|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Feb-11-08 |
| GeorgeFirst: Poulsen, I hope you don't treat this discussion too seriously - it's just an exchange of opinions, nothing more. Now, ad rem. I do not claim that Fischer was or was not a genius. Therefore, I stated that it is a matter of setting up the criteria and almost anyone may or may not be a genius. Second, I agree, chess was almost the whole life of Robert Fischer. That's probably - it's my theory - the reason he had to quit after winning the World Championship in chess. By playing with so much of energy he used his own "life fuel" resources during the years he battled for the championship. Third, as compared with Larsen - sorry, but in this point you have no chance at all to defend your opinion. You may take any criterion you like, and Fischer would be miles ahead of Larsen. I prefer the argument with the 6:0 result of their match, after which Larsen was complety mentally broken and never restored his previous level of playing. And last but not least: even if you for some reason don't like Fischer, please, write "American" from a capital letter. |
 |
| Feb-11-08 |
| Petrosianic: <But don't make a God of him, please. He is legendary because he abandoned chess after 3 - 4 outstanding matchresults - and that's it.> That's exactly right. It's the element of mystery that makes the legend. What could he have done if he'd tried? How long could he have stayed champion? Could he have maintained that level of dominance much longer? When would he have gone back to being "just" another one of the world's best players? Nobody knows. That's why Fischer is more legendary than someone like Kasparov, who, given the advance of chess knowledge, was almost certainly a stronger player, and equally dominant (over everyone except Karpov). But there's much less mystery with Kasparov. He quit a little prematurely, but we pretty much saw what he was capable of. Fifteen years world champion, 20 years World #1. He might have gone on a while longer, but he was already starting very slowly to slide into the pack when he quit. His unfulfilled potential is far less than Fischer's was. |
 |
| Feb-11-08 |
| Petrosianic: <Fischer was certainly NOT a genius - he became good in chess, primarily because chess was ALL his life.> The word "genius" is thrown around so frivolously today. You can write a few really funny half hours of television and have critics call you a genius, so how much more tempting is it to use the term about chess players? But yeah, I think you're right. Fischer, like all Top GM's obviously had a huge aptitude for chess. But I think the key ingredient to his success was not genius, so much as the fact that he worked his butt off on chess, day and night, for 15 years, to the exclusion of all else. Maybe you've heard the saying that genius is 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration. If that's what it means, then Fischer certainly qualifies. There are stories from the 60's, about GM's getting together for fun, discussing sports, politics, philosophy, et cetera, and Fischer being unable to effectively join in. He didn't know anything about any of that stuff, his whole existence was given over to studying chess. To have had a chance to maintain the dominance he achieved would have meant continuing that level of fixation. After doing it for half his life, it's small wonder that after 1972 he didn't want to do it any more. When the incentive was becoming world champion, he could. When the incentive was only maintaining what had already been won, it just wasn't worth it. |
 |
| Feb-11-08 |
| Poulsen: <GeorgeFirst> Yes, we are just having friendly exchange of opinions. I don't claim Larsen to be equal to Fischer in terms of playing strenght - I'm saying, that they were in fact in the same leaque - among the very best in the world in the late 1960'es. There was then - as now - a difference between being no. 3 and no. 1. But that doesn't mean that no. 1 is out of reach. The 6 - 0 elimination of Larsen was maybe a fair result under the circumstances - with a less performing Larsen taking risks in an attempt to equalize after the missed chanches in their first game. No one could seriously claim that the 6 - 0 result was "a fair" result in terms of actual playing strenght. Then the score should properly have been like a 60 - 40 % score - with Fischer on top of course. I would claim, that Larsen at 1971 was stronger than Petrosian - who after all managed to take points from Fischer. |
 |
| Feb-28-08 |
| Alex Patkowski: one of my favorite games! |
 |
| Apr-16-08 |
| AAAAron: About. com referenced this game in their article about binds, titled, BOBBY'S BINDS.
