< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
|Oct-22-12|| ||lost in space: It was Fischer himself who sad that he do not understand the way Kortchnoi plays. Very uncertain how a match would have ended. I think from 1970 to 1972 Fischer was superior - but before and afterwards?|
|Oct-22-12|| ||harrylime: < lost in space>
Fischer surpassed Korchnoi comfortably around 1965..
Fischer stopped playing after 72' ..
|Nov-14-12|| ||Travis Bickle: Korchnoi said he always felt Fischer was better than him, but Victor said he had good results against Fischer & many champions. I think Korchnoi Fischer may have been more interesting than Fischer Karpov 1975.|
|Nov-14-12|| ||perfidious: <Travis> Wade, in his closing comment to another of the Fischer-Korchnoi slugfests in his 1972 collection, wrote words to the effect that seeing Korchnoi as Fischer's opponent in the '71 Candidates final instead would have been a clash of two great fighters.|
So it would, and it is most unfortunate that we never had the privilege of a ringside seat for this spectacle.
|Nov-14-12|| ||brankat: <It was Fischer himself who sad that he do not understand the way Kortchnoi plays. Very uncertain how a match would have ended. I think from 1970 to 1972 Fischer was superior - but before and afterwards?>|
If Fischer didn't quite understand Korchnoi's game, then it is very likely he also didn't understand it during the 1970-72 period.
|Nov-14-12|| ||SChesshevsky: I think a Fischer-Korchnoi match would've been a great thing for chess.|
The interesting thing of Korchnoi where he might have had an advantage is that he liked to play unbalanced positions. If Fischer wasn't on top of his game (which was more often than believed) and/or overreached Korchnoi had the ability to get an advantage and push it through. These Curacao games seem to show it.
Korchnoi might have had a good chance pre 1969 but it seems 69 and later Fischer played much tighter.
I always got the impression Fischer really enjoyed these types of games with Korchnoi and remember hearing that Korchnoi was one of the few world class masters Fischer would meet with after 72.
|Nov-26-12|| ||Mrs. Alekhine: <Hazza>
<Fischer surpassed Korchnoi comfortably around 1965>?
We can speculate on their potential playing strength, but the head to head game record doesn't really support your point.
Fischer didn't play Korchnoi between 1962-1967.
They drew at <Sousse 1967>.
They split a pair of games at <Herceg Novi Blitz 1970>.
They drew at <Rovinj/Zagreb 1970>.
They never played again after.
<Travis> I would also love to have seen a Fischer-Korchnoi match. I think there would have been a great deal of "Battle Chess" since both players loved to go for the initiative.
|Nov-26-12|| ||AylerKupp: <<harrylime> <Fischer had korchnoi's number by at least 1967 .. And probably earlier>|
Aaah, the usual <harrylime> silly statements and imagination. Prior to 1965 Fischer and Korchnoi played 6 times, with Fischer winning twice, Korchnoi winning twice, with 2 draws.
After 1965 Fischer and Korchnoi played 4 times, 2 regular games and 2 blitz games. Both regular games were drawn, one of the blitz games was won by Fischer, and the other blitz game by Korchnoi.
I guess it all depends on what one considers "having someone's number".
|Nov-27-12|| ||perfidious: There go <Mrs Alekhine> and <AylerKupp>, intruding on dear <harry>'s fantasy world with facts which demolish another flimsy argument. If one can call it that.|
|Nov-27-12|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: I think the Batsford book on Fischer put it well when it said it was a shame the chess world never saw a Fischer-Korchnoi Candidates match because it would have been a spectacle to see two of the games great fighters play.|
Korchnoi was nr. 3-4 in the world in 1971 (with Larsen).
|Nov-27-12|| ||AylerKupp: Not to mention 3-4 in the world in 1972 (again with Larsen), 5-6 in the world in 1973 (with Portisch), 3 in the world in 1974 and 1975 (the last year that Fischer was ranked), 2 in the world in 1976-1979, etc.|
Except for one year (1983) Korchnoi was ranked in the top 10 from 1967 through 1988, and again in 1990.
