< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Jan-13-13|| ||Fischerisawesome: YOu are crazy, Psychologists arent real doctors. Thats all hocus pocus and Freud for example proved to be totally wrong and psychiatrist a crazy nutters.
Just look at silmans review of reuben fines book, were he all of a sudden is the most knowledgeable player.
you know its always the same story some nobody judging the greats, like stalin was crazy, mao was crazy and Hitler was a homo.|
you know its always the same patter, some nobody wants to get famous by throwing dirt on the name of someone really great. or some lonely guy needs something to talk. you know in reality they are the pathetic guys with medical problems, how can you put shame on the name of someone clearly superior for your own sake and then call someone autist???
you are the one with clearly no feelings at all.
not to mention : PSYCHIATRIST ARENT REAL DOCTORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THEY ARE NOT REAL DOCTORS!!!!!
|Jan-13-13|| ||Joshka: You also going to claim that dentists aren't doctors? From what I have learned, anyone with the legal ability to write a script for over the counter medicine is a medical doctor. I introduced my doctor friend to a person the other day, this person asked if he was a medical doctor. My friend chimed in, "No, I'm a REAL doctor";-)|
|Jan-13-13|| ||HeMateMe: 28 Rxg7+!!|
|Jan-13-13|| ||Joshka: sorry, he said, "I'm a real doctor, a physicist!":-)|
|Jan-13-13|| ||andrewjsacks: No one should forget that the match was tied when suddenly aborted: the old fighter was holding off the young lion...|
|Jan-13-13|| ||RookFile: Sure. I have the greatest respect for the strength Reshevsky showed in this match. You can argue that the change in schedule actually would have hurt the older man more. Yet the old warrior just showed up, ready to do battle.|
|Jan-14-13|| ||Joshka: Bobby's notes in 2007, he says, "In MSMG I gave 21.Nxd5 a question mark, and furthermore said:
"This gives Black a little breathing room. Nowadays I would have played 21. Bd4! without giving it a second thought."|
"My initial instinct was correct and 21. Nxd5 is the best move. After 21. Bd4 Qf4+ gums up the works a bit for White. Continue 22. Kb1 Bf5! (if 22...Bxd4? 23. Nxd4 Nc5 24. Qb5 Ne4 25. Nxe4 Qxe4 26. Rxg3+ Kh8 and 27. Qc5 is winning) 23. Rxg3!! Bxd3 24. Rxg7+ Kh8 25. Rxf7+ Qxd4 26. Rxf8+ Rxf8 27. Nxd4 Be4 and White is still better, but Black has put forth a much more challenging gauntlet."
|Jan-14-13|| ||Shams: <Joshka> Your citation for that is "61 Memorable Games" I suppose? Enough with that bunk already!|
|Jan-14-13|| ||PaulLovric: <FSR: <Marmot PFL> As I recall, Frank Brady relates in "Profile of a Prodigy" that Allan Kaufman of the American Chess Foundation discussed with some others circa 1960 that Fischer had some psychological problems and that they should consider getting help for him. Then someone asked a question along the lines of "What if he gets better and gives up chess?" The room went very quiet and they never discussed that idea again.> Also imagine what we would have lost if lithium had been invented in Van Gogh's time|
|Feb-03-13|| ||thomascrown: <howard> Regards Art of Positional Play and the F word: F word is in the text of game 48 Korchnoi-Spassky, in the opening, a Nimzo Indian. When Sammy was no longer regarded as a rival to Fischer they were on speaking terms! I have always admired Sammy's play and this book, but one should separate the chess playing qualities from the personality.|
|Mar-11-13|| ||HAPERSAUD: First of all you don't cure, aspergers, you mentor it and second of all it seems that once again the game isn't being discussed.|
<chessgames> what is it with random commentary on the Fischer pages?
|Feb-16-14|| ||thegoodanarchist: <FSR: ...Allan Kaufman of the American Chess Foundation discussed with some others circa 1960 that Fischer had some psychological problems and that they should consider getting help for him. Then someone asked a question along the lines of "What if he gets better and gives up chess?" The room went very quiet and they never discussed that idea again.>|
Right, Mr. FSR!
|Feb-16-14|| ||perfidious: <thomascrown....I have always admired Sammy's play and this book, but one should separate the chess playing qualities from the personality.>|
As with greats in any endeavour, but people everywhere wish to deify their heroes while simultaneously looking for their clay feet.
|Feb-16-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Reshevsky on Fischer.
