< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 13 ·
|May-28-06|| ||KingG: <jackmandoo> Fischer undoubtedly had many novelties that he never got to use OTB. A possible indication of that is he would use opening novelties in blitz games! So obviously, he must have had a few to spare.|
|Jun-28-06|| ||mccarthpm: in the clean sweep us championship one game was a bye for fischer|
|Jun-28-06|| ||Nomen Nescio: I'd play 29...RxP for spite.|
|Jun-29-06|| ||RookFile: for maximimum amount of spite checks, I'd consider ...Bc5+ first.|
|Jun-29-06|| ||Nightwalk: <Spassky69> < I don't know if anyone knows about this but something very interesting happened after the game. Fischer was crying like a baby when he lost(only being a young boy), then GM Bronstein went up to him and said Don't cry, listen I didn't cry when the Soviets made me lose an entire match to Botvinnik in '48! > ( lol ) That's an amusing tale.|
|Dec-15-06|| ||Rubenus: <ughaibu> That is interesting.|
|Dec-15-06|| ||who: <i Think that Fischer could certainly not beat kasparov, but Fischer certainly survived more against the king's gambit than kasparov against Nigel Short> bear in mind that Kasparov had to play a certain variation of the KGA against Short as it was a thematic tournament.|
Regarding Fischer's Ruy Lopez Soltis claims that Fischer gave it up because he believed he had found a way to neutralize it fromt he black side and therefore didn't want people playing it against him when he was white.
|Mar-07-07|| ||M. Shaune: Fischer in his prime would beat Kasparov in his prime. Here is the reasoning; In 1975 Karpov barely beat Korchnoi. Anyone who barely beats Korchnoi is not going to beat Fischer. The same goes for the Karpov of 1978. The Karpov of 1981 defeated an aging Korchnoi, who was clearly not in his prime. Enter Kasparov. The Kasparov of 1984 would have been crushed by the Fischer of 1972. You are not going to fall behind by 5 games to Karpov and be in Fischer's league. Indeed, Kasparov in his matches with Karpov proved only slightly better, and failed to win 2 of those matches. I see no evidence to support the currently popular notion that Kasparov in his prime was better than Fischer in his prime. Fischer is an extremely unlikable individual in my opinion, but chess is chess.|
|Mar-07-07|| ||capatal: M. Shaune
Karpov severely trounced Spassky in their early seventies match. Spassky
said," Karpov was much harder to beat than Fischer."
This all happened just before Fischer attempted to change dozens of World Championship competition rules, (favorable to Fischer), then Fischer resigned his FIDE title because just one of his self-serving stipulations was turned down by the chess governing body.
Fischer disappointed chess fans all
over the world as he ran through the briers and he ran through the brambles ducking Karpov and all other worthy challengers. Fischer's true Chess speed we'll never know ... thanks to Fischer's abundant chicken feathers.
A disappointed fan
|Mar-07-07|| ||Plato: Source?|
|Mar-08-07|| ||M. Shaune: Spassky was a shell of a man after Fischer was through with him, the Soviet media tore him to shreds. By Spassky's own admission his chess ambition was gone. When Spassky was in his prime it was 'he' not his contemporary Korchnoi who was world champion. Ofcourse Spassky would say that Karpov was tougher,THEY WERE BOTH SOVIETS. Karpov barely beat Korchnoi twice, and couldn't even put away Kasparov when he had him down 5-0. When asked in 1982 who he thought was the greatest player of all time Korchnoi said Robert Fischer. Fischer behaves like a delusional paranoid and has all sorts of irrational fears, but if you look at his openings and his style and compare them to Karpov's openings and style, one would be hard pressed to call 'Fischer' an over the board coward. I like Karpov a lot. But the question is; Could a guy who could barely beat Korcnoi, beat the Fischer who trounced a confident world champion 7-2? [not including the forfeit]. Fischer beat the world champion spassky as badly as Morpy beat Anderssen. Karpov couldn't even draw the last game of a match with Kasparov that would have given him the world championship.|
|Mar-08-07|| ||Plato: I see now that <RookFile> chose to delete his post after I challenged him to produce a source.|
To make it clear what I was responding to, <RookFile> made the claim that Spassky said Fischer would have defeated Karpov in 1975. He said this in response to <capatal>. I know that <RookFile>'s strong personal opinion is that Fischer would have won, but I was not aware that Spassky made any such claim. This is why I asked <RookFile> to produce a source, at which point he deleted his post.
