< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 124 OF 124 ·
|May-03-18|| ||offramp: <chancho>, that is all true, and I have used stats like that to make my absolutely correct prognostication about this match:|
10-6 to Fischer with 44 draws.
That is a fact, even though I am a Karpov fan.
|May-03-18|| ||Joshka: <beatgiant> The current reigning champion has always had his name first. 1972 match was "Spassky-Fischer" had Karpov and Fischer met in 1975, then it would of course be "Fischer-Karpov". This way a sporting person, who really doesn't follow chess, would know who really is the challenger in a match. I'm sure they will promote "Carlsen-Caruana" .|
|May-03-18|| ||beatgiant: <Joshka>
<champion's name first>
Maybe so, but chessgames.com has challenger's name first on quite a few of these. Besides the examples I already posted above (Tal-Botvinnik 1960, Petrosian-Botvinnik 1963), here are a couple more.
Lasker - Steinitz World Championship (1894)
Fischer - Spassky World Championship Match (1972)
|May-03-18|| ||morfishine: <beatgiant> I think <Joshka> must be right, champion's name goes first|
Perhaps 'Karpov - Fischer' has a better "ring to it" than 'Fischer - Karpov'
or how bout 'fishing for a carp'
|May-03-18|| ||nok: also Lasker - Capablanca World Championship Match (1921)|
|May-03-18|| ||Joshka: <beatgiant> yes chessgames.com has quite a few wrong:-)|
|May-03-18|| ||Dionysius1: I think the "v" or the "-" because they are symmetrical point both directions. Fischer v Karpov can as legitimately be read "Karpov Fischer" as "Fischer Karpov"|
|May-03-18|| ||harrylime: <nok: Karpov didn't play for the win with black but his 74 candidates run is as impressive as F's.>|
Checkout Karpov v Korchnoi 1978.
Fischer would have destroyed that quality of chess.
|May-03-18|| ||harrylime: Karpov until his dying days can live on this NONE match... |
Bobby didn't play me so ... lol lol lol
|May-03-18|| ||harrylime: The reality is Fischer was a stratosphere above and ahead of chess at the time . |
FIDE was a Commie institution .
FIDE collapsed to COMMIE demands.
Bobby was stripped of HIS title.
COMMIE boy Karpov was then given the title.
|May-05-18|| ||Everett: Not new, just important ideas to consider again when this thread lights up like a Christmas tree. |
Karpov would not forget or mismanage TNs and opening surprises like both Spassky and Petrosian did vs Fischer.
Both former WCs mismanaged TNs in their respective Game 1s. Karpov was something entirely different.
In truth, Karpov and Fischer as chessplayers are cut from the same cloth; pragmatic and unapologetic in style and execution. Spassky and Petrosian both had a whiff of aesthete about them.
Korchnoi is the same, by the way. Korchnoi was just a beast mentally.
Also, both Karpov and Korchnoi were hungry for the title, just like Fischer, while Spassky and Petrosian had been there and done that.
It's quite possible that Fischer was concerned to face BOTH Karpov and Korchnoi OTB in a WC match.
Finally, I think Fischer's inability to make it to candidate match play in '65 and '68 was partly because a hungry, non-WC Spassky was on the rampage during those years. If they had played during that time, my money would have been on Spassky.
|May-05-18|| ||Everett: Name order of WC match titles seems to match the pattern of the vanquished last.|
Except Lasker-Capablanca, which is curious in that the victor is 2nd, and the defending champion is second as well (Lasker insisted on being considered the challenger)
|May-05-18|| ||Everett: <Both Fischer and Kasparov had a very similar style of play and their aggressiveness.>|
Fischer and Kasparov were similar, yet Fischer's style may actually have been closer to Karpov's. I think it's fun to compare them.
willing to sacrifice the initiative for the sake of material (Fischer) or position (Karpov), endgame prowess, strong positional pressure style.
Fischer-Kasparov similarities: opening focused on putting immediate pressure on opponents position.