Sammy's book on the 1972 Fischer - Spassky match is a tad cold towards Fischer.
But of course that is possibly me comparing all the other books I have on this historic match.
In the forward he list all the reasons why Spassky lost rather than why Fischer won.
Fischer does get the credit for playing some good moves, especially good defensive moves (the chief reason why Fischer won according to Sammy was his opening prep and his defensive play.)
"He [Fischer] lacked brilliance, but his defensive play was good."
As always Sammy's notes are crystal clear but you do get the impression he wants the reader to think Spassky lost the title rather than Fischer winning it.
"The blunders comitted by Spassky were incredible."
"Fischer was also not in his best form, he made errors in a number of games."
On the whole Sammy says he was disapointed with the match.
(Maybe he was disapointed with the result.)
A good book though with Sammy's usual clear analysis and thoughts. It's does the job.
|Feb-17-14|| ||HeMateMe: Reshevsky's books seem to have disappeared. I never see any of them in used book stores, though I see many books by other chess authors.|
|Feb-17-14|| ||SChesshevsky: The Fischer-Reshevsky match might offer some of the best "fighting" chess games out there. I don't know if there's another match between two players who absolutely hated to lose, especially to each other.|
I always thought that was a major reason why they didn't get along that well. They were a lot alike. Both were rocks when they thought they were right. Fischer's attitude is well known but Sam could've been equally stubborn when he thought he was right. That Benko deal back in 1975 is a good example.
Maybe what made the situation worse with Fischer is that I believed Sam, though he respected his play, didn't feel Fischer's take on the game was correct. Resigning yourself to sitting in a room with a chessboard for hours, memorizing variations and games just didn't make sense and wasn't "real" chess.
Yes, an old fashion view but from a guy who would often rather listen to good music or cook his obligatory kosher meal rather than think about chess and still played a great game.
|Feb-17-14|| ||morfishine: <HeMateMe> I just purchased a copy of Reshevsky's book (Ebay) on the 1972 WC match for less than $10 [incl shipping]|
|Feb-17-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi.
I mentioned Sammy's book on the '72 match because the lads were thinking Sammy's postional primer without a Fischer game was a bit odd.
I'm not sure at all it was pettiness.
Pettiness would have been including some of Fischer's losses and only his losses.
When selecting games of this nature the author will be looking for games he knows he can use and note up well.
He may have felt that Bobby's games were too well known so decided to give the readers something fresh or came in from the angle you do not have to be a World Champion genious to play positional chess.
One could go through any book and look at games used and left out and start to make a case.
Chernev has ('only') two Fischer games in his 'Most Instructive Games'. (published 1966) One Fischer win, one Fischer loss.
Only one Alekhine game and yet six Capablanca wins.
He also includes 3 Marshall games...all losses.
|May-23-15|| ||Johnnysaysthankyou: Believe it or not, 28. Nd2 actually LOSES to the astonishingly brilliant 28...Bxb2+!! Which leads to checkmate. (When I get home I'll post the line). This - ironically - means Fischer's instinct to take the bishop was correct.|
|May-23-15|| ||Howard: Hold it !!!! I can't believe that that "checkmating" line has been overlooked all these years/decades.|
Let me take a look at that, though someone else will no doubt beat me to it.
Sorry, but that's gotta be a mistake !
|May-23-15|| ||OhioChessFan: A checkmate after 28. Nd2 Bxb2+? Maybe for White.|
|May-23-15|| ||Howard: Actually, you're probably right !|
|May-24-15|| ||Johnnysaysthankyou: No, it doesn't work, but there is still one more try after 28. Nd2 and you are going to scoff at first but give me a chance.|
Are you ready?
At first you might be confused and wonder why white has given up his queen for a rook, but this is honestly the only way to keep fighting, and its not so clear. After 29...Qxd1+ black should activate the knight with 29..Nf5 and try to bear down on white's position with the two bishops and rooks.
|May-01-16|| ||keypusher: <johnnysaysthankyou>|
The queen is lost after 28.Nd2, so 28....Qxh1+ is as good as there is. But assuming after 29.Qxh1 you are recommending 29....Nc5, 30.Rxg7 wins immediately (30....Kxg7 31. Qg2+ Kf8 32.Bd6+ Re7 33.Bxc5) .
|May-01-16|| ||stoy: In the USA psychiatrists are first MDs before they study psychiatry. Psychologists are not MDs.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·