I take it this means that he doesn't have a source, but made the claim anyway. If I am mistaken, I ask that he or anyone else provide the source in which Spassky supposedly said Fischer would have beaten Karpov in 1975.
|Mar-08-07|| ||setebos: <Plato> I may be wrong but I believe that in "The Russians vs Fischer" you will find an opinion as to the possible outcome of the match that never was. I bought the book in the 2000 Olympiad in Istanbul and I cannot find it. :(|
|Mar-08-07|| ||Plato: <setebos> Thanks. By "an opinion," do you mean Spassky's opinion?|
|Mar-08-07|| ||plang: "Spassky was a shell of a man after Fischer was through with him, "|
Spassky played some brilliant chess in 73 and 74. I rememember being really impressed with some of his attacking games in the 73 soviet championship. The matches against Karpov in 74 and Korchnoi in 77 were excellent hard-fought matches. It really wasn't till after the 76-78 cycle that Spassky seemed to become less ambitious.
|Mar-08-07|| ||euripides: <Plato> this PDF link gives an interview with Spassky on the chesscafe website where he tends to think that Karpov would have been the favourite in 1975: |
It has been cited many times on this site already and is well known to kibitzers who have taken part in this discussion before. I think I've seen someone say that Spassky may have given a contrary opinion to Susan Polgar.
|Mar-08-07|| ||Plato: <euripides> Thanks for the link. I had not seen the article. Excerpts:|
<When somebody asked him if the toughest opponent he’d had in his whole life was either Kortchnoi or Bobby Fischer, surprisingly Spassky said that neither of them had been the toughest, but Anatoly Karpov probably was.>
<Spassky said that he was in top form when he lost a candidates match to Karpov in 1974. He said that during the years 1973 and 1974 he had recovered his old top form of the sixties, but when he played Bobby Fischer in Reykjavík 1972, he was in poor form from the psychological viewpoint. Somehow he considers that Karpov in 1974 was a tougher opponent than Bobby Fischer in 1972, but he is not quite sure. At any rate he insisted that Karpov was the toughest opponent he had ever met.>
<Spassky said he did not consider it clear that Bobby Fischer might have won, because in 1975 Bobby had already been inactive for three years, and such a handicap would not possibly be overcome even by a chess genius. Under such conditions, Spassky believes that Karpov would have been the favorite.>
Now I understand why <RookFile> deleted his comment, in which he claimed Spassky's opinion was that Fischer would have beaten Karpov in 1975. I challenged him to provide a source, and a few hours later I found that his comment had been deleted. It turns out the claim was not only false, but diametrically opposed to what Spassky actually said.
|Mar-08-07|| ||keypusher: <Here is the reasoning; In 1975 Karpov barely beat Korchnoi. Anyone who barely beats Korchnoi is not going to beat Fischer. The same goes for the Karpov of 1978. The Karpov of 1981 defeated an aging Korchnoi, who was clearly not in his prime. Enter Kasparov. The Kasparov of 1984 would have been crushed by the Fischer of 1972.>|
Oh, God, not this @$@%$ again.
Karpov has a much better score against Spassky than Fischer does. So he would crush Fischer in a match, right? Right?
In 1846, Howard Staunton played a very unusual 21-game match with Daniel Harrwitz. They played seven games on even terms, seven games at pawn and move, and seven games at pawn and two moves. Despite these severe odds, Staunton won the match easily, beating Harrwitz 7-0 in the games played even, and 5-2 at the games played at the very heavy odds of pawn and two moves.
In 1858, Paul Morphy played a match with Harrwitz on even terms, winning 5-2. In other words, he only did as well on even terms with Harrwitz as Staunton had done conceding a pawn and the first two moves. Therefore, Staunton in 1846 was much stronger than Paul Morphy in 1858, right?
In the 1960s, Bobby Fischer couldn't handle Efim Geller, winning twice and losing five times, including a pair of humiliating defeats with White in 25 moves or less in 1967. But in 1966, Geller lost a match to Bent Larsen. Clearly, Bent Larsen in 1966 was much better than Bobby Fischer in 1967, right?
I could do this all day, and at the end of the day I wouldn't have proved a thing.
|Mar-08-07|| ||Plato: <keypusher> Well said.|
|Mar-08-07|| ||RookFile: Well, as usual, we have Plato putting a bunch of words in my mouth. I made an idle comment about Spassky, and then thought better of it and deleted it. Plato thinks the whole world revolves around him, of course, so somehow this event must be tied to him.|
I've been following chess, frankly, for a lot longer than most of you here. With Spassky, he's like a tennis ball, and his opinion on who would beat whom in a Karpov vs. Fischer match has wavered 3 or 4 times over the years. I know that in the past, he has said something along the lines that Fischer would win in 1975, but by 1978, matters would not be so clear. It's interesting: if you check the Wikipedia article on Karpov, it says exactly the same thing, but the author of that article is currently being asked to produce a citation for that quote. No, I'm not the author. And no, I really don't care that much about it, otherwise, I'd track down where it was that Spassky did make that quote, and put it in there myself.
|Mar-08-07|| ||RookFile: By the way, Kasparov himself has vacillitated on his opinion regarding a Fischer vs. Karpov match. Sure: everybody today knows that he wrote My Great Predecessors, and he currently says that Karpov would have had good chances. What is probably not so well known is, before being crowned champion, Kasparov in the early 1980's said that Karpov was a 'paper champion', and that Fischer would have crushed Karpov had they played. That's just one of those details that you remember, and helps you keep perspective when later, Kasparov conveniently changes his opinion to write a controversial one that helps him make money.|
|Mar-08-07|| ||Plato: <Well, as usual, we have Plato putting a bunch of words in my mouth. I made an idle comment about Spassky, and then thought better of it and deleted it. Plato thinks the whole world revolves around him, of course, so somehow this event must be tied to him.>|
I suppose it's a coincidence that you only "thought better of it" after I challenged you to provide a source.
