< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Mar-28-14|| ||Richard Taylor: < Sally Simpson: Hi Travis.
You could fill a large book with quotes from strong chess players praising Fischer's play and what he did for chess. >
Bull crap. All those quotes will be taken out of context and will have left off the "BUT...." F. was a great player [or so it seems] (that part omitted by a Fischer fanatic) and then the terrible and telling 'BUT, he made a lot of dubious moves...' and so on. I saw a lecture where Kasparov showed the weakness of many of Fischer;s so called "great innovations"...
What the hell are you calling yourself by some sheila's name when you're a bloke? What would you know about Fischer? I don't believe your related to GM Chandler from NZ...
|Mar-28-14|| ||perfidious: <Richard> First things first: <Sally Simpson> is from the rock opera <Tommy>.|
<Travis> is, in real life, a cabbie in Chicago, and I agree: a tool of the first water.
Fischer was a great player, but I also agree--a sorry human being.
<SirGormless> is beneath comment, as a p***y who would never say one per cent of the things he does here if not sitting behind the safety of his keyboard.
|Mar-28-14|| ||Petrosianic: <I saw a lecture where Kasparov showed the weakness of many of Fischer;s so called "great innovations"...>|
I don't suppose you'd care to tell us about any of them. If you want to argue that Fischer was a bad person, well okay. But arguing that he was a bad chessplayer seems like an uphill struggle.
Alekhine wasn't pro-Nazi, he was what's known in the biz as a collaborator.
|Mar-28-14|| ||RedShield: Keres wasn't pro-Bolshevik; he's what's known in the biz as a collaborator.|
|Mar-28-14|| ||Sally Simpson: "Fischer was a great player, but I also agree--a sorry human being."|
It should read:
"Fischer was a great player." The End.
This is a chess site not a psychiatrists convention. Here we analyse and marvel at the moves of a board game. We should not be discetting players personal lives like any of us really know what we are talking about.
The few people who knew Fischer, those he allowed to get close to him describe a totally different person
from the one people who never met allude to.
He left us some great games of chess, if that is not good enough for any of you, then give up the game as it is clearly of no interest to you.
What kind of fix do people get from slagging off a dead man?
(And I never said I was related to Murray - It is a question I am very often asked, I thought I would pre-empt it. I failed.)
|Mar-28-14|| ||Travis Bickle: <Richard Taylor> Hey di@%head, the only reason you hate Fischer is because he was American & thus has to be stupid and incompetent at chess. If Fischer was like your idol Garry Kasparov who is Russian or if Bobby had been European you'd be giving him head you drooling psychotic idiot ! |
You mention all this B.S. about high education & intelligence when you exhibit none ever! Getting back to GM Weinstein who uses 35 years of advanced computer technology to come up with, surprise! refutations to Fischer's break through's. Wow I'm impressed!! You piece of imbecilic trash! You always state I'm muttering to myself & in a wheelchair, I can assure you I can walk just fine and am not mentally unstable like you, you thorazine popping lunatic...
P.S. get off the booze you fu@%*^& drunken sot! ; P
|Mar-28-14|| ||perfidious: <Sally Simpson> That is my view and I have no intention of changing it, or backing off from what I have posted.|
Others here have their views as well, but in my opinion the player and human being can, and should, be separated.
Of all the players I have known, from beginner to grandmaster, there are plenty whose company I would happily share away from the board; others, emphatically not so.
|Mar-28-14|| ||Travis Bickle: <perfidious: <Travis> is, in real life, a cabbie in Chicago, and I agree: a tool of the first water.> Can you prove I'm a taxi driver or do ya think maybe it has to do with my avatar you horses ass! |
Keep your ignorant opinions to yourself you failure at chess, dud of a poker player moron! I'd like to visit Vermont & put you in a wheelchair that asshead Taylor is always mentioning!
|Mar-28-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi perfidious:
And I'd share company with any chess player I don't care who they are as long as we discuss chess.
Never met a chess player I did not like or get on with.
|Mar-28-14|| ||Petrosianic: <Sally Simpson> <It should read: |
"Fischer was a great player." The End.>
Not possible. We're confusing the game of chess with human beings. People are more than one particular game that they happen to like.
We can discuss chess itself abstractly. For example, discuss the merits of the 6. Bc4 Najdorf without any reference to the character of the person who popularized it. But when we discuss the person himself, the discussion is bound to stray beyond chess. That's the whole point of discussing the person rather than the game. There are people who take it too far the other way, of course. You know, fanboys who seem obsessed with every detail of Fischer's private life, while being only marginally interested in his actual games.
Krauthammer is a chess player too. I guarantee you that no discussion of that fact could avoid branching out into a discussion of whether people agree or disagree with his political viewpoints.
|Mar-28-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Petrosianic:
I'm a chessfanboy, you mentioned politics?
