< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 22 OF 22 ·
|Apr-08-13|| ||Petrosianic: Again, the evidence doesn't show that. You can see how well he did or didn't do against Soviet players in those years for yourself if you have the courage to look. I know that this is a religious issue for you, whereas it isn't for me.|
It would be nice if people gave up posting unpleasant facts, and just let myth take over, wouldn't it? Anyway, it's not me you should be mad at. It's Chessbase. Did you see?
They just posted an article naming Fischer as only the SEVENTH best champion in championship matches. I expect you to write them a letter explaining their error, and post a copy of it here, if you care about this issue even half as much as you've seemed to.
|Apr-08-13|| ||harrylime: ^^^
TBH I respect your opinions which do indeed differ very much from mine.. But it really does seem like you're following me around lol ..
Maybe coz of your username you've got some emotional attatchment to the soviet cold war era ?
I've got news for you. ..
Fischer brought this down.
|Apr-08-13|| ||Petrosianic: Uh huh. Have you written the letter to Chessbase or not? Or maybe you're not as keen on defending Bobby as you say you are.|
I haven't directed a post at you in over 6 months before the other day, so I have to warn you again about just making facts up out of thin air to suit your case. You were asking the other day why you get no respect. This is one of the big reasons.
|Jul-28-13|| ||Alpinemaster: <Petrosianic> and <harrylime>|
You both seem to be correct about some of your arguments and both of you are clearly equally inept via your overly impassioned nature on the topic to see each other's main point.
Fischer certainly was the focal point of global competition to the Soviet Chess World Championship Monopoly - anyone who questions this is simply ignorant of popularly accepted Chess opinion. However, to say he actually succeeded in 'bringing down' the totalitarian communist Chess machine that was the USSR squad from Botvinnik to Spassky is simply too SHORTSIGHTED.
Forget Karpov and his 10 year reign that never properly had a chance to begin because Fischer surrendered his crown, rather than defend it in 1975; Kasparov dominated for 15 years after him (bringing us from 1975-2000, 25 years of Soviet Chess Dominance), followed by more from the very Russian Kramnik and, if you are willing to consider the former USSR satellite of Bulgaria, Topalov continued to carry the bloody flag of Soviet Chess into this very century and decade. Finally culminating with Topalov falling and truly ceeding Soviet dominance back to the world in the form of the Anand 2010 World Championship Defense, Topalov would suffer a humiliating loss with the White pieces in the final round of the match. In the must win situation for Topalov, Anand divested himself of the traditional Slav or match thematic Grunfeld, to play a simple Queen's Gambit Declined, Lasker Defense (with ...h6)! The pure simplicity was enough to provoke Topalov into overextending his position and crash to his knees, so reminiscent and metaphorical of Soviet Chess Dominance in the 20th century meeting Fischer head to head.
So did Fischer 'Bring an End' to Soviet Chess - the answer is a resounding "No"; however, he defiantly Slashed the tires, smashed the windshield, and took a piss in the tank of the Soviet Chess Racecar.
Hope this clears things up boys; happy debating.
|Jul-29-13|| ||RookFile: Fischer enters chess tournaments, he wins them. He scored 42 percent against Russians? That's fine. If it is 50 percent, there's nothing to talk about, since those guys scored 50 percent against each other too. In a tournament, all the points count the same. Fischer would win, draw or even lose to a Russian, and the next day, odds approach 100 percent he's going to beat the non-Russian he faces the next day. Alas, for the comrades from Russia, having saved up their best energy to face Fischer, they just make a quick draw against the non-Russian to regain their strength. As the tournament ends where do we see Fischer? In first place, of course, except for a handful of tournaments where he scandalously finished second.
There is a reason why Fischer was the highest rated player in the world from the early 1960's on. It's because all the chess games played are taken into account, not just a cherry picked example. Some people here want to say that games against Najdorf, Gligoric, Reshevsky, Portisch, Larsen, etc. don't count - but that does not match reality.|
Put another way, if Fischer was not #1, who was? Petrosian or Spassky, who had numerous tournaments where they did not do well, i.e. 6th, 8th, or even 11th place?
|Sep-12-13|| ||Everett: <RookFile: Fischer enters chess tournaments, he wins them>|
Yes, but he did decide twice to quit midway or skip the candidates cycle entirely.
<Put another way, if Fischer was not #1, who was? Petrosian or Spassky, who had numerous tournaments where they did not do well, i.e. 6th, 8th, or even 11th place?>
Of course Spassky was, because the tournaments didn't matter to become WC, and the WC was THE thing to go for. So Spassky merely won two candidates cycles in a row, crushing most of the competition convincingly. His only blemish in championship competiton is from 64-70 is a match loss to Petrosian. He even beat Fischer twice.
Chess fans in general, and Fischer fans in particular, have no clue of pacing over a career, tournament or other random chess event. Fischer's no quarter-high intensity style, likely feuled by his own peculiar mental/emotional issues, required breaks. And he took them when he needed them. Yet even with those breaks, his style clearly burned himself out. It was unsustainable.
