< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1976 OF 1976 ·
|Jul-29-14|| ||fedalio: <Zanzibar> I think the final paragraph reveals more about Winter's pedantic nature than anything else. |
My copy of Seirawan's book is at my parents, but my memory when I read the book in 1992 was that he did recognise Fischer as world champion....I'm not sure if Winter is again being disingenuous with that quote. The "Yasser Seirawan adopted the most elegant diplomatic position: "I have no problem recognizing Kasparov as FIDE Champion and Bobby Fischer as the World Champion" from http://bobbyfischer.net/bobby28.html
Is more what I remember from reading the book.
|Jul-29-14|| ||fedalio: <Zanzibar>
'I was never invited to the White House,' he said in one of his radio interviews. 'They invited that Olympic Russian gymnast - that little Communist, Olga Korbut.'
|Jul-29-14|| ||zanzibar: <fedalio> Obviously I must share some of Winter's pedantic traits - I wish!|
The bobby28 link you ref is most likely a slight altered rephrasing of Seirawan's original (a reasonable surmise since bobby28 lack refs).
But I now see that Winter also quotes this from p5 of Seirawan's <No Regrets>:
<To Fischer, Kasparov is merely FIDE champion. It is a compelling argument. Until the wondrous day when they play a match, the chess world has room for two World Champions>
This seems a more forceful statement, more in line with what you're saying.
But then again, consider the context. Seirawan is writing a book about the 1992 Spassky-Fischer match. And why stop at two WC's, within a year or two the world would have three (depending on who's counting)!
|Jul-29-14|| ||zanzibar: <fedalio> RE: WH invite.|
I don't doubt Fischer may have said that, I'm going off-line at the moment.
Maybe later I'll look up the Look article again. I just read it, so I'm almost 100% sure Nixon is mentioned. The famous phone call is the one from Kissinger though... check out the article though, it's a good contemporaneous read.
|Jul-29-14|| ||AylerKupp: <<tzar> Well, it was obvious that he knew that if he did not play he would lose his title...that is why he entered in negotiations with FIDE, otherwise, he would not bother to negotiate his conditions at all.>|
I wouldn't call Fischer's position on his demands "negotiations". He indicated that his demands were non-negotiable, they had to be accepted in full or he would not play in the match against Karpov. And that is what happened.
Besides, as far as Fischer was concerned, FIDE could only take away from him the "FIDE title" if he did not play in that match, not the World Champion title. He would still consider himself "World Champion" regardless of what FIDE did. That's why he insisted that his 1992 match with Spassky was the World Championship match.
|Jul-29-14|| ||AylerKupp: <<Joshka> in fact this was the way the championships were decided long ago under steinitz, he had the right to have the match his way instead of the way the soviets had all those years>|
The fact that the world championships were decided according to the terms dictated by the holder of the title until 1948 is interesting but irrelevant as far as the 1975 World Chess Championship match. I don't think that anyone, including Fischer in 1975, would argue that the World Chess Championship was <administered> by FIDE, although whether FIDE <owned> the title in the sense that Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, etc. owned the title is a subject for discussion. But I don't agree that Fischer had the <right> to have the match "his way". Why would that be the case? It couldn't have anything to do with "the way the soviets had all those years" (not that this would make any difference) since the rules for the World Championship match were defined <before> the 1948 tournament was held and had nothing to do with the Soviets.
And in 1975 FIDE had agreed to Fischer's demands for an unlimited length match with draws not counting, although this was not always the way that World Chess Championships were determined prior to 1948. Refer to the match rules for Steinitz-Gunsberg (1890), Lasker-Schlecter (1910), Lasker-Capablanca (1921), Alekhine-Bogoljubov (1929 and 1934), and Alekhine-Euwe (1935 and 1937).
|Jul-29-14|| ||AylerKupp: <<Petrosianic> What he was afraid of was "accidents". Fluke results that might result in his defeat even though he were the best player.>|
True, but FIDE had agreed to Fischer's condition of an unlimited length match with draws not counting, greatly reducing the probability that the lesser player would win the match. Was Fischer concerned that Karpov would "accidentally" win 10 games and win the match?
|Jul-29-14|| ||AylerKupp: <<diceman> Just imagine the 72 match ending after game two.>|
I don't get your point. Is it that if the match had ended after game two (more likely after game three if Spassky had refused the change of venue to a small room and Fischer had forfeited that game as well) that we would have been deprived of those fine games?
