< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Jul-17-11|| ||Uhohspaghettio: "What about all his other no-shows. Do you think, for example, that he was also afraid of Reshevsky?"|
Well, he claimed at one point that Reshevsky was the best player in the world at calculation, better than himself at it even.
First of all, he never refused to play Karpov. He simply offered what he considered terms for a fair rematch. He was reasonable about them, I sincerely hope people here don't believe all those embellishments made by the media about him. Carlsen opted out of the next world championship, Kasparov refused to play also. Not playing for the final was not the be all and end all of it, he could have kept playing and considered himself unofficial world champion without playing Karpov at all. The issue here is why did he quit chess.
I think that Fischer quit for all sorts of reasons, I don't think he ever even liked tournament play to begin with. Fear of being beaten by Karpov and a new guy like Kasparov certainly played a part. Fischer was nothing if not fiercely objective, and he knew that either he would have to climb mountains again in trying to prepare to beat Karpov and others with this rapidly, endlessly expanding theory (which he often moaned about later, saying it was like trying to bang your head of a brick wall), or he could just continue on with his life.
Why should he do something he didn't want to do anymore and use up the rest of his golden years doing it, under the pressure of the world once again? He took the easy way out.
|Jul-17-11|| ||Uhohspaghettio: And I don't know where you're getting this "all his other no-shows"... Fischer only withdrew from a very small handful of matches in his career, less than half a dozen as he said himself. Many chess players withdraw from matches giving all sorts of reasons, it's not unusual at all.|
|Jul-17-11|| ||piltdown man: Old Mister Grumpy rules!|
|Nov-05-11|| ||Everett: Bronstein was Korchnoi's main help over the last 6 games of this match, in particular the Trompowsky in game 19, the risky and almost disastrous reversed King's Gambit in game 20, and this one:|
"I spent several days preparing against 9..g6, analyzing 10.h4 which would havers to great complications... In general I had several helpers during the match, but for this game I prepared with only one of them - David Bronstein."
-Viktor Korchnoi "My Best Games Volume 1"
|Nov-06-11|| ||bronkenstein: <...I prepared with only one of them - David Bronstein.>|
You can feel Maestroīs fine touch (extremely independent thinking - David`s trademark ) in this complicated line. I believe that looney triangulation Qd1-Qc2!?-Qd2! belongs to him - for such moves today we have computers.
|Feb-05-12|| ||Ulhumbrus: Robert Byrne's comment on the move 11 Qd2 in his book of the 1974 candidates matches <The new king Anatoly Karpov The road to the world chess championship>, Bantam books is <Tigran Petrosian afterward said he had warned the Karpov camp about this move and the hidden threats against the black king it involves. Why did Karpov, Furman, and Geller pay no attention? Maybe because Petrosian invariably tosses off two doxen suggestions about the opening of every game, all delivered rapid-fire and almost all superficial reflexes. But this time he may have been right.>|
|Feb-18-12|| ||OhioChessFan: I'm not buying the castling controversy. If it is true, the arbiter had no business answering.|
|Feb-18-12|| ||offramp: I totally believe it and here is why:
Later, in their next match, game 28, Karpov vs Korchnoi, 1978 this position was reached
click for larger view
Karpov had certainly played on too long, and now Lothar Schmid was skeezing around with a black queen in his hand. Kortschnoi asked him to go and get a rook, knight and bishop as well.
At that moment Karpov resigned; he took the hint.
That is what happened in this game. VK could not talk to Karpov to tell him to give up, but he sure as all getout could talk to the arbiter - giving a deafening hint that resistence was futile.
|Jul-01-12|| ||Call Me TC: This game is also significant because it's the first time that Kasparov crosses Karpov's path, and it's a portent of things to come:|
<And I was fortunate enough to see the 21st game live: I was taken to it by my trainer Alexander Nikitin.
For the first time in my life I experienced the amazing match atmosphere - the reverential silence in the auditorium, occasionally broken by rumbles of admiration or disappointment, and the seething of the press centre, where Nikitin took me 'to observe the thinking of the titans'. Then he took me into the auditorium and left. Glancing at the enormous demonstration board, I was stupefied.