Karpov-Fischer differences: the former is not a slave to seeking the initiative, and willing to pass it up for eventual positional gains. He also was mostly a Q-side attacker and kept things tidy on the K-side. All his Zaitzev Ruy Lopez were about Q-side initiative and holding tight on the K-side.
Kasparov-Fischer differences: former is an initiative junky, very flexible with material, also very flexible wth openings
Characteristics of play, from most to least:
Importance of initiative: Kasparov, Fischer, Karpov
King Safety: Kasparov, Fischer, Karpov
Piece Activity: Kasparov, Fischer, Karpov
Prophylaxis: Karpov, Fischer, Kasparov
The two Ks were really polar opposites in some ways. I think opening choice, while being a reflection of one's style, sometimes makes us think that two players are more similar/different then they are.
And lets not forget that Karpov used to play e4 back in the day like a beast. Yet he was the first to consistently push d5 in the Ruy, closing the structure and focusing on the flanks. His way was a departure from the usual method.
|May-05-18|| ||beatgiant: <Everett>
<Name order of WC match titles seems to match the pattern of the vanquished last.>
Many exceptions to that rule too:
Petrosian - Spassky World Championship Rematch (1969)
Botvinnik - Smyslov World Championship Return Match (1957)
Alekhine - Euwe World Championship Match (1935)
Steinitz - Zukertort World Championship Match (1886)
|May-05-18|| ||beatgiant: <Everett>
That last one is interesting, the link displays as "Steinitz-Zukertort" but the headline on the page sayz "Zukertort vs Steinitz".
I think the simple fact is that the authors of these pages have not yet standardized on any rule.
|May-05-18|| ||zanzibar: RE: Match name ordering convention...
When the match is ongoing, it might seem appropriate to list first the player who gets White in the first game.
Unless there is an already decided champion, then the challenger vs champion has a certain ring to it.
After the match is decided, listing the victor first seems the most reasonable and best ordering, for some reason.
|May-06-18|| ||ClockPunchingMonkey: 44 draws? Karpov might have dropped dead first. Fischer was stronger physically and he would have shown no mercy. Every game would have been fought down to the last pawn. (long games).|
|May-07-18|| ||Petrosianic: Nobody knew that at the time. As the younger man, Karpov was presumed to have more endurance. It wasn't until 1978 that Karpov's stamina problems became apparent.|
|May-07-18|| ||Petrosianic: <Or what do you think should be the rule for the order of names?>|
As people have pointed out, there's no hard and fast rule for naming matches. But very often, people list the winner of the match first AFTER the match is over, but list the defending champion first before the match is played.
Before the 1972 match it wasn't uncommon to hear it called the Spassky-Fischer match, but nobody calls it that now.
|May-07-18|| ||Petrosianic: With Candidates Matches, where there's no defending champion, it's really up in the air.|
Some people used whatever way rolled off the tongue better. Others (probably without realizing it) listed the person they hoped would win first.
I tended to go with whatever was lyrical. Portisch-Spassky sounded better than Spassky-Portisch, so I called it that even though I was rooting for Spassky.
|May-07-18|| ||Howard: Which of their two Candidates matches are you referring to? Or does that matter ?|
|May-07-18|| ||morfishine: If there is no ruler, how can there be any rules?|
|May-07-18|| ||Petrosianic: I called both matches that. Neither player was a champion, and the match hadn't been played yet, so there was no rule for naming it that I could see, other than what sounded good.|
For some reason, Spassky's name almost always sounds better in the second position. I guess because we're used to words that end in Y.
|May-07-18|| ||zanzibar: <Petrosianic> Spassky--Fischer vs. Fischer--Spassky pre-match would make an interesting aside.|
I do appreciate the lyrical rationale though.
|May-07-18|| ||harrylime: Fischer would have eaten Karpov alive.
Karpov was A commie juggernaut .. Red Carpeted ALL the way as a smooth sleek Soviet missile to kill Bobby...
A motivated Bobby would have swatted this away with ease..
But RJF wanted control. He wanted to be Capa and Steinitz... his idols.. and the chess world said NO !
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 124 OF 124 ·