< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 14 ·
|Mar-12-14|| ||perfidious: <ChessYouGood: Fischer really taken to school here>|
He actually had a clear advantage before his blunder 26....Rf8--not at all sure what you mean by this.
|Mar-12-14|| ||Petrosianic: He might mean psychologically taken to school. True, Fischer was winning, and should have won the game. But as a result of this loss, he convinced himself that Spassky was one of the 10 Best Players Who Ever Lived, and also convinced himself that 1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef 3. Nf3 lost by force.|
|Mar-06-15|| ||sharpnova: <M. Shaune>
Your logic is airtight. You proved that Kasparov in his prime was inferior to Fischer in his prime by showing by comparisons that Kasparov long before his prime couldn't beat Fischer in his prime.
Do you teach? I'd like to sign up for your class.
How about that by 1990 Kasparov was playing something like 200 ELO superior to how he was playing in 1985..?
Kasparov in his prime would have killed Fischer in his. He was more tactically powerful, more positionally momentous and fiercer all around.
Also he had nerves of pure steel and a winner's instinct.
Defeats never got him down. Even Carlsen has a problem with this. Kasparov was always simply overjoyed to win a tournament and took individual losses smoothly.
Eyes on the prize, ever focused, and stronger than anyone has ever been before, Kasparov in his prime was the strongest tissue-based chess entity in human history.
Check out chessmetrics. Kasparov operated at an objective level basically exactly equal to Fischer in '72 but he did it for 20 years.
Kasparov's one year peak performance was only 2 ELO below Bobby's.
Fischer was the second best player of all time. Kasparov was significantly better.
|Mar-06-15|| ||perfidious: <sharpnova: Defeats never got (Kasparov) down. Even Carlsen has a problem with this....>|
Are you sure we are discussing Magnus Carlsen? One of his strengths is overcoming those infrequent defeats.
<....Kasparov was always simply overjoyed to win a tournament and took individual losses smoothly.>
Kasparov vs Radjabov, 2003 is most definitely a clear example to the contrary.
|Apr-05-15|| ||A.T PhoneHome: Magnus Carlsen is the kind of player who knows that confidence in chess isn't something you get from studying computer lines.|
You don't get confidence from being very strong and good at something. I mean you can be very good at something and still not show it to other people. That's simply not confidence.
For Spassky it's the same thing. He didn't need to "channel" anything. He just went there, shook his opponent's hand and sat down to play chess. He knew during his playing career that playing chess very well doesn't amount to confidence because no matter how good you are in chess, if you don't show it, it means nothing. Confidence is doing well or badly with straight face. It isn't a side product of doing something; one must be confident before doing anything.
As for this game, Spassky employs King's Gambit; while Romantic in approach this game had nothing to do with loving one another as Spassky scored a win against formidable Bobby Fischer.
|Jul-22-15|| ||SimplicityRichard: <A.T PhoneHome>
I agree with alot of what you say about confidence; however in my view, confidence is influenced by experience, though at times it may be influenced by inexperience. In the sense that it can be influenced by experience, in those circumstances confidence becomes a by-product of past experiences. Nevertheless, novices can be super confident owing to lack of knowledge or youthful arrogance.
But to agree with you once again, it is usually the case that the more you know the more insecure or unconfident you become. And therefore you don't get confidence from being good at something. In short, yes... and no.
<Dr.Mal> My friend, I am afraid despite being a Fischer fan that I must disagree with you that Fischer was the best player in the world in 1960. Fischer was wiped out by Tal (0-4) in 1959. And Tal was World Champion in 1960 and 1961.
You cannot lose 4-0 to another and claim to be the best in the world; there is no excuse to losing 4-0 to another player in serious games. That result is incredibly telling! #
|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.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 14 ·