< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
|Oct-01-16|| ||Rookiepawn: <Allanur: @Rookiepawn,
< Some suggest. Some others state. Some others say it in a casual way. Many others imagine. Not to count the ones who speculate. And if you include the ones who heard it while passing by... Boy, this has to be 100% true. > u r right. something must be true. what is the point of mentioning it?>
Exactly, beyond confusing "something" with "100%", Goebbels would provide you with more valuable sources for hard facts. Repeating something does not make it true.
A very common way of avoiding something is to pile up condition after condition. When a single one is rejected then you gleefully state: "YOU are avoiding it, because you do not accept all my conditions". You just need one more condition to add to the pile everytime the last is accepted.
Fanboy pathetic stuff.
|Oct-01-16|| ||Rookiepawn: I understand the fanboy, and even the sympathizer's frustration. Fischer was a great player, maybe (this is just speculation since no hard fact is available) he could have beaten Karpov. The problem is that Fischer, as a good player as he was, was a very unstable person and unfortunately that finally ended up affecting his relationship with chess.|
There are examples of Fischer not even respecting the conditions he himself agreed before, the guy was fond of changing his mind and think everybody else had to agree. The sharp logic he displayed at the board was absent in the rest of his behaviour, his life shows too many examples of this.
What would have happened had Fischer been a little less childish? The same as What would have happened had Tal not been a chain smoker? Or Luthikov not a bottle lover? These are fantasy worlds, speculations, "what if".
|Oct-01-16|| ||perfidious: I have no strong view on what might have gone--it has always seemed rather a pointless exercise to bother over, really--but even Karpov long ago went on record as stating that Fischer would have been the clear favourite to win a match from him in 1975.|
Fischer's psychological instability ultimately had a deleterious effect on everything in his life. While his single-minded devotion to and immense talent and hard work on chess drove him to greater heights than the rest of us, when that fragile psyche came unstuck after attaining his life's goal, it was all up with him as a champion and human being.
|Oct-02-16|| ||brankat: In '74 fischer posted, I think, some 63 conditions (unprecedented until then, and unnecessary, too). Karpov had bent over backward to accept 62 of them. Apperently it was not enough. Bet You, even if he had agreed with the last one, Bobby would have come up with some more unacceptable ones.|
In 1976 they were ready to sign the deal, then Fischer "cassually" asked:"By the way how are we going to call this match?" He then went on to suggest "Proffesional World Championship". Which was totaly inappropriate, and he knew it. I happen to know this for fact, GM L.Ljubojevic told me about the meeting, he was present there.
There was a WC system in place, in '77 the Candidates were to be played. This time Fischer was not going to get (an unfair) break like he did in '69/70 when Benke gave him his spot in the Interzonal, which in itself was
So we don't forget:
1. Fischer challenged Botvinnik to a match, for no apperent reason. When the latter accepted the challenge (to Bobby's surprise), he backed off.
2. The same with Quienteros.
Finally, he did play Spassky in '92, because there was just so much money at stake and he was broke.
None of the above has anything to do with communism or KGB.
|Oct-02-16|| ||Allanur: @rookipawn, <Exactly, beyond confusing "something" with "100%", Goebbels would provide you with more valuable sources for hard facts.>
let him/her and let us see what kind of *hard facts* he provides with which we can conclude "Fischer indeed avoided"
< Repeating something does not make it true.>
exactly. fischerphobs should stop repeating "Fischer avoided" nonsense, no matter how much they repeat it does not make it true.|
< There are examples of Fischer not even respecting the conditions he himself agreed before, the guy was fond of changing his mind and think everybody else had to agree. >
what condition he himself agreed and then later changed his mind? let me give one ex: presence of cameras/spectators
but this example [of mine] does not suggest he did it conviniently to avoid someone. before, at the time he agreed, he might have been unaware of the noise that might come from cameras, at the time he realised it he might have changed his mind. This all are possible which, as you yourself said previously: one thing needs to be true 100%, must not be your or someone else's speculation.
what kind of 100% true fact you or Goebbels have that demonsrate Fischer indeed did thewe to avoid certian players?
< The sharp logic he displayed at the board was absent in the rest of his behaviour, his life shows too many examples of this.>
I can agree with that. but at the board, he did not avoid Karpov. The demands he demanded suggests he was willing to play, not other way around.
< A very common way of avoiding something is to pile up condition after condition. When a single one is rejected then you gleefully state: "YOU are avoiding it, because you do not accept all my conditions". >
while it is true in general or it may be true in general as should be said, it has no relation to Fischer. That was not what Fischer did.
|Oct-02-16|| ||RookFile: Nobody is ever going to figure out what was going on in Fischer's mind.|
|Oct-05-16|| ||Rookiepawn: << There are examples of Fischer not even respecting the conditions he himself agreed before, the guy was fond of changing his mind and think everybody else had to agree. > for example?
what condition he himself agreed and then later changed his mind? let me give one ex: presence of cameras/spectators>|
Thanks for posing both the question and the answer.
<but this example [of mine] does not suggest he did it conviniently to avoid someone...>
The example (not "of yours" but of reality) suggests what is enough: Fischer had a poor sense of reality, something that would affect him more and more.
As <perfidious> (A Fischer admirer, not a blind fan boy) points out, it is clear Fischer the human being ended up affecting Fischer the chessplayer.
