< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
|Jun-04-14|| ||john barleycorn: <kevin86: A weird one!> What do expect from a british especially when his name is Miles? :-). Love that guy.|
|Jun-04-14|| ||RookFile: Botvinnik said once that when black does weird stuff, you focus on establishing a strong pawn center. If allowed, white should have played 2. c4, 3. d4, 4. f4 before bringing out the pieces.|
|Jun-04-14|| ||Tomlinsky: <Miles was not a good man, nor a particularly good chess player, for that matter.>|
Well, in 1984 Tony broke Pillsbury's blindfold simultaneous record that had stood for over 80 years and was a pleasant and helpful chap whenever he dropped by his old club I am informed.
|Jun-04-14|| ||Domdaniel: Tony was a nice guy, and a great and original player. He even drew with me once (!).|
His typically witty notes on the opening (of course 1...a6 is perfectly playable, despite some of the stupid comments made about it) demonstrate one key difference between the 1980s and the present. Today, we can look up databases and find games in any line - but Tony wrote about having access to particular game scores in print.
|Jun-04-14|| ||Check It Out: <Domdaniel: Tony was a nice guy, and a great and original player. He even drew with me once (!).>|
That's one way to put it. Was that a simul or a rated game?
|Jun-04-14|| ||Dezaxa: Karpov calls this "incorrect opening" in his book Learn from your Defeats. |
I believe this game was the first time a British player beat a reigning world champion.
|Jun-04-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Dezaxa,
I'm thinking this may be the first time a Brit has beaten a current world champion.
J Penrose vs Tal, 1960
And a technical point.
Vera Menchik was beaten by a few Brits when she was the Women's World Chess Champion.
|Jun-04-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Sally,
You forgot about this one.
Lasker vs Blackburne, 1899
OK. I'll try and keep up.
|Jun-04-14|| ||RookFile: Well, there's probably a Bird vs. Steinitz game, and somebody here would be willing to argue about Staunton vs. St. Amant.|
|Sep-15-14|| ||Bronder: There is evidence that Karpov lost his nerve because White's 20th move looks as if it does not belong.|
|Dec-12-14|| ||mcgee: Blackburne beat Lasker at Hastings 1895 too:
Lasker vs Blackburne, 1895
|Jan-11-15|| ||scormus: Incorrect opening? I think I'd put it more like "This wasn't in the script"|
|Jan-11-15|| ||Howard: There was sometimes no such thing as a "script" when Miles was playing. Sosonko once mentioned a time when he had black against Miles, and the first moves of the game went 1.c4 e5. Then Miles played 2.Qc2?! and grinned at Sosonko, as to imply (as Sosonko put it), "There goes your preparation. And who cares if I've just thrown away my advantage as White."|
|Jan-11-15|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Richard Taylor:
It is still doubtful Fischer would have won against Karpov in 1974. Fischer also played some very had games e.g. his bad loss to >
I could have some fun by pointing out that it is doubtful because they weren't scheduled to play in 1974!
If, in fact, this is a typo and you are referring to 1975, I say that it is only doubtful <to you> and one former world champion with books to sell.
Most objective, serious commentators think Fischer would have defeated Karpov in a match played under Fischer's non-negotiable rules.
You are well-known on this site for your anti-Fischer bias. You seem unable to separate the man's chess from his ugly anti-semitism, and let your justly warranted distaste for the one cloud your view of the other.
|Jan-12-15|| ||Richard Taylor: <thegoodanarchist> That's strange, I have played over many of Fischer's games, used many of his ideas (his trap against Reshevsky in the accelerated Dragon which not I but Levi points out Fischer learned from Shakmaty). The other day I was playing over his game against Gligoric and studying that (in his 60 'Memorable Games'). The game was a draw (Fischer in fact blundered into a lost R and Pawn, which Gligoric missed, but both played a fascinating game (Najdorf). I am not anti-Fischer.|
I studied his games when my father got his FIRST book which you probably dont know about. It had his US Championship wins, and his Interzonal games.
Karpov praises Fischer, and in fact rebutted other Soviet players who, he said, wrongly criticised Fischer's play. Karpov, also, in writing a book about Queens Pawn openings, took some trouble to show a brilliant game played by Kasparov which the latter won.
