< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 80 OF 80 ·
|Jul-22-14|| ||AylerKupp: <Everett> I also love how everyone always blames the Russians (BTW, they were not "Russians", they were Soviet) and believe that all Soviet grandmasters were simply automatons following the party line. If you read "Bobby Fischer Goes to War" by David Edmonds and John Eidinow, about the 1972 Spassky – Fischer match it is clear that the influence of the Communist Party on chessplayers, and Spassky in particular, was not all encompassing, and the players were not just following orders. Each player has their own opinions and so did Soviet officials, and in that sense they were no different than the players from the rest of the world. For instance, to consider Korchnoi a Soviet "automaton" is laughable.|
I don't remember the Soviets <successfully> pulling strings to prevent Fischer from playing in the 1970 Palma de Mallorca Interzonal even though he had not qualified to play in it. I suppose they probably tried, but it was Max Euwe, president of FIDE at the time, that bent the rules and allowed Fischer to play. Had Euwe not done that, Fischer would not have played in the Interzonal, would not have played Spassky for the WC title in 1972, and probably would never have been world champion. So if the Soviets were pulling strings and playing chess politics they were not very successful at it when it counted, just as they were not successful in preventing FIDE from imposing a limit on the number of players from any one country that could participate in the interzonals. And what is the professional/amateur issue you refer to?
|Jul-22-14|| ||Everett: Relax everyone, I was just being sensitive to the Fischer folk for a moment. Fischer was going crazy and that's about the end if it.|
<AylerKrupp> I did say <Soviet>. But if I said <Russian> at some point, I do not agree that it is a big deal.
Further, read up on the name change Fischer proposed at the very last moment. Fischer envisioned something different than the FIDE system, which strikes me as a move from <amateur FIDE <slaves>> to <professional> in hopes for more capital and autonomy for the players. You don't have to agree with my use of terms.
|Jul-22-14|| ||Everett: And, yes, Fischer certainly benefited from Euwe's sentiments. Call it nepotism or corruption, both work.|
|Jul-25-14|| ||RookFile: <Subjective. I say Fischer avoided it by refusing to simply follow the basic format.>|
Ah yes. Fischer wins the world championship, and that creates an obligation on his part to follow somebody's else new format, rather than his own. It's all becoming clear to me now.
|Jul-25-14|| ||Joshka: <Rookfile> < an obligation on his part to follow somebody's else new format> EXCELLENT. That's what most people simply refuse to recognize, Bobby EARNED the right to set up a legit fair system in which to play, and have it approved. They would not give him his due. Thanks for pointing this simply explanation out!!|
|Jul-25-14|| ||ughaibu: <Bobby EARNED the right to set up a legit fair system in which to play> |
Wasted the opportunity there, didn't he?
|Jul-25-14|| ||Petrosianic: It's true. Fischer gave up the title fighting for a condition that he himself admitted was illegitimate: the champion's advantage. He admitted both before 1972 and in 1974 in the letter to Ed Edmondson that the system he was fighting for was unfair.|
And of course, there was nothing illegitimate about the Best of 24 match... EXCEPT for the champion's advantage, which was the only part Fischer wanted to keep. So Strike 2.
And the persistent claim that nobody would give Fischer his due, when in fact they changed the system for him twice and acceded to 178 out of 179 demands, all except the unfair one makes Strike 3. Joshka is consciously aware that what he's saying is untrue. He's heard the answers enough times, and never disputed, denied or challenged them. But this subject is literally a religion to some people, and they feel that if they have enough faith and chant the rosary enough times that reality will somehow be altered.
And of course, the fact that the jury is now in that Fischer was retiring from chess rather than trying to set up a new system makes Strike 4. In 1975 this wasn't clear, but it is now
|Jul-25-14|| ||MissScarlett: <: It's true. Fischer gave up the title fighting for a condition that he himself admitted was illegitimate: the champion's advantage. He admitted both before 1972 and in 1974 in the letter to Ed Edmondson that the system he was fighting for was unfair>|
Self-evidently, the champion's advantage is unfair, i.e., not the same for both sides, but did Fischer actually use the term 'illegitimate'?
|Jul-25-14|| ||AsosLight: I believe the regulation should do anything humanly possible to avoid rapid or blitz tie breaks. If that means giving the champion an unfair advantage the so be it.|
|Jul-25-14|| ||diceman: <Petrosianic: But this subject is literally a religion to some people>|
...and oddly <Petrosianic:> is always there praying.