That's certainly true. But how many fine games were we deprived of when Fischer in his prime decided to stop playing after that 1972 match? And who is to blame for that?
|Jul-29-14|| ||AylerKupp: <<fedalio> Didn't the US House of Representatives in the 1980s recognise via a resolution Fischer as world champion?>|
Yes, in 1986 the U.S. House of Representatives passed House Joint Resolution 545 by unanimous consent (imagine any resolution passing today's House of Representatives by unanimous consent!) which stated that the United States government recognizes Bobby Fischer as the official World Chess Champion. It then died in committee. See http://www.chessmaniac.com/index.ph...
<I think he [Charles Pashayan] helped arrange (certainly from a contractual perspective) the 1992 match.>
Probably. Charles Pashayan served as Fischer's pro bono lawyer (see link above) and was included as a recipient of the letter sent by the Department of the Treasury to Fischer indicating that Fischer was subject to the prohibitions under Executive Order 12810, dated June 5, 1992, imposing sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro and the penalties for violating that Executive Order. See http://anusha.com/regrets.htm. So I would assume that Pashayan was involved with Fischer's 1992 match.
|Jul-29-14|| ||diceman: <AylerKupp: <<diceman> Just imagine the 72 match ending after game two.>
I don't get your point. Is it that if the match had ended after game two (more likely after game three if Spassky had refused the change of venue to a small room and Fischer had forfeited that game as well) that we would have been deprived of those fine games?>|
Its about who saw it coming and how it unfolded.
You have an A/B comparison of your thoughts vs what
The Fischer of the 70's wasn't the Fischer of the 50's, and 60's.
Fischer never beat Spassky.
Good luck with that theory.
Fischer wasn't flexible in his openings.
(remember the two knights caro-kann of the "young" Fischer)
Good luck with that theory.
Fischer would have trouble with Spassky's Samish Kings Indian.
Good luck with that theory.
(there never was one)
Most analysis comes from a rearview mirror, with experts
being expert on what has happened not what will happen.
The problem with analyzing a genius is most people aren't one.
Fischer/Spassky 72 was the equivalent of Ali-Foreman.
It makes a whole lotta sense after the fact.
|Jul-30-14|| ||tzar: Fischer statistics in classical games during his career dont look phenomenal if we consider his mythical status...His numbers are nowhere near Kasparov who has huge plus scores against almost everyone:|
vs Petrosian +8 -4 =15
vs Tal +2 -4 =5
vs Spassky +7 -6 =11 (pre 1992)
vs Geller +3 -5 =2
vs Botvinnik +0 -0 = 1
vs Korchnoi +2 -2 =4
vs Keres +4 -3 =3
vs Revhevsky +9 -4 =13
vs Portisch +4 -0 =5
Vs Larsen +9 -2 =1
But his statistics 1970-72 (classical games) speak for themselves. What happened????... A streak of abnormal good results (like other players such as Tal had in 1972-73) or the birth of a new chess monster being able to reinvent himself???:
+68 -7 (1 by default) =30
|Jul-30-14|| ||tzar: This is the sort of domination of Kasparov:
vs Short +28 -2 =26
vs Karpov +28 -21 =129
vs Topalov +10 -3 =14
vs Shirov +15 -0 =14
vs Korchnoi +16 -1 =23
vs Polgar +8 -0 =3
vs Anand +16 -4 =31
vs Kramnik +4 -5 =40
vs Gelfand +13 -0 =8
vs Adams +10 -0 =8
vs Portisch +4 -0 =8
vs Ivanchuk +11 -4 =22
|Jul-30-14|| ||zanzibar: Look at Fischer's comments on what it means to be "Champion of the World" here:|
At about 5:10, start at 5:00
<Well the [dismissively] *Champion of the World*. Well, irst of all, how do you compete? So he's [i.e. Spassky] not really much of a champion. ... He's the best they [Russia i.e. Soviets] got.>
|Jul-30-14|| ||Petrosianic: <.His numbers are nowhere near Kasparov who has huge plus scores against almost everyone:>|
That's because he played for well over a decade as "just another" Top 10 player, while Kasparov was ahead of everyone in the pack except Karpov practically from the day he appeared on the scene.
<What happened????... A streak of abnormal good results (like other players such as Tal had in 1972-73) or the birth of a new chess monster being able to reinvent himself???:>
Probably the second. The evidence of Fischer's moves and the length of time involved (3 years) argues against any kind of luck or fluky streak (who else ever had a streak like that?).
