< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Nov-11-15|| ||MissScarlett: A novelty on move 71? Bob was right again!|
|Nov-11-15|| ||nolanryan: I was lucky enough to have once had dinner with a very well-known player, fairly close to Fischer, who also suggested exactly what offramp said|
|Nov-11-15|| ||Pawn Slayer: I always find it hysterical when people say things to the effect that "Fischer only wins because people play badly against him".|
People played as well against him as he allowed them to. In his pomp, he was like a machine which chewed up and spat other GMs out. Most were intimidated by him, made errors and capitulated. Only a few (Geller, Gligoric, Keres and Tal in his early years) were able to play him with any confidence.
He may have been a jerk of the highest calibre, but he was by miles the finest player of his generation and if anyone thinks that he would have been uncompetitive in the modern age, with the benefit of modern theory and computer analysis to help him, you're wrong.
|Nov-11-15|| ||Petrosianic: So, Bxh2 wasn't a mistake, Spassky simply didn't allow Fischer to play any better.|
Wait a minute, that doesn't make any sense!?
|Nov-11-15|| ||diceman: <Sally Simpson:
Spassky should have taken on Fischer with the then up to date theory instead on playing openings that were fashionable in the 1960's...>
This is complete nonsense which underestimates great players, and overestimates theory.
The irony is we have Carlsen who is noted for avoiding theory, and getting lackluster positions into the middle game, and outplaying folks later.
The funny thing is I've always thought "todays" chess "looks old"
with the new popularity in slavs, queen's gambits and Berlins.
...as far as "old chess" Fischer did remind one of Morphy in the wing-gambit game.
|Nov-11-15|| ||HSOL: Given Spassky was never known for being a workhorse and he didn't play at the top level since several years (although he did compete in the World Cup a few years previously), I very much doubt his opening preparation @ in-vogue openings really were that great.|
Add to that, he was handsomely paid for the match and those who put up the money by all likelihood preferred vintage Fischer meaning Fischer winning just as he used to in his heyday.
Not saying it was rigged by any means, but Spassky gave them the match they wanted.
|Nov-11-15|| ||sreeskamp: offramp:
I agree it is all about image.
You can call it fishy. But you could also say two old friends playing some exhibition games in order to generate their retirement income according to an agreed upon allocation
|Nov-11-15|| ||RookFile: It used to be that folks looked down their noses at players like Lasker and Tarrasch. "The Ruy Lopez Berlin Defense! How quaint!". Then the opening comes back into fashion and all of a sudden those players start to look better and better to us.|
|Nov-11-15|| ||celtrusco: A vintage game.
Two historical geniuses.
|Nov-11-15|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi diceman,
You make it look like I said that.
The missing bit is:
"In 'Bobby Fischer the $5,000,000 Comeback' by Davies, Pein & Levitt a few times they mention Spassky should have taken on Fischer..."
I did not say I agreed with it. This game kind of unfolds that theory with the TN coming at move 71...OOPS (a typo)...move 17.
I'm not too sure about Spassky taking it easy on Fischer to keep him at the board so he would get paid.
This one stems from this game.
Spassky vs Fischer, 1992
...and comments made by Kasparov in his Great Predecessors series.
Spassky had just won two games on the bounce and if he had won this one Kasparov speculates that Spassky would lose his opponent.
Adding Spassky made some "obvious technical mistakes."
What is an "obvious technical mistake?"
|Nov-11-15|| ||pazzed paun: Yes offramp hit the nail on the head
Larry Evans told me that Boris agreed not to use up to date openings nothing more current than 1972
|Nov-11-15|| ||diceman: <Sally Simpson: Hi diceman,
You make it look like I said that.>
Yes, I wasn't paying attention.
...my comments were directed at their statements.
|Nov-12-15|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Diceman,
I'm OK it's just you know what the lads & lassies here are like. They never read the whole thread just the last few posts.
I'm not sure if Fischer after going 3-0 down would have walked away.
He would have forfeited a large chunk of money which at the time he needed.
He's been 3-0 down to Spassky before. In 1972 after the default in Game 2 due to the match tied rule Spassky would have won the match so in effect Fischer was 3-0 down. Though of course apart from flashes of brilliance the Fischer of '92 was not the Fischer of '72.
The Spassky book:
(Neither of course was Spassky.)
But if Fischer had walked away Spassky wins the match and the money, Fischer gets nothing. So any talk of Spassky playing 'obvious technical mistakes' on purpose to keep the match going is a bit bizarre.