I agree also with <perfidious> and seems logic from Karpov to admit it, Fischer would be the favourite in a first match. But if you start with speculation then you can go to the end: and what about a second match?
In 1975 Karpov was not at his peak. Fischer not only refused to play with him in '75, he just quitted chess, so he made no effort to beat him in any subsequent year. While Karpov played as many events as he could, Fischer just wasted his brain in who knows what nonsense. Blaming Karpov, the KGB, and the Evil Red Conspiracy for this is just frustrated fan boy talk.
Regardless the result, a rivalry Karpov-Fischer would have very probably rendered first class masterpieces from both sides. And this is why I don't like Fischer the man: his love of chess was significantly smaller than his love of his own gigantic crazy ego.
|Mar-10-17|| ||Howard: For those of us who are too lazy to wade through all the commentary on this game, exactly where did Keres go wrong in this struggle? Was the queen sac sound?|
|Mar-10-17|| ||Petrosianic: Not unsound, but good for no more than a draw at best. Keres pushed too hard to make something out of nothing. Not sure offhand where the exact point of no return was.|
|Mar-19-17|| ||Saniyat24: I did not understand why Keres gave up his Queen....!|
|Mar-19-17|| ||Saniyat24: Is a bishop and a rook compensation enough for a Queen?|
|Mar-19-17|| ||WannaBe: <Saniyat24> Usually 3 minor pieces, or 2 rooks for Queen is considered even.|
So, I'd say no. And point (system) wise, Q is 9 pts, minor piece is 3, and rook is 5...
|Mar-19-17|| ||Saniyat24: A valiant fight by Keres....45.Nd3 was a wonderful move....!|
|May-23-17|| ||Richard Taylor: Keres could have kept the advantage with 16. Bc6. His Q sac or exchange was an ingenious opening idea. He was a great player and easily the equal of Fischer but getting a bit on in the tooth (for a top level chess player) when he played Fischer in this game. |
But his idea was intriguing and lead to a great game.
|May-23-17|| ||Petrosianic: <Richard Taylor>: <He was a great player and easily the equal of Fischer but getting a bit on in the tooth (for a top level chess player) when he played Fischer in this game. >|
Are you aware that he finished 6 points ahead of Fischer in this tournament, and was surely much better than Fischer in 1959?
As for the Queen sac, it may be ingenious, but I agree with 60 Memorable Games on this. It was good for no more than a draw, but Keres couldn't bring himself to admit it.
|May-23-17|| ||Reisswolf: Did Keres just continue playing out of spite?|
|May-23-17|| ||Howard: No, Fischer still had to work for the win. Furthermore, Keres still had drawing chances even at the adjournment.|
|May-24-17|| ||Boomie: ->
According to Chessmetrics.
Paul Keres - 2743
Bobby Fischer - 2700
Paul Keres - 2764
Bobby Fischer - 2693
The rating difference due to this tournament. Keres was the #2 rated player in the world behind Tal at that time. Any wonder that a 16 year old Fischer might have some challenges with these guys? They all proceeded to play some great chess against each other.
|May-24-17|| ||Howard: True, but Chessmetrics needs to be taken with a rather large grain of salt IMO.|
|May-24-17|| ||Grbasowski: 16 years only!|
|May-26-17|| ||Richard Taylor: < Petrosianic: <Richard Taylor>: <He was a great player and easily the equal of Fischer but getting a bit on in the tooth (for a top level chess player) when he played Fischer in this game. >
Are you aware that he finished 6 points ahead of Fischer in this tournament, and was surely much better than Fischer in 1959?>|
There you are, you said it, Fischer was no where as good as Keres he was 6 points behind! Fischer was a nut case, he's history...lets get back to reality. Keres was a real player.
|Jun-19-17|| ||Allanur: @Rookiepawn,
<The example (not "of yours" but of reality) suggests what is enough: Fischer had a poor sense of reality, something that would affect him more and more.>
First, what do you mean by "not yours?" In case you misunderstood, I did not mean "that example is created/invented by me and belongs to me, my own property" what I actually meant is "the example I wrote."
2. The example [of reality] in which way suggests Fischer had a poor sense of reality? It suggests he had better sense of reality.
His demands were to bring better and fairer match. Is that a sign of poor sense of reality? or did I missunderstand something?
for the rest of your post: no point. I am not gonna talk about his personality,his later life or his behaviour. You may see him evil, a bad example for children and e.t.c which I will not disagree. but I am sure of one thing: regarding chess his behaviour was good for the chess world.
I too blame him for leaving us too early. He should have played more.
|Jun-19-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Yeah once I were a better player than Carlsen. It's true. Oh envy! Look at me now lol|
|Dec-29-18|| ||PJs Studio: Fischer was a nutcase but he was better than Keres. And I’m a big Keres fan. Straight up, Fischer was the greatest and strongest chessplayer in history before Kasparov (and the subsequent stock of modern Super GM’s who stood on their shoulders). Heck, Fischer was still near 2700 in 1992 - 20 years away from the board.|
|Jun-21-19|| ||thegoodanarchist: Wow, mate on the board against Paul Keres! In a classical time control. For a 16-year-old boy, must have been the thrill of a lifetime (up until then).|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·