|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Apr-22-13
 | | FSR: <Petrosianic: The fact that many of those wins came against IM's and untitled players may have had something to do with it too.> Um, no. Let me first note that the last three games on the list (wins against GMs Larsen and Damjanovic, and a draw against former World Champion Petrosian) began with 1.c4 c5 but transposed to the Sicilian Accelerated Dragon, Maroczy Bind. So did another draw against Petrosian, from Rovinj-Zagreb 1970. I will accordingly set aside Fischer's +2 =2 in those games (all against GMs). In true Symmetrical Englishes, Fischer scored 9 wins, 2 draws, and no losses, as follows: +1 against recently dethroned World Champion Petrosian +1 =1 against former World Champion Smyslov
+2 against GM Reshevsky, who competed for the World Championship in 1948 +3 against world-class GMs Ivkov, Pachman and Szabo
+2 =1 against IMs Bertok, Saidy, and Naranja.
In sum, in true Symmetrical Englishes, Fischer, as Black, scored +9 =2 -0 in 3 games against World Champions, 5 games against world-class GMs, 3 games against IMs, and <zero> games against untitled players. <Any player in history> would be delighted with such a score as Black in 11 games against those players. |
 |
| Apr-22-13 | | Petrosianic: I'm just saying that you can't directly compare a winning percentage from Fischer's era to the modern era. If, say Carlsen played 15 games, all 15 of them would be against players in the thick of the hunt for the world title. In Fischer's era, a quarter of the games are against non-GM opposition, and about another quarter are against GM's who aren't first tier. That's not to say that Fischer's record isn't great, only that you can't directly compare it to how Carlsen or Anand might do with the same opening today. |
|
| Apr-23-13 | | Agent Bouncy: That wasn't at all what you said in your two previous posts. You made false statements and now you are simply changing your argument without acknowledging your nonsense. Good squirm, Petrosianic. |
|
Apr-23-13
| | FSR: <Petrosianic> I must agree with <Agent Bouncy>. A more honest statement by you would be, "Sorry, I was mistaken. Fischer only played three IMs and no untitled players. He did indeed get an outstanding result." Incidentally, if we eliminate the three IMs, Fischer has this result in Symmetrical Englishes against GMs: +1 against former World Champion Petrosian
+1 =1 against former World Champion Smyslov
+2 against former competitor for World Championship Reshevsky +3 against GMs Ivkov (ranked #35 in world at the time of his game against Fischer according to Chessmetrics), Pachman (#29) and Szabo (#90). That would be +7 =1 -0 (93.75%) as Black against a very strong set of GMs. If you think Magnus Carlsen wouldn't be ecstatic about such a performance, I want some of whatever you're smoking. |
|
Apr-23-13
 | | PaulLovric: well said FSR, some people need a shoe horn to wedge their foot out of their mouth or where you just kicked that dude |
|
Apr-23-13
 | | morfishine: <PaulLovric> Sorry, my mistake: 11 wins, 4 draws & no losses at all...that is insane!! |
|
Apr-23-13
| | PaulLovric: <morfishine> and have a look at the QUALITY of his opposition....bok bok bok |
|
| Apr-23-13 | | Petrosianic: <FSR>: <Petrosianic I must agree with Agent Bouncy>. Considering that you're making a case and he isn't, wouldn't it be more correct to say that he's agreeing with you? Or rubber stamping you, at least, since I don't think he understands either one of us. <If you think Magnus Carlsen wouldn't be ecstatic about such a performance, I want some of whatever you're smoking.> You're getting second-hand smoke from the fanboys. I said pretty clearly "That's not to say that Fischer's record isn't great." In other words, I say that it's great and you hear me say that it isn't. Scary, eh? Even after I clarify the statement to say that you can't directly compare it to a Carlsen or Anand performance, you still don't hear it. I expect this from fanboys like Bouncy and Paul but not from someone who can lay facts and figures on the table. I was thinking Naranja was not yet an IM in 1970. You haven't proven that he wasn't. I've checked his bio here, on Wikipedia, and on FIDE's rating card and can't prove it one way or the other, so I'm going to assume I was wrong about that, and that there weren't any untitled players in the bunch after all. I shouldn't even do that since it's your job to show it, but I'll assume an error anyway, just to show that it's not really the ultimate crime, or worth the hysteria you guys are giving to it. In 1970, Szabo was #102 in the world (and it was a smaller world then). Damjanovic was #95. Pachman was #30 in 1966. I don't think this can be directly compared to the people Carlsen or Anand face today. (And if you interpret "Can't Directly Compare" as "This Result Isn't Great" again, then there's no hope for you). I've called Kramnik "The Worst World Champion Ever With The Black Pieces", which I still think is true, but at the same time, it's not quite as bad as it looks, since Kramnik faces nobody but super-GM's with Black, while earlier world champions had a mix of weaker opposition. So, the Carlsen fanboys think I hate Carlsen because I didn't like the London tiebreaks. The Fischer fanboys think I'm in the tank for Carlsen because I point out a mitigating factor that helps him. I think you guys should settle this among yourselves and the winner can chew me out for hating whichever one of them I hate. Be sure to let me know, as I'm quite curious. |
|
| Apr-23-13 | | RookFile: Had a friend die a couple of days ago. Helps me put matters in perspective. I used to participate in ridiculous discussions like this. Would probably be best to say that Fischer had a record against strong opposition in this English system that anybody would be proud of. Life's too short. |
