< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jan-18-08|| ||SniperOnG7: 21.b3 is the big booboo which gave Bobby the dark squares on a chess board. In addition, it emphasized the dominance of the strong Knight over the already bad Bishop.|
|Apr-30-08|| ||achieve: This is textbook dominance of space and time - taking away any chance of counterplay while at the same time closing in and overworking White's pieces, with the useless LSB and the doomed c-pawn.|
I thought the (last chance for some counterplay would be 23.Kh2 foll. by Rd2 -- Kh2 lifting the f2 PIN and the Rxg3 tactical shot... as well as having a f-pawn march for counterplay... maybe...
But following the text moves it was Cat & mouse play FIRST CLASS.
|Jan-01-09|| ||Eyal: As Dennis Monokroussos pointed out in one of his playchess lectures, this is an interesting companion-piece to Fischer vs Julio Bolbochan, 1962. That game was a classic example of winning with a good knight (on d5) vs. bad bishop (on e7) the middlegame of a Najdorf with e5. In this game, 9.Bh3 indicates that Matulovic was trying to reach the same kind of scenario - by swapping the light-square bishops and the dark-square bishop for a knight (this strategy already worked quite well for him in Matulovic vs Minic, 1965 and
Matulovic vs S Tatai, 1967); but it ended up with... Fischer winning again, this time as Black, a game with a good knight vs. bad bishop.|
|Aug-10-09|| ||technical draw: <zev22407: Fischer 13)..K-e7! is the starting poin in controlling d5.>|
I would say that 13..Kxe7 is not a d5 controlling move rather a d6 protecting move. d6 needed protection 6 moves later! How did he see such things? Mind boggling.
Now everyone here please admit you would have captured with the queen, no lying now!
|Sep-20-09|| ||Garech: I have done a youtube analysis of this game using Fritz, check out the following link if you are intersted - thanks!|
|Sep-20-09|| ||kurtrichards: I can see the beauty of the featured game but what I like most of this game is that Fischer was able to preserve all seven pawns up to the point when Matulovic gave up.|
|Jun-14-10|| ||TheaN: 13....Kxe7! was probably one of earliest examples of giving up castling as a best move (sans forced checks). Fisher's view of Nf6, Bb7/Be6, Qb6, a5 and Rhc8, getting there virtually unopposed and being superior whilst White is dealing with the immediate Nf6 and Bxh3 is wonderful.|
|Jun-14-10|| ||Petrosianic: <Now everyone here please admit you would have captured with the queen, no lying now!>|
No, probably not. We're talking about a backwards pawn on an open file. It doesn't take a slide rule to see that it needs protecting. 13...Qxe7 14. Rd1, and Black already needs to contort himself to hang onto the pawn, with something unnatural, like Rb6. Ugly stuff.
Fischer talk often reminds me of sportscasters who would gush orgasmically whenever John Elway completed a 2 yard pass up the middle. I've always felt it cheapens the big plays to treat the little ones the same way.
|Jun-15-10|| ||diceman: <Petrosianic: Fischer talk often reminds me of sportscasters who would gush orgasmically whenever John Elway completed a 2 yard pass up the middle. I've always felt it cheapens the big plays to treat the little ones the same way.>|
True. However, its only certain folks
(like Fischer) who seem to bother people.
|Jun-15-10|| ||HeMateMe: If Elway ever threw the ball two yards, the person who caught it would be in the hospital with some serious stomache trouble.|
|Sep-13-11|| ||perfidious: <Petrosianic: ....Fischer talk often reminds me of sportscasters who would gush orgasmically whenever John Elway completed a 2 yard pass up the middle. I've always felt it cheapens the big plays to treat the little ones the same way.>|
Much as I admire the brilliance of his play, not every move of Fischer's deserved an exclam.
Wade/O'Connell give 13....Kxe7!, however, though it also seems obvious to me.
|Sep-13-11|| ||Petrosianic: The thing that bugged me about Elway was that with every other quarterback, no matter how good they were, the sportscasters would sniff at them if they hadn't actually won a Superbowl. Elway is about the only exception to that. He could do no wrong in their eyes long before he won the big one.|
|Sep-13-11|| ||perfidious: <Petrosianic> Indeed; guess Dan Marino isn't much by that yardstick.|
Another thing that frosts me a little, especially as Raiders are one of my favourite teams, is how the media licks Mike Shanahan's feet because he has two rings.