<It's true. Fischer gave up the title fighting for a condition that he himself admitted was illegitimate: the champion's advantage.>
Say it ain't so.
I wonder if <Petrosianic:> has access to the top secret discussion with Larry Evans where Fischer actually stated "white has an advantage" in chess?
Some(mostly parishioner's in <Petrosianic:>'s church) believe it damned Fischer as a champion.
He should have stepped up, manned up, and played black in every game.
<He admitted both before 1972 and in 1974 in the letter to Ed Edmondson that the system he was fighting for was unfair.>
Is that in the Chess Life you had laminated/framed?
(suitable for wall mounting)
The irony is its probably losers like <Petrosianic:> that helped create Fischer.
Q:How do you shut a lightweights mouth?
A:Try and win every game you play.
Fortunately, what we're left with is
Bobby Fischer, chess legend and World Champion, vs. <Petrosianic:> the guy who couldn't carry his pocket-set.
The irony is, when I see <Petrosianic:>'s broken, pathetic, posts, I actually gain more respect for Fischer.
First, you realize the weak peanut gallery Fischer had to deal with, but
you also realize the power of Fischer.
Years after his death and decades after his glory the hate is still there. The branding iron of Bobby Fischer still burns.
Its really nice to know that after so many decades, the chicken bone is still lodged in <Petrosianic:>'s throat
We can only imagine the hate had Fischer crushed Karpov.
We'd probably have to spend the next century on Fischer-Geller and wonder if Qf4 "worked?"
<century on Fischer-Geller>
"Game of the Century" Number 2?
Poor, poor, <Petrosianic:> unfortunately, future generations haven't said:
"Hey, forget about <My 60 Memorable Games>
...did you hear what Ed Edmondson said?"
|Jul-25-14|| ||diceman: <MissScarlett: <: It's true. Fischer gave up the title fighting for a condition that he himself admitted was illegitimate: the champion's advantage. He admitted both before 1972 and in 1974 in the letter to Ed Edmondson that the system he was fighting for was unfair>|
Self-evidently, the champion's advantage is unfair>
<Petrosianic:> breaking new ground.
Who knew <the champion's advantage> was an advantage for the champion?
|Jul-25-14|| ||perfidious: Lucky us: we are treated to the spectacle of <dice> tearing himself away from his herculean labours over at Rogoff as he wears his gormlessness on his sleeve in the Fischer Frenzy.|
|Jul-25-14|| ||diceman: <a condition that he himself admitted was illegitimate: the champion's advantage.>|
Oh the irony!
When Fischer won the championship, only his opponent had the <illegitimate>
...but I guess what did happen, bothers
<Petrosianic:> less vs. what never happened.
|Jul-25-14|| ||Everett: <RookFile: <Subjective. I say Fischer avoided it by refusing to simply follow the basic format.>|
Ah yes. Fischer wins the world championship, and that creates an obligation on his part to follow somebody's else new format, rather than his own. It's all becoming clear to me now.>
Hmmm? It's FIDE's title, or haven't the Kasparov years made that clear to you? Or didn't the years 72-75 make that clear? Evidently you were as deluded as Fischer.
|Jul-25-14|| ||Petrosianic: <Self-evidently, the champion's advantage is unfair, i.e., not the same for both sides, but did Fischer actually use the term 'illegitimate'?>|
Fischer didn't use the word in that particular letter at all. Edmondson called it "unfair", and in his response, Fischer said "I agree with everything you said, but I'm not backing down."