But it's incomplete because we saw Fischer's punch without seeing how well or how poorly the chess world would be able to react and adjust to him. When Tal was a colossus, the chess world succeeded in adjusting to his style. Tal was still a top GM for the next 30 years, to be sure, but he was no longer an unstoppable colossus. With Kasparov, they could not adjust, and he was a colossus until he stepped down. With Fischer, we don't know. My feeling is that Fischer was simply unable (or unwilling or both) to maintain the pace he'd set for himself with his Total Immersion training regimen, and was unwilling to settle for anything less. To be able to be on top of the chess world for long periods, you have to be able to balance chess with real life. Fischer was never able to do that.
|Jul-30-14|| ||zanzibar: <Fischer has a high and earnest respect for President Nixon. The other day LIFE photographer Harry Benson arrived from a White House assignment with a personal message from a White House assignment with a personal message from the President. Excited, Fischer listened with growing delight as Benson reported what Nixon had said, that he wanted Fischer to come visit him, even if he loses, that he liked him "because he is a fighter." When we left, Fischer's eyes were clear and the angle of his jaw was aggressive. |
What I like about the way Fischer received Nixon's message is his flat undefended naivete. Fischer was wowed and had the natural honesty to show that he was wowed. I saw him at that moment as an immensely likable teen-ager.>
So I mis-remembered the personal message carried by Benson as being a phone call, but got the rest of it pretty much right.
|Jul-30-14|| ||diceman: <tzar: Fischer statistics in classical games during his career dont look phenomenal if we consider his mythical status...His numbers are nowhere near Kasparov who has huge plus scores against almost everyone:>|
Fischer faced the Tals, Petrosians, Spasskys as a kid when they were like
him in the 70's. (WC strength)
GK was like Fischer in the 70's vs the newer players and the rest were the "old guard" leaving chess.
I think GK, AK, benefited greatly from no Fischer and only having to
deal with "old" Korchnoi.
Even if it was 1 win in 74, and 1 in 78.
(by 81 it was too late for VK)
By not leaving chess GK had more at bats.
How do you make 6-0, 6-0,
...add more games. :)
You cant compare a guy who stopped
at his peak vs one who did'nt.
<But his statistics 1970-72 (classical games) speak for themselves. What happened????...>
The kid became a man.
This is really nothing new.
Anand had a plus score before the match vs Carlsen.
(from what I hear)
Its because he was Anand, and Carlsen was "the kid."
That really didn't matter when he played Carlsen.
Its the same with GK, Carslen played him as a kid with GK on his way out.
Not really much use as a metric.
With his "young" age I would expect Carlsen to get better.
Of course, no one has matched Fischer's rating gap, and in the 70's
he had a rating of todays players.
|Jul-30-14|| ||Absentee: <Petrosianic: <.His numbers are nowhere near Kasparov who has huge plus scores against almost everyone:>|
That's because he played for well over a decade as "just another" Top 10 player, while Kasparov was ahead of everyone in the pack except Karpov practically from the day he appeared on the scene.>
This is factually inaccurate. Fischer first ranked as #1 at 20, Kasparov at 19. Both appeared on the scene quite a few years before that (a couple extra years for Kasparov, for what it's worth). Each player's gap varied A LOT during their respective careers, of course. So I don't really see a huge difference in that respect.
|Jul-30-14|| ||AylerKupp: <diceman> I said that I didn't get your point and it was clear that I didn't. Now I do.|
And you're right that the problem with analyzing a genius is that most people aren't one. The same goes for analyzing a crazy man.
|Jul-30-14|| ||AylerKupp: <tzar> Maybe it was the second instance of "I just got good". Which makes his near-retirement from chess all the more unfortunate.|
|Jul-30-14|| ||Petrosianic: This is factually inaccurate. Fischer first ranked as #1 at 20, Kasparov at 19.|
There was no rating system until Fischer was 27. What you're talking about now are retroactive systems that no one knew about at the time. Everyone was impressed by the 1963/4 US Championship, but nobody felt that it made Fischer the best player in the world, especially so soon after failing so badly at Curaco. Fischer simply never began dominating the rest of the world like Kasparov, or like he dominated the US scene until 1970. You can look at the numbers. Going into 1970, he had losing records against Petrosian, Spassky, Gligoric (possibly, I'd have to double check that one), and other players that he was ahead of by 1973. He was one of the best but not head and shoulders above the pack before 1970.
So I'd stand by the statement, with one caveat. Since there was no rating system, my description of him as a Top 10 Player was strictly informal. Most people would have thought of him that way, or even Top 5.
|Jul-30-14|| ||Petrosianic: What Kasparov did was equivalent to Fischer challenging for the World Title in 1959 or 1962, but winning and playing at his 1972 level at that time.|
Seriously, this is why Kasparov's record against his top opponents looks better than Fischer's. Kasparov won the title on his 1st cycle, Fischer won it on his 5th. It's not a good way of judging how good each player was at their peak.
|Jul-30-14|| ||Absentee: <Petrosianic: There was no rating system until Fischer was 27. What you're talking about now are retroactive systems that no one knew about at the time. Everyone was impressed by the 1963/4 US Championship, but nobody felt that it made Fischer the best player in the world, especially so soon after failing so badly at Curaco.>|
That people didn't know about it at the time, or how they felt, shouldn't matter to us now. Unless we're doing a sociological research on how the chess public perceives the players under different conditions.
