But I noticed Petrosianic used to get on Rookfile's case, long before he even started with me. He likes to play with what he calls Fischer 'fanboys' or 'fanatics'.

I don't see him getting on the Anand page, or the Carlsen page, and calling those fans fanatics... Which is fine. He can post where he wants and say what he wants.

But anybody who calls someone else a 'zealot' or a 'fanatic' better be pretty straight in their own logic. Otherwise, they're just being hypocrites, and I'm going to call them on it. That goes for Petrosianic or anybody else.

The point i was trying to make with my "peas in the pod" statement was that Karpov was good friends with the most powerful force within the USSR; if this didn't give Karpov the backbone to make a public statement against the Russians who obviously were using Korchnoi's family againt him, i must say Karpov is one of the most "full of crap" opportunist in the history of chess.

It's sad that we dont have many people who will stand against oppression when it means their livelihood will be taken away. We see this more and more in america. This is the kind of stuff that had Bobby ranting and raving.

Well I agree that Karpov is definitely a shameless opportunist. If you pick up any chess history book, it's pretty much filled with anecdotal stories about him being a slimeball.

Karpov is a chessplayer, not a politician...and Karpov was not raised with the "concept of free speech", as Bobby famously said.

It's a bit unrealistic to expect him to stick his neck out and damage his career for a man he was never particularly friendly with.

Even when Korchnoi was still in the USSR he made disparaging remarks about Karpov and his playing ability. I recall him saying he had to beat Karpov in their candidates match in 1974 in order to "save him from Fischer"...In other words, implying that Karpov had no chance.

Depends on what you mean by "objectively." People use different benchmarks for "greatness" of a player (longevity at the top, tournament victories, etc) and depending how you select those points, Fischer could rank at the top or at the bottom.

Anyways, nobody doubts that Fischer was one of the greatest players. I have yet to see any evidence that anybody says that (I know you're not explicity saying that, but you're obviously implying it with "To argue anything otherwise, one necessarily has to make some pretty amazing stretches of logic.")

There are such heated arguments because you're making claims that just don't match up with the facts.

You argued that Fischer was the best player from 64-70, based on his rating. But you didn't look at his ratings to check if he actually was ranked at the top. And you have no way of reconciling that with his inability to win against the top Soviet GMS.

You tell the rest of us "well he faced teams of analysts." Well that's true, but the fact is, over the board, he just didn't score well against them until 1970.

As Petrosianiac pointed out, Elo's system was not meant to be a precise measurement of a player's abilities; in fact, Elo is quoted as saying quite the opposite. How do you reconcile that with your claims? You don't.

You point to the fact that Elo's rating of Fischer gave an accurate prediction of his title match with Spassky, but then you ignore the fact that Fischer was active in 1970-1972 (so there was a meaningful source of data, as opposed to 1964-1970).

You argued that Fischer was a great player and Petrosian was a subpar champion, but their ratings were the same. So what is it? Is Fischer equally as lousy as Petrosian or is Petrosian equally as great as Fischer? Or both?

You complain when people speculate why he inexplicably dropped out of tournaments or why other people would scrutinize his actions, but you ignore that fact that Fischer's own reasons are contradictory or that they don't hold up to any scrutiny at all. Speculation, when it's not favorable to Fischer, is not something you accept.

Nobody can mention any of Fischer's losses without hearing "Teams of Analysts!" Nobody can say failure of Curaco without "Collusion!" and nobody can speculate anything but the nicest things about Fischer.

I think the combination of the above can really rub some people the wrong way. Fact is, when you make those sorts of claims, it's a pretty big disservice to the players who did go out there and played and won their tournaments. It's pretty unfair to Spassky to say that Fischer was better than him in the 1966-69 period despite the fact that it was Spassky, not Fischer, who went through the grueling matches and won a right to face Petrosian--not to mention Spassky's superior personal score against Fischer.

I think some people just don't want to let that stuff go--although it'd make for a pretty hard time if somebody couldn't stomach fanboy appreciation of a certain player.

Rating is not a precise calculator of strength, but it's the most precise we have. It's a reflection of results...which, in a sense, is a reflection of strength.

In terms of results, Fischer's results during the period of 1964-1970 were equal or superior to anyone else's. That's what the rating reflects.

I still maintain that Fischer had to overcome more obstacles (in terms of collusion and team analysis) than any other top player, especially any Russian player.

Harping on his 'losing record' against so-and-so is inane, in my opinion, because EVERY player has a losing record against SOMEBODY.

Saying negative things is fine, as long as it's fair. Don't say Fischer withdrew from the US Championships or Sousse because he was 'afraid', because it doesn't hold water.

And if you don't like the fact that I and others like Fischer, then that's just too bad...If you "can't stomach" it, go to another page!

Personally, I wonder how much Karpov really did do to try to win their release (or how much he COULD do).

If all he did was drop a good word for Korchnoi at some official cocktail party, I would say he did more than he had to, and more that could reasonably be expected.

I find when arguing with Riverbeast, his usual response to a point he can't answer is one of 3 things:

1) Ignore the reasoning and pretend that there wasn't any. (Note that he's fussing at me for calling him a zealot without being clear in my logic, when in fact, I gave a VERY specific reason.)

2) Claim that there's some big logical flaw in the reasoning, that he never quite gets around to demonstrating.

3) Claim to have discovered some hidden grudge that absolves him from having to think about it. (Like the other day, I made some point that had absolutely nothing to do with either Petrosian or the 1971 Candidates, and he claimed that it somehow "proved" that I was motivated by anger over the Fischer-Petrosian match and so could be safely ignored.)

The joke on him is that by his bizarre logic, I'm a Petrosian Hater, for admitting that Petrosian lost the 1971 Candidates Final because Fischer was a much better player at that time.

Add to all of this, your Reason #4:

Can we just agree to disagree and stop this nonsense?>

Sure. Just stop pitching fits when somebody makes innocuous comments about Geller a difficult opponent, and we should be fine. If you're bored, that should be very easy to do.