< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 10 ·
|Dec-25-11|| ||Everett: Instead of playing a three-year or two-year cycle, just have a tournament for the top players at the end of each year. That way there is no incumbent, no rematch issues and all the rest. One would only be a great champion if he kept on repeating successes each year by qualifying for and then winning the final tourney. I say this because the WC often coasts between title matches, and IMHO adulterates the very spirit of chess.|
If this is too short for some, believing chess to be different then, say, tennis, then make it two years, but no one as incumbent.. You have to win it every time.
Personally, I like the '88-'89 World Cup as a nearly perfect example of this set-up, save there would be a match/tourney at the end to have the very top finishers have at it.
|Dec-25-11|| ||Riverbeast: I personally don't care or this modern preference of mini-matches and rapid/blitz/armageddon playoffs|
It may be supposedly better for the spectators to have a knockout system with rapid playoffs (that has yet to be proven, actually...I still don't see chess getting massive media coverage with this format)....And it's obviously easier for the organizers, knowing the whole tourney will be finished within a set time
But I don't think the best player is really determined by a two game, or four game, mini-match
|Dec-25-11|| ||Jambow: <But I don't think the best player is really determined by a two game, or four game, mini-match>|
I would say it stronger, the odds of getting the best player using the mini match format would be dismal and far to random to be takes seriously.
Unfortunately many use this poor implimentation by FIDE to determine matches are demonstrated to be inferior to tournamnets. Similiar to comparing a Ford Pinto to a Ducati Desmosedici and concluding based on those lopsided examples cars are vastly inferior to motorcycles!
I don't think Fischer was as far off base on everything as some would have us think he was either, interesting debate although neitherside appears to be much better looks kinda drawish from here.
|Dec-25-11|| ||JoergWalter: <Jambow: I don't think Fischer was as far off base on everything...>|
I think in order to determine the best player he was about to eliminate luck as much as possible. And in the unprobable case of a 9:9 draw the unlucky challenger would have been partly compensated with more money.
Fair (as far as possible) and practical proposal based on Steinitz ideas way back when.
The 1984 match doesn't disprove the idea as the players had a different agenda, imho.
|Dec-25-11|| ||7Heaven: So,let's see if I got this straight.You agree that it's unfair for the defending champion to keep the title on an even score,yet you support Fischer who DEMANDED just that? And chess is WAY BEYOND math.John Nunn may was a good player,but he didn't get too far-he became a Grand Master ok.How is that better than the abundance of GMs?|
Botvinnik may benefited a lot-tie with Bronstein,won both rematches with Tal and Smyslov,but he was able to win.Ok,both Tal and Smyslov were having health problems (for Tal it's sure,for Smyslov I don't know) but Botvinnik also made very big preparation.Kramnik was also given that chance recently and he failed (miserably I could say).
It was a lot easier some years ago if you were a top-level player because these days,the champion had complete control of the title.Alekhine was one of the greatest players,no doubt.But he didn't remain world champion until his death for that reason but because he simply didn't play any title matches.He didn't want to! And he was characterised as "perspona non grata".FIDE took control (that's they way it MUST be) but the players nowadays are not that good.All we see is computer vs computer (you know what I mean) in my humble opinion.
I believe that the best "system" would be for a match (at least >10 games,say 14) between defending champion and challenger,who would emerge via tournament(s) and if the score was even,no rapid/blitz/blindfold/armageddon but something else:chess 960 for example.I believe Capablanca was very right when he proposed a new variant of chess (10x10 board with 2 new pieces) and he did when HE was world champion.So,if the score was tied,chess960 or Capablanca chess.A winner would surely come out,they couldn't have fixed variation for both classical chess and the other variant.
|Dec-25-11|| ||Everett: Fischer's way may try to eliminate luck to establish the best player as champion BUT;|
1) this implies there is one best player, which may not be true! Shocking!
2) this also implies the idea that chance can be eliminated. Impossible!
|Dec-27-11|| ||JoergWalter: <Everett>
<1) this implies there is one best player, which may not be true! Shocking!>
by definition two best players is not possible. If there is no best player, then there are several good players - that is why a contest will decide.
