< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2165 OF 2165 ·
|Sep-01-17|| ||tpstar: He lives in Ohio, and his avatar was cropped from the same picture as Alexandra Kosteniuk|
Now that's a fun page to read from the top.
|Sep-01-17|| ||HeMateMe: I've looked for that dinner photo on google, never found it, not her close up or any sort of group photo.|
|Sep-01-17|| ||diceman: <tpstar: He lives in Ohio, and his avatar was cropped from the same picture as Alexandra Kosteniuk>|
I always get her mixed up with the famous Antarctic champion,
She popularized the Igloo opening:
1.e3 ...any black response
Rapid King-side development and a flexible center.
Resembles the Accelerated French.
If you want to send shivers down your opponents spine,
play the Igloo!
|Sep-02-17|| ||PeterPringle: Does anybody remember a story about Bobby "preparing" a guy before a tournament game? Then the guy's opponent sees and gets upset? So the opponent later sits down with a guy who is about to face Bobby, and shows him a thing or two. Bobby sees and doesn't like it, especially when he later loses to that guy. Hope that makes sense.|
|Sep-02-17|| ||ughaibu: Here you go: L A Sanchez vs Pachman, 1959|
|Sep-04-17|| ||PeterPringle: Thanks, ughaibu!|
|Sep-13-17|| ||HeMateMe: In the movie "Son of a Gun" Ewan McGregor plays a convict in a maximum security prison in Australia. Here, he gets a chess lesson from a new inmate:|
in another scene in the film McGregor has the position set up on a board from the famous Spassky/Fischer game where BF played N-h5, allowing Spassky to play BxN, giving black doubled pawns on the h file. Fischer won that game, a TN that turned the match around.
McGregor tells the young guy "This game says: 'You're either in or OUT! No halfway measures. Are you in'?" [in a dangerous jail break being planned.]
Just glad people in Hollywood are still thinking of Bob's chess.
|Sep-13-17|| ||optimal play: Hollywood?
It's an Australian production!
|Sep-13-17|| ||HeMateMe: well, Hollywood controls the whole world film distribution rights, don't they?|
|Sep-13-17|| ||optimal play: Huh?
Are you making a joke?
|Sep-13-17|| ||Howard: Regarding the Sept 2 inquiry about Fischer's prepping someone for a game, that story is briefly told in Mednis'
How to Beat Bobby Fischer.
According to the book, Bobby approached Pachman after witnessing the conversation and said to him, "So, you've prepared my opponent!" Pachman nodded, and said that Bobby was correct.
|Sep-25-17|| ||AylerKupp: From World Cup (2017) (kibitz #3201) |
<<diceman> The <truth> would be you losing>
Of course I would, so what? The real <truth> was that I would have deserved to be there because I had at least played in the qualifying event and Fischer, who had not, did not.
<It wasn't a random guess deciding he would win>
Again, of course not. Everyone would have expected him to win and he very likely would have. And he didn't even need to win to qualify for the Interzonal, all he needed to do was finish in the top 3 places. But that was not the issue.
<It must be confusing when dislike of Fischer clouds ones judgment. It's very easy to understand when one appreciates he was the best player alive.>
No is arguing that he wasn't the best player alive at that time. Again, so what? If he chose not to go by not playing in the qualifying tournament which he was very likely to win, that was his choice. One must live with one's choices. What's so confusing about that? It isn't to me, although it seems that it might be to you.
As I have said many times before, I have nothing but admiration and awe for Fischer the player. And I have nothing but contempt for Fischer the person. But this had to do with chess and not the person, and nothing to do with my opinions of Fischer. If it had been anyone else I would have felt the same way.
<The implication was there is only one Fischer>
And there was only one Michael Phelps. Again, so what? There would be other WCC cycles in the future. If they were sufficiently important to Fischer, he could always enter those.
|Sep-25-17|| ||Petrosianic: You might be suffering from a misconception.