<I've been following chess, frankly, for a lot longer than most of you here>
Very impressive. Are you going to go on about your whopping 2100 rating now? Or perhaps the tournaments you've won, or the 500+ chess books you've read? All of that doesn't make your comment about Spassky any less wrong, which is why you deleted it upon being challenged.
Since you have made erroneous claims in the past, I'm going to stick with Spassky's own words rather than what you claim he said later on -- until you can provide a source. You claim Spassky waffled three or four times on the issue. Where? When? Who can give me a source? If you can't provide a source, in light of a host of other factually false claims you've made in the past, you can't honestly expect us to just take your word for it.
|Mar-08-07|| ||Plato: <Kasparov in the early 1980's said that Karpov was a 'paper champion', and that Fischer would have crushed Karpov had they played>|
I know that Kasparov called Karpov a "paper champion." There was no love lost between them. I did not know that he ever said that <"Fischer would have crushed Karpov had they played."> If he really said such a thing, it wouldn't be hard to find at least a single source confirming it. Put up or shut up. And hopefully you won't delete your comment this time, even if you are wrong. I extend the offer to anyone: does anyone have any recollection of Kasparov saying something along the lines of "Fischer would have crushed Karpov had they played." This is <RF>'s claim. Are there any sources confirming this? Where and when was it said, if ever?
(Note to <Rookfile>: I really hope you're not making this one up. You should know by now that I don't let you get away with things that are either false or can't be backed up. It's happened numerous times before, which is why it's hard to take your word on this or anything.)
<That's just one of those details that you remember, and helps you keep perspective when later, Kasparov conveniently changes his opinion to write a controversial one that helps him make money.>
First let's see proof that Kasparov changed his opinion. Same for Spassky. And second, it's just ridiculous to even suggest that Kasparov's motivation for saying Karpov had good chances was because he thought saying such a thing would help him make money. Please.
I have another idea. Maybe he said it because he believed it? Same goes for Spassky. Ever consider that possibility?
|Mar-08-07|| ||Hesam7: 18...Bf6 looks completely winning:
click for larger view
Some analysis by Toga II:
19.Bxd6 Bxh4 20.Be5 Nxe5 21.Qxe5 Qf6 22.Rxf5 Qxe5 23.Rexe5 Rxf5 24.Rxf5 Re8 25.Ne5 Kg7 26.Kh2 Re6 27.Kh3 Be7 28.Kg4 Bd6 29.Nf7 h6 30.Nxd6 Rxd6 31.Rb5 Rd4 32.Kf3 b6 33.Re5 (eval: -1.19 @ depth 19)
19.Re6 Rg8 20.Qe3 Re8 21.Bxd6 Qd7 22.Rxe8 Rxe8 23.Qf4 Re4 24.Qxf5 Rxh4 25.Bh2 Qxf5 26.Rxf5 Kg7 27.Nf4 Be5 28.Kg1 Bd4 29.Kh1 Ne7 30.Rb5 b6 31.g3 Rh6 32.Kg2 (eval: -1.27 @ depth 19)
19.Re6 Rg8 20.Qh2 Rg4 21.Rxd6 Qe7 22.Bg5 Bxg5 23.hxg5 Rg8 24.Rxf5 R8xg5 25.Rxg5 Qxg5 26.Rh6 Qf5 27.Kg1 Qe4 28.Kh1 Nd4 29.Rh3 Nxc2 30.Qe5 Qxe5 31.Nxe5 Ra4 32.Rxc3 Rxa2 (eval: -1.46 @ depth 19)
|Mar-08-07|| ||RookFile: <Plato: Very impressive. Are you going to go on about your whopping 2100 rating now? Or perhaps the tournaments you've won, or the 500+ chess books you've read? All of that doesn't make your comment about Spassky any less wrong, which is why you deleted it upon being challenged. >|
Plato: frankly, you're not worth the time, and I've only quoted this a representative sample of your direct, personal attacks, rather than arguing the issues. I'll try my best to ignore the rest of your nonsense.
But, as best I can, I'll come up the the quotes. To remind myself, I have two tasks, because you are not familiar with some basic facts:
1) To demonstrate that Spassky at one point had an opinion that Fischer, not Karpov, would have been the favorite in 1975, and
2) To demonstrate that Kasparov at one point (around 1983) thought that Fischer would have beaten Karpov easily.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 13 ·
Now on DVD