< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|May-02-11|| ||tonythekingfisher: Both sides play like Gods. The grasp of tactics and combinations is truly breathtaking and both Fischer's sacrificial attack and Gligoric's saving resources smack of wizardry. I have analysed this game extensively using Rybka and I can find no mistakes whatsoever (although there are some good alternative lines).|
Practically perfect chess. And Gligoric had a top rating of 2600? Come off it - he'd have been 2750+ nowadays. What Fischer would have been is unthinkable.
|May-02-11|| ||bronkenstein: Lasker once said , ˝Brilliancy requires blunder˝ .|
This game is brilliant draw , nice proof that old Emanuel wasn´t always right :)
|May-08-11|| ||perfidious: <tonythekingfisher: Both sides play like Gods. The grasp of tactics and combinations is truly breathtaking and both Fischer's sacrificial attack and Gligoric's saving resources smack of wizardry.>|
These players had some slugfests, and Gligoric could give Fischer trouble, even when the latter was on top form: Gligoric vs Fischer, 1970.
<Practically perfect chess. And Gligoric had a top rating of 2600? Come off it - he'd have been 2750+ nowadays. What Fischer would have been is unthinkable.>
In those days, 2600 made you a top-class GM; now, that's a solid professional, but hardly a title contender. The Fischer of 1970-72 would mop the floor with today's 2600 player.
|Jul-05-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Fischer and Gligoric played routine chess ... as draws go, its not bad. |
|Sep-19-11|| ||Cemoblanca: One of the best draw games I've ever seen.|
|Dec-21-11|| ||drnooo: ntil 66 Fischer was not in G's league. Pure and simple. After that it was the reverse. It may well be that Gligoric is the best test for just how capable Fischer was till around 64 . In fact in the early sixties not sure exactly where to place Gligoric, just how up the ladder but he was up there somewhere where the air is very very thin, thats for sure.|
|Dec-21-11|| ||King Death: < drnooo: ntil 66 Fischer was not in G's league. Pure and simple. After that it was the reverse...>|
This is an oversimplification, along the same lines as those who love to claim that Geller was the equal of this long list of world champions because he had such good records against them. It's true that in the games between these players Gligoric was up 4-1 in decisive games, but they both played other opponents.
And let's see...moving on, Gulko went 3-1 in wins against Kasparov. He had to be better by this convoluted logic.
<...It may well be that Gligoric is the best test for just how capable Fischer was till around 64..>
Better than the Soviets who were demonstrably stronger by overall results?
<...In fact in the early sixties not sure exactly where to place Gligoric, just how up the ladder but he was up there somewhere where the air is very very thin, thats for sure...>
In my opinion top 10-15. You have all of those Soviets plus Fischer and by results, it's impossible to state that he was clearly stronger than these players.
|Dec-21-11|| ||The17thPawn: <King Death> If your talking post 1960 than 10-15 holds true for Gligoric but he was definitely in the top 10 during the 1950's and posted some impressive results. Mostly I admire Gligoric for his quote, " I play against the pieces". No psychological domination BS or unnecessary bravado just put a board in front of the man and he played the pieces no matter who sat opposite him. There's a lot of pure chess appreciation in that approach.|
|Dec-21-11|| ||TheFocus: The book <I Play Against Pieces> should be in every library.|
|Dec-21-11|| ||bobbylee: Am I the only one who thinks "LIFE master AJ" is a pompous ass?|
|Dec-22-11|| ||RookFile: This game is a good way to learn about color complexes. Black dominated the dark squares, white, the light ones.|
|Dec-22-11|| ||brankat: <Bobbylee> <Am I the only one who thinks "LIFE master AJ" is a pompous ass?>|
No, You are not :-)
|Dec-22-11|| ||brankat: As for Gligoric's "spot" in the '50 and '60's, well, first off there was no ratings systems, but still they all knew, together with the "fans", where a given player belonged. |
In the 1950s Gligoric, together with Reshevsky, was the only non-Soviet master that had a chance to be a contender. Ahead of Najdorf, Euwe, Panno, Unzicker, not to mention Larsen and Bobby. Which would put him among the top 8, or so.
The '60s changed the complexion, as every decade does. Larsen, Fischer, Tal already there, Spassky, Portisch,
Korchnoi, Stein, Polugaevsky.
Even at that Gligoric's results, particularly the Itz, '67 would place him, if not in top 10, then certainly in the top 15.
Also, let's not forget he did have some great results in the 1970s, too. And, of course, way back in the '40s :-)(Warsaw 1947 comes to mind).
Add to this his tremendous theoretical contributions (most of which still stands today), and his "literary" work, You have a complete player/person that not many can compare to.
|Dec-22-11|| ||rilkefan: Anybody know if 11...Nxf5 is definitely better than ...gxf5? I'm used to fighting to hold e4 playing the KID as black, though of course d4 is a vital square.|
|Dec-22-11|| ||FSR: Chessmetrics gives Gligoric's best world rank as #6 on 13 different monthly "rating lists" in 1958-60. http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Play... In October 1958, the first month in which he was so ranked, Gligoric was the only non-Soviet in the top 12. http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Sing... By November 1960, he and Fischer were in essentially a dead heat: Gliga #10 at 2721, Fischer #11 at 2717. http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Sing... The two of them, and Reshevsky (#15), were the only non-Soviets in the top 15.|
|Dec-22-11|| ||Shams: <rilkefan> Played in close to equal numbers in the 52 games in the db, but it looks like 11...gxf5 scores better.
|Dec-22-11|| ||rilkefan: <Shams>, that's a point. Though I don't see anyone I recognize as a strong player in that set since 1990 and 1993, two games with gf. Given the statistics it's probably hard to draw a conclusion beyond "both are apparently sensible moves".|
|Dec-22-11|| ||Penguincw: This game is going to get nowhere now.|
|May-31-12|| ||DanielBryant: Who said draws had to be boring?|
|May-31-12|| ||Petrosianic: You did. Remember?|
|May-31-12|| ||RookFile: Played over this well known game again. What struck me was how logical Gligoric's play was. I'm amazed that Fischer could walk a tightrope like this and not get blown off the board.|
|May-31-12|| ||DanielBryant: Can you point to me where I said this, because I doubt I did.|
|Aug-15-12|| ||Cemoblanca: Sometimes I enjoy the draws more than the wins! Good stuff!|
|Aug-27-12|| ||Albanius: For anyone who wants to study it, this game is #30 in Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games, with 21 notes by Fischer.|
|Aug-29-12|| ||TheFocus: This is game 30 in Fischer's <My 60 Memorable Games>.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·