When Benko dropped out, they didn't just give the spot to Fischer. Everyone else who finished below Benko; Lombardy, Evans, Mednis, Zuckerman, Donald Byrne, Saidy, Bisguier, Robert Byrne and Burger all had to refuse the spot. Only when there was no one left from the Zonal willing to claim it was the USCF able to use their discretion to assign it elsewhere.
|Sep-26-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<Petrosianic> You might be suffering from a misconception.> |
If that's addressed to me I am quite aware that in order for Fischer to be the 3rd US representative in the 1970 Interzonal that Benko and each player that finished below Benko needed to withdraw from the Interzonal. We researched and discussed it at length on this page.
You probably missed the discussion in:
World Cup (2017) (kibitz #3178)
World Cup (2017) (kibitz #3184)
World Cup (2017) (kibitz #3188)
World Cup (2017) (kibitz #3196)
World Cup (2017) (kibitz #3200)
World Cup (2017) (kibitz #3201)
I suggested that since that discussion was off-topic in the World Cup 2017 page (the last I checked, Fischer didn't play in it) that the discussion be move to where it really belongs, in the Fischer page.
|Sep-27-17|| ||diceman: <AylerKupp: From World Cup (2017) (kibitz #3201)|
<<diceman> The <truth> would be you losing>
Of course I would, so what?>
Sure, so what?
The US didn't need a World Champion.
Chess fans didn't need to see one of the greatest performances in the history of chess. The truth never has to actually happen.
It's all about Ayler and his Interzonal
I hope you're prepared for the responsibility? The "Ayler Boom"
would unfold. Where players run from chess to checkers, and backgammon. :)
What's interesting is your focus on self, and the voiding of Fischer's chess skills, has actually made your argument worse.
The premise here is that some type of
"wrong" happened to Benko.
He willingly gave up his spot to the
best American chess player.
At least that player:
1. Actually won the World Championship.
2. Gave one of the greatest performances not only in US chess, but all chess.
3. Created a boom for the US federation
and chess in general.
4. Brought higher pay and standards to the game.
In your scenario, someone who finished
lower than Benko gets to go. With the
only justification being, he can.
The guaranteed loss, is supposed to somehow be better for Benko?
<And there was only one Michael Phelps. Again, so what?>
You can void Fischer, but I cant.
This was about Fischer.
His being the only US credible threat
to world chess.
Benko wouldn't be giving up his spot for you to go.
Benko wouldn't be giving up his spot for Zuckerman to go.
Unless it's Fischer, there's no reason
for Benko to give up his spot to someone who performed worse in the
|Sep-27-17|| ||AylerKupp: <Sure, so what> (part 1 of 2)|
<diceman> Your lack of objectivity towards Fischer seems to have impaired your reading ability, reading comprehension, and reasoning capacity.
<The US didn't need a World Champion>
No, it didn't, in either 1972 or in 1975. In the latter year it was Fischer himself who resigned his title because FIDE would not meet all of his demands to the WCC match. The US survived 1976 and afterwards without a World Champion and I'm pretty sure that it would have survived without one from 1972 – 1975, just like it survived without one after Steinitz lost his title to Lasker in 1894 (Steinitz had become a US citizen in 1888) and there was no US chess World Champion fro 1894 through 1971.
<The truth never has to actually happen>
Well, if it doesn't happen it's not the truth, isn't it? We could wonder what might have been (e.g. Fischer vs. Karpov in 1975) but we would never really know.
<It's all about Ayler and his Interzonal participation trophy>
I don't know if they gave trophies in those days for finishing last in the Interzonal, or if they gave any prize money to the last place finisher. If they did, I suspect that it would have been a nominal amount. And I would have gladly accepted it, since in the hypothetical scenario I described I would have earned it by qualifying for the tournament.
<What's interesting is your focus on self, and the voiding of Fischer's chess skills, has actually made your argument worse.>
Of course I focused my myself. If I didn't, who would? Certainly Fischer wouldn't have focused on anyone but himself. And rightly so..
But I don't understand why you think I voided Fischer's chess skills; I readily agreed that he was the best player in the world in 1969 (and Dr. Elo's 1969 unofficial rating list confirms it, Fischer was ranked #1 with a rating of 2720 above Korchnoi and Spassky, both with a rating of 2670). I also readily agreed that he would have likely won the 1969 US Championship and that it was inconceivable that he would not have finished in the first 3 places.
