|Oct-07-03|| ||NiceMove: chessgames.com: score seems to be incomlete. |
|Oct-07-03|| ||Kenkaku: The score is correct, white's rook is trapped. |
|Oct-07-03|| ||CapAnson: Sax was (is?) a GM so if Fischer were palying him in a simul this really isn't much of an upset. |
|Oct-07-03|| ||Benjamin Lau: <CapAnson>
Sax wasn't such a good player when he first played Fischer, so the game is more of an upset than you seem to brush it off as. This is Sax's very first game in the database, and I doubt he was already a GM in the first game he played. In fact, Sax was born around 1951, so he actually played Fischer at age 13. Stop protecting Fischer and check your facts first. Of course it's a simul so don't take it too seriously, but don't downplay it so much either.
|Oct-08-03|| ||Benzol: Lou Hays book on Fischer's games has the opponent listed as B.Sax |
|Dec-17-03|| ||CapAnson: Lau: What are you talking about? I can't stand fischer, But even if G.Sax was only a 2100ish player at 13, that should be enough to play a world champion in a simul fairly well. |
Benzol: That would explain it.
|Dec-17-03|| ||Benjamin Lau: Interesting Benzol, it appears that Fischer lost to basically an NN. CapAnson, there are records showing Capablanca, Kasparov, among others, playing much stronger opponents and in much greater numbers in simuls:|
Kasparov vs Movsesian, 2001
is one example of Kasparov playing a high level player, I think maybe even a GM (he's rated more than 2600). There are also several books you can also find at your local library about Capablanca's records in simuls.
|Dec-17-03|| ||AdrianP: B Sax is, apparently, a Mr Boris Sax. No other games either on this database or chessbase. This *is* an upset, even given that it is in a simul. Fischer's play looks extremely lacklustre (the loss of the R at the end was extremely careless, but W looked pretty lost even before that). He would have been about 21 at the time of this simul, so that's not really an excuse either. |
|Dec-17-03|| ||AdrianP: He lost to another two relative unknowns at the same tournament|
One is here:
Fischer vs G Thornell, 1964
The other isn't on chessgames.com:- here's the PGN
[Event "Chicago sim"]
[White "Fischer,Robert James"]
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.a4 Nbc6 8.Nf3 Bd7
9.Bd3 Qa5 10.Qd2 c4 11.Be2 b5 12.Ba3 bxa4 13.0-0 0-0 14.Nh4 f6 15.exf6 Rxf6 16.f4 Nf5
17.Nf3 Rh6 18.Rab1 Qd8 19.g3 Qe8 20.Rf2 Rb8 21.Re1 Qg6 22.Ref1 Rb7 23.Ne5 Qe8 24.g4 Nfe7
25.g5 Rh4 26.Nf3 Rh3 27.Kg2 Qh5 28.Kh1 Nf5 29.Kg1 Ng3 30.Ne5 Nxf1 31.Bxf1 Rh4 32.Nf3 Rg4+
33.Kh1 Rb8 34.Ne5 Rh4 35.Nf3 Rh3 36.Qe3 e5 37.dxe5 Bf5 38.e6 Be4 39.e7 Rxf3 0-1
C Diebert may well be the Charles Diebert who has got some pretty heavy duty scalps. See http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...
This might suggest that the quality of opposition might have been higher than at your run of the mill simul.
|Dec-17-03|| ||chessgames.com: We'll change this to "B Sax." Adrian, what makes you believe his name is Boris? |
Note that Fischer did very well at simuls, playing a large number of boards (40-50) and usually losing only few games. However, the stats in the database are greatly skewed in favor of the upsets, as the scoresheets tend to be saved by the winners, and "misplaced" by the losers.
This is exactly the reason why we exclude simuls from calculations of winning percentage.
|Dec-17-03|| ||Benjamin Lau: <chessgames.com>
Odd games also aren't counted in the win % too, right?
|Dec-17-03|| ||chessgames.com: Right, and neither are blitz games, or blindfold games. |
|Dec-17-03|| ||Benzol: Apparently Fischer played two exhibitions in Chicago, one on March 22nd which is where the Sax and "G Dibert" games come from. Fischer's score was + 56; - 4; = 11.
The second exhibition which is where the Thornell game comes from was played on March 23rd. Fischer's score was + 49; - 1; = 4.
John Donaldson's book "A Legend On The Road" has 12 games from March 22nd and 10 games from March 23rd. |
|Dec-18-03|| ||AdrianP: <Chessgames.com> <We'll change this to "B Sax." Adrian, what makes you believe his name is Boris?> He is given as such on the chessbase database.|
<Benzol> Thanks. The overall scores are pretty impressive. This would have been just after BF had won the US Championship with 11-0-0. Well done Mr Sax...!
|Dec-21-03|| ||Benzol: <Adrian> I think this is the game you posted above but the name is slightly different. Fischer vs G Dibert, 1964 |
|Dec-21-03|| ||henrilin: Fischer must have played hundreds of games in simuls that havn´t been included in this database. Where can I find the most complete record of Fischers games, until 1992 at least? |
|Dec-21-03|| ||refutor: <henrilin> this is the best one i think http://www.shopuschess.org/cgi-bin/... |
|Aug-25-05|| ||sneaky pete: "Boria Sax may be only 14, but he plays this one like a veteran; perhaps his youthful appaereance lulled the young grandmaster into a false sense of security!" Frank Skoff, Illinois Chess Bulletin, April 1964, quoted in <A Legend On The Road>. So that's BoriA, not Boris, unless of course it's a typo in Donaldson's book.|
|Mar-22-08|| ||najdorfman: I was acquainted with BORIA Sax. He
played on the chess team for Hyde Park
high school on the southside of Chicago. He would sometimes wander around during a match game with his eyes closed, analyzing the position in
his head. He was a strong master at a
time when 2400 players, e.g., Larry Gilden, played in the U.S. Invitational
championship. South Shore high school
narrowly defeated Hyde Park in the Chicago city championship one year circa 1965, and preparing for Boria Sax
required a lot of work. I would guess
that at age 16 or 17, Sax was 2300+.
I have no idea what became of him. I
believe his father was implicated in
some Soviet espionage scandal but I'm not positive. I recall seeing a PBS
documentary mentioning a scientist named Sax who resided in Chicago at that time but my memory of the details
|Mar-22-08|| ||Calli: Yes, it was a Nova called "Atomic Spies" Here is Boria: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venona...|
|Jul-30-08|| ||whiteshark: Pun: Sax Education|