< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 28 OF 29 ·
|Mar-06-16|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Ulhumbrus,
I always thought the general opinion was Fischer supplied the memories, background and analysis in M60MG's, Evans put it into text which was then passed by Fischer.
We do have an example of Fischer's prose, albeit written whilst still recovering from a stressful experience.
Interesting is the last paragraph where Fischer himself admits ' I do not pretend that this is literature.' perhaps hinting that in his eyes it could do with a re-write.
Lombardy's book of the '72 match with a 'warts an all' exposure would have been well received.
Najdorf also wrote 'My Life and Games' which is a recommended good read full of anecdotes and some cracking good games.
|Mar-06-16|| ||TheFocus: I have read a lot of Bobby's writings and do not agree that he was a poor writer. For people to say that Evans was the real force behind <MSMG> is stupid.|
Fischer spoke quite well and I think he was a good writer. He wasn't a college professor, he was a chess player.
|Mar-06-16|| ||Howard: Agreed! Fischer supplied the analysis to that book, as well as the personal memories, such as relating how Geller "looked happy" when making an opening novelty in their 1961 Bled encounter.|
The introductions to the games, however, were definitely written by Evans, as he repeatedly stated.
|Mar-06-16|| ||Ron: Concerning Fine's book about the Fischer-Spassky match: I read the book around twenty years ago, got it from the public library. It turned out to be a smart move that I didn't spend money on it. I don't recall any insightful chess analysis from the book. If I recall correctly, there was psycho-analytic bull @#$% in it, for example calling Fischer a depressive and calling chess players repressed homosexuals.|
|Mar-10-16|| ||Hunter16: Even as primarily an e4 player,Fischer played the QGD pretty well|
|Mar-10-16|| ||Howard: Presumably, you mean he played the QGD well as Black. With White, you can't really say that because how many games did he play it with White? Only 3-4, by my count.|
|Mar-16-16|| ||Hunter16: Yup,I meant he played AGAINST it pretty well.|
|Mar-18-16|| ||The Kings Domain: Adroit maneuvering by Fischer. One can't help but admire the effiecient simplicity of his moves here.|
|Mar-18-16|| ||diceman: <Ulhumbrus:
Someone once told me another reason: Fischer was not educated and unable to write a book, and it was actually Larry Evans who wrote the manuscript for the book <My 60 memorable games>.>
The original working title for the book was:
"60 Memorable Game Introductions"
|Mar-20-16|| ||t6chess: A masterpiece of the highest skill Fischer|
|Apr-30-16|| ||Dragi: pure f.....g perfection|
|May-17-16|| ||WorstPlayerEver: "I just had a look at it in Fritz. It prefers moves like c4, dxe4, or Rc6, but I don't believe in any of them. (the problems with them go beyond the program's horizon). Nf6 seems most in the spirit of the variation."|
You "just" had to look?!
That is weird; we all know that you are the best chess player in the universe who ever lived and.. the best chess player who will ever live!
Be more careful with your punctuation though; flawlessness seems to be your thing.
|May-17-16|| ||WorstPlayerEver: @Ron
Yeah, Fine was full of crap about Fischer, just like any other Freudian $lipper who committed psychological fraud with Fischer's case; to make a few bucks out of it, because it seems these $lippers couldn't even hold up their pants financially when they had to write something that would make any sense in Fischer's case, whatsoever.
Obviously, Fischer looked right through Fine when he said that "Fine had tricked him". So called to be 'concerned' about getting Fischer "back to the schoolyard.." LMAO
And then again.. there's Frank Brady.., and many others, "who 'knew' Fischer..", ikr ;)
I don't even want to start about the guy who also took part in a 'post-mortem psychoanalysis' of Robert James Fischer. Although they called it a 'psychological autopsy'. Of course; during his life Fischer probably would've punched such silly guys in the face. Psychologically spoken ;)
|May-17-16|| ||RookFile: Can you imagine? Bobby Fischer writes a chess book in 1980. Gligoric helps him and Fischer trusts Gligoric. Any chessplayer in the civilized world would buy it. Why he didn't do it boggles the mind.|
|May-17-16|| ||Howard: It also "boggles" the mind as to why Fischer turned down literally millions of dollars worth of book deals, speaking engagements, product endorsements, and exhibitions (not to mention tournament prize money) immediately after he became world champion.|
|May-17-16|| ||Petrosianic: <WorstPlayerEver>: <You "just" had to look?! That is weird; we all know that you are the best chess player in the universe who ever lived and.>|
Whoever told you that was taking advantage of your gullibility, I'm afraid. But they were playing a mean trick on you if they encouraged you not to check your analysis with available tools.
|May-17-16|| ||Petrosianic: <Howard: It also "boggles" the mind as to why Fischer turned down literally millions of dollars worth of book deals, speaking engagements, product endorsements, and exhibitions (not to mention tournament prize money) immediately after he became world champion.>|
He probably regretted it after living on the streets for years, and eventually having to play a match he didn't want to play, long after his prime, just to improve his standard of living. He could have cashed in 20 years earlier and still managed to avoid defending the title if he'd played it right.
|May-17-16|| ||diceman: <Petrosianic: <Howard: It also "boggles" the mind as to why Fischer turned down literally millions of dollars worth of book deals, speaking engagements, product endorsements, and exhibitions (not to mention tournament prize money) immediately after he became world champion.>|
He probably regretted it after living on the streets for years, and eventually having to play a match he didn't want to play, long after his prime, just to improve his standard of living. He could have cashed in 20 years earlier and still managed to avoid defending the title if he'd played it right.>
The Fischer hater, goes into mind reading mode.
<and eventually having to play a match he didn't want to play>
If Fischer didn't want to play, he wouldn't have.
Hanging out in Iceland doesn't require millions.
|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"!!!!)
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 28 OF 29 ·