<The premise here is that some type of "wrong" happened to Benko. He willingly gave up his spot to the best American Chess player>
I don't know why or how you arrived at that conclusion. Benko himself said that he gave up his spot willingly because "this country has been good to me" although there does not seem to be a consensus whether giving up his place was originally Benko's idea or whether it was suggested to him by someone else, most likely Edmonson. But it doesn't really matter.
What does matter is that Benko could willingly give up his place but he had no voice on who would take his place. All other participants that finished lower than Benko also had to agree to give up their places. Then it would be up to the USCF to decide who the US's third representative would be, and the answer was clearly obvious.
|Sep-27-17|| ||AylerKupp: <Sure, so what> (part 2 of 2)|
<At least that player ...>
I readily agree to all the things you said. And Fischer could have played in the Interzonal and be responsible for all of those things happening if:
a. He had participated in the 1969 US Championship and finished among the top 3.
b. The USCF had amended their rules for representing the US in the 1970 Interzonal from having the top 3 finishers in the 1969 US Championship be the representatives to having the top 2 finishers in the 1969 US Championship be the representatives plus a wildcard to be selected by the USCF. As I indicated before, the USCF was well within its rights to do that. And that would have been perfectly fine with me.
So who would have been more responsible for risking Fischer's participation in the 1970 Interzonal, Fischer, the USCF, or poor little selfish AylerKupp?
<You can void Fischer, but I cant>
I think that it's clear that I haven't "voided" Fischer as far as his chess is concerned, and it's equally can't that you can't either for whatever reasons you have.
<Benko wouldn't be giving up his spot for you to go. Benko wouldn't be giving up his spot for Zuckerman to go. Unless it's Fischer, there's no reason for Benko to give up his spot to someone who performed worse in the Championship.>
And I readily agree. But you seem incapable of accepting the fact that Benko had no voice in determining who his replacement would be. And, since he would be dumb to give up his spot without the guarantee that Fischer would be his replacement, it stands to reason that all the other players in the 1969 US Championship tournament would have been consulted ahead of time and they would have also agreed to give up their spots so that Fischer could be one of the 3 US representatives. And I am again saying that even if I had finished in last place in the US Championship with a 0-11 score, I would not have given up my place in the Interzonal; for Fischer, Zuckerman, or anyone else.
So, once again, I ask you. If the hypothetical situation above had actually happened, who would have been the most at fault for Fischer's non-participation in the 1970 Interzonal?
a. Fischer, as a result of his deciding to not participate in the 1969 US Championship because the USCF would not increase the number of rounds from 11 to 22 to make it even more likely that he would finish in first place. The same Fischer that 2 years later somehow found it acceptable to play in a series of 6-game knockout matches to determine Spassky's challenger in the 1972 WCC match, even though the 6-game match format made it more likely that he could lose one of those matches than lose the 11-game 1969 US Championship contested by weaker opponents.
b. The USCF who could have made up the representation rules to guarantee that Fischer would be one of the 3 US representatives to the 1970 Interzonal but didn't.
c. Poor little inept and selfish AylerKupp who would not give up his place to someone who had decided not to participate in the 1970 Interzonal US qualifying event.
Anyway, don't bother responding unless you have anything new to say to your "Fischer is great, Fischer is wonderful, everyone should do what's best for Fischer because what's good for Fischer is good for the US and the chess world." mantra. I was tired of hearing that without any justification in 1969 and I'm tired of hearing that in 2017 since nothing has seemed to change from 1969 to today.
|Sep-29-17|| ||diceman: <AylerKupp:
<diceman> Your lack of objectivity towards Fischer>
Objectivity like this:
<Fischer could have played in the Interzonal>
You miss the point that to create change, and stand for standards, you have to actually sacrifice. You have to be a credible threat.
In Fischer hate objectivity:
Higher Prize Fund: Fischer is greedy.
Better conditions: Fischer is spoiled.