Now he is known as a really nice fellow. I saw Fischer abusing a young chess-player journalist in Iceland when he had escaped the Japanese and the US Govt. He died a few years after. It is a fact that chess players are largely judged by their behaviour. I like the idea of Rubinstein leavint the table so as not to disturb his opponents, and Morphy giving his opponents his winnings etc, but Fischer, esp. after 1972, became increasingly schizophrenic and repulsive as a person.
It's as if Hitler had been a great artist: you might admire the art, but it would be hard to forget who did the art work...
I am not anti Alekhine, but that doesn't stop me finding weak games by that gentleman. Or anyone else. It will be a sad day when we cant objectively evaluate chess players.
I don't care what commentators think I still think Karpov, being younger then, and very very good, as demonstrated by his wins after he became world champion, was the man to take Fischer down.
The most exciting matches in fact, I think, were the Fischer-Korchnoi matches.
But again, regardless of Fischer's views which were sad, he was a sad example of a human being gone very wrong...but his games. Yes, I have studied many of them. I also used (indirectly of course) his confidant way of winning with a B against Taimanov etc
The danger is for Americans who don't have many native chess players of much ability, most are from Japan, or Italy, or the former USSR etc and there was the odd freak like Morphy who also went mad, but it is sad to see the pathetic protestations of players who venerate Fischer, but when one asks about him they say something inane and it is revealed they don't know much about chess...They think that every move he played was perfect. Hence when one criticises a game or a move one is labelled anti-Fischer. They are of course tormented by the fact that on the one hand they have another American hero but he was anti-Semitic, and they know that that is officially a naughty thing to be (even if they think Hitler was Swedish and went to war against Australia and killed off all the Aboriginees: history and geography can be so confusing!
Well Fischer didn't last long and he is dead which is probably a relief to a lot of Jewish people, so there you are, he is now old news while Karpov, a nice, jolly old fellow, is still alive and still playing chess!
What a bother, poor old <anarchist> is now all upset and wont be able to sleep!!
|Jan-12-15|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Well Fischer didn't last long and he is dead which is probably a relief to a lot of Jewish people, so there you are, he is now old news while Karpov, a nice, jolly old fellow, is still alive and still playing chess!|
What a bother, poor old <anarchist> is now all upset and wont be able to sleep!!>
I slept just fine, thank you. If you can't recognize the difference in playing strength between Fischer and everyone else in the early 70s, that is on you and not my problem. Definitely not enough to keep me awake at night. I own gold stocks - if I can sleep with those, your outlandish opinions are not going to unsettle me.
Is Karpov universally liked? He publicly decried Korchnoi as "filthy". So I cannot imagine Korchnoi would agree with you.
But that is beside the point, which is that Fischer was unbeatable in match play at the time you mention. He unceremoniously dispatched the previous two world champions with ease, and of course the Taimanov and Larsen matches show clearly how players not of world championship calibre faired against the man in the early 70s.
Will you misrepresent what I say <again>?
<The danger is for Americans ...They think that every move he played was perfect. >
I don't even claim that every move <by today's engines> is perfect! The question is, who was the better match player in '74 or '75, under the (non-negotiable) conditions proposed by Fischer?
It was Fischer, not Karpov. Not just for a short 10-game match, but for an open-ended one (draws not counting). In fact based on Fischer's legendary physical preparation, and the historic record of Karpov wilting towards the end of long matches (1978, 1984), Fischer's match demands conferred to him a an even greater advantage than a short match would have.
|Jan-12-15|| ||Petrosianic: <I slept just fine, thank you. If you can't recognize the difference in playing strength between Fischer and everyone else in the early 70s, that is on you and not my problem.>|
How can you see the difference between Fischer and the players of 1978, when he retired in 1972? Despite your assurances, you do seem decidedly unsettled.
