|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Dec-22-12
 | | Naniwazu: In response to whether Petrosian overlooked the threefold repetition or not, I found a quote by Isaac Kashdan who commented on this match in Chess Life & Review: <Suddenly there is movement on stage. Fischer motions to Schmid who moves quickly to the board. There is a whispered conference, and Schmid stops the clock. What happened? Did Petrosian forfeit? No, but he had inadvertently allowed the same position to occur for the third time. Fischer had been alert to the possibility, and immediately claimed the draw, which Schmid allowed.> |
 |
Apr-25-13
 | | PaulLovric: FSR nice one |
|
Apr-25-13
 | | perfidious: <Eggman: ....There is a lot of talk, perhaps some of it legitimate, about the lack of objectivity of certain "Fischer fanatics" on this site, but in terms of desperate denial of facts I'd have to say that the Fischer bashers, like Drukenknight, are that much worse.> In the five-plus years since this post, things haven't changed a bit; moreover, we may substitute the names of Carlsen, Anand, or of late, Radjabov during the latter's crisis of form. What a feast the upcoming Carlsen-Anand title bout will be for detractors of each player, as they was positively poetic whilst their fantasies come to fruition. |
|
Apr-25-13
 | | ketchuplover: they were. not they was. your welcome. |
|
Apr-25-13
 | | morfishine: Realizing perfect objectivity is a life long endeavor. The most difficult aspect is to ignore one's own biases. "Detractors" are for the most part engaging in the childish exercise of trying to garner attention, no more |
|
Apr-25-13
 | | FSR: <PaulLovric> Thanks, but I didn't say anything. Did you post on the wrong page? |
|
Apr-25-13
| | FSR: <perfidious: ... an American contemporary of Fischer's (possibly Robert Byrne, though it's been so long, that I'm not sure), once wrote something to the effect that many strong players had emotional problems which had a negative effect on their play; he went on to note that Fischer was REALLY (the author's emphasis) weird, but that it all went away when he sat down to play.> Yes, it was Robert Byrne. |
|
Apr-25-13
| | PaulLovric: FSR, no i posted on the right page |
|
Apr-25-13
| | perfidious: <ketchuplover: they were. not they was. your welcome.> Guess what? If you review that sentence, it will be readily inferred that it was a typo on my part, 'wax' being the intended usage, as I was speaking of something which has not even taken place as yet. As a minor aside, 'your welcome' is clearly incorrect, the correct form being 'you're welcome'. Try getting the ketchup out of your eyes before presuming to lecture to me, next time round. |
|
Apr-25-13
| | perfidious: <morfishine...."Detractors" are for the most part engaging in the childish exercise of trying to garner attention, no more> Quite true. |
|
Apr-25-13
| | perfidious: <FSR> My recollection of that observation was from some book in the distant past, possibly Harold Schonberg's Grandmasters of Chess-or perhaps How Fischer Plays Chess, by David Levy. Knowing the way my tired old brain functions-if you want to call it that-nowadays, most likely neither. |
|
| Apr-25-13 | | TheTamale: <FSR>: User <PaulLovric> is probably complimenting you because he suspects you are the author of today's pun, as is so often the case. |
|
| Apr-25-13 | | Petrosianic: Overheard at the game:
Fischer: "Who's Morozevich?"
Petrosian: "I don't know, but it says we're playing his line." |
|
Apr-25-13
 | | kevin86: drawn,drawn,drawn... |
|
Apr-25-13
 | | Eyal: <Here [after 34.Qe2] Fischer claimed a draw. Not long ago Spassky said to me that Bobby, as a fervent opponent of draws, never went in for a threefold repetition of the position. But here he made an exception to the rule, since otherwise he was in danger of losing.> (Kasparov in MGP 4) <At first Petrosian did not even understand what was going on, and it was only when the arbiter went behind the stage to check the position on a spare set that the ex-world champion began studying his score-sheet. Whereas Fischer jumped up and followed the arbiter, so as to make sure of the draw as quickly as possible. Petrosian was distressed by this result no less than by his loss in the first game.> (Baturinsky, from "Russians versus Fischer") |
|
Apr-25-13
| | FSR: <perfidious> I think it was the Levy book you mentioned. |
|
Apr-25-13
| | FSR: <TheTamale: <FSR>: User <PaulLovric> is probably complimenting you because he suspects you are the author of today's pun, as is so often the case.> Not this time. |
|
| Apr-25-13 | | Mendrys: <ketchuplover: they were. not they was. your welcome.> That's funny. |
|
Apr-25-13
| | perfidious: <Mendrys> Lack of reading comprehension can have its hilarious aspects every now and again, as <ketchup> has shown. Hope he didn't get any on him in his haste. |
|
| Apr-25-13 | | Willber G: < perfidious: <ketchuplover: they were. not they was. your welcome.> As a minor aside, 'your welcome' is clearly incorrect, the correct form being 'you're welcome'.> What we have here is failure to appreciate irony. |
|
Apr-25-13
| | perfidious: <Willber G> Ah, but I did-it was humorous, really, how the poster made himself look more a fool than anyone. |
|
| Apr-25-13 | | RookFile: This game is one of those examples of where black is reluctant to trade that valuable dark squared bishop - not even for the rook on a1. Later, he gives it up for a knight. Chess has its own unique logic to it. |
|
| Apr-26-13 | | Petrosianic: <At first Petrosian did not even understand what was going on,> There are several cases of Soviet players getting burned this way. They didn't use the 3-time repetition in their own tournaments, and so players sometimes forgot about it when playing under FIDE rules. |
|
Apr-26-13
| | PaulLovric: <RookFile: This game is one of those examples of where black is reluctant to trade that valuable dark squared bishop - not even for the rook on a1. Later, he gives it up for a knight. Chess has its own unique logic to it.> why is it that people go on about the "dark squared bishop", isn't a bishop a bishop a bishop? |
|
| Apr-26-13 | | Everett: <PaulLovric: <RookFile: This game is one of those examples of where black is reluctant to trade that valuable dark squared bishop - not even for the rook on a1. Later, he gives it up for a knight. Chess has its own unique logic to it.> why is it that people go on about the "dark squared bishop", isn't a bishop a bishop a bishop?> Because the particular colors of remaining bishops is crucial to recognize middlegame color-complex attacks and chances in the endgame. So the color is really vital to understand the dynamics and concrete assessments of positions. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