Chess players with a little more of the long view, like many Soviets, picked their spots as well, yet unlike Fischer, they were likely not allowed to take breaks. They had to show up and play no matter their condition. So what is their response? They conserve energy and don't fight like crazy for every point. They were also willing to have a poor result here and there, and pick their spots to turn it on.
The thing is, Fischer fans seem to think it is okay to give Fischer 1st place even when he couldn't/didnt show up, not considering that Fischer knew quite well what state he was in, and likely when he was not in a 1st place state.
|Sep-13-13|| ||RookFile: <Of course Spassky was, because the tournaments didn't matter to become WC, and the WC was THE thing to go for.>|
If you're going to use that logic, then you have to say Petrosian, not Spassky, was the player of the 1960's. He won the Candidates too, beat Botvinnik, and beat Spassky. Since the WC is what matters, we note that Petrosian won a match for the world championship twice, which is more than anybody else did. You would have to follow through on your logic and award higher weight to the WC match win than the qualifying tournaments.
|Sep-13-13|| ||keypusher: <If you're going to use that logic, then you have to say Petrosian, not Spassky, was the player of the 1960's. He won the Candidates too, beat Botvinnik, and beat Spassky. Since the WC is what matters, we note that Petrosian won a match for the world championship twice, which is more than anybody else did. You would have to follow through on your logic and award higher weight to the WC match win than the qualifying tournaments.>|
No, you don't.
Petrosian qualified for the championship by winning the Curacao Candidates with 8 wins and 19 draws, mostly of the grandmaster variety. Favorite Tal had to drop out and Fischer ruined his own chances at the outset. Petrosian drew all his games with Geller and Keres (I think there have been a couple of posts about that) and concentrated on beating the outsiders.
Petrosian then beat the 52-year-old Botvinnik to take the title (Iron Mike's third loss in a WC match) and split a couple of matches with Spassky.
Spassky beat Keres, Geller (twice), Larsen, Tal, and Korchnoi in Candidates matches. None of the matches were particularly close. And, of course, he split a couple of matches with Petrosian.
You can quite readily conclude that Spassky's achievements above exceed Petrosian's.
Of course, you don't <have> to.
|Sep-13-13|| ||EdZelli: <<Fischer ruined his own chances at the outset.>>|
What a naive explanation, Bobby loses to Petrosian in Curaco and 6 others and that is a bad outset?? How about peess poor play?
How did Spassky's achievements exceed that of Petrosian when Tigran wins as
many WCs as Bobby and Boris combined?
Did you consider Petrosian's record of +24=37-0 prior to winning the WC in 63?
How about his overall Candidates record or his Olympiad record or 4 times Soviet(World Championship to you) not counting the years he played in WC matches.
|Sep-13-13|| ||keypusher: <EdZelli: <<Fischer ruined his own chances at the outset.>>|
What a naive explanation, Bobby loses to Petrosian in Curaco and 6 others and that is a bad outset?? How about peess poor play?>
Sure, that works.
<How did Spassky's achievements exceed that of Petrosian when Tigran wins as many WCs as Bobby and Boris combined?>
You know what drives me crazy? Threads where A says "Petrosian won 2X! Spassky won 1X! Petrosian is better." and then B says "Well, no, there are these other things to think about" and then C comes in and says "Petrosian won 2X! Spassky won 1X! Petrosian is better."
I covered that. Go back and read it again.
<Did you consider Petrosian's record of +24=37-0 prior to winning the WC in 63?>
No, is that supposed to be in his favor?
<How about his overall Candidates record or his Olympiad record or 4 times Soviet(World Championship to you) not counting the years he played in WC matches.>
You might want to go back and read Everett and Rookfile's posts and familiarize yourself with the argument in progress. No one was trying to compare Petrosian and Spassky's entire careers or lifetime achievements. If you want to have that argument, you'll have to find someone other than me to argue with.
|Sep-13-13|| ||AylerKupp: <<EdZelli> What a naive explanation, Bobby loses to Petrosian in Curaco and 6 others and that is a bad outset??>|
I think what was meant was that Fischer lost his first 2 games at Curaçao. No matter how good you are, overcoming a 0-2 start in such strong company is very hard. Fischer was able to do that in the second half of the 2nd Piatagorsky Tournament in 1966 after a poor start (after 8/18 rounds he was tied for last and 2.5 points behind Spassky) but he wasn't able to do that in 1959.
|Sep-13-13|| ||RookFile: If you're going to championships are what matters, there's only one way to think about it. You look at the roof of the Boston Garden, and see a bunch of championship banners hanging there. That's all that matters. There were a multitude of teams that won more games than the Celtics did in 1969, for example, but in the end, all the matters is who wins the championship match. So, according to this theory, Petrosian won two championships, including a successful championship defense, which hadn't happened in a long time. Tal, Botvinnik, and Spassky get some lovely parting gifts, because they each won a single championship. Just taking the theory and following it through to its logical conclusion, even at the expense of Fischer.|
|Sep-14-13|| ||AylerKupp: <RookFile> How should we factor in, if at all, Botvinnik <regaining> his World Championship title twice, once against Smyslov in 1958 and once against Tal in 1961. Does that count as 3 or still just 1? I would think that regaining the championship in a rematch when you no longer have the advantage of regaining the title in case of a tie match and when the defending champion does not have to qualify for the WC match should count at least the same as winning the WC, if not even more.|
|Sep-14-13|| ||Everett: <RookFile: If you're going to championships are what matters, there's only one way to think about it>|
Right, the qualification cycle and the championship matches. In the NBA it is making the playoffs and winning when you get there.