Player demands: Fischer is scared.
My Fischer objectivity comes from respecting Fischer's chess ability,
and looking at how he acted.
<Higher Prize Fund: Fischer is greedy.>
I look at the money Fischer turned down
after winning the crown, to see Fischer wasn't greedy.
<Better conditions: Fischer is spoiled.>
Again, how do they happen if you don't demand it? You cant create change and
say "yes boss" when FIDE tells you what to do.
<Player demands: Fischer is scared.>
In the "cancelled" first KK Match.
I see Fischer haters today still complaining about the "looney" Fischer
and his wins only clause.
I agree with Fischer 100%
"Winners" should have to win.
Fischer probably never anticipated
"champions" would be so willing to take quick draws.
If organizers feel they have no solution to endless draws, they should come up with a max number of games, and
void the title if no one wins.
We will check next cycle to see if
we have a winner.
When I look at chess today.
(from Giri drawing all his games in the
Candidates, to Carlsen not being able to win the WC in classical)
I see exactly what Fischer was talking about.
There is no real price paid for bland lackluster chess.
Live, eat, breathe, chess, with an intense will to win.
<So who would have been more responsible for risking Fischer's participation>
Well, you need to remember, in Fischer hate objectivity, Fischer
is the only bad guy.
FIDE was wonderful.
Fischer's opponents were wonderful.
Prize funds were massive.
Conditions were spectacular.
<I don't know why or how you arrived at that conclusion.>
Well remember that I'm guessing based on the stuff Ive heard.
The hate Fischer crowd rarely spells out all the details. Atrocities are
implied, but the who, what, where, when, left to the imagination.
<But you seem incapable of accepting the fact that Benko had no voice in determining who his replacement would be.>
Maybe not "officially" but who knows
what the discussions were?
Doubtful someone would say:
"This is our chance to get Sidney Bernstein in!"
I don't see Benko doing it for anyone but Fischer. I don't see a lesser player taking Benko's spot.
|Sep-30-17|| ||AylerKupp: <Objectivity> (part 1 of 2)|
<diceman> Sigh ... I don't know why you bother to continue regurgitating the same old mantra:
Fischer was great
Fischer was wonderful,
Everyone must do what Fischer wants,
Because what Fischer wants is what's best for the country.
And you seem to be wandering all over the place. But, OK, since you seem to be interested, let's continue.
<You miss the point that to create change, and stand for standards, you have to actually sacrifice. You have to be a credible threat.>
What does this general argument (which is applicable to everything in life) have to do with the original subject of the discussion, that Fischer was allowed to participate in the 1970 Interzonal because ALL the players in the 1969 US Championship qualifying event gave up their places so that he could go in spite of his choosing not to play in the qualifying event?
<In Fischer hate objectivity>
Show me ONE place where I indicated that Fischer was greedy, spoiled, and scared. Besides, whether he was or wasn't is besides the point; he did not play in the qualifying event for the 1970 Interzonal and therefore he did not qualify to participate. And if you base your objectivity on how Fischer acted, you have a strange sense of "objectivity".
<In the "cancelled" first KK Match. I see Fischer haters today still complaining about the "looney" Fischer and his wins only clause.>
While it might be comforting to generalize, I never said that Fischer was "looney", although turning down all that money makes me wonder. I just stated the fact that Fischer clearly did not think that the US "needed" a chess champion since he voluntarily resigned his title. And what does his "wins only clause" have to do with anything? FIDE agreed to it and included that condition in subsequent WCC matches, much to their regret I'm sure in Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match (1984).
<I agree with Fischer 100% "Winners" should have to win.">
And I agree with you 100% also. But that makes it difficult to understand why Fischer insisted on the non-negotiable demand for his 1975 WCC match with Karpov that the champion would retain his title in case the match score reached 9 – 9 AND he made FIDE's rejection of this condition the basis for resigning his title, even though Fischer himself considered that this clause gave the defending champion an unfair advantage.