Spassky has said that he has written a book on his match v Fisher he may mention the '92 match and put this rumour to bed or may even endorse it.
|Nov-12-15|| ||kevin86: Fischer walloped spassky in the rematch!|
|Nov-12-15|| ||Petrosianic: You really think that this whole ongoing discussion is being held by people who won't know the result of a 23 year old match? That doesn't seem likely, does it?|
|Nov-12-15|| ||MissScarlett: <Hey <Sally> you know Fischer did not end up getting one cent for this match?>|
I think he got paid in Swiss francs.
|Nov-12-15|| ||MissScarlett: <In an lengthy interview with Morgunbladid, Reykjavik, last Saturday July 29th, chess legend and world champion Bobby Fischer revealed that he has been in a long and difficult dispute with the Union Bank of Switzerland, one of the world’s major banks, since he received in April 2005, soon after his arrival to Iceland from a detention in Japan, a notification that the UBS intended to terminate his account, which he had held with the bank for over 13 years since 1992.|
The UBS asked Mr. Fischer for his banking details in Iceland in order to transfer all his assets and deposits with the bank, around three million dollars, notifying him at the same time about its unilateral decision to terminate all business relationship with him, without stating any reason or clarification for the action. Then, against Mr. Fischer's repeated protests, the UBS, after some extension of the deadline, went ahead in August 2005 and transferred all his funds to the Landsbanki in Reykjavik. The UBS even liquidated all of Fischer's gold coins, from his match with Boris Spassky in Sveti Stefan in 1992, and other investments, without his prior approval at a time when the rate for gold was very unfavorable.>
<Reportedly, when Bobby Fischer was diagnosed with kidney disease in 2007, he did not fully appreciate what would happen. He refused the painful treatments prescribed for him and died within a few months, without even a simple will.
This set the stage for a lengthy battle — one that is still far from finished. The three-sided match pits his Japanese wife/girlfriend, Miyoko Watai, vs. a Filipino woman who says he fathered her daughter, Marilyn Young, vs. two estranged nephews. Reportedly, Fischer did not like that their parents practiced Judaism.
So how much are they maneuvering for? Reportedly, somewhere between one to two million dollars. There’s a very big “but” though.>
|Nov-12-15|| ||Petrosianic: <Fishy>: <Well he got none of those either, he died broke. But to his dying day he proclaimed with the most righteous belief that HE WAS WC. And he believed it.>|
Not sure where you're getting your facts from, but he got enough money to interest the IRS, and announced in 1997 that he didn't play "the old chess" any more. There's no record of him claiming to be world champion after that, and when one announces their retirement, you'd assume they're not claiming to hold an active position any longer.
|Nov-12-15|| ||TheFocus: Fischer did not die broke.
The 1992 match left him independently wealthy (if you call 3 million wealthy). I don't. I would call it rich.
As my girlfriend tells me: "We're rich, Nik, but we'll never be wealthy."
|Nov-12-15|| ||WannaBe: Thought your name's <TheFocus>, who's Nik??|
|Nov-12-15|| ||TheFocus: That what the girlfriend calls me. I don't know where she gets these crazy ideas from.|
And we got our money the old-fashioned way.
We inherited it!!
|Nov-13-15|| ||diceman: <TheFocus: That what the girlfriend calls me. I don't know where she gets these crazy ideas from.
And we got our money the old-fashioned way.
We inherited it!!>
Focus has a small fortune.
...because he lost most of a large one!
|Nov-13-15|| ||Howard: There seems to be a myth going on, as illustrated by Fishy's comment, that the remaining games after Game 2, were played in an isolated room...|
...the truth is that ONLY the third game was played in a private room---period.
|Nov-13-15|| ||diceman: <Fishy:
Even in his years of triumph, Mr. Fischer was volatile and difficult. During the 1972 world championship match against Mr. Spassky, Mr. Fischer’s petulance, even loutishness, was the stuff of front page headlines all over the globe. Incensed by the conditions under which the match was to be played — he was particularly offended by the whir of television cameras in the hall — he lost the first game, then forfeited the second and insisted that the remaining games be played in an isolated room.>
...these "insider secrets" were revealed in:
"My 61 Memorable Games."
|Nov-13-15|| ||TheFocus: <diceman> <Focus has a small fortune.
...because he lost most of a large one!>
Sure nuff. I asked a man once, "How do you make a small fortune here in Hawai'i?"
He replied, "Start with a large one."
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·