<2) this also implies the idea that chance can be eliminated. Impossible!>
True that is impossible, however the element of chance can be reduced and the guy who suffers from bad luck is monetarily compensated.
If fairness is a point then the Stenitz/Fischer ideas take care of it - not perfectly but pragmatically.
|Dec-27-11|| ||Petrosianic: The tie clause is not traditional for unlimited matches, only for limited ones. The only Pure Wins world championship that had one is Steinitz-Zukertort, and even in that case, the champion didn't retain on a tie (the rules specified that the title would be vacant in the case of a tie).|
Of course even if it were traditional, it's a tradition that Fischer pledged to abolish. In the end, he not only broke his promise to abolish the old privilige, he tried to create a new one.
|Dec-27-11|| ||King Death: < 7Heaven: ...Alekhine was one of the greatest players,no doubt.But he didn't remain world champion until his death for that reason but because he simply didn't play any title matches.He didn't want to!...>|
Before you come up with this statement, at least get your facts straight. Even if we grant that Alekhine avoided Capablanca, he played 2 matches with Bogolyubov before playing 2 with Euwe. Then there was discussion of another title match in 1939 before a little thing called World War II happened. Maybe you've heard of that one, where millions were killed and international chess ended for 6 years. Soon after the war Alekhine was negotiating to play another match when he died.
|Dec-27-11|| ||JoergWalter: Steinitz original proposal did not consider a 9:9 clause|
<Ď... The following are the conditions for the match suggested by Mr Steinitz. If they be approved by Mr Zukertort, any minor conditions may be easily arranged.
1. That the winner of the first eight or ten games be the victor.
2. That the games be played under a time-limit of 15 moves per hour.
3. That play shall be carried on either three days or four days per week, as Mr Zukertort prefers.
4. That Mr Steinitz will accept any suggestion of Mr Zukertortís as to the hour of the day when play shall commence.
5. That the time for commencement of the match shall be fixed for any date between 1 October and 1 January, which may best suit Mr Zukertort.
6. That the stakes be for any sum not less than £200 a side which Mr Zukertort prefers.
7. That the games shall be the property of both players. >
|Dec-28-11|| ||7Heaven: <King Death> I never neglect facts.What I said was nothing but facts.|
Bogoljubow wasn't much of a challenge for Alekhine,the latter knew that. He also underestimated Euwe the first time-he CHOSE Euwe himself but paid the price.Because Euwe wasn't like Alekhine,he granted a rematch.Alekhine played more seriously (and Euwe was past his peak) and won. Then he decided: "I'm keeping the title for good" asking any ambitious challenger to raise an impossible purse-yeah,Capablanca also asked a high price I know,but Alekhine asked an even bigger one. He didn't want to give Capablannca a shot because he knew what would happen.
Yes,he tried to organize a match between him and Botvinnik,but in those years,it was known that the average life expectancy was lower than today-people didn't live as long.
Like I've written above,Alekhine was known in the chess world as "persona non grata".This isn't something I made with my head.
|Jan-29-12|| ||Riverbeast: <The tie clause is not traditional for unlimited matches, only for limited ones. The only Pure Wins world championship that had one is Steinitz-Zukertort, and even in that case, the champion didn't retain on a tie>|
Fischer also thought the Capablanca-Alekhine match (first to win six) had a 5-5 tie clause.
So did Kasparov! He claimed that in his 'Great Predessors' Volume 1
Whether or not there actually was, is still an open debate....Edward Winter investigated it in some depth years ago....There's some printed evidence that there was, but it hasn't been proven conclusively either way
The point is, Fischer thought there was precedent for the tie clause, and had good reason to think so...And he thought it was a superior system, and explained his reasoning in detail
<Of course even if it were traditional, it's a tradition that Fischer pledged to abolish>
Supposedly, Fischer also at one point proposed to play the 1972 match for no purse at all!
He also said he would defend the title every year!
In both cases, maybe pragmatism won out over pure idealism
Why should Fischer give more chances for the Soviets (or anybody else) to win back the title, when he only got a shot once every three years?