<If organizers feel they have no solution to endless draws, they should come up with a max number of games, and void the title if no one wins.>
Or, they could declare both players co-champions. Either way makes sense to me. But what do you think of the current trend; if the classical time control portion of the match ends in a tie, play a series of Rapid and Blitz games, plus an Armageddon game if necessary. At least that would settle the match winner in a chess-like manner instead of flipping a coin, using a roulette wheel, or drawing the highest valued card from a shuffled deck.
|Sep-30-17|| ||AylerKupp: <Objectivity> (part 2 of 2)|
<Well, you need to remember, in Fischer hate objectivity, Fischer is the only bad guy.>
That's a silly statement. Nobody has EVER said that FIDE was wonderful, Fischer's opponents were wonderful, Prize funds were massive, and conditions were spectacular. Fischer had a definite influence in increasing prize funds and playing conditions, but I don't think that even you believe that Fischer was influential in making FIDE "wonderful".
<Well remember that I'm guessing based on the stuff I've heard.>
Another thing that we agree on; you're guessing. Maybe you should do some research with an open mind. I particularly recommend "Bobby Fischer Goes to War" by David Edmonds and John Eidinow". It seems to be reasonably balanced and particularly well researched.
<The hate Fischer crowd rarely spells out all the details. Atrocities are implied, but the who, what, where, when, left to the imagination.>
Since I'm assuming that you are placing me in this crowd I find it amazing that you think that I didn't spell out details, was not specific about "atrocities", and left anything to the imagination.
<Maybe not "officially" but who knows what the discussions were?>
True, and unfortunately most of those participating in those discussions are no longer with us. And the memories of those that are probably degraded by time. I don't know (and have never seen) a timeframe of events; how much time elapsed between the USCF accepting that Fischer was not going to play in the 1969 US Championship and therefore not qualify for the 1970 Interzonal, Benko winning 3rd place, and Benko making his offer to step aside. If Benko was only going to give his place to Fischer then I doubt that he would have made his offer until all the details were worked out and all the players consulted. This would have taken some time.
I don't know who the chessical Sidney Bernstein is, but if you're referring to Norman Bernstein he was probably well past his prime in 1969. And, at any rate, he didn't play in the 1969 US Championship so he wouldn't have qualified for the 1970 Interzonal either.
<I don't see a lesser player taking Benko's spot.>
The 4th place finisher was Lombardy and he would have taken Benko's spot. Do you see Lombardy as a "lesser" player not deserving of representing the US in the 1970 Interzonal? After all, he tied for 4th/5th with Schmid in Monte Carlo 1969, ahead of Benko who finished 8th.
Let me know when you have either something new and relevant to add to the topic of the discussion (Fisher not qualifying for the 1970 Interzonal as a result of his not playing in the 1969 US Championship) or when you have something new to add to your mantra.
|Oct-03-17|| ||diceman: <AylerKupp:
Fischer was great
Fischer was wonderful,
Everyone must do what Fischer wants,
Because what Fischer wants is what's best for the country.>
To use the "Ayler" argument, show me where I said that? :)
<Show me ONE place where I indicated that Fischer was greedy, spoiled, and scared.>
Please don't take offense Ayler.
If you remember, I called you one of the mild ones.
That doesn't mean that others don't imply he was greedy, or loony.
(Unfortunately you hang with a bad crowd!)
<Another thing that we agree on; you're guessing.>
Excuse me for being honest!
I believe vague, implied, arguments
are by design. If one spells out exactly what the issue is, and why it's a problem. One can more easily argue against it.
Implying poor Benko, evil Bobby.
Gives one lots of wiggle room, and you get to be offended when someone guesses wrong.
You offered this:
<What does matter is that Benko could willingly give up his place but he had no voice on who would take his place.>
Again, it makes no sense to me.
It's doubtful Fischer wrote the rules
that US chess and FIDE follow.
So no reason to blame him.
Powers that be tend to not give up their power. So I wouldn't expect someone "leaving" to have a role in
picking their replacement.
If we make the argument none of this
would have happened if Fischer played.
I don't see it as an issue as his participation will eliminate a player.
Because Fischer actually did get Benko's spot, I believe there was a lot of wink/wink, nod/nod, going on.
