That wouldn't appear to be true, at least in terms of overall strength of the players. He had draws with Matulovic, Renato Naranja, Jimenez and Ujtumen, none of whom were to my knowlege elite players. And he defeated Smyslov, Reshevsky, Gligoric, Taimanov, Uhlmann, Geller and Hort.

Against the top half he had 7 wins in 11 games. Against the bottom half he had 8 wins in 12 games. Or if you don't want to count Panno, that's 6 wins in 10 games. In either case basically the same results.

How that can be interpreted as "Fischer's most wins in that tournament are against the bottom half" is technically true but highly deceptive. Principally he won one fewer game against the top half largely because he played one fewer game against the top half.

The fact that Fischer have not won a tournament as strong as Linares has a big impact when viewing him as a player from neutral stand point. Of course his fans will ignore this fact.

Karpov have won dozens of much stronger tournament than Palma..Fischer's results against Taimanov and Larsen are often repeated, and one could just as well repeat that Steinitz won with a bigger score (7-0) against a much stronger opponent (world #2 Blackburne). Does that make Stenitz greater than Kasparov or Lasker? I don't think so, matches are a bit special. When Spassky played Larsen he too won his first three games, and then took it easy. Fischer himself said that his match against Taimanov just as well could have finished 3.5-2.5, but in matches the final result doesn't matter, it is only a question of winning or losing the match. As Larsen Taimanov threw away certain draws to try to win and it backfired.

very well said :)

this madness has a name - F.N. ;)

well, being "factually accurate" wouldn't exactly be the number one trademark of much of the kibitzing that has been going on on this page for the time i've been here (which is a pretty long time). is there any reason to require more factual accuracy from maelith than from most others who post here?

i've gotten my share of foul words thrown after me on the naka page for repeating facts that haven't been "synchronized" with people's beliefs, being told that the beliefs are right and the facts are irrelevant.

sure - nothing wrong in pointing that out, obviously. i'm just saying that factual correctness isn't really the differentiator of whether a post is welcome here or not.

on the nakamura page we're supposed to be positive towards us players in general and nakamura in particular, factually correct or not. :o)

<Jim Bartle: Not even going to respond to the fact I showed Fischer did NOT just beat up on the bottom half of the players at Palma de Mallorca, that he played well against both the strong and the weak? That in fact he had three draws against the five players with the lowest scores?

At least he could make the effort to be factually accurate when writing about Fischer.>

"Fischer scored great results against the bottom half (but lost against Larsen)."

<JoergWalter: "talent" is something that is considered "given" not "aquired".>

<timhortons: who told you that carlsen is a product of computer generation? magnus never used computer to strengthen his game!>

<frogbert: let's see: chess ratings are relative, now and before. tools that everyone has access to aren't very likely producers of relative differences.>

<OhioChessFan: You can compenstate to a very large measure by simply memorizing various lines, and there is no talent needed.>

You remember? LOL! Care to provide the EXACT quote? No. Of course not. Not your style. YOU were the one ignoring Melody Amber as a measure of talent - because GK never took part.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

<I recall that during the Moscow, 1925 tournament – Tartakower often refers to this – various famous chessplayers had been studying a particular position for three hours, without being able to reach a conclusion. I was passing by at that moment and they asked me my opinion. I was not in doubt for a single second, and I told them: “This is won; and it is won like this, and this.” And I was not mistaken.>

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

<One of the interesting revelations made by the champion is that he does not make a habit of polishing up on the game or studying moves in advance of a game. He does not, he said, intend to play any game on his way to Russia. He plays only when he sits down to a board against an adversary>

<Winning the world’s championship in chess has its handicaps, Capablanca admitted, for often periods of two years have elapsed in which he has not moved a chessman for the simple reason there was no-one within four or five thousand miles [sic] with whom he might play.>

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

<‘These two rivals [Capablanca and Alekhine] were taken to a variety show by a patron, Mr.Ogle, who recalled that Capablanca never took his eyes off the chorus, whilst Alekhine never looked up from his pocket chess set.’>

http://www.chess.com/article/view/t...

Alekhine commented: <His real, incomparable gifts first began to make themselves known at the time of St. Petersburg, 1914, when I too came to know him personally. Neither before or afterwards have I seen, nor can I imagine as well such a flabbergasting quickness of chess comprehension as that possessed by the Capablanca of that epoch." It is sufficient to say that he gave all the St. Petersburg masters the odds of 5–1 in quick games – and won!>

Because, that is not part of my argument. But I never implied that Fischer did win a game against the top half players did I?

<Memory fails you - he was 3/4 against the Germans, an amazing 7/8 against the bookish Israelis but only 5.5/8 against the unconventional Czechs.>

Then why point out that he scored well against the bottom half, if not to suggest he had done less well against the top half?

<maelith: And to add to that there is this player who did simul against several national teams with clocks. imho, by memory, matches were against Germany and Israel, and scores were 6-0 both times>