< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Dec-25-09|| ||AnalyzeThis: It's possible, but I think most people relish the chance to play a super grandmaster, even if a loss is the most likely result.|
|Dec-25-09|| ||Phony Benoni: <jackpawn> Panno did have a chance to advance. Here are the players still in contention going into the final round:|
13.0: Taimanov, Uhlmann
12.5: Gligoric, Panno, Polugaevsky, Portisch, Smyslov
The first six advanced to the Candidates matches. In addition, there was a 7th spot for a reserve player in case one of the qualifiers could not continue.
Fischer, Huebner, Geller and Larsen were safe; Taimanov and Uhlmann needed to win to ensure direct qualification. If either player drew, any of the 12.5s could force a playoff match.
Uhlmann had White against an outsider in Naranja, and duly won his game. Taimanov's game against Matulovic should have been tougher, but the latter played considerably below his best and Taimanov qualified to get squashed by Fischer. (Rrumor has it there were about 400 reasons for Matulovic's loss of form; see Taimanov vs Matulovic, 1970 for the gory details.)
There was still the reserve sport, which Panno had a chance for by beating Fischer. OK, not much of a chance. By the way, Portisch and Smyslov won their games and drew a subsequent playoff match, Portisch getting the reserve spot due to better tiebreaks in the tournament.
|Dec-26-09|| ||jackpawn: I was wrong. I didn't realize Panno had a chance to go forward. Still, what were the odds? In addition to the other games having to go in his favor he would also have to beat Fischer as black. Stranger things have happened, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.|
|Jul-13-10|| ||BraveUlysses: 1...(resigns) was perhaps premature as Panno surely has some drawing resources still on the board.|
|Jul-13-10|| ||LIFE Master AJ: I thought of a pun for this game: "Won too many."|
|Jul-13-10|| ||LIFE Master AJ: I tried to submit it on the Pun Submission page. However, a game has to be at least 10 moves ...|
|Jul-13-10|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Actually, Panno hated aliens.
A confidante told him that Fischer was not human. Before Panno was able to compose himself, he had already resigned the game.
Then his friends told him it was all a joke.
Maybe this really belongs on the "ODD LIE" page.
|Nov-20-10|| ||Tigranny: Don't expect openings you expect to see. Panno couldn't resign because of c4. He could've played spectacular play if he lived with that opening move.|
|May-11-11|| ||squaresquat: Games like this are the price for being complete & consistant|
|Mar-09-13|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <Phony Benoni>: Thank you for the interesting historical background in your post from <Dec-25-09>.|
It might be more accurate to state, however, that "Panno did have a <theoretical> chance to advance" (revising your text by inserting the word "theoretical"). Inasmuch as those chances included the condition that Panno must win his game against Fischer, Panno probably realized that his practical chances were zero. Precisely zero.
Panno's other game against Fischer from the same year (Fischer vs Panno, 1970, 1-0 in 36 moves) was a convincincing win for Fischer.
Finally, in closing I will note that today is the 70th anniversary of Fischer's birth. Requiescat in pacem.
|May-01-13|| ||porcospino289: Or Requiescat in pace, Peligroso. May he rest in peace. "in pacem" would be "May he rest into peace." "pacem" is accusative, "pace" probably ablative, and what is wanted here. "Requiescat" third person singular present subjunctive, of course.|
|May-01-13|| ||Petrosianic: <Inasmuch as those chances included the condition that Panno must win his game against Fischer, Panno probably realized that his practical chances were zero. Precisely zero.>|
By that reasoning, Kovacevic had no chance to beat Fischer either. Even though he did it.
But that had nothing to do with why Panno didn't play the game. It was a scheduling dispute. All the players who really did have zero chance to qualify played their last round games anyway.
|May-01-13|| ||Catspaw: Just for the record:
1) There is really no glory in being a warrior nation. The French have had their share of war, and not being protected by the seas, have not always had an easy time of it.
2) Have a little respect for the guys who died in some pretty silly wars, led by incompetents or cryptofascists (as in WW2). If anyone cares to read Alistair Horne's three books on the subject of French and German enmity and wars (from 1870-1940)... you might learn to be a little more respectful. Among other things, you will be reminded that the French put up staggering resistance to the "bleeding-dry" programme of Falkenhayn at Verdun. The French lost more men there than the Americans in the entire war. The Americans, anyway, never fight a war against a stronger enemy (they prefer countries like Granada and Panama). Which is why they "won" Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan.... right???
|May-01-13|| ||Petrosianic: You think Panno was trying to be a warrior nation by not playing the game? Or was Fischer trying to be a warrior nation by playing 1. c4? Either way, I've never heard that one before.|
|May-01-13|| ||keypusher: <The French have had their share of war, and not being protected by the seas, have not always had an easy time of it.> |
Fair point. They also were champs of the War League, Land Division from about 1650 until Bismarck. Not bad!
<The Americans, anyway, never fight a war against a stronger enemy (they prefer countries like Granada and Panama).>
There haven't been a lot of candidates. Presumably Britain would count in 1776 and 1812. Maybe we can fight a war with China in 20 years or so? Would that make you happy?
|May-01-13|| ||diceman: <Catspaw: The French have had their share of war>|
If you dont like war,
you can always surrender.
<The French lost more men there than the Americans in the entire war.>
Thatís not achievement.
Thatís what youíre not supposed to do.
|Sep-22-13|| ||Fusilli: <jackpawn> <I think it was more of an excuse to avoid playing Fischer... He probably felt he was going to lose anyway so why bother.>|
Not at all. This is not how GMs think. As <Analyze This> put it, most players relish the chance to play a super GM... especially grandmasters! Assuming Panno was scared of Fischer is way off. See <PB>'s post quoting Larry Evans.
|Jan-21-14|| ||Pedro Fernandez: Hey <jackpawn>, your post has been the most ignorant one I ever seen in any forum. Maybe you possess such a kind of honor and dignity, but not GM Panno.|
PS. BTW, I'm not Argentinian.
|Sep-06-14|| ||Ke2: I've never really understood this 1.c4, was it a joke? Fischer played it only a few times and never before 1970.|
|Sep-06-14|| ||RookFile: Well, Fischer knew folks were going to be getting stuff ready to meet his 1. e4. For example, in the 4th game of the 1972 match, Spassky very close to winning after 1. e4 c5 with a prepared opening. It made sense to have a 2nd weapon available.|
|Sep-08-14|| ||BobbyDigital80: Larry Evans claims in his article that Panno resigned after the hour was up but he also said Panno was forfeited for not showing up within the first hour. So did Panno resign or was he forfeited? If he resigned, Fischer would've gained rating points.|
|Sep-30-14|| ||todicav23: I guess Panno didn't want to play a reversed Sicilian with a tempo in minus, against mighty Fischer.|
|Jul-16-16|| ||Jivvi: Such an explosive opening. 😉|
|Jan-14-17|| ||HeMateMe: Who's move is it? I can see why chess clocks were needed...|
|Nov-05-17|| ||bengalcat47: This reminds me of Pillsbury's win against von Bardeleben at Hastings in 1895.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·