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.

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.

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?

Steinitz: 199 points over #2 in April 1876
Fischer: 146 points over #2 in December 1971
Morphy: 122 points over #2 in May 1859

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.

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.

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.

<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.

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.

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.

<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