|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 24 OF 33 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Sep-22-14
 | | offramp: <SteinitzLives: GM Dzhindzhihaschvilli (sp?) in a lecture about two years ago claimed to have played Fischer in some secret speed chess games in the early-mid 1980s one night.
His opinion is that until the late 70's Fischer was probably unbeatable in a match, (despite not playing any real tournament chess since 1972). He also opined, that by the early-mid 80's when Dzhinzhi claims to have defeated Fischer in about half of the speed games they played, Fischer could have been beaten by more than just Karpov or Kasparov in a match by then. Dzhindzhi claimed that Fischer seemed really shocked and somewhat angered by his speed chess score with him. An interesting tidbit, sadly impossible to prove or disprove.> That's very interesting. Fischer probably thought it was possible to keep one's chess talent preserved in a little glass case. When he came out of retirement for that yawnfest versus whatsisname in 1992 it was only so as to play the most passé and tedious chess imaginable. |
|
Sep-22-14
| | offramp: <RookFile: Fischer was also the best middlegame and endgame player in the world.> Isaac Kashdan (a very strong player) had some serious criticism of Fischer. He said,
<"In Fischer's hands, a slight theoretical advantage is as good as being a queen ahead."> He meant that in many games Fischer was unable to beat weaker players <even though Fischer was the equivalent of being a queen ahead.> That's a major criticism. |
|
| Sep-22-14 | | SpiritedReposte: Actually, he meant Fischer was so good if he got a slight edge he would win. And win he did. |
|
| Sep-22-14 | | SpiritedReposte: "What's his name" is Boris Spassky. A former world champion maybe you've heard of him? Hardly the best player in 1992, but he deserves more respect than that. |
|
Sep-22-14
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi Spirit.
Obviously a 'joke'. You say Fischer and Spassky automatically follows. It's like Lennon & McCartney, Morcambe & Wise, Tal & Brilliancy. He is also fully entitled to opinion that the 1992 between whats-his-name and Spassky was a yawn fest. I was just glad that they both got some good money out of it in return for '72 match and of course chess was back in the headlines. And (IMHO) there was some good chess played. There is that game... Fischer vs Spassky, 1992
...which just dipped out by a few votes for being the best game of Infomator Vol 55 (it came second.....political voting? Who knows?). |
|
Sep-22-14
| | Sally Simpson: And of course I forgot all about what I was originally going to post. I was one of those - and there must have been 100's who had this position on their boards when looking at the game from a newspaper. 
click for larger view5.Bg5 (EH!)
Because I/we were automatically playing or mis-reading 1.c4 as 1.e4. What happened to 1.e4 'Best by Test'. (did it need a rest). |
|
| Sep-22-14 | | Petrosianic: <What happened to 1.e4 'Best by Test'.> It was a meaningless comment. It makes no sense to say that one move tested better than others, when you've only tested the one. "Best by Test" was another "ad homonym" argument (a fallacy name that I coined the other day, not to be confused with ad hominem, in which one argues that a statement must be true because it rhymes). |
|
| Sep-23-14 | | SpiritedReposte: <Sally> I realize people can think whatever they want, and I can see why people dislike Fischer, but relegating Boris freaking Spassky to "what's his name" is absurd! Maybe the sarcasm was a bit strong for me to see through text. |
|
Sep-23-14
| | offramp: <SpiritedReposte: Actually, he meant Fischer was so good if he got a slight edge he would win. And win he did.> According to Kashdan in Fischer vs E Peinado, 1970, against an amateur, Fischer is rather more than a whole queen ahead. Yet he only draws! Drawing while a whole queen ahead is not the sign of a good player. |
|
Sep-23-14
| | offramp: I should add that I think Fischer was an all-time great. I don't agree with Kashdan's criticism. |
|
| Sep-23-14 | | Petrosianic: Yes, but it looks like Kashdan didn't say that, you did. In your first paragraph, you report a factual statement (Kashdan says that Fischer didn't win the game, though a queen ahead). In your second statement, you paraphrase the factual statement to mean "Fischer is not a good player". Kashdan would not have said that, least of all over a simul game (!). It looks like your paraphrase is inaccurate. Furthermore, are you sure you have the right game? Fischer is a couple of pawns ahead, but never a whole queen. |
