|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-04-02 | | Sylvester: Does this guy Geller really have a winning record against Fischer? Does anyone else? What is Gligoric's record against Fischer? |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | drukenknight: Geller won 5 lost 3.
Gligoric won 4 lost 6
Holmov won 1 lost 1
Keres won 3 lost 4
Korchnoi won 2 lost 2
Pachman won 2 lost 2
Tal won 4 lost 2
Petrosian won 4 lost 8
I wonder if Lasker or Morphy could claim a record like this? |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | Kulla Tierchen: What happens if you only count games after he turned seventeen? |
|
Dec-04-02
 | | Sneaky: Better yet, let's only count games that Fischer wins ;-) |
|
Dec-04-02
| | Sneaky: By the way, have you noticed how Fischer's name keeps cropping up on pages that have absolutely nothing to do with him? Why is that? |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | drukenknight: Was he better after he turned 17? |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | PVS: <Was he better after he turned 17?> He was no longer a kid.
<By the way, have you noticed how Fischer's name keeps cropping up on pages that have
absolutely nothing to do with him? Why is that?> He is the standard against which all is measured. He is like Ali in boxing. |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | ughaibu: Tal also had a plus record against Fischer, sorry for posting on this thread but.... |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | Vilkacis: Tal beat Fischer in all four of their games at the Candidates tournament. He never defeated him again however. Fischer also predicted Tal would lose the return match. |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | ughaibu: Vilkacis: Fischer excusers should also consider Tal's health record. |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | drukenknight: Whether he was a kid or not. Did his game get better? If not, then what is the pt? |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | ughaibu: Drukenknight: better or not he fairly consistently lost to Geller as did Petrosian, Botvinnik and Smyslov. Tal on the other hand suffered a deterioration in health and changed his style of play. Chess is a game of personal interaction, Geller could beat several world champions but it is never clear that one player is better than the other. |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | Kulla Tierchen: Of course his game got better. What do you think! He was a kid. Where was Tal at 16 (1952), or Karpov (1967) or even Kasparov (1979)? Nowhere near their peak. |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | Vilkacis: I love Tal. He had a heart attack two weeks before the return match but Botvinnik used his political influence to prevent a postponement. But when Fischer beat him in their game at Bled, Tal was fine. He won the tournament. |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | PVS: <Whether he was a kid or not. Did his game get better?> He was not even top five in the world in 1959. By 1965 he was number one based on retroactive Elo ratings, and by 1971 he was an entire class above the rest of the chess elite. The first player since Morphy to be that superior. It may never happen again. |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | ughaibu: PVS: "not even top five" presumably means rated world number 6(?). In 1965 he certainly was not the world's top player. In the world champioship that he won he showed himself to be top but as on many an occasion he didn't prove himself widely enough to be rated as a class apart. For example, what about Moscow 1971? |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | drukenknight: I thought his most brilliant game was the grunfeld vs Donald Byrne in '56. I thought that was the "game of the century." If you are so sure his game got better, what games in 1970-72 can you pt. to that are as brilliant as the early ones? And if/when you find them, can you compare them to ALekhines, Morphy's Capablancas and Laskers and say with a straight face they are as brilliant? |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | ughaibu: The fact is that Fischer was never a "brilliant" player. His style was based on three things, thorough knowledge of a limited number of openings, avoidance of risk and a classical approach to strategy. Consequently his games were mainly rather boring and as chess is an entertainment I can not consider him to have been a memorable player. A player's ability to win is secondary to their responsibility to entertain. |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | drukenknight: umm, I dont disagree ugi. I would not say "avoidance of risk" since many of his games have the element of brinksmanship. Especially w/ Geller. ANd I dont mean to disagree w/ Ugi on the deal w/ Geller. (the "kid or not" refernce") I am perfectly willing to accept that one can be the best player in the world at any one time and still have one guy that they simply cannot get past. That is possible. NOt likely but possible. I guess it happened w/ Tal/NEzhmehtindov. Okay that is fine. Geller plays the SIcilian, he plays like Fischer, he knows the lines, he wins. Okay. BUt it's awfully hard to believe Fischer was the greatest player ever AND STILL cant beat this one guy. It would be like if Lasker could never get past Janowski or Capablanca alwasy lost to Whitaker or something. It just doesnt stack up if he's the greatest player ever. As for style Fishcer seems like a "universal player" I think in the same sense as ALekhine or MOrphy. He will take what the position will give him, it is the best way to be. BUt I dont think he's as good as alek. particularly w/ the pawns and particularly in the end game. His supporters never let us forget how great he became in the end game, but I dont see that. |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | drukenknight: umm, I dont disagree ugi. I would not say "avoidance of risk" since many of his games have the element of brinksmanship. Especially w/ Geller. He was not afraid to take risks. Especially with the desperado combinations. Was there ever a player in history who demonstrated so many desperado combinations to us? That was the most exciting part of his game, I think. ANd I dont mean to disagree w/ Ugi on the deal w/ Geller. (the "kid or not" refernce") I am perfectly willing to accept that one can be the best player in the world at any one time and still have one guy that they simply cannot get past. That is possible. NOt likely but possible. I guess it happened w/ Tal/NEzhmehtindov. Okay that is fine. Geller plays the SIcilian, he plays like Fischer, he knows the lines, he wins. Okay. BUt it's awfully hard to believe Fischer was the greatest player ever AND STILL cant beat this one guy. It would be like if Lasker could never get past Janowski or Capablanca alwasy lost to Whitaker or something. It just doesnt stack up if he's the greatest player ever. |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | PVS: <It would be like if Lasker could never get past Janowski> Players are judged by overall results. He was not losing to Geller when he at the top of his game. He beat Geller at the 1970 interzonal playing black. |
|
Dec-04-02
| | Sneaky: Kasparov, when he was at his pinnacle, had a miserable record against Boris Gulko. But nobody suggested for a minute that Gulko was the "real" world champion, or even that he would beat Garry in an important match. It was a statistical anomaly, nothing more. The way DK talks you would think that Geller absolutely crushed Fischer. The fact is that their record was 4 wins, 5 losses, 2 draws. If Fischer had found a way to salvage just one of those losses, it would have been dead even. So in a sense, it could all come down to a single game. Cleary DK is placing far too much importance upon the result of a single game. |
|
Dec-04-02
 | | Honza Cervenka: Sneaky, I know only three Fischer's wins over Efim Geller - in Bled 1961, in Curacao 1962 and in Palma de Mallorca 1970. He also beat Geller in Nathania 1968, but it was not Efim Geller, but Uzi Geller from Israel. Am I missing some game? |
|
| Dec-04-02 | | PVS: I have five wins for Geller, three for Fischer and two games drawn. |
|
Dec-04-02
| | Sneaky: I was quoting the table in the appendix of Wade & O'Connel's "Bobby Fischer's Chess Games" I have the book in hand, and they name the games by number, so let me look up and list the Fischer victories over Geller: <Interzonal 1970, 71 moves Wade writes, "Geller had been Fischer's Bete Noire but this game has almost certainly put an end to that> <Candidates 1962, 43 moves> <Bled, 1961, 22 moves; this is fully annotated in 60MG> Wait a minute... what's THIS?!
<Junior Championship, 1956, vs "Sidney Geller"> SIDNEY Geller? Hehehe that's funny. So the book is wrong and you guys (and chessgames.com) have it right. 5 losses, 3 victories, 2 draws. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