What a match this would have been between these two fighters! And only 2 years apart in age.
|Jan-12-13|| ||leka: The move 10..a5was a novelty it was not a Korchnoi idea.Who is behind 10..a5 Korchnoi did not selected this his the best games as black.The combination 13 bishop g4! Korchnoi was a honest it is not a difficult one.Fischer lost same kind of an opening novelty against Kholmov in 1965 Smyslov showed Kholmov the variation of Ruy Lopez to Kholmov.Kholmov was a drun drinking vodka all night.But altough Kholmov had a hang over he remembered Smyslov moves and beat Fischer|
|Jan-17-13|| ||leka: May be this game was the reason why Korchnoi played against Karpov in 1978WC match final game this the Pirc opening.Korchnoi should had played the final 32th ganme in 1978 against Karpov the open Ruy Lopez or the rock solid french opening|
|Feb-24-13|| ||teddysalad: <AylerKupp> <What a match this would have been between these two fighters! And only 2 years apart in age.>|
They were 12 years apart in age.
|Feb-24-13|| ||RookFile: I definitely think Korchnoi should have stayed with the French against Karpov.|
|Jul-21-13|| ||madlydeeply: this is such a beautiful Korchnoi game! Korchnoi waits until the perfect moment when white overextends, counterattacks, queen mops up pieces/pawns, heading all the way to a1, manages to return to a6 for defense, returns to queenside to finish queening. KC analyzed it... put me in a good mood today, thanks KC!|
|Sep-09-13|| ||Garech: An absolute mauling from Korchnoi - it's not often this happened to Fischer; kudos!|
|Dec-02-13|| ||chesswar1000: A fisch out of water.|
|Jan-07-14|| ||GumboGambit: Hail to the Viktor!|
|Jan-28-14|| ||MarkFinan: MarkFinan: This is a pretty damn good game of chess. I half understand this move.. I think!? Fischer sacced the g pawn by playing 13.g4? to get some play on the kingside, and also drawing blacks queen over to the queenside so it can't help defend his king. I think that was the idea, although it was a big mistake because that's definitely where things started to go wrong for him..|
click for larger view
And once Qh6 is played here, getting the queen back over the kingside it's completely over. Some nice tactical shots in this game, I like going through Fischer's games when he has the white pieces because he nearly always played for a win.
click for larger view
|Nov-02-15|| ||onam: brankat tell us: <It was Fischer himself who said that he do not understand the way Korchnoi plays.
Hoewer If both like to grab materials, I mean they were materialistic how they do not understand eachother?|
|Nov-02-15|| ||diceman: <leka:
The move 10..a5was a novelty it was not a Korchnoi idea.
Who is behind 10..a5>
Who's behind a5?
...the queens rook of course.
|Nov-02-15|| ||maxi: <onam> The way I see it, they did not have the same style. Korchnoi liked to play for complications with piece play. He loved piece activity even at the cost of placing himself sometimes in danger. Positionally he was a center man, in the Nimzovitch sense of pieces being active towards the center. Fischer was a far more classical player. He loved the way Soviet chess developed, but also Capablanca's and the original Botvinnik´s positional style. With Botvinnik he also believed in unbalancing a position and thus obtaining counterchances, but not in unsound positions. He probably was at his weakest in messy positions. He also was very concerned with an eventual endgame and was very strong in this phase, too. During his last years he surgically avoided unclear positions and became pretty much invincible. Also Fischer was much more of an opening expert than Korchnoi, and that is a big advantage.|
Both were great players, man!
|Jun-12-16|| ||The Boomerang: "t's a shame they did'nt meet in the candidates in '70 .. Fischer would have put your BS to bed .."|
And its a shame Fischer was too afraid of Karpov you know the one who had a 14-2 record against Spassky.
They could have met if it wansnt for all his ridiculous requests.
Why did Fischer only dominate 1 candidates cycle? If he was the best ever and all?
|Nov-13-16|| ||Medusaz: <The Boomerang>
Your argument, along with ELO are just statistics. Statistics aren't everything, I think the universe is comprobation of that.|
His games and ideas are what put him up on top of most players, and the small fact he was 120 ELO above the second ranked player (since ELO is just a measure of difference within the playing environment - you can go to ICC and check out the computer's that are rated 3500 only get to 2200 - 2400 because the rest of the computers are just as good).
There's also the fact that the current top players respect him and look up to him. Magnus himself has Bobby right up there and is his dream opponent. I don't think Magnus being as strong as he is would be out for an easy match since he has that most of the time already. It's obvious they see something in him we, normal players do not.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·