"Politics....What opening is that?"
|Mar-28-14|| ||Petrosianic: You know, there are some old Reinfeld books that do it the way you're suggesting. He'd present sample games, where the players were just labeled "White" and "Black". All you got to do was study the moves themselves, free of personalities. The games were real games, though. I remember recognizing one of them as being from the Capablanca-Corzo match. But Reinfeld avoided any mention of who the players were. He even had a whole book full of Miniatures, called "How to Win Chess Games Quickly", where not a single player was identified.|
Would you be happy with a tournament where they just presented all the games anonymously, and we could just study the moves for their own sake? It would be an interesting exercise, to say the least, studying a victory, and not knowing if it came from the tournament winner or from the guy who finished last.
|Mar-28-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Petrosianic:
No Names just the games....
If the games were interesting and good fun, then why not?
(Though I prefer games with names but no notes.)
No names has been done before, ask that Russian Schoolboy that everyone likes quoting. It was not unknown for Russian publications to leave out the name of a player or players.
Once that happened in a World Championship Match.
Knowing the names in some cases is bad for you. I remember in my really keen days going through an Informator and not playing over any game by Petrosian. Now look at me, a one trick pony cheapo merchant. I'm blaming names on games for me not being a GM.
|Mar-28-14|| ||thegoodanarchist: <<<"What I admired most about him was his ability to make what was in fact so difficult look easy to us.>> I try to emulate him." - World Champion Magnus Carlsen>|
<Richard Taylor: <TravisBickle>
... Carlsen only said that about Fischer to be polite.>
I suppose Carlsen only won the title to be polite too.
|Mar-28-14|| ||perfidious: <Sally Simpson: No names has been done before, ask that Russian Schoolboy that everyone likes quoting. It was not unknown for Russian publications to leave out the name of a player or players. Once that happened in a World Championship Match.>|
The technique of rendering a defector a non-person was old stuff in Soviet days, as Alekhine and Bogolyubov got PNG'd after leaving the Motherland. Then came the turn of Korchnoi.
For an example in Soviet political life, see the photographs in a section of this article:
|Mar-30-14|| ||Richard Taylor: I see Kramnik and Carlsen are having some quite heated discussions about each others' playing abilities. |
<Dr TravisBickle >
You were very cruel to Kramnik.
Now, where did I say Fischer was not a great chess player? Just that a lot of the things he said have been either taken out of context or later they were in many cases really ridiculous.
I have never claimed to be a very good chess player or even very "brainy" I find chess very difficult, but I became fascinated with the game when I was 10. I have a slow old dull brain...I always found mathematics very hard (although it interested me). I think it was because I was slow and rather - not sure the word - not a very high IQ I suppose, that I compensated by becoming a US hater - just joking! No I compensated by working for hours on homework. I had no good memory of things so I had to repeat things many times to learn them. Now such as Carlsen etc and many many others have no such difficulties with their noggins...
I carefully explained that there was no reason chess players could take draws (in fact just today I was looking at a game in a book by Karpov where Tal felt he could have offered a draw on move 18 or something and that the draw rule (he felt) was stupid.
Now the essence of your original comment was an attack on Kramnik's drawing - what you think is his policy. Then you evoke some random, inane sounding mantra by Fischer. He was well known for such things.
Now no one is taking away he won the World Champs in 1972 (it was only once though so perhaps he cant claim to be better than Botvinnik or Lasker - who he said was 'a patzer' - and in fact when I studied all the games of all the matches leading up to the '72 match I wasn't always impressed. I WAS impressed by his play in the US Champs at such a young age and his huge knowledge of chess - also - prior to 1972 at least he had a kind of conscience that meant he would refuse money for sponsorship to tourneys if he felt he didn't believe in the company. In the 60s I studied Tal, Botvinnik (others of the Soviets) and Fischer as ( as I pointed out to you) my father had Fischer's first book.
Now Bickle, the issue really is, was Fischer so good? And after 1972 he slowly went mad. We all know the sad tale.
But prior to that - a lot of good qualities - another was his near fearlessness at the board (Tal was another like that). At his best Fischer played some great positional games and he wasn't afraid of tactical complexity etc, because like Kramnik, or Tal , or (name a great GM), he could calculate well and in addition he (like old Weinstein) he had a great knowledge of chess (you have a point about Ksp. he did indeed make good use of computers and his prep was enormous.
Kramnik though cant be faulted for taking draws given the enormous stakes fo chess these days. And if you are going to attack Kram for taking draws (he did need to play more agressively in this tourney but as I said in a real game, it gets scary if it looks like it might be your last chance).
As I said, the AMERICAN GM Christiansen said that short or other draws had a value in professional chess and he was one of the most attacking players in his day.
So, throw away all that booze you are knocking back and get with it Dr. Bickle.
As for me I don't hate Americans (criticizing a place implies you have some concern for it, now I don't think I hate any person of any nation in the world except New Zealand - a nation of pretty stupid and dull people - but that aside Comrade Bickle, you must stop being nasty to poor old Kramniksky. I think the way he beat Kasparov was great. And Kasparov was pretty arrogant in those days so he needed a shake up: so Kramnik wheeled out the Berlin and it was all over.