And why should he renounce a 'retain title on a tie' clause that just about every other WC (including all the Soviets) had?
<In the end, he not only broke his promise to abolish the old privilige, he tried to create a new one.>
Read Fischer's own words on the matter: http://bobbyfischer.net/
Paradoxically, even though he was the champion, he was actually trying to make the system more evenhanded, and more fair to the challenger
The champion had a greater advantage under the 24 game system, than under his system!
|Feb-15-12|| ||notyetagm: So what is the final verdict on this magnificent game?|
Did Black miss a win?
|Apr-14-12|| ||kingscrusher: I have video annotated this game here:
|Aug-29-12|| ||TheFocus: This is game 39 in Fischer's <My 60 Memorable Games>.|
|Nov-01-12|| ||kardopov: <So what is the final verdict on this magnificent game?|
Did Black miss a win?> Does Rybka or Houdini "commented" on this game? What's the verdict?
|Nov-01-12|| ||Joshka: <kardopov> Fischer in his 2007 notes states, he was overly optimistic in thinking he had a won game. Cause he was writing in 1969, about a position that was NOT included in M60MG. It's very very complicated, around 34 pages of analysis, compared to just 14 pages in M60MG. When addressing the "13 year old schoolboy outplays Fischer" comments (Kasparov was 13 in Botvinnik's school), Fischer writes,|
I've got quite a bit to say about the Weinstein "schoolboy analysis" that Botvinnik had the gall to publish way back when. The line in question is 67. Rc4 Rb3+ 68. Rc3 which will produce a draw after the barrage of checks is completely exhausted. After 67. Rc4 Black can make the game infinitely more interesting with 67...Rb7! which "ducks the draw" until about move 91. This forces White into a position requiring the utmost precision to play for an extended period of time,creating "fighting chess" for both sides, much better I'd say.
My "response to the schoolboy"----
67. Rc4 Rb7! 68. Qf8+ Ka2 69. Qf6 Rb3+ 70. Rc3 Rb6! 71. Qf7+ Kb2 72. Rd3 ( both sides playing fighting chess, imagine that!) 72...Qe1+ 73. Kf3 a5! 74. Qf4 Qh1+ 75. Ke3 Qc1+! 76. Kf3 Qc6+ 77. Ke2 a4! 78. Qe5+ Ka2 79. Rd2+ Ka3 80. Qe3+ Kb4 and with 81. Rb2+ Ka5 we have this position: And a position is pictured with, White having his King on e2, Queen on e3, pawn on f2, and his rook on b2. Black has his King on a5, pawn on a4, Rook on b6, and his queen on c6. And right under this diagram is written in bold Black type
"Responding to the "schoolboy" Garry Weinstein, after 81...Ka5
82. Qd2+ (82. Qxb6+ Qxb6 83. Rxb6 Kxb6 is how I would expect today's non-fighting Grandmasters to play it) 82...Ka6 83. Rxb6+ Qxb6 84. Qd7 a3! 85. Qa4+ Qa5! ( creative play in a position worthy of being labeled as "art")
86. Qd4 (86. Qxa5+? Kxa5 87. f4 a2 wins) 86...Qb5+ 87. Kd1! Ka5 88. Kd2 Qb3 89. Qa7+ Kb4 90. Qd4+ Ka5 91. Qa7+ draw. That's the chess I remember!"
|Nov-02-12|| ||RookFile: Well, the the belief was that Fischer was winning up until 41....Ne4. My understanding is that once it was a pure rook ending, it was going to be a draw, despite Fischer's attempts to show a win. Botvinnik and Kasparov found drawing answers for those attempts.|
|Nov-02-12|| ||Joshka: <rookfile> Yes, he does concede a draw, but if using the diagram he thought was in the 1969 book, he shows a win. He goes on to explain which diagram he was responding to, and which one was used for the 1969 book, but it's very detailed, and a bit hard to write out, at least for me. Maybe <IMlday> could separate it all out, but it's a bit beyond me for the moment anyway. He also shows much analysis where Botvinnik was wrong, just so much analysis, it's gets muddy.|
|Nov-02-12|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @Rookfile and Joshka
one must not forget the real genious who found the draw. Geller. There is a certain irony there because Efim was simply Bobbys bÍte noire OTB. The accounts of the adjournment are fascinating. The Soviets were wrapped up by Botvinnik/Fischer. They had to find a draw I guess. And there was Bobby. Alone.
