< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 11 ·
|Apr-18-08|| ||Petrosianic: <The reason why I can't debate you, is because like I said, you argue with a straw man and don't even consider what the other person is saying.>|
Considering how much of what you read you misunderstand, you can't possibly know if that's true or not, can you? You still don't know what I think about Curacao, despite hearing it several times. You still think I'm denying that Fischer was a great player despite hearing the exact opposite from me several times.
Before you say I'm being irrational one something, you should first consider the possibility that you've misunderstood what you've heard. You don't have to admit errror, just consider the <possibility> for once.
<I didn't debate that Geller was a difficult opponent for Fischer.... I debated your ridiculous assertion that Geller's winning record over Fischer was stronger than Korchnoi's over Tal's>
Your memory is faulty. Read up to the beginning. I commented (correctly) that Geller was a difficult opponent for Fischer. You didn't like that and asked why people were making "a big deal out of it" (in fact, nobody <had> made a big deal out of it), and said that Geller didn't own Fischer like Korchnoi owned Tal (Nobody ever said that he had, your knee was simply jerking big time again).
I responded (incorrectly) that Korchnoi's record against Tal wasn't as good. When Keypusher pointed out that two of Tal's wins were speed games, and two more came at the very end, meaning that there was a period before 1987 when Korchnoi had scored 13 wins out of 15 against Tal, I retracted the statement, leading you to bash me for changing my position (!?)
Yes, I think all this makes you look unreasonable.
Your promise not to talk to me didn't last very long, did it? Perhaps you should put me on Ignore, to help resist temptation.
|Apr-18-08|| ||devioustalfan: 16. 0-0 Bc5+ Fischer hasn't fallen on his sword yet, but his # is gone. however 18.c4!! aims to break up the three pawn center black has. |
click for larger view
if 18...dxc4 then 19.Qd8#. in the real game why didn't Fischer play 19.Bxf1? it doesn't harm him and keep the black queen away.
19...Bb7 is threatening 20...dxc4 and all black has to do is play 21...Qh3
and hed have 0-1 all the faster.
21.Bxe6 still doesn't stop. 21...Qh3!! and 21...Qd3?? is blunderous. after 22.Bxd3 cxd3 23.Qxd3 it's 1-0
(all signs eg.!!,??,# are of my insertion)
|Apr-18-08|| ||xrt999: < Riverbeast: Geller's record against Fischer was only 5-3, and if you read 'My Sixty Memorable Games', one of Geller's wins was actually a potential brilliancy on Fischer's part, but Bobby missed a winning continuation>|
This is ironic, since Geller's 2 games against Fischer in 67 -this one and the one at Skopje- are 2 of the most mind boggling, complex brilliancies ever played on a chessboard.
All games contain brilliancies, it is up to the player to unmask them.
The Skopje game is my favorite game of all time. I can spend 2 to 3 hours at a time analyzing and playing through the moves. Every move offers at least 5 to 10 different paths with amazing, beautiful complexities, and all lines lead to more complexitites, each with infinite brilliancies. The game is fluid like in its detached state and is a work of art, it is Geller's Magnum Opus, if you will; his Mona Lisa.
I seriously doubt that in my lifetime I will come to understand the full beauty contained within that game.
|Apr-19-08|| ||sombreronegro: As others have noticed the obvious, if you are impressed by a more extreme short term dominance as opposed to a longer term superiority then Fischer is your candidate. Kasparov wins for longevity. Some will choose one over the other or anything in between. I like Capablanca because he was a natural and just knew how to play. I love simple elegant solutions like I find in his chess and so he is probably my favorite. Kasparov and Fischer studied intensely to reach their goals. One thing you can say about Fischer however was they he was in a sense taking on the Soviet chess machine complete with Soviet subsidizing the careers of the Soviet players with the support of chess schools and a curriculum. Fischer was on his own which is something ELO spreads cannot communicate. I don't see that too many people get that. What Fischer had in store for him was 50 chess students studying every game he played and finding weaknesses in his favorite lines with enormous resources at Karpovs disposal.|
|Apr-19-08|| ||RookFile: I think it was great that during his active career, Fischer was the #1 rated Elo player from 1964 onwards. Elo's system wasn't recognized until some 5 years later, but it was still the same system.|
|Apr-21-08|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <RookFile>
It was great. Kasparov does a good job of pointing out that the difference between Fischer and other players at that time was qualitative, not just quantitative. He became something new, and existing players of the older class simply could no longer fight against him... The only other players I can think of in history that were like this, that defined a whole era, were Morphy and Botvinnik.