With the aid of a long pole, the demonstrator had just reproduced Karpov's move 12...Rb8? on the board. What on earth? I don't understand: White has the winning stroke 13.Nxh7! While Korchnoi was thinking over his reply, Nikitin came back. I whispered to him: 'Knight h7!' And he merely replied 'Yes...' Obviously others had also noticed this move: the audience became noticeably animated.
It was a pity, of course, that the game concluded so quickly and I did not see a genuine battle... Even so, this was my first encounter with big-time chess, and as an 11-year-old boy, it left an indelible impression on me.> (OMGP V)
|Oct-23-12|| ||Lambda: <Some have claimed that Fischerīs best move was to quit chess and not let Karpov beat him and destroy the myth. Discuss.>|
Worked on some people. OTOH, for me, this destroyed the myth more thoroughly than any loss could have done. A champion who does not defend the title defeats themself.
Though it wasn't really "losing to Karpov or Korchnoi" (the opponent wasn't decided at the time he resigned the title, although either would have been Fischer's toughest challenge yet, with him finding Korchnoi an unusually tough opponent) which was specifically what he was avoiding, so much as just generally "playing at a level below what he did for 1970-1972".
|Oct-23-12|| ||drnooo: uhohs spaghettis analysis is good up to a point: however is slips the tracks with F's wanting to play Karpov later. dont forget theye was a trial period there when both were in Japan secretly negotiating.
Then when it got close, he declined. Showing some kind of desire, hardly wanting to give up another crack at him.
Talk about ambivalence.
That was the problem. He was nuts. Even he didn't know what he wanted to do until he was right up against it. You see the same with guys babbling to themselves walking down the sidewalk.
One of these days I will post something I overheard Seirawan talking about which he has never repeated, and ultimately he can be contacted for verification but it beyond the shadow of a doubt shows just how far gone Fischer was by 76. People keep giving some kind of rational reasoning to his antics, when at a certain point they are nearly as crazy as he trying to do so.
Also they try to cram too much into the suitcase, once it gets too full and stuff starts to fall out: Rubenstein suffered the same fate except more poignantly and faster: when he started really going bonkers some of his remarkable chess powers also left him.
In short, after the winning of the championship, he was too far gone, knew it, my guess is had Spassky called the whole thing off when he could have, that would have been it: Fischer had just enough left in him to beat Spassky, another trip around and he could never have made it.
|Oct-23-12|| ||drnooo: if anyone knows how to reach Seirawan, and post it here, I would be glad to write him and see if he wants it known,
what I overheard his talking about to somebody about a Fischer incident that I have never heard anywhere else.|
|Jan-10-13|| ||duplex: M.D. Wilson: Some have claimed that Fischerīs best move was to quit chess and not let Karpov beat him and destroy the myth. Discuss |
Discuss what exactly?? the majority think that Fischer would have won in 1975 and also in 1978 provided that he started playing first class tournaments again ! Karpov would win in 1981 ...
|Feb-26-14|| ||offramp: Two years ago I explained Korchnoi's castling joke:
<Later, in their next match, game 28, Karpov vs Korchnoi, 1978 this position was reached...
Karpov had certainly played on too long, and now Lothar Schmid was skeezing around with a black queen in his hand. Kortschnoi asked him to go and get a rook, knight and bishop as well. At that moment Karpov resigned; he took the hint.
That is what happened in this game. VK could not talk to Karpov to tell him to give up, but he sure as all getout could talk to the arbiter - giving a deafening hint that resistence was futile.>
|Feb-26-14|| ||offramp: <duplex:...the majority think that Fischer would have won in 1975 and also in 1978 provided that he started playing first class tournaments again ! Karpov would win in 1981 ...>|
Hey kidz!!? Why don't we put on a Karpov-Fischer World Championship Match (1975) show right here!?!
|Feb-26-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Offramp:
I've read hundreds of opinions about these pahntom
Fischer - Karpov matches.
The view I'm getting is that Fischer would have won the '75 match because Karpov was not quite Karpov then. But with the experience of the '75 match behind him Karpov would have won in '78.
But never mind that, because it appears we are about to get yet another Fischer was nuts story.
