< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Aug-14-13|| ||Everett: De rien <Parisattack>!|
|Aug-15-13|| ||TheFocus: I will have to decide which would come first, Geller or Breyer?|
But let's finish Fischer book.
<parisattack> I will be sending you an advance copy by the end of the year.
|Aug-15-13|| ||parisattack: <TheFocus: I will have to decide which would come first, Geller or Breyer?>|
<TheFocus> You have two hands so what's the issue here!? :)
<parisattack> I will be sending you an advance copy by the end of the year.>
|Oct-16-15|| ||Mating Net: The double zwichenschach, wow. It's plenty hard to spot one good in between move, but to do it on consecutive moves is mighty good, but that's what you have to do to beat Fischer.|
|Aug-20-16|| ||maseras: 37...Bh6?
A crappy move.
|Aug-20-16|| ||RookFile: Great game by Geller. The play was way over my head, that's for sure. Bobby played some tough defense, other players would have cracked a lot sooner.|
|Aug-20-16|| ||ughaibu: "Bobby played some tough defense, other players would have cracked a lot sooner"|
Do you never suspect, even after reading all the first person testimony, that it was nothing more than the fact that Fischer's life was so empty that he had nothing better to do than drag out games that anybody else would resign?
|Aug-20-16|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: <ughaibu>--Having a fighting temperament does not necessarily mean that a player has an empty life. Emmanuel Lasker, who led about as full a life an any World Champion, was also known for his fighting qualities and his tendency to play on in hopelessly lost positions.|
Do you never suspect, in your contrarian zeal to upend the Fischer-worshipers on this site, that you go too far in trying to portray Fischer's few positive attributes in as negative a manner as possible?
|Aug-20-16|| ||ughaibu: <Having a fighting temperament does not necessarily mean that a player has an empty life.>|
<your contrarian zeal to upend the Fischer-worshipers on this site>
Consider this; by referring to Fischer as "Bobby", these posters show a lack of respect for him.
|Aug-20-16|| ||RookFile: When should Fischer have resigned this?|
|Aug-20-16|| ||ughaibu: RookFile: if my playing strength were that of Fischer's, then you could trust my answer. You're out of luck, any answer I offer will be unreliable.|
|Aug-25-16|| ||RookFile: I'm pretty sure the last thing in the world Fischer would want to do is sit there and watch Geller gloat over yet another winning position if he didn't feel he had at least a shot of getting a draw.|
But then I remembered that Fischer and Geller would have been hundreds of miles apart. This was a tournament Fischer played remotely. The games took hours longer than they normally did. Maybe he hoped Geller would get tired and make a mistake.
|Nov-06-16|| ||clement41: Nice simplification starting 54 Qe5+! then it is all linear and white must play the killer blow 57 f4! to stop ...g5, when the king march is a piece of cake. If instead 57 Kh3?? g5 this is a draw|
|Nov-06-16|| ||perfidious: <RookFile....This was a tournament Fischer played remotely. The games took hours longer than they normally did....>|
Levy, in his work <How Fischer Plays Chess>, noted that the typical five-hour session became roughly seven hours long--lot of extra strain for even the young man Fischer was then.
While Levy was often rather less than objective in his book, he noted that Fischer would likely have won the event by a fair margin had he been present. At all events, we should probably not have seen the Alekhine's make its debut in his praxis in V Ciocaltea vs Fischer, 1965.
|Nov-06-16|| ||keypusher: Here's a dumb question: why did teletype take so long? I'm sorry to say I have no idea how fast a signal would travel by electric wire -- can anyone tell me?|
|Nov-06-16|| ||perfidious: <keypusher> No idea, either.|
I have wondered why Fischer was not allowed to travel to Havana for this event, but the American side were permitted to make the trip the next year for the Olympiad.
|Nov-06-16|| ||AylerKupp: <perfidious> A lot can happen in a year, just witness recent changes in US – Cuba relationships, but I don't really know what might have happened in that time frame. Plus, in 1966 the team represented the United States and in 1965 Fischer represented only himself. Maybe that made a difference but, again, I don't know.|
|Nov-06-16|| ||AylerKupp: <perfidious> I forgot that I had a copy of "Bobby Fischer – Profile of a Prodigy" by Frank Brady. In it he states that Larry Evans did not have any trouble going to Cuba to participate in the 1964 Capablanca Memorial, but this was after it was disclosed that he was to cover the tournament journalistically. Apparently the US State Department often permitted newsmen and correspondents to Cuba at that time while it denied entrance to ordinary citizens.|
Fischer was a regular contributor to Chess Life and had been an editor of the American Chess Quarterly, and he had made arrangements to do an article on this tournament for the Saturday Review, a widely distributed US magazine published between 1920 and 1982. So Fischer's credentials as a chess journalist would have seemed to be solid. But the US State Department refused to recognize him as a legitimate journalist and therefore denied him the opportunity to travel to Havana in 1965. And, no, Hillary Clinton was not part of the US State Department in 1965!