|Nov-02-12|| ||Joshka: <SimonWebbsTiger> Yes Bobby does write that Geller was part of the Russian contingency as opposed to what Bobby had/ Robert and Donald Byrne, "Byrne-ing" the midnight oil in a separate room. The complete analysis team consisted of:|
* Mikhail Tal, former World Champion.
* Boris Spassky, a future World Champion.
* Mikhail Botvinnik, reigning World Champion.
* Paul Keres, possible the strongest player never to have become World Champion.
* Efim Geller, who eventually won three straight games against me (from 1965 to 1967).
* Soviet players/trainers Boleslavsky and Furman.
|Nov-02-12|| ||kardopov: <* Mikhail Tal, former World Champion. * Boris Spassky, a future World Champion. * Mikhail Botvinnik, reigning World Champion. * Paul Keres, possible the strongest player never to have become World Champion. * Efim Geller, who eventually won three straight games against me (from 1965 to 1967). * Soviet players/trainers Boleslavsky and Furman.> |
Wow! What an armada Mikahil have at his disposal! It's the best of the bests. If not for his legion of assistants, he could have been crushed by Fischer in this game. That's why I admire Fischer the more despite his negative traits. Fischer came, scaled, and conquered... the Soviet's juggernaut in winning the world crown. Special commendation must be handed over to Robert and Donald for byrne'ying the midnight oil. Are they brothers?
|Nov-02-12|| ||kardopov: Are there any recorded games between Botvinnik and Fischer aside from this one?|
|Nov-02-12|| ||HeMateMe: <kardopov>
Well, I understand that they went bowling together at the "Comrade Stalin Super Lanes" in Varna, Bulgaria, on a night off.
Things were going fine, then Fischer was down a few pins. He started to complain about the lighting. Adjustments were made.
Then, he accused the other bowlers of "bowling too loudly"--they were really knocking some pins down. The owner had all the other kegglers thrown out, only M.B. and Fischer remained.
Still, trouble. Fischer accused the Soviet contingent of beaming magnetic waves at him, through the electronic pin resetter, via metallic dust imprinted on Bob's shoes. Supposedly, this would impair Bobby's hand-eye coordination.
Bob demanded new shoes. Also, the auto pin resetter was shut down, and live people were posted near the back to reset the pins. One had to be rushed to the dentist, when a queer gutter bowl took a weird bounce and took out his lower canines. No senior prom for that one!
Still, Misha led by a few pins. However, the always opportunistic Fischer noticed an erasure on M.B.'s scoresheet.
"How do I know what you changed there--did you add some pins to your total!?
"Bobby, this is just bowling. Have a grape Ne-hi and steady your nerves".
Fischer demanded that Botvinnik resign the bowling match, due to "scoring peculiarities".
Soviet security leader Felix Dzherinsky said "Begone, you pampered goldfish! We did it to Trotzky, and we can do it to you!"
The match was never completed. The owner of the bowling alley apologized for Fischer's behavior and gave the whole Soviet contingent complementary grape Ne-His and pin ups of Sophia Loren.
Michail Botvinnik went on to become a leader on the professional bowling tour. He was never in time trouble, although he occassionally fouled. Even today, when a bowler finishes a game with three strikes, its called a <Misha, Misha, Misha!>
dispirited from the experience, and Varna, Bulgaria in general, Bob forsake bowling until 1972, when he again took up the sport in Reyjkavik Iceland, infuriating an entire new class of sportsmen.
|Nov-02-12|| ||kardopov: Ugh! What an unsportsmanlike conduct Fischer has. He is a bitter loser that's why he always play for a win. By the way, is this story true? I heard related stories regarding Fischer's misconduct, one including a fistic scuffle against a GM. Are they also true? If they are, well, he really has a bad behavior.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 10 ·
from the Chessgames Store