Carlsen is just trailing in Kramnik's wake - in fact right now The Machine is reading Kramnik's book of his chess and life!
|Mar-30-14|| ||Richard Taylor: Now I think you dislike Kramnik's play for the wrong reasons. That is what I was trying to say. Now there is a great beauty to the play of certain players such as Tal and so on, whereas the beauty of say Smyslov at his best or others such as Karpov in certain kinds of apparently "dull" games (I myself prefer tactical games as I cant figure out positional ideas and I can make speculative sacs and thus I sometimes win with a swindle as everything gets confused - but usually I lose those games as well - in fact I lose most of my games!|
But I see the chess pantheon as complex, not as say Fischer being number 1 and so on with Rubinstein 20 steps down I think it is more like a kind of multidimensional model with players moving between levels and connections growing between players. Age is a factor, psychology. Also if one were to evaluate all these players there are times when a "quiet" player makes combinations or players a who is supposedly quite different from player p will actually in some cases play very much like each other. Hence there is in some ways a commonality between Capablanca, Fischer, Karpov and others. Fischer learned ideas from Smyslov (and many others) as Lasker learned ideas from Steinitz and Tarrasch and probably Chigorin etc Alekhine studies Capablanca's play and then goes ahead and wins but refuses a rematch and so on. Fischer plays the Spanish much as Karpov did - both like Capablanca (and maybe Carlsen) tried always for the best move...but there are then examples of players (or cases) where these generalizations don't apply.
I think by the way that it is a bit monotonous seeing Russians and Anand battling it out and I would rather see say Nakamura, Giri, some of the Chinese players, the Phillipino players (they are always pretty zany and innovative), maybe some from the former Yugoslavia and so on... maybe one day a strong woman player (or more than one) going it hammer and tongs.
I don't think Anand will win against Carlsen. Carlsen is presently way the best player. He wasn't hardly under pressure against Anand (except I think he got a bit too casual in a few games)...but Anand is not like the young Anand. He's lost that edge.
And in a way it Kramnik and such as Karjarkin needed to go for some complexities and imbalances if they were to have any hope. None of them (except perhaps Aronian and Marmedyarov) looked the ticket....
|Mar-30-14|| ||Richard Taylor: < Travis Bickle: <perfidious: <Travis> is, in real life, a cabbie in Chicago, and I agree: a tool of the first water.> Can you prove I'm a taxi driver or do ya think maybe it has to do with my avatar you horses ass!|
Keep your ignorant opinions to yourself you failure at chess, dud of a poker player moron! I'd like to visit Vermont & put you in a wheelchair that asshead Taylor is always mentioning! >
You've forgotten that you drove a taxi and you even had Scorcese (?) in the cab: you then did a massacre or something, I forget the details of the film - the film becomes reality Bickle!
You are trapped in your Avatar!
|Mar-30-14|| ||Richard Taylor: <Sally Simpson>
What kind of fix do people get from slagging off a dead man?
(And I never said I was related to Murray - It is a question I am very often asked, I thought I would pre-empt it. I failed.) >
Dear Miss Sally, I love your ideas, your tenderness: but surely it is much safer to slag off a dead person? Unless you believe in ghosts. A lot of people don't like Hitler and say nasty things about him.
|Mar-30-14|| ||perfidious: <Richard> Thanks for a bit of humour; <DrTravisBickle> is classic stuff.|
|Mar-30-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Richard
Still cannot see the point in having a pop at someone who has passed away. It's a one-sided argument, they cannot reply unless you do the replying for them.
It's a bit like playing chess by yourself. You usually win but in reality you have just beaten yourself.
My dad and brother drove taxi's, my mum and I were taxi dispatchers, so no quibble with me and Travis. (even though he does express himself in a somewhat violent manner.....I wonder if he gets many tips.)
|Mar-30-14|| ||OhioChessFan: <RT: (criticizing a place implies you have some concern for it, now I don't think I hate any person of any nation in the world except New Zealand - a nation of pretty stupid and dull people >|
I <knew> I could find some point of agreement with you.
|Mar-30-14|| ||perfidious: In a Howard Fast novel from the 1970s, there is a wise Chinese called Feng Wo who comments to his daughter that the honour is in the worker, not the job.|
A fine thing for many in life to remember.
|Mar-30-14|| ||tamar: I find Kramnik the deepest thinker, but wonder if Kasparov had not granted him a shot in 2000, contrary to the results of the Candidates Matches, whether he would have become World Champion through normal means.|
Rubinstein in 1909 after St Petersburg would have been in a similar position to Kramnik. Lasker was very high on his play, but had already signed to play Schlechter who had a poor result.
|May-22-14|| ||1d410: Anand agreed to a draw since Kramnik never loses the catalan.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·