Bottom line was, he didn't win anything with Elway till Terrell Davis showed up, and hasn't come close since.
|Mar-26-12|| ||screwdriver: There was Bobby Fischer, then there was everyone else. Go ahead and argue for 2nd place, but it's miles and miles behind first place. Nobody had dominated their sport or field like the great Bobby Fischer dominated chess. Tiger Woods in golf? Not even close. Roger Federer in tennis? Nope. John Elway in football? Please, he's a mere pawn. Lebron James in basketball? Right, can't win the big one. But maybe Lady Gaga if she continues to dominate the music world. Bobby Fischer and Lady Gaga! Now that's a combination.|
|Mar-26-12|| ||AylerKupp: <screwdriver> It all depends what you mean by "dominate". Fischer "dominated" chess for a relatively small period of time, starting somewhere in the middle 60's and ending after his match with Spassky in 1972. Even that is being generous since IMO it's actual results that count. I would have considered 1967 the start of his period of dominance due to his performance in the Sousse Interzonal but then he withdrew after leading comfortably. And I don't think that anyone can argue that he stopped "dominating" after 1972 given that he effectively retired from international competition and forfeited his World Championship. So Fischer was like a supernova that shone brightly for a few years, then fizzled out.|
Compare Fischer's actual performance over time with that of Lasker, Karpov, and Kasparov. All won first place in major tournaments over a much longer period of time than Fischer, and all were world champions over a much longer period also. You could also throw in Capablanca and Alekhine into the list if one looks at both their tournament performances while at their peak and the duration of their world championship reign. So in my opinion that puts Fischer no higher than 6th in the list of most "dominant" players of all time.
Could Fischer have been the most dominant player of all time? Possibly. His chess genius, commitment to the game, and work ethic were probably second to none. And he was only 29 in 1972! What he could have accomplished had he played for another 20 years! But his personal demons prevented him from establishing his dominance for a long period of time. And this would like trying to determine how dominant Capablanca could have been if his work ethic matched his talent, if Alekhine didn't become an alcoholic, or if Tal didn't have kidney ailments. We will never know.
If you want to take a look at others' opinions on this subject, and how they arrived at their opinions, see http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail..., http://www.truechess.com/web/projec..., and http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...
|Mar-27-12|| ||RookFile: It became clear Matulovic was in trouble in this game when he found it necessary to play 15. Bg2. He put the bishop on h3 with the transparent aim of swapping it for something and dominating d5. Then, he has to retreat it? That can't be good.|
|Mar-27-12|| ||RookFile: Apparently, what Matulovc was supposed to do was just 10. Nd5 rather than a4 first.|
|Mar-27-12|| ||King Death: <AylerKupp> Unfortunately the comparisons with Fischer get tricky because, like you say ultimately he didn't play for periods in his career.
There's way too much "We will never know" about him and it's a shame.|
|Mar-27-12|| ||AylerKupp: <King Death> Yes, comparisons between players of different eras is always tricky at best because of the different circumstances in which they played, and not just Fischer. How do we factor in Morphy, whose career was even shorter than Fischer's and his "dominance" over his peers even greater? And how much of a factor have the availability of strong chess engines and chess databases had in Carlsen's performance when Fischer had no access to either? And the issue of comparing players of different eras is not restricted to chess; how do we compare in basketball the "dominant" performance of Wilt Chamberlain in the 1960s with Shaquille O'Neal in the 1990s?|
Of the 3 links I provided above the article by Jeff Sonas, http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail..., most closely addresses the issue of "dominance" (the other 2 links address the issue of "greatest", "best", or "highest ranked" which are not the same thing). Below are the results of Sonas' 10 categories for "dominance" and how Fischer fits within them. Of course, any criteria that takes longevity into account will penalize Fischer.
(1) Longest time as world champion: Lasker (26.9) years. Second (maybe) was Steinitz depending on when you "formally" consider him the world champion; 8.2, 21.7, or 27.8 years. Fischer was 11th with 2.6 years.
(2) Largest rating gap between #1 and #2 player: Steinitz, 199 rating points ahead of Bird in 1876. Second was Fischer, 146 rating points ahead of Boris Spassky in 1971.
(3) Most years with #1 ranking: Lasker, 24.3 cumulative (active) years between 1890 and 1926. Second was Kasparov, 21.9 cumulative years between Sep-1982 and Oct-2004. Fischer was 6th, 9.1 cumulative years.
(4) Highest rating ever: Fischer, 2895, Oct-1971. Second was Kasparov, 2886, Mar-1993.
(5) Highest single-match performance rating: Fischer, 2887, vs. Larsen in 1971. Second was Lasker, 2882, vs. Steinitz, 1896.
(6) Highest single-tournament performance rating: Karpov, 2899, Linares 1994. Second was Kasparov, 2881, Tilburg, 1989. Fischer best single-tournament performance rating was not in the top 10.
(7) Most tournament performance ratings of 2820+ (50 tournaments): Kasparov, 17 tournaments. Second was Lasker, 6 tournaments (what a gap between 1st and 2nd!). Fischer was tied 5th - 8th with Alekhine, Keres, and Capablanca with 2 tournaments each.
(8) Longest straight time (years) as #1 ranked player: Kasparov, 19.8 straight years, Feb-1985 to Oct-2004. Second was Lasker, 12.6 straight years, Jun-1890 to Dec-1902. Fischer was 4th, 7.9 straight years.
(9) Most top performing years (years with the best performance rating): Kasparov, 16 years. Second was Lasker, 12 years. Fischer was 11th with 4 years.
(10) Most top 2 performing years (years with either the best or 2nd best performance rating): Karpov, 23 years. Second was Kasparov, 21 years. Fischer was tied 12th – 16th with 6 years along with Keres, Tal, Petrosian, and Zukertort (!)
So who was the most dominant chess player of all time according to Sonas? Well, you'll have to read the articles for his opinions and his reasons and see if you agree with them. :-)
|Mar-27-12|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @<AylerKupp>
I always break ad-lib the Robin Williams "Mr. Keating" quote from <Dead Poets Society> , the bit about J. Evans Prittchard, Phd and how to measure poetry, when people start quoting stats in their quest to prove their hero Grandmaster X was the greatest ever. To wit:
"Be gone J. Evans. NO! I don't want a group of chess players going about measuring chess as if it were American Bandstand. 'I'll give Fischer a 26 but I can't dance to him.'" ;-)
They were all greats, including the GMs who never won the title e.g. Geller who did so much with Gligoric, Bronstein and Boleslavsky to make the King's Indian the weapon it is.
|Mar-27-12|| ||Shams: <SimonWebbsTiger> "Tear it out, boys! Tear out the entire introduction! I want it gone!"|
|Mar-27-12|| ||AylerKupp: <SimonWebbsTiger> And the best thing that I can say to those kinds of "objective" arguments is: Who cares? They were all capable of creating games of beauty, and giving us untold pleasure.|
Tarrasch probably said it best: "Chess, like love, like music, has the power to make men happy." The rest is not important.
|Jan-17-13|| ||andrewjsacks: Talk about a late resignation...|
|Jan-17-13|| ||perfidious: <andrew> Believe the final comment by Robert Wade on this virtuoso performance by Fischer was: 'Matulovic availed himself of the privilege of sealing a move and adjourning before resigning'.|
J'adoubovic very often thus availed himself in lost positions, so as to postpone that dreadful nought against his name in the following day's sports pages.
Karpov had what I once saw termed a 'near-manic hatred of resigning' and was also known to practise this method of delaying his date with the hangman.
|Jan-17-13|| ||RookFile: Games like this show the mystery that is Fischer. He wins this: if you and I play this way with black, we lose. Matulovic had a clear positional plan involving domination of d5 and basically implemented it. He made one or two mistakes in the details, and that's all Fischer needs to win.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Now on DVD