|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1009 OF 1009 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| May-15-08 |
| Riverbeast: Nothing wrong with a little debate. I would just prefer a little more objectivity from the anti-Fischer brigade |
 |
May-15-08
 |
| hrvyklly: <Petrosianic: In some ways Game 13 could be considered the best. It's certainly the most ferocious fight. I put Game 6 on top, I guess because the first Fischer-Spassky book I ever read was Gligoric's book on the match, and he seemed to think Game 6 was the best.> I'm coming to this very late as I've been away... but as a howling-at-zee-moon type my favourites have always been game 13 and game 10. Both excellent games under extraordinary circumstances. It was around this time that Spassky started to play at his peak in the match (subjective statement, but stick with it); neither player was tired; Fischer wasn't settling for draws (for the first time in his life) to run 'the match-clock' out. Game 6 would be my third, but Spassky applauded Fischer's play, so what the hell do I know? Other than Spassky is a true gent. And Fischer was Champion of the World. |
 |
May-15-08
 |
| hrvyklly: <Strongest Force: Karpov didn't have the balls to rock the boat.> Assuming this story is true, which I'm not convinced of... I'd love to have seen you take on the might of the USSR single-handedly. People, scratch that, entire families were 'persuaded' that the view they held was incorrect. Why the hell do you think Korchnoi (and countless others) defected? |
 |
May-15-08
 |
| veigaman: plato? |
 |
May-15-08
 |
| hrvyklly: <Riverbeast: Nothing wrong with a little debate. I would just prefer a little more objectivity from the anti-Fischer brigade> I don't think he is anti-Fischer, but you're anti-Petrosianic and he's anti-Riverbeast. Let me remind you of my offer to bring a lil' harmony into the proceedings... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNWN... |
 |
| May-15-08 |
| Riverbeast: Look I don't have anything against the guy personally. I don't even know him. 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. Like I said many times before, I find many of the points made by the Fischer bashers, to be far more wild and illogical than those of the Fischer fans. Because if you look at it objectively, Fischer was the best player of his time, one of the best of all time (if not the best), and he was a phenomenon of chess. To argue anything otherwise, one necessarily has to make some pretty amazing stretches of logic. |
 |
May-15-08
 |
| hrvyklly: <Riverbeast: Like I said many times before, I find many of the points made by the Fischer bashers, to be far more wild and illogical than those of the Fischer fans. Because if you look at it objectively, Fischer was the best player of his time, one of the best of all time (if not the best), and he was a phenomenon of chess.> I agree with you 100% - many times I don't even bother to check the idiotic comments that have been left on this page, and many others... but personally speaking I couldn't give a flying t@ss what someone calls me on the internet, it means NOTHING, but I think you're a pretty cool fella, and [gulp] I think he <petrosianic> is too. But I have pondered why he spends more time here than anywhere else (including Petrosian's page?)... and I think it's because he loves chess. And the 60's/70's era was a golden age, and this page gets a lot more traffic than Petrosian's. I love that era too - talking about 60's chess without Fischer is like talking about 60's music without The Beatles. You've got my email address, hit me with an email and I'll sort out some Bill Hicks DVDs for you, until then bro'... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLkC... |
 |
May-16-08
 |
| twinlark: <Petrosianac>
I tried the same search process myself, but of course I didn't find the game. I thought all of Fischer's games were recorded...guess not. |
 |
| May-16-08 |
| Lt.Columbo: < hrvyklly... "Talking about 60's chess without Fischer is like talking about 60's music without The Beatles". > Great analogy! You hit on two of my obsessions. : ) Both were ingenuis, both took the world by storm and like a fiery fleeting comets they were gone all too soon! But their body of work and influence will go on forever. |
 |
May-16-08
 |
| Strongest Force: <Positionalgenius> <hrvyklly> 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. However, a bigger point (from my view) is that Karpov was such a icon, he could have stood-up for Korchnoi and not been punished because of his special relationship with the Soviet rulers. However, Karpov was too in-love with his social status. |
 |
| May-16-08 |
| littlefermat: <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.> 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. I'm just not sure if the case you're citing is one of them. The way I see it, Karpov had power because he ingratiated himself to Brezhnev, not because he actually held any power in the first place. He worked very hard to prove himself to the top party officials. I think he would've lost that immediately if he spoke out against Brezhnev. I just think you're missing the point of what kind of relationship he had with the party officials and what type of power he had. |
 |
| May-16-08 |
| Riverbeast: <Strongest force> Not to sound callous, but Korchnoi defected and he knew the risks he was taking by leaving his family behind... Not that imprisoning his son was right, but he must have known there was a strong possibility the Soviet authorities would take punitive actions against his family. 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. Would you stick your neck out for a guy who was never particularly kind toward you? |
 |
| May-16-08 |
| Riverbeast: <hrvykyll> Thanks. Actually, a friend of mine had some Bill Hicks DVDs, I heard them the other day. You were right, he's terrific. |
 |
| May-16-08 |
| maxi: In that kind of situation a person is risking his livelihood for the sake of another human being, with no certainty his loss is going to accomplish anything for the other. Of course, the stuff of some people is sterner, to quote the bard, and they do it anyway. |
 |
| May-16-08 |
| littlefermat: <Like I said many times before, I find many of the points made by the Fischer bashers, to be far more wild and illogical than those of the Fischer fans. Because if you look at it objectively, Fischer was the best player of his time, one of the best of all time (if not the best), and he was a phenomenon of chess. To argue anything otherwise, one necessarily has to make some pretty amazing stretches of logic.> 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. |
 |
May-16-08
 |
| Strongest Force: <littlefermat> <RiverBeast> OK, maybe Karpov's situation with Russia's elite wasn't solid enough for him to jeopardize his career on behalf of Korchnoi's family; therefore, lets strike-out every history-book statement that have Karpov saying that he tried to help Korchnoi and his family. |
 |
| May-16-08 |
| Riverbeast: <littlefermat> I'm really tiring of the argument, so I really don't want to beat this into the ground. 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! Nobody's getting on your case for liking whatever player you like. |
 |
| May-16-08 |
| Riverbeast: <lets strike-out every history-book statement that have Karpov saying that he tried to help Korchnoi and his family.> 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. He also offered to visit Kasparov in prison, and Kasparov did not say particularly kind things about him either....So Karpov has shown solidarity with other players to some extent. |
 |
| May-16-08 |
| moronovich: "Life is what is happening while we are
making psychoanalysis of other people" |
 |
| May-16-08 |
| Petrosianic: <There are such heated arguments because you're making claims that just don't match up with the facts.> 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:
4) There's a band of zealous Fischer haters out there, whose extremism is even worse than his own, and so justifies his own. (The problem is that anyone who doesn't think Fischer walked on water qualifies as one of those Haters.) |
 |
| May-16-08 |
| Petrosianic: <Riverbeast> <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.> You tried and failed to prove that. When I invited you to find a pre-1970 Elo List showing Fischer as the clear #1, you shied away like a vampire from a cross. Research of any kind seems to be anathema to you. Even when it's for Fischer's benefit. |
 |
| May-16-08 |
| Riverbeast: *yawn*
Can we just agree to disagree and stop this nonsense? |
 |
May-16-08
 |
| Rod Serling: Alot of the arguments on this page seem to be from another dimension. |
 |
May-16-08
 |
| acirce: <Alot of the arguments on this page seem to be from another dimension.> With Fischer fanatics, that is what you get. |
 |
| May-16-08 |
| Petrosianic: <*yawn*
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. |
 |
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1009 OF 1009 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
|
 |
|