< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 13 ·
|Jul-02-11|| ||fab4: Nobody is saying Fischer was the 'strongest' player .. jeez.. this is getting boring ! |
In 1960 tho, Fischer was absolutely in the top ten chess players in the world.
|Jul-02-11|| ||DrMAL: <shach matov: <plang>
you're trying to reason with fischer fanboys by using evidence and logic? good luck with that...> I'm not a fanboy LOL. I wrote "Personally, I believe..." I am aware of all the evidence. Perhaps most compelling is that Fischer never beat Tal prior to 1960 (they tied in 1960) then Tal never beat Fischer from 1961 onwards. It is difficult to say exactly when Fischer became #1 by proof because of Tal's health, he even lost his WC back to Botvinnik.|
|Jul-02-11|| ||keypusher: <fab4: Nobody is saying Fischer was the 'strongest' player .. jeez.. this is getting boring !>|
Glad you bore yourself as well as others. Anyway, DrMAL said just that.
It actually isn't clear that Fischer was top ten in 1960 -- consider his wretched performance at Buenos Aires 1960. But he was certainly top ten by 1961, so who cares.
|Jul-02-11|| ||Petrosianic: <then Tal never beat Fischer from 1961 onwards.>|
One possible reason for that is that they never played again after 1962.
|Jul-02-11|| ||DrMAL: <keypusher:> Well, my tongue was somewhat lodged in my cheek LOL. Seriously, I do think Fischer may have won the the earlier WC had he not withdrawn from the Interzonal. It seems he was probably the best by that time. In any event his record in 1960 at age 17 to put him in top ten is unclear, but I would have to agree he was, we are all entitled to our opinions, cheers. <Petrosianic:> They played two blitz games 1970.|
|Jul-05-11|| ||DrMAL: <keypusher: consider his wretched performance at Buenos Aires 1960.> BTW, not sure if you know but during that tournament, Fischer was quite obsessed by a girl. Remember he was 17...young dumb and full of...errm, nature LOL.|
|Jul-05-11|| ||FSR: Yes, that is discussed in Silman et al.'s biography of Benko. Supposedly Larry Evans hired a young woman to be Bobby's girlfriend for the tournament. Bobby spent less time thinking about chess than about its anagram - sechs (usually spelled with only three letters).|
|Mar-08-12|| ||ashtangiman: It will be obvious I think to most players here that I am not a studied player, but I do enjoy the game. Disclaimer aside I do not understand why fischer resigns here . . . seems like white has positional and material advantages, but is in a dangerous spot. I am not seeing a forced mate by white . . . what am I missing?|
|Mar-08-12|| ||Sastre: <ashtangiman> 29...Qg3 30.Rxe7 wins a piece.|
|Apr-03-12|| ||ajile: Using tons of computer power this guy claims to have busted the King's Gambit for sure. See article here:|
|Aug-29-12|| ||TheFocus: This is game 18 in Fischer's <My 60 Memorable Games>.|
|Nov-21-12|| ||Infohunter: <ajile> Did you miss this little followup?|
|Mar-12-14|| ||ChessYouGood: Fischer really taken to school here|
|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.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 13 ·