< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 29 OF 29 ·
|May-17-16|| ||AylerKupp: <Howard> You forgot to mention the reputed $ 5 M prize fund guaranteed by the Phillipines for the 1975 WCC match against Karpov. The winner of that match would get 5/8 of the total ($ 3.125 M) and the loser 3/8 of the total ($ 1.875 M) (http://www.chessmaniac.com/1975-wor..., although the prize calculations are wrong). So Fischer would have been guaranteed $ 1.875 M, and most likely would have won $ 3.125 M.|
But with Fischer it was not always about the money. He believed that professional chess players should be better compensated for their efforts but apparently to him this meant <all> professional chess players, not just himself. It's a tragedy for the chess world that he didnít seem to understand that if he increased the compensation for his efforts, then eventually the compensation for other professional players would also have been increased as a result of his actions.
|May-17-16|| ||Petrosianic: <But with Fischer it was not always about the money. He believed that professional chess players should be better compensated for their efforts but apparently to him this meant <all> professional chess players, not just himself.>|
Fischer wasn't greedy in the usual sense of the word. He didn't care about money for its purchasing power (at least not until after he'd been living on the streets for years and gotten sick of it). He cared about it as a Certificate of Status. "I got this much" means "I'm this important." Recall his Boxer Envy, and wondering why chess players didn't get as much. Of course, in reality "importance" is measured by how much money you bring IN, which is measured by how many people you make happy. You could do the greatest thing in the world, but if it made nobody happy enough to want to pay to see it, you'd make nothing.
Fischer did very little for "The game" when it didn't benefit him personally. His interests usually came ahead of others. Case in point, his demand for a 22 round US Championship. Sure, it would have been nice, but the others all had jobs and couldn't get that much time away from them. It wasn't an issue for Fischer so it didn't matter at all.
He could have done enormous good for the game simply by touring and lecturing after he won the title. It didn't benefit him, so he didn't. But he did do an enormous amount of good for the game despite himself.
|May-17-16|| ||Albion 1959: To Granny O Doul. I also have a copy of Brad Darrasch's Bobby Fischer vs the Rest of the World. (Stein and Day 1974. Not really a chess book, more of a chronicle that prefaces the run up to the Spassky match and what Fischer did just after becoming champion, before he went into self-imposed exile. I enjoyed reading it, though I doubt whether too many people have ever read it here in The UK:|
|Jun-11-16|| ||N.O.F. NAJDORF: I wonder why Fischer did not play 37 Rf7.
E.g. 37 Rf7 Rxf7
38 exf7 Qc8
|Jun-11-16|| ||DWINS: <N.O.F. NAJDORF: I wonder why Fischer did not play 37 Rf7.> This has been mentioned before quite a few times, and while it does win, Fischer's choice 37.Qe4 is considerably stronger. Stockfish 7 evaluates 37.Qe4 as 22.75, while 37.Rf7 is evaluated as 8.34|
|Jun-12-16|| ||RookFile: I think Fischer knew he was winning and just wanted to make sure Spassky wouldn't have any counterplay at all.|
|Jun-12-16|| ||ZonszeinP: I think this game is overrated!
Spassky was not even ready and played weakly in the opening
(Wasn't even ready for an improvement invented by Geller.....his own "second"!!!!)
|Jun-12-16|| ||diceman: <Petrosianic: <But with Fischer it was not always about the money. He believed that professional chess players should be better compensated for their efforts but apparently to him this meant <all> professional chess players, not just himself.>|
Fischer wasn't greedy in the usual sense of the word. He didn't care about money for its purchasing power (at least not until after he'd been living on the streets for years and gotten sick of it). He cared about it as a Certificate of Status. "I got this much" means "I'm this important." >
A Fischer hater adds "mind-reading" to his skillset.
|Jun-13-16|| ||Howard: Arguably, this game has probably been a bit, indeed, overrated. For one thing, it didn't even make the top-five
for the Informant for the second half of 1972.