|
Sep-23-14
| | offramp: Kashdan said that for Fischer a <slight advantage> was as good so being a queen ahead. It is so annoying to have to repeat that. Has reading comprehension gone so far down? Fischer had much more than a slight advantage. So by Kashdan's logic Fischer was more than a queen ahead. But he only drew. |
|
| Sep-23-14 | | Petrosianic: You didn't have to repeat it, as that wasn't the question I asked. I'm not trying to embarrass you here, but them's the facts. Reading comprehension is important, but being able to write coherently is important too. Referring to Kashdan's comment as a "criticism" is where you muddied the waters. Perhaps you should have said "critique". |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | SpiritedReposte: I believe Serwain said Kasparov was like a "1000 eyed monster who can see everything at the chessboard" or something to that effect. But there was that game that one time Kasparov lost (Gasp!) So even though he had 1000 eyes he couldn't win. He should win every game with 1000 eyes. What a criticism from Seirwan! |
|
Sep-25-14
 | | HeMateMe: "Best by test" was perhaps worked out by Fischer in his head, by analyzing a few thousand games. I'd say he did his homework. |
|
Sep-25-14
| | HeMateMe: black seems to be strategically lost by move 30, his pieces are all tied down. |
|
| Nov-25-14 | | yurikvelo: http://pastebin.com/rXwSvmec
this game Stockfish multiPV analysis |
|
| Dec-24-14 | | upmitvaliant8791: Brilliant game by Fischer! Perhaps unequalled. |
|
Dec-24-14
| | HeMateMe: <Yeah, but Fischer himself was one of the most booked players of his day, which accounted for a lot (although not all) of his edge.> I think that is overplayed. He studied a lot to master the game, not memorize variations. If he had a weakness in the openings, after being taken out of book, then at least a few good players would have scored TNs against him. I've never heard of anyone getting a TN past Fischer, after say, age 20. Chess is too deep to memorize everything. A guy like Fischer could defeat TNs over the board, without having been able to memorize that particular variation and it's nuances. |
|
| Mar-08-15 | | samsloan: In an interview published on chessbase Grandmaster Yuri Averbakh has this to say: "I spoke mainly about the flaws in the theoretical preparation and as an example gave the opening of the sixth game, where Spassky could have played better. I remember the look of surprise on Geller’s face when I pointed out the improvement. The most interesting thing, though, was that a few months after our meeting Geller “caught out” the Dutchman Timman using the variation I’d recommended." This apparently refers to the game Timman-Geller AVRO 1973 where Geller played 14. ..... Qb7, a pawn sacrifice but if Timman takes the pawn his king is left stranded in the middle of the board. |
|
| Jul-14-15 | | BwanaVa: I would note that the "Best by Test" gained its analytical fame by its use in Bobby's "My Sixty Memorable Games". Whether pinned by Fischer or by Evans, it is used at least once and I believe three times as the annotation after Fischer opened 1. P-K4...so I imagine there is a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek to its usage in this discussion... |
|
| Jul-25-15 | | fisayo123: From move 10 onward, virtually every move Fischer plays is the 1st recommendation of my engine. |
|
Jul-25-15
| | Sally Simpson: Hi fisayo123,
A good spot.
Things have been quiet on this thread for far too long. Lets get the rumour machine rolling. (and now doubt see it in print in yet another book on Fischer in 5 years time.) The percentage match up is far too high for a human. So Fischer did have something hidden in his chair. It was fisayo123's computer! Geller kept the TN 14...Qb7 from Spassky because he wanted to use it himself. Timman vs Geller, 1973 (It was Miles who said Kasparov was the 1,000 eyed monster.) Kasparov vs Miles, 1986
Hmmm....that last bit is a fact - what's it doing in this post. |
|
Jul-25-15
 | | AylerKupp: <<fisayo123> From move 10 onward, virtually every move Fischer plays is the 1st recommendation of my engine. Many today would cite that as irrefutable evidence that Fischer was cheating. <Sally Simpson> Happy? :-) |
|
| Jul-25-15 | | diceman: <AylerKupp:
Many today would cite that as irrefutable evidence that Fischer was cheating.>Fischer had an Apple watch that had a wireless link to the Greenblatt computer. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 24 OF 33 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 38.Rxf6