|Apr-21-08|| ||Petrosianic: <TheAlchemist>: <For what it's worth, on Chessmetrics it's Steinitz who has put the biggest margin between himself and no.2.>|
When was that? Since they have him as #1 in 173 separate months, it's not easy to find.
I've just done a little spot checking. I found that in April 1876, Steinitz was 199 points above the World #2 player. Is that what you mean, or is there another month that was even better?
Odd to think of Steinitz as being more dominant than Morphy or Fischer. Let me have a look at their numbers (with a 1 year career, Morphy at least is easy.)
|Apr-21-08|| ||Petrosianic: Here are the best numbers I see for all three. Not entirely certain that they're the absolute best, but close at least:|
Steinitz: 199 points over #2 in April 1876
Fischer: 146 points over #2 in December 1971
Morphy: 122 points over #2 in May 1859
Now, that's not a result I'd have expected.
|Apr-21-08|| ||Petrosianic: <The Skopje game is my favorite game of all time...it is Geller's Magnum Opus, if you will; his Mona Lisa.>|
The Skopje game is, objectively, a better game than this one.
Still, you can't beat this one for cojones on Geller's part. The opening was obviously not planned. In those days, Fischer always played 6. Bc4 against the Najdorf. There were absolutely no previous games on record in which Fischer had ever played 6. Bg5. When he did it, all Geller's opening prep went out the window. His spur of the moment response was to play Fischer's own favorite variation against him. And he won with it. That's the kind of thing Captain Kirk would do.
|Apr-21-08|| ||Fischer of Men: The debate regarding how much weight should be given to Geller's career plus score against Fischer never ceases to amaze me. So much so that I've decided to post even though I don't usually get involved in debates.|
No one has ever mentioned that in the 7 tournaments in which the two have met, Fischer finished ahead of Geller 5 times. In fact, Fischer finished first overall in 4 of those 5, despite losing to Geller in 2 of them. Geller finished ahead of Fischer once out of 7 and finished with the same score as him one other time, never winning first place. Geller produced 3 of his wins in the 2 tournaments where he finished either equal to or higher than Fischer. Fischer placed higher in 5 tournaments which included 2 wins, 2 losses, and 1 draw.
Those are the relevent facts to look at when examining this issue. Since they did not play a match, the tournament results are more important than considering if Geller would beat Fischer heads-up due to his plus score. Unfortunately, they never played a match, but their respective placements in those tournaments answer the question for me as to who was better.
|Apr-21-08|| ||Petrosianic: <I've decided to post even though I don't usually get involved in debates... their respective placements in those tournaments answer the question for me as to who was better.>|
If you don't get into debates that often, it's a shame to do it without understanding the issue under discussion. Nobody is claiming that Geller was a better player than Fischer.
And it's just as well that nobody is, because if they were, your criteria (tournament performance) is one that almost nobody would salute. Go to one of the Kramnik threads to get more than you'd ever want to hear about the merits of match play vs. tournaments.
|Apr-21-08|| ||keypusher: <fischer of men>
<No one has ever mentioned that in the 7 tournaments in which the two have met, Fischer finished ahead of Geller 5 times. In fact, Fischer finished first overall in 4 of those 5, despite losing to Geller in 2 of them. Geller finished ahead of Fischer once out of 7 and finished with the same score as him one other time, never winning first place. >
Yes, but the one in which Geller finished ahead of Fischer was the most important, right? :-)
Of course, I agree with your post overall, and I suspect that some of the people making a big deal out of Geller's plus score were being provocative.
