< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 67 OF 87 ·
|Mar-28-12|| ||Dionysius1: Thanks <PB>|
|Mar-28-12|| ||HeMateMe: Youze guys are SOO analytical.|
|Apr-03-12|| ||bwarnock: Spassky win/draw pcts in the '80s - someone asked about this awhile ago:|
Yr - W___L__D
80 - 13__5__36
81 - 12__3__33
82 - 23_10__42
83 - 17__7__49
84 - 15__4__45
85 - 17__5__43
86 - 34__4__73
87 - 12__1__29
88 - 18__8__49
89 - 10_10__48
T - 171_57_447
Note: 207 of the draws are 20 moves or fewer.
Draw percentage is 66%
Win pct decisive games: 75%
Win pct overall: 58.4%
|Apr-13-12|| ||Petrosian63: <Dionysius1>http://www.gettyimages.com.au/detai...|
|Apr-18-12|| ||bwarnock: Spassky's record in Candidates matches leading up to the World Championship: (65-66 and 68-69). (Not including the WC matches with Petrosian).|
W L D
22 5 28
i.e. in 6 matches against Geller, Korchnoi, Larsen, Tal and Keres he lost a total of 5 games. Wow. (Keres was the only one to beat him twice).
I'd say that's a good basis for declaring him the strongest player of this period.
|Apr-18-12|| ||AVRO38: <I'd say that's a good basis for declaring him the strongest player of this period.>|
There is no doubt that Spassky was the strongest player of the 1960's. Keep in mind that the 1966 match from a chess perspective was a draw. Game 22 had a 3-fold repetition but Spassky refused to claim it because of the limited match format. He was therefore forced to play inferior moves and as a result he lost the game and subsequently the match.
I'd also point out Spassky's victory at Santa Monica in 1966 over Fischer and Petrosian and his victory over Fischer at the 1970 Olympiad.
|Apr-18-12|| ||Petrosianic: Winning the candidates is a good basis for declaring someone the best challenger. But if you're going to throw out the championship itself, you might as well throw out the candidates too, and declare that Botvinnik was the best all through the 60's (If we're throwing out the championship, then he never lost it).|
|Apr-18-12|| ||JohnDahl: Yes, Spassky's reputation as a battle-hardened fighter at the end of the 60s was very high. That's why it was the manner, rather than the fact of his defeat to Fischer that really shocked people like Tal and Botvinnik. From later interviews with Spassky, it appears that the physical and mental stress of all these world championship matches simply wore him down.|
|Apr-18-12|| ||Lambda: There's certainly good basis for declaring Spassky the strongest player of the 60s. However, there's also good basis for declaring this of a few other players.|
|Apr-18-12|| ||Petrosianic: That's kind of like declaring the Colts the best team of 1968. "Well, they lost the Superbowl, but we think they were a better team anyway." I actually think they were too, but it makes no difference if you don't win the big one.|
|Apr-18-12|| ||HeMateMe: Perhaps Spassky's best form was wasted in the somewhat dull matches with Petrosian, one victory, one loss. As good as Petrosian was, the games are a bit dry. That isn't any knock on Petrosian--he won matches with his own style, but this chess didn't get Spassky the kind of exposure he deserved. I think that, even in the 1960s, the world championship winner only got $10,000, or something like that.|
|Apr-18-12|| ||Petrosianic: Have you actually played them over? both matches were quite interesting. Especially 1969, which, honestly, had more interesting games than 1966. Almost every game in 1969 was interesting, with the possible exceptions of Games 13 and 15.|
|Apr-18-12|| ||HeMateMe: I have played through most of it. A lot of draws. I realize you will get a lot of draws at the highest level of chess. Again, no knock on Petrosian, it's just his chess isn't the most exciting.|
Contrast the Spassky/Petrosian matches with Tal/Botvinnik. The Tal/Botvinnik matches, especially the first one, which Tal one, are very exciting.
Or for something more contemporary, the excitement of all of the KK matches is strong. I still enjoy playing through Kramnik v. Topalov, fighting chess.
|Apr-18-12|| ||Petrosianic: 55% draws is actually fairly low for a championship match. Especially a championship match involving Petrosian.|
But you can't just go by the result of the game. Karpov-Korchnoi 1974 was one of the most exciting matches, with 79% draws, while conversely, Game 8 is probably the least interesting game of the Fischer-Spassky match.
|Apr-18-12|| ||AVRO38: <Have you actually played them over? both matches were quite interesting. Especially 1969..>|
I agree. Although the 1966 match is interesting, I've always considered the 1969 match to be one of the most accurate and well played matches in chess history.