Even though it wasn't in writing or "official."
<Maybe you should do some research with an open mind. I particularly recommend "Bobby Fischer Goes to War" by David Edmonds and John Eidinow".>
Well if I see a book about the "Moon Landing Hoax" should I believe you
agree with it?
How about the guy on the grassy knoll?
I think when people makes arguments
they should make "their" points clear.
One shouldn't have to guess which bodies of work you agree with.
<The 4th place finisher was Lombardy and he would have taken Benko's spot. Do you see Lombardy as a "lesser" player not deserving of representing the US in the 1970 Interzonal?>
Id call them a coin toss.
I believe if Fischer wouldn't play
none of the other players would have gone in his place. They would have found a way to work Benko back into the mix.
The only way I see another(not Fischer) US player going is if Benko is ill, or injured.
That was what I found odd about your first response. You were going with a guaranteed loss, but it was somehow better because you could.
What I haven't seen is Benko crying
"I was robbed" "Oh, the humanity."
or having no choice in going or not going.
<I don't know who the chessical Sidney Bernstein is>
Heh, heh, well that's what they call him in the Fischer books.
(I've actually drawn a game with him, and that's what
he put on his scoresheet)
|Oct-07-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<diceman> To use the "Ayler" argument, show me where I said that? :)>|
OK, point granted. :-)
<Please don't take offense Ayler.>
No, I didn't take offense. I seldom take offense and certainly not from you. After all, you're one of the mild ones also. :-)
<(Unfortunately you hang with a bad crowd!)>
Yes I do. And unfortunately one is known for the company they keep. :-(
<Excuse me for being honest!>
Being honest, particularly in this site, is an unforgivable offense!
<It's doubtful Fischer wrote the rules that US chess and FIDE follow. So no reason to blame him.>
I don't blame Fischer for anything he did or tried to do except for the way that he treated some of his friends and supporters. But Fischer was just trying to do what he thought was best for Fischer and I can't blame him for trying to do that, even if I considered some of those things that he did to be wrong (as far as I'm concerned).
And, as I said before, if the USCF wanted to ensure Fischer's participation in the 1970 Interzonal they could have written the qualification rules for the US players to include a wild card entry which they would designate (and there would be no question who the wild card entry would be). I would not have had any problem with that. The only problem I had was that they didn't do that, and then tried to change who the US representatives to the Interzonal would be.
<Because Fischer actually did get Benko's spot, I believe there was a lot of wink/wink, nod/nod, going on. Even though it wasn't in writing or "official.">
Oh, I believe that also. But I haven't been able to find any documentation about what took place behind closed doors. And, unfortunately, many of the people involved are no longer with us and those who are may have questionable memory due to their advanced age. Besides, if some hanky panky did take place, I doubt that they would be willing to admit to it at this point.
<Well if I see a book about the "Moon Landing Hoax" should I believe you agree with it?>
I would agree with it if I felt that it was properly researched and logically documented, if it was not disputed, and if I didn't have any personal evidence to contradict it. But it also would depend on other Moon Landing Hoax books, what they said, and what I believed was the relative credibility of their respective arguments.
<The only way I see another(not Fischer) US player going is if Benko is ill, or injured.>
Me too, and I think that this was the purpose of the replacement rule; i.e. what happens if one (or more) of the 3 players that qualified could not or would not go. It simply makes sense to go down the line in the order that the players finished to select any needed replacements.
<That was what I found odd about your first response.>
By now I forgot what my first response was, so I'll take your word for it that it was odd, particularly since the probability of it being so are in your favor.
<Heh, heh, well that's what they call him in the Fischer books.>
Is that like Fischer insisting on calling Kasparov "Weinstein" because that was Kasparov's original name before he changed it?
|Oct-11-17|| ||todicav23: Someone posted this picture:
This is the game:
Tal vs Fischer, 1959
|Oct-11-17|| ||WannaBe: <todicav23> That can't be Tal, I don't see a cigarette in his mouth. =)))|
|Oct-11-17|| ||Magpye: Or a vodka glass nearby.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2165 OF 2165 ·