<Fischer simply never began dominating the rest of the world like Kasparov, or like he dominated the US scene until 1970.>
Like Kasparov when? People often seem to enter an argument with this weird idea that from the moment Kasparov could be said to be the best player in the world (somewhere between 1984 and 1986, I guess) to when he retired 20 years later he always, constantly enjoyed the same degree of domination. He didn't. His results naturally fluctuated and in 1985 he didn't even remotely dominate his opponents the way he did in 1995. The same goes for Fischer, except that Fischer's career was a statistical anomaly and much shorter.
<What Kasparov did was equivalent to Fischer challenging for the World Title in 1959 or 1962, but winning and playing at his 1972 level at that time.
Kasparov won the title on his 1st cycle, Fischer won it on his 5th. It's not a good way of judging how good each player was at their peak.>
I believe you'll want to rethink this one. Kasparov beating Karpov in 1985 at 22 was the equivalent of Fischer winning the title at 15 because that's when he got his first shot?
So basically Fischer should be penalized for qualifying at 15?
The cycle count isn't a very good yardstick either, so this is just nitpicking, but it was Fischer's third (1959, 1963, 1970) and Kasparov's second (1984, 1985) attempt.
|Jul-30-14|| ||tzar: <Petrosianic: That's because he played for well over a decade as "just another" Top 10 player, while Kasparov was ahead of everyone in the pack except Karpov practically from the day he appeared on the scene.>|
Absolutely agree (well mostly Top 5 as you also pointed out). IMO this Fischer "time gap" to get to his maximum strength could be linked to the fact that he learned chess by himself. While AK, GK and other Soviet GMs were carefully nursed by the best players or trained at the Botvinnik school and very early in their careers had strong teams of seconds, Fischer was on his own.
He started to see that something was missing when he started playing top foreign players and realized that he lacked something (psychology, experience, tricks, novelties, etc).
His first experiences with Tal were dramatic, and he learned in the hard way that he was only King in his own country, where he crushed everyone.
But he kept fighting his way and finally did it...and left the scene.
|Jul-30-14|| ||perfidious: <AK: And you're right that the problem with analyzing a genius is that most people aren't one. The same goes for analyzing a crazy man.>|
The latter point is well proven by <dice> himself.
|Jul-30-14|| ||Petrosianic: <That people didn't know about it at the time, or how they felt, shouldn't matter to us now.>|
Well, the claim I was responding to was that Fischer was the #1 player in the world then. He wasn't. If we're going to change the claim to retroactive rating systems prove him to be the best, that's also wrong. Rating systems don't do that. Kasparov and Fischer both achieved their dominance by beating up on the world's best. Beating up on weaker players in the US Championship is impressive, but doesn't make one the world's best player.
<So basically Fischer should be penalized for qualifying at 15?>
I'm not penalizing him at all. I'm <supporting> him by pointing out that you can't judge his peak by looking at games played before his peak.
His record against Abe Turner was +0-2=1. I'm not "penalizing" him by pointing out that he was nowhere near his peak when those games were played. It's the exact same argument Fischer himself used when people pointed out his losing record against Spassky. ("Those are old games").
<The cycle count isn't a very good yardstick either, so this is just nitpicking, but it was Fischer's third (1959, 1963, 1970) and Kasparov's second (1984, 1985) attempt.>
It was his 5th.
1. 1958-1960 (made it to the Candidates).
2. 1961-1963 (made it to the Candidates).
3. 1964-1966 (qualified for interzonal, withdrew without play).
4. 1967-1969 (qualified for interzonal withdrew mid tournament).
5. 1970-1972 (went all the way).
It's a good yardstick because it's broken up into equal 3-year blocks. Fischer's record against Petrosian during those first 4 blocks was +1-3. His record during Block 5 was +7-1. Big difference. He was a World Class player as early as Block 1, but Block 5 is the time period where he was comparable to Karpov and Kasparov at their best.
Or to look at it another way, during Cycles 1 through 4, Fischer scored about 42% against Soviet Grandmasters. During Cycle 5, he scored over 70%. Cycle 5 is where his greatest achievements are.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1976 OF 1976 ·