< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 69 OF 79 ·
|Feb-04-18|| ||harrylime: I'm SMOKIN you Ooooot
|Feb-04-18|| ||nok: <YUGOSLAV's don't exist>|
Wrong. Read the last paragraph.
|Feb-04-18|| ||harrylime: <nok: <YUGOSLAV's don't exist>
Wrong. Read the last paragraph.
AND ?? lol lol
I reckon you should stop reading my posts on here you GEEK .
Putting me on IGNORE is your salvation.
|Feb-04-18|| ||nok: I can't do that harry, you're my favorite poster.|
|Feb-05-18|| ||Mountain1: < harrylime: I'm SMOKIN you Ooooot
lol lol> sublime
|Feb-05-18|| ||Petrosianic: <harrylol>: <I reckon you are wingin it on this site .. lol>|
No you don't, lol. Your ego is just bruised for being busted as a Fischer Hater.
<You seem to just make things up .. FAKE NEWS meets <Petrosianic> LOL LOL >
Duh, you silly lol. You admitt you can't find even any examples of it. Why lie about it lol? Is your ego bruised that bad?
|Feb-05-18|| ||Petrosianic: <zborris8>: <He did indeed think he was blocked out of victory in the candidates. >|
Oh, I thought you meant blocked from playing. Yes, I know the article, and own a copy of that issue of SI. It was extremely disingenuous, and spoke a lot about how Fischer performed at Bled 1961, while concealing how he actually fared at Curacao. The reader is led to believe he was in the middle of the fight for first. If you'd like to get an idea of how the article was received, check out Eliot Hearst's column in the July 1964 Chess Life.
Also check out Korchnoi's interview in either the January 1977 or January 1978 Chess Life & Review. He gave interviews in both issues, and I forget in which one the question was asked. But in one of them, Tim Krabbe asked Korchnoi flat out about Fischer's accusation that he had thrown games. According to Korchnoi, he'd had friendly relations with Fischer ever since then, and Fischer had never so much as mentioned it to him. It was Korchnoi's opinion that Fischer had realized how ridiculous the charge was and quietly recanted it.
|Feb-05-18|| ||Howard: The Korchnoi interview was in the January, 1978 issue. I don't recall an interview from the January, 1977 issue though---remind me to check it when I get home later today.|
|Feb-05-18|| ||Petrosianic: There was one right after he defected, and another one a year later.|
|Feb-05-18|| ||zborris8: <Petrosianic - Kaleidoscope July 1964 > That was a rather informative article that set me straight. Hearst argues that Bobby suffered a bruised ego from Curacao and ran back home to the weaker tournaments in the USA. When questioned about his assessment of collusion, Fischer responded, "Are you a communist, too?" I think that's quite bizarre. |
I enjoy reading about Fischer's life because he always surprises me, sometimes his craziness makes sense, but sometimes he was just crazy. I don't have access to Korchnoi's interview from 1977 and/or 1978. My CL&R archive ends in 1975.
|Feb-05-18|| ||Petrosianic: Yeah, that was a heck of a time to end the DVD Collection, at the end of 1975. They should have continued to October 1978, when the Burt Hochberg era ended.
But I have an e-copy of the article. It is January 1977, and titled "Korchnoi Goes West". Here's the relevant part:|
<Korchnoi's hiding was effective. Neither Russians nor press-hounds succeeded in tracking him down. He changed addresses three times in two weeks. One of his very few contacts with the outside world was a telegram sent to "Viktor Korchnoi, Police Headquarters, Amsterdam." It said: "My congratulations on your correct decision. Good luck in your new life. Best regards." It was signed Bobby Fischer.
"So it seems Fischer likes you," I said. "But after the Candidates' Matches of 1962 at Curacao, he accused you of throwing games to the other Russians."
"I think his mind was in a hurry when he said this, and that he regretted it later," said Korchnoi. "I have always had good relations with Robert Fischer. I have never talked about it with him, but it did not make me angry. It was nonsense, of course. It is well known in the chess world that it is very difficult even to prearrange a draw with me. And if I had won those games, I would have won the tournament.>
Now Korchnoi does go on to say that he and Fischer both suffered from the fact that the top players drew among themselves. But Fisher had no problem with that by itself. Petrosian and Tal did the same thing in 1959 without a peep from Fischer. Fischer's whole argument was that Korchnoi's throwing games is what made it possible for them to draw other games.