|
Apr-23-13
 | | perfidious: <Petrosianic> Naranja made IM no later than 1969, when he won the zonal at Singapore, unless he somehow finished first outright while scoring less than two-thirds of the possible points from a zonal (which then automatically gave one the title-see Jean Hebert) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_H... |
|
| Apr-23-13 | | Petrosianic: Okay, then I was definitely wrong there, since we're talking bout 1970. As far as I know, winning a zonal was an automatic IM title. |
|
Apr-23-13
 | | Shams: <RookFile> Condolences. And you're right. |
|
Apr-23-13
| | morfishine: <PaulLovric> On your comment: <...and have a look at the QUALITY of his opposition....bok bok bok> Thats the point, which puts this feat into the sublime <FSR> Terrific research as always; Its always a pleasure to interact with someone who backs up their statements; This "English Thing" is off the charts, IMO. Venture a comment on Fischer's 20-straight wins vs master competition leading into the Petrosian match? Thats totally insane and the ultimate unbeatable record. Joe Dimaggio's 56 game hitting streak? Not close...The Patriot's 17-game winning streak only to lose in the Super Bowl? PLEEEZZZ The Dolphins unbeaten season? Sorry, not worth mentioning There is nothing that compares, in any sport, to 20 straight wins in chess vs that level of competition CASE CLOSED |
|
Apr-23-13
| | PaulLovric: < Petrosianic: The fact that many of those wins came against IM's and untitled players may have had something to do with it too.> = embarassing |
|
| Apr-23-13 | | Petrosianic: Don't apologize, Paul. I didn't expect you to read the posts. I'm surprised you even got part of one. |
|
Apr-23-13
 | | AylerKupp: <morfishine> Well, maybe this post belongs in the Jeremy Lin page but, being from Los Angeles, I have to bring up the Lakers' 33-game winning streak in 1971-1972. Surely nobody can suggest that it was not done against anything but the highest level of competition. Similarly, UCLA's 88 game winning streak in basketball in 1971-1974 bears mention. Maybe not always against top level competition but it did involve victories against quite a few good teams. Ahhhh, 1971 was certainly a good year in Los Angeles. Not only did the top 2 basketball teams in town start winning streaks but I got married. And, after more than 41 years, that's still going strong. Now <that>'s a winning streak! :-) |
|
Apr-23-13
| | PaulLovric: <Petrosianic,Don't apologize, Paul. I didn't expect you to read the posts. I'm surprised you even got part of one.> please refrain from talking to me from now on, because i come in peace and say very little: so when an obviously, jaded moron's narrow-minded opinions are exposed our conversations end ! do you need me to spell it out? |
|
| Apr-24-13 | | Lutwidge: I just wanted to chime in with the (possibly minority) viewpoint that both Petrosianic and Paul might well be very knowledgeable people getting bogged down in an argument over what will soon appear even to them as meaningless minutiae. Oh, and go Golden State Warriors. |
|
Apr-24-13
| | perfidious: <Petrosianic: ....As far as I know, winning a zonal was an automatic IM title.> Don't know whether or not that was so, but scoring two-thirds of the possible points in a zonal was good for the title, the way most players from the Canadian, Asian and African zones got theirs, through the 1980s. |
|
| Apr-24-13 | | Petrosianic: I believe that it was, just as Qualifying from an Interzonal was an automatic GM. I think you're also right about the 2/3 part. Anyway, I'm willing to concede that Naranja was an IM in 1970. |
|
| Apr-30-13 | | Petrosianic: <Agent Bouncy>: <Petrosianic, read your own post. "...> Several days late and several dollars short. I conceded several days ago that Naranja was an IM in 1970. You must have misunderstood the post. You're also not one of the people who proved the point, so who are you fooling here? Even when you're right, you manage to embarrass yourself! In the words of Harry: lol. |
|
| Apr-30-13 | | Agent Bouncy: I'm right, you say, but nevertheless you still feel the need to insult me again a week later? Petrosianic, this must have been a traumatic experience for you if it's still on your mind. |
|
| Apr-30-13 | | Petrosianic: It's perfectly simple. It's true that Naranja was an IM in 1970. But you didn't prove that, perfidious did. You're taking credit for his work. Also, you failed to observe that I admitted he was right about that, and still posted days later that I wouldn't admit something I admitted a few posts up. So you were definitely wrong there too. So, you see, even when you manage to guess right about one thing, you find a way to be wrong about two others. Clearer now? |
|
| Apr-30-13 | | Agent Bouncy: Days later? Prior to today, all of my posts were Apr 22 and 23. For anyone who is reading this exchange between Petrosianic and myself, it's a simple matter, if you are interested, to read the posts beginning with FSR's post of Apr 22, which sets the context, about Fischer's phenomenal record on the black side of the Symmetrical English. Make up your own minds whether Petrosianic's condescension and insults are justified. |
|
| Apr-30-13 | | Petrosianic: Well, I'm sorry you can't understand. I know it's embarrassing for you, but the fact remains that it was perfidious, and even FSR who made a case. Stop trying to ride their coattails. I'm not insulting you, just pointing out a cold, hard fact. It's you who's being insulting and even comically foolish, trying to argue a point that's already been settled. I didn't ASK you to embarrass yourself, it was all your own idea. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
 |
|
sac: 70...Bxc6