|Nov-06-16|| ||AylerKupp: <keypusher> I don't know the answer either but the signal transmission speed was probably not an issue. In 1965 the state of the art teletype was the ASR-33 which, if memory serves me right (I used one at the beginning of my software career) was electromechanical and could transmit 10 characters per second. It used a 7-bit ASCII code to which were added a start bit and a stop bit. But that would still not explain the long time that it took to transmit the moves.|
In "Bobby Fischer – Profile of a Prodigy" Frank Brady describes the move transmission process as follows:
Fischer sat in a playing room with the board, a chess clock, a referee (a different referee was used for each round, and Frank Brady was the referee for the second round), and a bust of Philidor, perched on top of a display case of chess sets. I personally don't think that the bust of Philidor gave Fischer any advice, but again I don't know. :-)
There was a separate sending room where the teletype was located (the ASR-33 is a noisy beast and I doubt that Fischer would have tolerated its noise). After Fischer had made his move, a courier would deliver it from the playing room to the sending room (no indication of how far apart the two rooms were) to be punched out by the teletype operator using words like the following:
"HELLO HAVANA THIS IS AMERICA CALLING. WHITE'S FIRST MOVE PAWN TO KING FOUR. TIME THREE THIRTY. STANDING BY FOR CONFIRMATION."
Needless to say, this would take longer than transmitting "1.P-K4"! Brady does not describe what form the confirmation took but presumably it would be something similar; e.g. "HELLO AMERICA, THIS IS HAVANA CALLING. CONFIRMING WHITE'S FIRST MOVE PAWN TO KING FOUR AND TIME THREE THIRTY." Of course, America's transmission most likely would first have to translated to Spanish and the likely Spanish-speaking teletype operator would then transmit the confirmation, in Spanish, to the US. Then a Spanish to English translation would have to be made so that the US referee would know that the move was correctly received. If there was a hiccup along the way, then the process would have to be repeated. And after the confirmation was made, a courier would presumably have to go to the tournament game room and inform a proxy of the move which the proxy would make on Fischer's opponent's board.
All this assumes no equipment breakdowns and the availability of dedicated teletypes on both sides. But while enough teletypes would likely have been available in the US to dedicate one to a chess tournament, this might not have been the case in Cuba where teletypes might have been in short supply and might need to have been shared between multiple users. If that was the case, then the US side might have had to wait for the Cuban side to indicate that it was ready to receive Fischer's move which might have been made a half-hour or more earlier. This would all then take even more time. But that is just conjecture on my part.
|Nov-07-16|| ||Everett: <While Levy was often rather less than objective in his book, he noted that Fischer would likely have won the event by a fair margin had he been present.>|
Ah, yes, the whole "showing up" thing. At least this one was not the American's fault.
|Nov-07-16|| ||Petrosianic: <Everett>: <Ah, yes, the whole "showing up" thing. At least this one was not the American's fault.>|
Not his fault, to be sure, not really an excuse for not finishing first either, as it affected both players equally.
Thanks to the fanboys, Fischer's woulda-coulda-shoulda victories outnumber his actual ones. Riverbeast once told me that Fischer was the best player in the world from 1962-1981, basically multiplying his 22 month title reign by more than a factor of 10. At one point, Rookfile seemed to be working on a master list of excuses for all Fischer defeats in the database.
When you point that stuff out, they imagine you're knocking Fischer. They can't conceive of themselves as the target.
|Nov-08-16|| ||Howard: Fischer was the best in the world in 1962?! That's just plain ridiculous, and I'm not basing that assumption Curacao 1962.|
|Nov-08-16|| ||Petrosianic: <Howard: Fischer was the best in the world in 1962?! That's just plain ridiculous, and I'm not basing that assumption Curacao 1962.>|
Well, Riverbeast was extremely weaselly on the question (and indeed on most questions). If absolutely pushed to the wall with the facts about Fischer's play and results at that time, he would admit that he failed in 1962 because he wasn't the best yet. But then the moment he thought your back was turned, he'd turn around and start saying the exact opposite. It got so confusing that I don't think he could keep his own stories straight (He told me that 1962-1981 business only about a week or so after admitting the exact opposite).
I eventually had to killfile him because although he was smart, I couldn't believe a word he said. He simply couldn't tell the truth even when caught. A good example. For a long time, his source for the idea of a drawing pact at Curacao was (you'll never believe this!)... Brad Darrach! Of course, that's funny because anything Darrach printed he got <from> Fischer, he wasn't an indepedent corroborator. But Riverbeast could never be bothered to quote exactly what Darrach said. So I looked it up myself. In fact, Darrach never said any such thing. He DID repeat Fischer's claim about Korchnoi throwing games, but didn't say anything about draws.
So that's it. He was proven wrong, right? Nope. Even when confronted with the proof that the quote in question didn't say what he claimed it did, RB continued to maintain that Darrach had said it... Somewhere or other, goodness knows where. And he felt no need to show where it was because it was all so obvious. How do you argue with a guy like that?
I got the feeling he was a guy used to BSing his way through face to face conversations with diversion and razzle-dazzle, and had never quite adapted to online conversations where it was harder to sidetrack people, and what you said stayed there as a permanent record.
|Sep-07-17|| ||kbob: back to the blunder 37. ... B-h6? I think it is the kind of blunder only a genius could make. The rest of us, well, I should speak only for myself, would be so paranoid about the long black diagonal that I would probably not dare to abandon it even if I had mate in one!|
|Jun-27-18|| ||OhioChessFan: "Efim-No Static At All"|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·