http://chess.about.com/od/improveyo... |
 |
| May-22-08 |
| addiction to chess: Another great game by Fischer! |
 |
Mar-04-09
 |
| GrenfellHunt: Gee, if Fischer wasn't a genius, then there are no geniuses in chess. His 20-0 streak against the leading GMs of his day is one of the most amazing parts of his claim to greatness, and no one has ever come close to matching that: neither Lasker nor Alekhine among the older greats; neither Kasparov nor Karpov among the moderns--nobody. This may not make him the greatest player of all time (I'm not even exactly sure what a title like that would mean), but he was definitely a genius. |
 |
| Mar-04-09 |
| ughaibu: Actually Keene and Divinsky rate Lasker's unbeaten seven year run of around 90%, against only top players, as the best in history. Then there's Steinitz's winning run of 25 games including 7-0 against the Chessmetrics number 2 of the time. |
 |
| Apr-03-09 |
| Kasparov Fan01: Fischer's completely blows away the competition at the 63 Championship, wins every single game, and wins it in brilliant fashion. I wonder what the other players thought of Fischer back then? |
 |
| Apr-03-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: I think they thought of him as a top 5 player, who would get a shot at the championship. You're either the champ or you're not, and until you win it, there is always a doubt. |
 |
| Apr-10-09 |
| MarbleSkull: I disagree with your definition of "genius," Poulson. Genius is having the knowledge and drive to perfect what came before you, garnering more than average amounts of awe and admiration. Shakespeare did this, as almost all of his material was lifted from other sources. Archimedes and Einstein did this, working off the foundations of math before them. Fisher did this too. For his time, he did study enough to achieve genius status, or there wouldn't be so much awe of him today. And I would argue that every WCH does this, and is a genius. |
 |
| Apr-10-09 |
| spasskey69: Fischer did everything that he accomplished on his own.
No computers. No Botvinnik school. No legions of strong assistants to come up with new moves for him.
Bobby did it himself...solo.
No other player has as strong a claim to be the Greatest Ever.
Morphy, Capa, Kasparov: these are all geniuses and truly great players.
But there is only one Bobby Fischer. |
 |
| Apr-10-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: Exactly who was it that ever beat Morphy? |
 |
| Apr-11-09 |
| Kasparov Fan01: Spasskey 69, what do you mean by greatest? Strongest? |
 |
| May-13-09 |
| cracknik: Speaking of genius, does anyone else think that all of the "stars" are geniuses? [i.e. morozevich, ivanchuk,etc.] And that guys like Lasker, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov are super geniuses? |
 |
May-30-09
 |
| Eyal: <tatarch: Fischer's plan from move 14 on--with Qg3, Qg4, and Qh5--is excruciatingly deliberate… What could Benko have done?> According to Fischer's own notes, he should have tried to generate some active counterplay with 15...f5 (one of the points of 16.Qg4, besides bringing the queen to h5, is to prevent this move), or ...c5 on move 16 or 17; in the latter case, the immediate tactical point being that Black could recapture on d4 with the c- rather than e-pawn, and thus not allow e5. However, as was already pointed out in previous posts, by this stage White would have a considerable advantage anyway after 17...c5 18.b3! |
 |
| Jun-28-09 |
| WhiteRook48: 6...Bg4 and 7...Bxf3 seem inaccurate |
 |
| Jun-28-09 |
| ughaibu: Fischer, he say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-TO... |
 |
| Jun-28-09 |
| ughaibu: Solomonoff say: memory is what you invent to explain the things that you find in your head. |
 |
| Jun-28-09 |
| ughaibu: Poly Styrene says: oh bondage, up yours! |
 |
| Jun-28-09 |
| myschkin: . . .
<ugaaaaa>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sl-... (had to link this gem, pardon me) |
 |
| Jul-10-09 |
| amitg: How would White proceed after 19... h6 to avoid these lines? A) 20.e5 Kg8 21.exd6 Qe3+ and 22... Qg5
B) 20.Rxh6+ Bxh6 21.Qxh6+ Kg8 22.e5 f5 23.exf6 Qe3+
possibilities could be
20.Rxh6+ Bxh6 21.Qxh6+ Kg8 22.Qg5+ Kg8 (22... Kg7 23.e5+ f5 24.exf6+) 23.Qf6+ Kg8 24.e5 Qe6 25.Qg5+ Kh8 26.Qh5+ and mate follows but
20.Rxh6+ Bxh6 21.Qxh6+ Kg8 22.Qg5+ Kg8 23.Qf6+ Kg8 24.e5 Qd8 25.Qh6 f5 26.exf6 Rf7 27.??? (27.Bg6 Qf8) Am I missing something? |
 |
| Oct-09-09 |
| Oliveira: <amitg: How would White proceed after 19... h6 to avoid these lines? A) 20.e5 Kg8 21.exd6 Qe3+ and 22... Qg5> Well, my friend. After 19... h6 20.e5 g8 why not just follow the master with 21. e2? PS: Sorry the delay ): |
 |
| Nov-14-09 |
| Wayne Proudlove: Fischer wants to move his e-pawn ahead to e5 to mate with the Bishop and the Queen but Black could defend with f5.
19. Rf6!! (...Bxf6 20.e5 21. Qxh7#)
19...Kg8 is followed by 20.e5 h6 21. Ne2! where Benko resigns because 3...Nb5 (to counter 4. Rxd6) leads to 4. Qf5, threatening mate at h7, and 3...Bxf6 leads to 4. Qxh6 and mate.)
(Source: Pandolfini, "Bobby Fischer's Outrageous Chess Moves) |
 |
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing > |