< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 20 OF 20 ·
|Feb-17-13|| ||tzar: <diceman> Fischer was already 29 in 1972. Maybe it can be true that due to the fact that he had such a lonely learning process, even for such a genious it was very difficult to learn all this experience elements you are referring to. On the contrary, for other players that were used to constant contact with other players and teachers since an early age it was a much easier process and they matured earlier (I guess that is why Botvinnik set up his school in 1963 and the new stars of this academy were able to mature even faster).|
|Feb-17-13|| ||tzar: ...It is not that i consider that Fischer did not mature early in absolute terms (in 1970 he was only 27), but having been such a prodigy as a child it seemed that it took too long to get to his very best level.|
|Feb-17-13|| ||diceman: <tzar:
having been such a prodigy as a child it seemed that it took too long to get to his very best level.>
Well, what age were the Tals, Spasskys, Petrosians,
when they achieved the world championship?
None of them did it as a child.
Keres, Reshevsky, Korchnoi, didn’t even make it.
There was a bunch of legends and only one spot.
…add that Fischer walked out of the Sousse Interzonal
while in the lead (could have had the title a few years earlier)
and I don’t see anything wrong with the amount of time it took.
|Feb-17-13|| ||diceman: <RookFile:
The losses had more to do with the fact that he was playing a great player.>
I guess the “great players” got bad awfully fast.
|Feb-17-13|| ||AylerKupp: <diceman> There is no disgrace in not winning the world championship when still a "child", or even in your teens (which I guess amounts to the same thing). After all, how many people in history could say that they were world chess champions? Not too many. So the time that it took any world championship titleholder to win the title can never, IMO, be considered "too long". But Kasparov was 22 when he became world champion, Tal and Karpov were 24, Kramnik was 25, and Lasker was 26. So several players became world champions before Fischer at 29 and thus showed that it was possible to be world champion while younger than 29.|
Yes, Fischer might have won the world championship had he not withdrawn from the Sousse Interzonal in 1967 (technically he was kicked out because of his behavior but that's not important). He might have also won in 1964 but he chose not to play in the Interzonal. So perhaps the feeling is that Fischer could perhaps have won the world championship several years earlier if he had not taken himself out of contention twice, so in a sense it took him longer than perhaps it could/should have.
|Feb-18-13|| ||RookFile: Fischer had to play the iron. Kasparov benefited from a time where chess was stagnant, and the toughest player he faced before Karpov was a past his prime Smyslov.|
|Feb-18-13|| ||tzar: It is hard to think that a person who has devoted so many effords in chess, with the only goal of being WC, can miss the opportunities of 1964 and 1967 and risk everything in 1972 over an argument of the placement and noise of one camera. In 1972 he was about to throw it away again and only Spassky's sportmanship accepting to play in a back room saved him (being in a WC final and accepting to play in a sort of small backyard away from the audience must be frustrating)...and then abandoning everything after winning the WC. Fischer's mind was so obscure as bright was his chess...I would not like to be the one dealing with Fischer in a negotiation, I would rather prefer playing a chessgame with him only to witness how i am ruthlessly dissected.|
|Feb-18-13|| ||tzar: <AylerKupp>: Only a small remark to your very interesting comment, Tal was 23 when he became WC.|
|Feb-18-13|| ||RookFile: There's also the small matter of Morphy, who was younger.|
|Feb-18-13|| ||tzar: ...yes and the small matter of Ruy Lopez de Segura|
|Feb-18-13|| ||RookFile: Sorry, we're looking for world champion here, not champion of Spain.|
|Feb-18-13|| ||diceman: <AylerKupp: <diceman> There is no disgrace in not winning the world championship when still a "child", or even in your teens (which I guess amounts to the same thing)>|
I didn’t say there was.
…that’s why I said:
I don’t see anything wrong with the amount of time it took.>
|Feb-18-13|| ||DrChopper: What about 42.g5? if Bd6+ then e5.|
|Feb-18-13|| ||beatgiant: <DrChopper>
42. g5 <Kg6> looks good enough. What do you see?
|Feb-24-13|| ||DrChopper: 42.g5 Kg6 43 Bd6 g4 44.Kf6 Ke4 45.Bxe5 Kd5 and after that I'm not too sure...|
|Feb-24-13|| ||AylerKupp: <Rookfile>, <tzar> I was attempting to address only "official" world champions, of which Steinitz was the first. I thought that this would simplify things, otherwise we could engage in a fruitless discussions as to when such-and-such player became the best player in the world. But clearly my attempt was not good enough.|
Yes, there were many players acknowledged to be the best in the world prior to Steinitz, many of which I had never heard of, at least according to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_....
Other "youngsters" listed included Luis Ramirez de Lucena (~25), Giochino Greco (~20), Legall de Kermeur (~28), Francois-Andre Phildor (~19!), Louis de LaBurdonnais (~26), and of course Paul Morphy (~21). And if we're considering "best in the world" in addition to world champion we must also include Magnus Carlsen who was first ranked #1 in the world in 2009 at the age of 19, and is a good bet to become world champion before he turns 30. I don't think that there are too many who don't believe that Carlsen, at 22, is currently the best player in the world but I may be wrong.
|Feb-24-13|| ||AylerKupp: <diceman> I know you didn't say that, it was my preamble to agreeing with you, there was nothing wrong with the amount of time that it took Fischer to become world champion:|
<So the time that it took any world championship titleholder to win the title can never, IMO, be considered "too long".>
|Feb-24-13|| ||diceman: <AylerKupp: <diceman>> |
Actually (knowing what happened) it
may have been better if it took a little longer. :):):)
|Feb-24-13|| ||AylerKupp: <diceman> You're right, I never thought of it that way. Had he never become world champion he might still be playing and we would still be enjoying his games.|
|Feb-25-13|| ||beatgiant: <DrChopper>
<42.g5 Kg6 43 Bd6>
After 42...g5 43. Kg6, Black gets another move before White can play 44. Bd6. Could you post your missing move?
Anyway, the situation looks like an easy win for White, whose Bishop can handle the kingside pawns while the king heads for the queenside.
|Feb-25-13|| ||tzar: <AylerKupp: <Rookfile>, <tzar> I was attempting to address only "official" world champions, of which Steinitz was the first. I thought that this would simplify things, otherwise we could engage in a fruitless discussions as to when such-and-such player became the best player in the world. But clearly my attempt was not good enough.>|
As far as I am concerned I got your point and it was very clearly expressed. Anyway, congratulations on the research of past great players.
|Feb-25-13|| ||DrChopper: Sorry for the mistake: 42.Kh5 g5 43.Kg6 e5 44.Bd6 g4 45.Kf6 Ke4 46.Bxe6 Kd5 after that if Bc7 or Kf5, black play Kc5.|
There is probably something I have not seen.
|Feb-25-13|| ||DrChopper: Forget that, white still have a way to fight against it. ...46.Bxe6 Kd5 47.Bg3! Kc5 48.Bf2+ Kc6 49.a5 Kb5 40.Kf4 and the position is lost like in the real game.|
|Apr-17-13|| ||AylerKupp: <Petrosianic> (in response to your last post in Aronian vs Kramnik, 2013, "Maybe I wasn't clear ...")|
In that sense you are correct. But I disagree. I would consider overlooking 35.Bd2 to be an error in calculation at the time that 29...Bxh2 was played, and likely earlier when Fischer first considered 29...Bxh2 as a possibility. So I think that Fischer's error was that he considered 29...Bxh2 to be playable and possibly give him an advantage or at least winning chances, when in fact it wasn't a good move for the reasons that became apparent later. But yes, if weak players thought that when Fischer played 29...Bxh2 he overlooked 30.g3, well, that's why they are weak players.
|May-15-13|| ||Everett: <diceman: <RookFile: Fischer's own statement was that he didn't believe in pyschology - he believed in good moves.>|
When Fischer was talking a to physical trainer, there was a hand-strength gauge in the office. Fischer squeezed it, and asked the guy if he could make him strong enough for it to go all the way around?
Puzzled, the guy asked “you’re a chess player, why do you need hand strength?” Fischer said, “when I shake hands with the Russians, I want them to feel it.”>
Judging by his resounding success with women, he likely just wanted to feel himself.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 20 OF 20 ·