It at least had some symbolic significance---it marked the first time that Fischer pulled ahead in the match !
|Jun-13-16|| ||ZonszeinP: I believe it was Spassky's first defeat ever with the Tartakower system|
|Jun-13-16|| ||keypusher: <ZonszeinP>
Portisch vs Spassky, 1967
|Jun-13-16|| ||ZonszeinP: Thankyou
I read something at the time written by Gligoric (not sure) on Spassky losing this for the first time and believed it 100%
Great game by Portisch
|Jul-09-16|| ||offramp: <Dragi: pure f.....g perfection.> I don't think it is perfect.|
|Jul-09-16|| ||diceman: <Howard: Arguably, this game has probably been a bit, indeed, overrated. For one thing, it didn't even make the top-five for the Informant for the second half of 1972. |
It at least had some symbolic significance---it marked the first time that Fischer pulled ahead in the match !>
Supposedly, after he resigned, Spassky
clapped along with the audience.
...doubt there were many games where he did that.
|Nov-05-16|| ||SimplicityRichard: Fischer's Numero Uno positional masterpiece finalised by an elegant exchange sacrifice. Chess at its best this is. No wonder Spassky stood up and clapped.#|
|Nov-05-16|| ||Howard: Oh, Spassky did indeed stand at the end of Game 6 in order to join in the applause. This was mentioned, in fact, in Chess World Championship 1972.|
Not only that, the NYT ran a front-page article in November, 1981 about the conclusion of Karpov-Korchnoi 1981, and the story also mentioned that occurrence.
|Nov-21-16|| ||The Kings Domain: One can see why Spassky stood up and clapped. The sheer perfection of Fischer's moves is of a beauty unsurpassed in the game.|
|Dec-02-16|| ||Grbasowski: Fischer, a bez e4!|
|Dec-02-16|| ||Grbasowski: Why not 28.Rf7?!|
|Dec-02-16|| ||keypusher: <Grbasowski: Why not 28.Rf7?!>|
|Dec-02-16|| ||Howard: Reuben Fine overlooks 28...Ng5 in that atrocious "book" he wrote about the match!|
|Dec-07-16|| ||N.O.F. NAJDORF: According to Larry Evans, Fischer was more concerned about the extent to which he would be exploited by any agent who proposed a deal than interested in how much he himself would earn.|
It was his paranoia that prevented him from capitalising on his success.
|Dec-07-16|| ||RookFile: Did Fine overlook 28...Ng5? That's incredible. When he knew what he was doing, he would have seen that in a speed game. Obviously, he was just trying to cash in with his book based upon his ability to market his past accomplishments.|
|Dec-19-17|| ||Ulhumbrus: Why did Spassky lose? Tal or Fine can give this or that alternative to this or that move but can one suggest a reason for the loss?|
To provide one answer to the question, consider what happens after Spassky replies to the thrust 20 e4 with 20...d4.
When White plays e5 and f5 Gligorich's comments suggest that White's moves are very strong as well as very simple and that Spassky can do little to stop the coming mating attack.
However if White has the plan of e5 and f5 does Black also not have the plan of ...c4?
One difference is that f5 attacks the black king whereas ...c4, if Black can arrage it at all, attacks merely the c file.
However that is not all.
When White plays e5 and f5 the advance of his king side pawns will normally expose him to a counter-attack. White will be more exposed to a black bishop which takes part in such a counter-attack than White will be exposed to a black knight which takes part in such a counter-attack.
White has however removed Black's bishop by the exchange 17 Nxe6.
We can say that by the exchange 17 Nxe6 White has reduced his exposure to Black's counterattack after White advances his king side pawns by e5 and f5.
Moreover White's bishop can contribute to the attack if it finds a good diagonal such as the diagonal a2-g8 or the diagonal b1-h7.
Spassky's advance 20...d4 concedes both of these fine diagonals to White's bishop.
This suggests that when Spassky played 20...d4? he did not understand that the meaning of the exchange of the exchange 17 Nxe6 was to make the pawn advance e5 and f5 less effectual for Black and more effectual for White.
This brings to mind a comment by Bent Larsen who said that in Reykjavik there were some wonderful games which the public remembered but that these were partly the result of Spassky playing nowhere near his best. I would guess presently that it would not be wise to assume that Spassky at his best would fail to foresee the consequences of the advance ...d4 following the exchange 17 Nxe6.
|Jan-31-18|| ||yurikvelo: https://pastebin.com/4ENFPhuk
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 29 OF 29 ·