< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 14 ·
|Jul-22-15|| ||SimplicityRichard: Just to add some facts; Gligoric beat Fischer 4 times, lost once and drew 6 times until 1962.
When these two met in 1966 and thereafter, Fischer never lost to Gligoric. Fischer won or drew.|
Again until 1965, Reshevsky seemed to have been Fischer's match; but from 1966 onwards Fischer beat Reshevsky 5 times, losing no game and drawing thrice.
Therefore, it appears that Fischer became the world's strongest player from around 1966. This is my view. #
|Aug-04-15|| ||Jack Kerouac: Though Fischer disdained Lasker as an 'average' world champion, he might have assimilated Lasker's psychological technique of 'gamesmanship'.
Taken to a more modern extreme of disrupting his opponent's psyche.
Of course it didn't hurt to play the best moves usually. Unlike Lasker.
So I've studied.
A one-two punch to the world championship.
|Aug-04-15|| ||Jack Kerouac: This game initiated Fischer's 'refutation' to the King's Gambit: 3-d6!
The old saw. You learn more from defeats than victories.|
|Aug-04-15|| ||Petrosianic: In this case, what was learned was false. 3...d6 doesn't refute the King's Gambit. If it did, that's all anyone would play.|
|Aug-04-15|| ||drleper: <Petrosianic: In this case, what was learned was false. 3...d6 doesn't refute the King's Gambit. If it did, that's all anyone would play.>|
I'd say that's why <Jack Kerouac> put "refutation" in quotes :) Fischer's "high-class waiting move" is nice though, and it seems like one of the more popular ways of meeting the 3.Nf3 King's Gambit.
|Aug-10-15|| ||thegoodanarchist: <drleper: <Petrosianic: In this case, what was learned was false. 3...d6 doesn't refute the King's Gambit. If it did, that's all anyone would play.>|
I'd say that's why <Jack Kerouac> put "refutation" in quotes :) >
Even though what you say is true, you are wasting time trying to tell <Petrosianic> anything.
He already knows everything, and will have some excuse for this blunder of his, to try to spin it as if he knew all along what it meant to have 'refutation' in quotes.
|Jan-15-17|| ||TheFocus: Two great players playing a King's Gambit.
Too bad today's players don't play this way.
|Jan-15-17|| ||tonim: From book "Boris Spaski to move" by D. Bjelica:
At age of 12 Spaski was recognized in USSR as very talented chess player and Tolush was assigned to be his personal trainer. Tolush was not impressed with kid's play and he ordered Spaski: "You play to calm and steady with no passion. From now on in each and every game you have to sac something". So Spaski started to play KG reasoning "if I have to sac something I might do it at move 2".
Anyway Tolush's order was spot on - great positional player become a real fighter at chessboard. To bad he was so lazy, he had talent to become greatest player ever.|
|Jan-15-17|| ||Ratt Boy: <sharpnova:
Also (Kasparov) had nerves of pure steel and a winner's instinct.>
That's what I thought—until Deep Blue, when he folded like origami and choked like David Carradine.
|Jan-15-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: <Sharpovna>: Kasparov wasn't so sure he was better than Fisher, at least not unless he was showing uncharacteristic false modesty in this great 2011 quote from <Damianx>: "you ask how can u compere Fisher to Kasparov well Kasparov does i have him being interviewed they asked now your retired what do u think of the new 28oo club the new Super GM,s he said their all good players but there is no Fisher in the bunch then asked well is Fisher the greatest of all time K said i can,t answer that i don,t know but i can tell you the two greatest of all time Fisher and Kasparov"|
|Jan-17-17|| ||kevin86: Spassky won early but almost never later later vs Fischer|
|Jan-17-17|| ||Clement Fraud: <tonim> <great positional player became a real fighter at chessboard. To bad he was so lazy, he had talent to become greatest player ever.> In my personal view, Boris Spassky wasn't lazy at all: It might be controversial of me to say this, but Spassky "threw" his match with Fischer in Reykjavic; he did this to spite the Soviet authorities that he'd grown to despise. Whenever those games from 1972 have been analyzed in detail (by grandmasters aided with computers), they demonstrate that Spassky was making errors at the board of a type that someone a third of his playing strength would not have made. Also, the way in which Spassky stood applauding Fischer following the latter's win in game six... that in itself more than amply betrayed his true intent of throwing the match.|
|Jan-18-17|| ||Sally Simpson: "Spassky "threw" his match with Fischer."
Do you have a source for these "grandmasters aided with computers" and their opinions.
|Jan-18-17|| ||tamar: So Fischer Fear was just tanking?