It will start off:
"I once saw Bobby Fischer and his right shoe lace was undone."
...by the time it leaves here and goes around world.
"Fischer used to take out his shoe laces and strangle cats with them."
This will be refuted by someone who knows someone who knows someone who overheard someone say that Fischer always wore slip-ons.
This will be countered with:
"Has anybody seen a picture of Fischer with a cat?"
No, therefore the story must be true.
|Feb-26-14|| ||offramp: <Sally Simpson> There IS a lot of nonsense written. I thought about Karpov-Fischer World Championship Match (1975) for a long time and made quite a sensible post about it. Score, number of games and duration. It is currently the last post on that page. Have a look!|
|Feb-26-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Offramp.
It was a sensible post, I was just adding that on the whole I've seen '75 is Fischer and '78 is Karpov.
I added never mind that because although a debate who would have won is always fun and often instructive
that was my last word on the matter. (here - I'll go and play there in a minute.)
I then switched track.
I am waiting with to hear yet another Fischer myth. (I know it was not you who suggested he had a new one).
Finally the riddle of Bobby Fischer is about to be solved by a conversation overheard......38 years ago.
Where is drnooo?
Off stalking Seirawan to see what else he can overhear?
|Apr-07-14|| ||Domdaniel: <offramp> -- <Hey kidz!!? Why don't we put on a Karpov-Fischer World Championship Match (1975) show right here!?!>|
Heh. Give it another 5 or 10 years, and this will be quite feasible. Right now, computers are still a little too computerish ... but in a few years they should be able to emulate the play of any given player.
|Apr-07-14|| ||Petrosianic: A computer will never be able to emulate Fischer '75's play because there are no samples to draw from. The most they might ever do is compare Fischer '72 to Karpov '75, which is essentially meaningless.|
That's not to say it won't happen, though. I expect to see a Chessbase April Fool article some day assuring us that Fischer would have definitely won, and have people quoting it as gospel, the same why the April Fool article about how the King's Gambit loses by force to everything except 3. Be2 (LOL!).
|Apr-07-14|| ||diceman: <Petrosianic: A computer will never be able to emulate Fischer '75's play>|
Glad that mystery's solved.
<because there are no samples to draw from. The most they might ever do is compare Fischer '72 to Karpov '75, which is essentially meaningless.
That's not to say it won't happen, though.
I expect to see a Chessbase April Fool article some day assuring us that Fischer would have definitely won, and have people quoting it as gospel>
<have people quoting it as gospel>
Sounds like Petrosianic's opinion.
<April Fool article some day assuring us that Fischer would have definitely won>
...you can just feel the admiration.
<and have people quoting it>
...and not quote Ed Edmondson.
|Apr-07-14|| ||morfishine: Great Game but idiotic pun. Korchnoi was 43 when this game was played. Gee Whiz, how does stuff like this get through?|
|Oct-25-14|| ||Pawn Slayer: Fischer was so far ahead of anyone else in 1972, I think he needed a new challenge and lost interest after winning the title.|
Karpov was certainly a fine player in 1975 but, unless Fischer had gone completely off the boil in the interim 3 years, he (Karpov) would have lost by a clear margin.
1978 would be harder to call because Karpov improved over the three years, but who knows how Fischer would have developed? He was probably the greatest player the world has ever seen in terms of his dominance over his contemporaries, who included Spassky, Petrosian, Geller, Keres, Smyslov, Gligoric and Larsen; these guys were no mugs, yet he was well over 100 rating points above them all.
|Oct-25-14|| ||keypusher: <Pawn Slayer: Fischer was so far ahead of anyone else in 1972, I think he needed a new challenge and lost interest after winning the title.>|
A new challenge? Like Karpov? Or (a few years later) Kasparov?
<Karpov was certainly a fine player in 1975 but, unless Fischer had gone completely off the boil in the interim 3 years, he (Karpov) would have lost by a clear margin.>
Neither you nor anyone else has any idea how Fischer would have played. The fact that he failed to play might give an indication of his own view.
|Oct-26-14|| ||Joshka: <keypusher> Oh well here we go again..LOL...even KARPOV stated he would have lost to Fischer in 1975!!! Not much more authoritative than that!!!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·