<It was Fischer, not Karpov.>
To be precise, the Fischer of 1972 seems to have been better than the Karpov of 1975. We have no idea about the Fischer of 1975, because we never saw him in action. Maybe he couldn't have won. Or maybe he could have but didn't want to be bothered, or didn't want to take the chance, or whatever. Who knows? The Rocky Marciano of 1957 may have been able to beat the Floyd Patterson of 1957. But he didn't, and Patterson was his successor, just as Karpov was Fischer's successor. At this point, history has spoken, and it's impossible to change.
|Jan-12-15|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Petrosianic: <I slept just fine, thank you. If you can't recognize the difference in playing strength between Fischer and everyone else in the early 70s, that is on you and not my problem.>
How can you see the difference between Fischer and the players of 1978, when he retired in 1972? Despite your assurances, you do seem decidedly unsettled.>|
1978? No one was discussing 1978 until you posted about it. Seems like you are the unsettled person :)
And you can doubt all you want, but I just got back from a 5K run, which I was able to do because I was energized by a restful sleep. Yeay for me!
|Jan-12-15|| ||Petrosianic: <1978? No one was discussing 1978 until you posted about it. Seems like you are the unsettled person :)>|
I'm just trying to take you seriously. You seem to get so rattled, whenever anyone says anything negative about Fischer. Even that silly comment about Botvinnik almost outliving Fischer provoked ??? style replies from you, as if even living long was some kind of competition. (FWIW, at the risk of ruining your day, Botvinnik lived to be 83). This is obviously something massively emotionally important to you, but you also seem to regard yourself as able to function as an unbiased observer, which you clearly can't. What do you think I'm unsetteled about, BTW? Karpov? You forgot to make it clear.
With your <express> permission, as granted by you here, I will doubt all I want.
|Jan-12-15|| ||perfidious: <anarchist: And you can doubt all you want....>|
Guess the rules, as codified by you, are that you are allowed to question anything, but no-one else is afforded the same right.
<....but I just got back from a 5K run, which I was able to do because I was energized by a restful sleep. Yeay for me!>
|Jan-13-15|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Petrosianic> Well your last post gave me a nice laugh - thank you! |
I am not sure what to make of it. is it tongue-in-cheek? serious?
Anyway, the part where you write about living long being some kind of competition (to me) is either a complete joke or you are reading stuff into my comments on your end that simply is not present on my end.
Some stuff I write is serious and some is meant to be humorous. I always thought it was obvious which was which most of the time. Maybe I am wrong...
In any event, comparing what I actually feel or think to what you imagine I feel or think has been a most entertaining exercise for me these past few days.
|Jan-13-15|| ||Petrosianic: You say you didn't understand it, but you laughed at it anyway. Why? Just to be on the safe side?|
Perhaps you're being funny, and you have a very self-deprecating sense of humor. But the character you play, of someone jarred to the core any time anything remotely negative is said about Fischer is funny. Let us say that it's deliberately funny, and you're doing a parody of extreme fanboys.
I knew a guy like that once. Had all the people here beat hands down. Was such a super-duper Star Trek fan, that he would literally go catatonic any time the show was criticized. Even the really awful episodes, like Spock's Brain or The Way to Eden. He'd get very still, very quiet, not saying anything to anyone (apparently trying to keep from exploding), and then rush out of the room once he'd calmed down enough to move. Bizarre case. A lot worse than just getting rattled because someone said Botvinnik almost outlived Fischer. Do you think you could incorporate some of Art's schtick into your own act?
|Jan-13-15|| ||Everett: <Most objective, serious commentators think Fischer would have defeated Karpov in a match played under Fischer's non-negotiable rules. >|
Hypothetically, of course. Most serious commentators ignored the fact that Fischer hadn't played serious chess in 2+ years. So a Fischer who was <prepared, focused, sane, etc.> would be a favorite. But what were the chances of all that lining up like it did from 70-72? If history before and after those years are admitted as evidence, the chances are slim.
|Jan-13-15|| ||Petrosianic: By "objective commentator", I think he meant "the average American fan". No objective commentators were named, and it seems probably that this was not a serious claim, just a part of the comedy act that thegoodanarchist says he's doing.|
|Jan-24-15|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Petrosianic: ...
Perhaps you're being funny, and you have a very self-deprecating sense of humor. But the character you play, of someone jarred to the core any time anything remotely negative is said about Fischer is funny>
Again, reading stuff into my comments that simply is not there on my end. If I slam an anti-Fischer post for being completely ridiculous it is because I am not going to let utter nonsense pass without a refutation. I am having a good time. You should try to as well.
<...just a part of the comedy act ...>
Stubbornly refusing to understand, you are. Probably just to try to get a rise. Hmmm, curious.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
Times Chess Twitter Feed