.
Then he loved the 1974 Karpov-Korchnoi match so much that he included it to prove that a Wins or Points match format was the worst of all for producing wins. But the other 6 1974 Candidates Matches were in the same format, and they all produced a winner by wins rather than points. So all six of those matches had to be thrown out, and only one the lone Candidates match that fit his theory was counted.
It would all be funny if not for the fact that Kalme was a professional mathematician, who had a reputation to lose if his colleagues caught him tossing out data willy-nilly that way.
It was supposed to be Part 1 of a two-part article, but Part 2 was quietly cancelled. Considering that this was November 1975 and the match fell apart over the 9-9 clause, not the Pure Wins format, it's amazing that even Part 1 got published.
Three years later, Kalme was totally disproven with the score of the Karpov 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.
|Oct-12-15|| ||offramp: Sorry ... What was the 1961 match?|
|Oct-12-15|| ||Petrosianic: The Botvinnik-Tal rematch.|
|Oct-13-15|| ||Petrosianic: Kalme's claim was that the Best of 24 format rigidly requires there to be two distinct "Stages" of a match: A shootout stage with lots of victories, and a quiet stage with lots of draws. The problem was that the shootout might occur in either stage. And Stage 2 of a Best of 24 match didn't begin in Game 13, as you might expect. It began anywhere from Game 13 to Game 19, depending on what fit the best.|
The problem was the 1961 match. It wsa a "shootout" from beginning to end, and there was no way to massage the numbers to make it look otherwise. So, that was one of the many matches that Kalme simply threw out.
The whole article was an exercise in futility. He made a theory, picked data that fit the theory, threw out everything that didn't, and then tried to claim that the data he had kept had happened the way it did because of some kind of mathematical certainty. He was trying to reduce human behavior to a coin flip, which simply can't be done.
|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).|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 20 OF 21 ·