All of Fischer's match opponents played below their strength after encountering the shock of losing games in a row.
A conspiracy theorist could analyze and say Taimanov, Larsen and Petrosian also threw their matches.
Spassky among them regained his equilibrium, and played the second half of the match nearly even.
|Jan-18-17|| ||Petrosianic: <That's what I thought—until Deep Blue, when he folded like origami and choked like David Carradine.>|
...In one game out of 12. Kasparov actually has a winning record against Deep Blue, you know.
|Jan-18-17|| ||Sally Simpson: If I was throwing a match I'd try to make it as unobvious as possible.|
I would not be seen applauding my opponents wins on stage.
The whole notion is just silly. Gave me a good laugh though.
|Dec-17-17|| ||plang: 9 Nc3 was a new move; 9 c3 is considered the main line. Evans considered 12..Qxh4 13 g3..Qh5 playable for Black. Fischer pushed too hard for a win and was punished.|
|Feb-27-18|| ||tgyuid: what exactly do you mean, Sir|
|Feb-28-18|| ||Petrosianic: <what exactly do you mean, Sir>|
He means that 9. Nc3 wasn't a book move.
|May-04-18|| ||Justin796: Looks like a dull game...where Fischer simply tanked with Rf8.....i have to look at Spasskys other games|
|Jul-18-18|| ||Brain Gremlin: Spassky throwing the match is unconvincing for following reason: Fischer arrived in Reykjavik with his record high rating of 2785. He left with the world title and a reduced rating of 2780 because Spassky scored more highly than the initial difference in their ratings would predict. His own rating rose proportionally to Fischer's dip. Apart from the notorious blundering away of his bishop early in the match I have never heard anyone suggest that Fischer's play was seriously below par. Therefore Spassky's increased rating is most likely due to the incumbent champion trying to do his best. If you want to throw a match you don't play well enough that you actually increase your rating.|
|Nov-19-18|| ||anjumskhan: so, I believe 12. ... h5 was the deciding move which Fischer didn't play.|
|Sep-06-19|| ||N.O.F. NAJDORF: This is the first time I've heard of someone applauding his opponent because he plans to throw the match to him!|
Spassky applauded because he was fond of Fischer and a sportsman.
It is reported that Fischer told Hort that he threw the first game and considered throwing the third game:
So now we have claims that both Fischer and Spassky were throwing games and, of course, Fischer claimed that the Karpov v Kasparov games were pre-arranged.
|Sep-06-19|| ||Sally Simpson: ***
This thread is crazy: 'Never before in the field of human conflict have so many opinions been tossed about one move in a game of chess.' Winston Churchill nearly said that.
Bobby was asked about Bxh2 by a journalist prior to the 1992 match with Spassky if his Bxh2 was a winning attempt - Bobby replied 'Yeah.' That was the perfect time to tell the world he threw the game.
Reuben Fine mentions Bobby told him it was miscalculation.Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 (kibitz #50)
Now we have three different stories about this move all from Fischer.
I believe Hort, that is what Fischer told him, I believe Fine, that is what Fischer told him and I trust Fischer's reply to the journalist.
At that time Bobby was talking to Hort, the 1990's, Booby was spouting all kinds of nonsense about fixed games, USA persecution, the Russians bugging his teeth, the jews... He was clearly unwell.
It was a basic miscalculation.
click for larger view
As Fine says, Bobby thought here.
click for larger view
He had 32...h3 then he saw Kg4 and Bd2 traps the Bishop.
It's not the worst blunder in chess history, those that first saw it missed the h3 idea till it was pointed out to them.
Alekhine did the same. Alekhine vs Euwe, 1937 Here
click for larger view
Alekhine played 28 Bxh7 and the Bishop was trapped after 28...g6. He too lost.
Let's all pile onto that thread and give it a good 42 pages worth of kibitizing, speculation, psycho-analysing and general codswallop.
Though I 100% believe Hort in that is what Bobby told him how can anyone think that Bobby Fischer, of all people, playing in the match of his lifetimes dream, would deliberately throw a drawn game.
It was a run of the mill simple blunder.
Right lads let us off to the Alekhine-Euwe thread and guesstimate what happened there.
I think Alekhine lost that one on purpose to try and get Euwe's sponsors back to the table for a another money spinning W.C. match. 'Look boys I've hit the bottle again, come and get me.'
|Sep-07-19|| ||HeMateMe: In 1972, after the game, didn't Fischer simply say "I played like a fish" [a patzer, a mark]? |
That's good enough for me. He blew it. It can happen to anyone, even Bobby Fischer.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 14 ·