|Sep-15-13|| ||Everett: <AylerKupp> Bktvinnik's rematch victories should count much less because he did not qualify as other contenders have.|
|Sep-16-13|| ||AylerKupp: <Everett> Perhaps, but in terms of effort spent in the short term I would say that the challenger (in the case that he dethrones the WC) spent much more effort in getting to the WC match than the defending champion, what with all the preliminaries that the challenger had to win in order to get there. And the WC, again short term, spent no effort; he got there solely by virtue of being the defending WC.|
Contrast this with a rematch. Neither player spends much short-term effort to "qualify"; the current WC get there by virtue of winning the previous WC match and the dethroned WC gets there by virtue of being, well, the dethroned WC.
So one could argue (I certainly could, but then again I can argue for and against most things, on either side) that the victory of the challenger that dethroned the WC should count more than if the WC successfully defended his title, particularly if there was a champion-retains-his-title clause in case of a tied match. But in the case of a rematch the dethroned WC would have less of an advantage that he had in a defense of his WC, less if there was a champion-retains-his-title clause in case of a tied match. So, if anything, I would count a regaining of a WC title more than a WC title defense. But I would settle for counting it equally.
Having said all that, what I actually think is that determining the WC should follow the NBA's lead; the WC should be entered in the preliminary events like anyone else, whether these are tournaments or mini-matches. Only then the effort needed to retain the title would be the same as the effort needed by a new player to achieve the title. After all, just because a player was dominant n-years earlier, it doesn't mean that he would necessarily be dominant today.
|Sep-16-13|| ||Everett: <AylerKupp> all good points. Botvinnik deserves credit for his ability to adjust and focus, no doubt.|
Winning the candidates itself is ridiculously hard, and the only ex-champ to ever do it, sort of, is Karpov in '89-'90, as he was seeded into the matches. Of course, since he rocked everyone save Kasparov during the '88-'89 World Cup, it is hard to argue this placement. Nonetheless, there has never been an ex-WC who has regained the title through the full Candidates cycle, yet multiple times through a direct rematch. This speaks to two things; 1) the fire isn't the same after already being champion and 2) it is much easier to win one match against a known opponent compared to slogging through the qualification.
In this light, winning candidates cycles more than once is an amazing and rare achievement. Smyslov twice, Spassky twice, Korchnoi twice, Karpov twice, and Anand... Three times, for the '95, '98 and 2008 matches. Even if you throw out '98 because it is FIDE, it is still an amazing career feat.
Kasparov couldn't bring himself even to compete in one after 2000, and Kramnik never won one. Interesting to consider, if Kramnik prevailed this last candidates tournament, it would have been the first time he ever qualified legitimately by winning through the candidates process.
|Sep-17-13|| ||RookFile: Mr Spock says that is it illogical, under the assigned parameters, to assign greater weight to winning qualifying events than it is to a successful title defense. He also says that discussion of achievements outside of the 1960's is not relevant to determining who the player of the 1960's was.|
|Sep-17-13|| ||Everett: Kirk's logic is more sound.
I imagine Kirk said "thanks for playing."
|Sep-28-13|| ||som2012: While there can be no doubt that winning through the candidates round is incredibly tough but at the end what matters most is World Cup, no. of wins in all play including tournaments, candidates and tite defense during the period of prominance and/or dominance of a particular player. It's got to be that. It is too simplistic to brush aside the tournament plays, saying that it does not matter because the best players are conserving their energy and and not going in for the kill, it all evens out over a period of time. In that context Petrosian, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov and Anand are the best that we have seen in past 50+ years, in my book.|
|Nov-02-13|| ||LovingFischer: madly love this game|
|Nov-02-13|| ||diceman: <AylerKupp: No matter how good you are, overcoming a 0-2 start in such strong company is very hard.>|
Unless its a World Championship. :)
<Fischer was able to do that in the second half of the 2nd Piatagorsky Tournament in 1966 after a poor start (after 8/18 rounds he was tied for last and 2.5 points behind Spassky) but he wasn't able to do that in 1959.>
Its almost like adults know more than kids.
|Nov-02-13|| ||AylerKupp: <diceman> I'll try to remember that and not get discouraged the next time I play in a World Championship match. :-) Because, for me, a 0-2 start would be a certainty, as well as a 0-3, 0-4, ... oh well, never mind.|
|Nov-10-13|| ||drleper: Brilliant pun!|
|Nov-10-13|| ||harrylime: Fischer was the top ranked player in the 60's and only the corrupt political shenanighans in world chess at the time kept him from being world champion earlier, than when he eventually wrested it from the ice cold iron soviet grip.|
Fischer was ridiculously above every other player back then ratings wise..
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 22 OF 22 ·
Now on DVD