Also, to look at this another way, if you had a 2750 GM play ten games apiece against ten GMs rated 2700, he'd surely wind up with a minus score against some of them -- a person with a better grasp of probability than I have could say how many. But it wouldn't follow that whoever got a plus score against him was better than he was.
|Apr-21-08|| ||Petrosianic: In my opinion Geller was a better player than Fischer from 1957 to about 1964-ish, but Fischer was the better player from that time onwards.|
That he could lose three in a row despite being the better player is probably where your probability argument comes in.
On the other hand, a Geller or a Tal had better odds of being able to beat Fischer 3 in a row than the average equally strong GM, simply because they had playing styles that Fischer wasn't at his best against.
It's a shame we never saw Fischer and Tal play when both were healthy and in their prime.
|May-17-08|| ||ezmerin: If Geller were born anywhere but in the USSR he would have been the strongest GM of his country. Just look on the list of best players never took the World Champion Title: Korchnoi, Keres, Bronstein, Beliavsky, Geller... Russians are everywere.|
But, on the other hand, if he were born anywhere else he would not have played so many strong opponents and studied with so good coaches. So he might have not gone so far.
Gosh, my English is so bad. Sorry.
|May-17-08|| ||sitzkrieg: I don't know, did Geller have a coach? Seemed to be a
|May-20-08|| ||euripides: <devious> At move 21 White is threatening mate which 21...Qd3 prevents.|
|May-20-08|| ||wrap99: 23. bf5 better than bg4?|
|Jun-18-08|| ||suenteus po 147: Was this tournament a rapid or blitz tournament? It was played in Monte Carlo, wasn't it?|
|Jul-14-08|| ||HunImi: I think: 20. Bd1 is very dangerous for black.|
|Aug-09-08|| ||wweiss: If 26. Rxg7, then 26...Bxg2+! 27. Kxg2 Rb2+ 28. Kh1 Qd5+ 29. Bf3 Qxf3#|
|May-12-09|| ||CharlesSullivan: <jyske: after 20 Qc2 e4 21 Bg4 21 ..h6!? is the correct defence 22 Bh5+ Kd7 23 Rf7+ Kc8 24 Bf4 Qb4 ... black holds>|
<jyske> is right that 20.Qc2 e4 21.Bh5+! g6 22.Bg4 is best. My research shows that from here the most interesting defense is 22...Bc6! 23.Bxe6 Qd3 when White must really find some moves to win:
<Diagram: Black has an extra pawn...>
click for larger view
24.Qc1! e3 25.cxd5 Bb5 26.Rd1 Qc4 27.Qa1! e2 28.Qh8+ Bf8 29.Rg1.
Now if 29...Qc5 then 30.Bh4 Qc7 31.Qd4 Qg7 32.Qe4 Bd6 33.a4 wins the bishop since 33...Bd7 34.Bxd7+ Kxd7 35.Qe6+ Kc7 36.Rc1+ leads to a forced mate.
So 29...Qc7 30.a4!! gains the winning tempo:
<Diagram: the 30.a4!! pawn sac wins a tempo...>
click for larger view
30...Bxa4 31.Qd4! Bb5 32.Qe4! Qd6 33.Qf3! Be7 34.Bd2! Qa3 35.Qf7 Kd8 36.d6!
<Diagram: 36.d6! finishes off the game...>
click for larger view
36...Bxd6 (or 36...Qxd6 37.Ba5+ wins) 37.Qb7 wins the rook, since if 37...Rb8 then 38.Bg5+ decides
<Diagram: Black cannot avoid mate...>
click for larger view
|Oct-02-09|| ||keypusher: Curious fact: this was the last time anyone played the Najdorf against Fischer. The only serious games in which he faced it after 1962 were this game, Zuckerman in the 1965/66 US championship and Bednarsky in the 1966 Olympiad. |
|Oct-02-09|| ||AnalyzeThis: There's no doubt that Geller was a strong player, with guts. It takes gall to play an opening against the world's leading expert in that opening.|
|Oct-02-09|| ||goldenbear: Hmmm... I don't think I've ever seen this game before. Isn't Nxd5 a mistake? What does Black have after Ne4?|
|Dec-18-09|| ||licuan: Geller and Fischer are Jews i think. Only a diamond can cut a diamond,then that might be true with Bobby and Efim.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 11 ·