I'd also include 1927, 1937, and 1954 on that list.
|Jun-22-12|| ||Call Me TC: This picture (http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l...) is used (in part) on the front cover of Gennady Sosonko 's book, <Smart Chip from St.Petersburg>, (NIC, 2006).|
It's stated there: <Tal and Spassky at the Chigorin Chess Club, Leningrad 1960>. No such game fitting that description is listed in the <CG.com> records, but the presence of the clock and crowd suggests it was, at least, a formal game. I'm not sure if we should read anything into the fact that board is the wrong way round (a8-h1 diagonal is dark squared).
|Jul-09-12|| ||gezafan: Many seem to feel that Spassky lost his edge after the match with Fischer. |
Actually he lost his edge after his 1969 match with Petrosian in which he won the title.
He achieved his goal and his drive declined and consequently his play.
After winning the title he was known to have referred to it as a burden. Subconsciously he may have wanted to lose to Fischer.
|Jul-09-12|| ||Joshka: I've always been of the opinion, that Boris, over all other GM's who have played both Fischer and Karpov would be the best authority on their relative strengths and weaknesses. He and Bobby played around 39 games, and with Anatoly some 57 games. Do not think any other living GM can make that boast. Has Boris ever gave a complete description of what might have happened had Bobby and Karpov played? Since Korchnoi gave Karpov all that he could handle in 1974 and 1978, I believe Fischer would have won these two matches, due to Bobby being so much younger than Korchnoi. Korchnoi lost easily in 1981, so this in my opinion would have been a very, very tough match for Bobby, with Karpov probably winning by a thread. Thanks in advance!|
|Jul-09-12|| ||Petrosianic: Spassky wouldn't be very objective. He's always pitied Fischer, but seems to actively dislike Karpov. If we try to reduce the whole equation to how well each one did against Korchnoi, Fischer actually comes off a little worse, only breaking even with a Korchnoi who was lower ranked and rated than the Korchnoi of the mid 70's.|
|Jul-09-12|| ||alexmagnus: < I believe Fischer would have won these two matches, due to Bobby being so much younger than Korchnoi>|
Korchnoi was old, but at this old age he was actually at his prime (slightly later actually, around 1979 - according to all rating systems).
|Aug-17-12|| ||Natalia Pogonina: Shocking revelation about how Spassky was on the verge of dying/getting killed in the French hospital:|
|Aug-17-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <Natalia> Thanks for that!|
|Aug-17-12|| ||HeMateMe: <"My Chess Way"> sounds great, the long awaited Spassky autobiograpy. If (please make it so) the book is truly open and objective, it will make for excellant reading. |
Some of Spassky's comment's about his contemporaries haven't been very interesting. I think in Seriwen's book <Five Crowns> Spassky is asked about Fischer's allegation that all five of the KK matches were prearranged, and Spassky mentions one particular game and says something like "...well, we have to consider game 19....". A serious answer of course would be to dispell such Fischer nonsense, the rant of a disturbed man.
I just hope Boris takes the time, and listens to advisors, editors and perhaps other chess players to be serious and thorough in addressing the issues of his career. It won't always be pretty, some toes will have to be stepped on, but that's what makes for a good book.
1. If Fischer was better than Karpov, go into detail. Pehaps show how a few game positions were handled.
2. Did he face the same pressures that Korchnoi, did by state censors?
3. Who is his favorite player of his era?
4. Most feared opponent?
5. Strongest player of Russia, after Kasparov and Karpov?
6. Was he ever told to draw a game in a tournament when a countryman had a better chance of catching Fischer or Larsen and winning the event?
7. Describe the siege of Leningrad, seen from his youth, and adulthood.
8 What are his true views of the west, don't sugar coat anything.
9. Was Botvinnik given too much help by the state, and by FIDE, with the rematch clause?
10. How do we improve chess, today and for the future? Give specific examples, go into depth.
40 pages of narrative, along with 50 annotated games probably won't be a very good book. I really hope he takes the bit by the teeth and is serious about his one chance to set the record straight.
|Aug-17-12|| ||Eggman: <<If we try to reduce the whole equation to how well each one did against Korchnoi, Fischer actually comes off a little worse, only breaking even with a Korchnoi who was lower ranked and rated than the Korchnoi of the mid 70's.>>|
Fischer and Korchnoi played each other only eight times, and only twice after Fischer was a teenager, so what can one really make of such data? I mean, why not try to compare Fischer and Karpov by looking at how they both faired against Polugaevsky, whom Fischer played exactly once?
|Aug-17-12|| ||Eggman: <<HeHateMe>>|
That would all be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. Spassky is a life long diplomat.
In any event I don't recall The Life And Games Of Mikhail Tal being especially uncompromising (considering when it was written it couldn't have been), but it was still a delightful read.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 67 OF 87 ·