I'm not sure of the exact wording Fischer used in previous cases where he objected to the champion's advantage. I'm pretty sure he said "unfair", but doubt he said "illegitimate". It doesn't seem like the kind of word Fischer would use. It seems like too hoity-toity a word for him.
|Jul-25-14|| ||Everett: < "I agree with everything you said, but I'm not backing down."> |
This makes one consider that perhaps Fischer said anything that prevented a match from coming off.
|Jul-25-14|| ||perfidious: There was nothing left to attain for Fischer's fragile ego, once having reached the pinnacle--he had invested everything of himself in his quest for the supreme title. It is unfortunate that in this way, he was psychologically weaker than any of his predecessors. The chess world was deprived of many interesting games and Fischer himself was the greater loser.|
|Nov-12-14|| ||gamesguru: "In March, 1975, an extraordinary FIDE Congress was held in Osterbek, Netherlands, and it was agreed to have an unlimited number of world championship games, but still refused the 9-9 rule (32 votes for it, and 35 votes against it).  Fischer, unwilling to budge, refused to defend his title."|
One wonders if Fischer would have come up with additional demands, or if four measly jackarse votes is all that stood between such an anticipated clash of champions. I'd like to know what those 35 jackarses were thinking when they voted against.
At least 20 beautiful games that were never played, such a pity.
|Nov-12-14|| ||keypusher: <gamesguru>
<I'd like to know what those 35 jackarses were thinking when they voted against.>
Here's a guess.
1. The 9-9 proposal is unfair.
2. Fischer is not going to play anyway.
And I think they were right on both counts.
Fischer didn't play again, ever, in any format, the 1992 farce aside. HE hadn't played for three years prior and he didn't play for 20 years after. That's not FIDE's fault. It's Fischer's.
|Nov-12-14|| ||Petrosianic: <And I think they were right on both counts.>|
Well, one thing that went against Fischer was that he didn't even argue his own case. He resigned his title at the very first sign of trouble (in June 1974) leaving it to Ed Edmondson to try to negotiate something that he MIGHT possibly accept.
Of course that March 1975 Congress threw everything out of balance. Fischer had INTENDED to give up the title over the Unlimited Match clause, which was a fairly reasonable thing to fight for. He'd never intended to give it up over the 9-9 clause, which he himself had said was unfair. But after FIDE caved on the Unlimited Match, that was the only excuse left.
In hindsight, we know that Fischer wasn't going to play anyway, but that was far from obvious at the time. There were plenty of people even after March 1975 who thought that Fischer fully intended to play outside of FIDE, and basically do what Kasparov did 18 years early.
|Nov-12-14|| ||RookFile: We know nothing of the kind.|
|Nov-24-14|| ||optimal play: Quote of the Day
“Soviet Grandmasters privately scoffed at Karpov's chances in 1975. Most pundits believed he would lose ... and lose badly.”
-- Lev Alburt
I recall reading somewhere that even Karpov himself believed that would be the case; he was already looking towards 1978 as a more realistic chance of becoming WCC.
|Nov-24-14|| ||perfidious: <optimal play> Karpov has been quoted in these pages as having assessed his chances of victory in 1975 as fairly unlikely and indeed looking towards the following cycle with more optimism.|
|Nov-24-14|| ||Petrosianic: That's his chances against the Fischer of 1972. who wouldn't have been showing up in any case.|
|Jan-17-15|| ||Albion 1959: I am inclined to agree with Petrosanic (Nov 12th 2014). We will never know for sure why Fischer turned his back on the game he loved and we can only conjecture as to the reasons why. He was never going to play again. Even if FIDE had agreed to his 9-9 rule, Fischer would have thrown in yet another unreasonable demand. A sad loss to the game to quit when he did, we will never know far he could have gone and what he could have achieved. For the return match in 1992 with Spassky does not really count. It was like watching two old pot-bellied heavyweight boxers well past their sell by date, who were cashing in for one last big pay day. I believe that Fischer only came back for the money and that it had to be an opponent whom he knew he could defeat, while at the same time retaining an image of respectability by not having reputation tarnished by losing. I am sure fischer could have easily made more money had he played against Kasparov instead !!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 80 OF 80 ·