Now, another thing I'd call your attention to in the Eliot Hearst article is that it very clearly mentions that Fischer wanted matches that would go to the first one to win 10 games. A lot of people think that's something he came up with at the last minute to throw against Karpov, but not so. By 1975 he'd been interested in that match format for a very long time. He even wanted <Candidates Matches> to be played to 10 wins (!!). But then he also complained that the qualification process was too long. So the pieces of the puzzle don't always fit together.
|Feb-05-18|| ||TheFocus: Petrosianic: Yeah, that was a heck of a time to end the DVD Collection, at the end of 1975. They should have continued to October 1978, when the Burt Hochberg era ended.>|
I also wondered about that. As I didn't join the USCF until 1980, I had to buy copies of the years 1976-1980.
|Feb-05-18|| ||Petrosianic: I think they figured that since 1975 is the year that Karpov-Fischer should have been played, that that was when to end it. But the fallout from Fischer continued long after. If you haven't seen the late 70's, then you didn't see anything about the Fischer-Gligoric match, or the negotiations for 1978.|
People wonder how Karpov got the rematch clause. According to CL&R it was part of a deal that he struck with Ed Edmondson and the Americans, who wanted an Unlimited Match to be played. The agreement was Karpov would play an Unlimited Match instead of Best of 24, and in return he'd get a rematch clause. Of course it was only to 6 wins instead of 10, so it still wouldn't have made Fischer happy, but if you read the magazines of that era, a lot of people were convinced that an Unlimited Match would significantly reduce the number of draws.
If they don't release another collection, I may just have to scan all those issues in myself and try to make .pdf's of them. Burt Hochberg was the greatest editor Chess Life ever had, and all his stuff should be available.
|Feb-05-18|| ||TheFocus: <Petrosianic> <If they don't release another collection, I may just have to scan all those issues in myself and try to make .pdf's of them. Burt Hochberg was the greatest editor Chess Life ever had, and all his stuff should be available.>|
Very true. Very good editor.
|Feb-06-18|| ||zborris8: Thanks Petrosian. Below is part of the interview that took place while Bobby was returning to Iceland from Japan, he mentioned his frustration at the Karpov negotiations. In his mind, Karpov refused to play him, and he also thought he had won the vote in Amersterdam for his 10 game proposal. |
Man asks: "Do you regret stopping, do you regret not having defended your title againt Anatoly Karpov in 1975?"
|Feb-06-18|| ||Petrosianic: <In his mind, Karpov refused to play him>|
That would be eaiser to argue if Fischer hadn't resigned the title before Karpov even became the challenger.
If it were only Karpov, there'd be a debate. But Fischer didn't play anyone else for 20 years either. Alekhine dodged Capablanca, but he didn't dodge everybody. Korchnoi had the money up in 1980 to play Fischer on his own terms and Fischer wouldn't play. If Fischer had wanted to screw FIDE there was never a better opportunity than that. Fischer was retired but just couldn't admit it to himself.
<and he also thought he had won the vote in Amersterdam for his 10 game proposal.>
Well, he did win that. In the end FIDE voted for the 10 Wins match, but not the tie clause that Fischer had said was unfair anyway.
Fischer's thinking on that was kind of convoluted. In the Edmondson reports (which are in the DVD Collection), Ed reported that Fischer still admitted that the tie clause was unfair, but thought that since he had played under it once, that he should get it once (because two wrongs make a right or some such).
Ed clarified it. You mean if you get it once you'll never ask for it again? Fischer said yes. The problem was still that his tie clause required the challenger to win by 2.
|Feb-06-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Well, didn't Fischer stated he wanted to be champ as long as Steinitz? See? It's jealousy. |
If Fischer had played Karpov like he played Spassky, 100:1 Karpov would have made mincemeat out of Fischer.
|Feb-06-18|| ||Retireborn: <WPE> Not sure I agree. I think that, weighed down by three years of rust, Fischer would be unlikely to win, but it would still be a fight.|
I think everybody understood that Fischer would not be playing in 1975 though. Why else was the candidates final extended to 24 games, whereas the 1971 final was apparently best of 12 games?
|Feb-06-18|| ||Petrosianic: <Why else was the candidates final extended to 24 games, whereas the 1971 final was apparently best of 12 games?>|
That's a good question, and I'm not sure of the answer (was it extended, or was it always supposed to be that?)
As it turned out, the Quarterfinals were 3 wins or Best of 16. The Semifinals were 4 Wins or Best of 20. And the finals were 5 wins or Best of 24. I <think> that was the plan all along. At least I've never heard that it was changed after the fact. But Robert Byrne was going through Moscow (in his job as columnist) telling everyone that Korchnoi and Karpov were in fact playing for the World Championship, not the challenger's spot.
|Feb-06-18|| ||Petrosianic: Another thing to look for in the DVD Collection is Charles Kalme's mind-numbingly disingeuous article in November 1975, in which he argues that the Pure Wins match format will reduce the number of draws (he thought it would take no more than 23 games to reach 10 wins).|
The problem is that he threw data out willy-nilly to try to make his point. he threw out Alekhine-Capablanca. He threw out the first Steinitz-Tchigorin match. He threw out the second botvinnik-Tal match. And he threw out 6 of the 7 1974 Candidates Matches.
You've got to realize that the 1974 Karpov-Korchnoi match really scared people. 19 draws in 24 games! A lot of people thought it was the fault of the format. The guy in the lead plays safe. If people need to win a certain amount of games, they'll be in a hurry to do it. So a LOT of people wanted to try a Pure Wins match again, thinking it would help the game.
Kalme stoked the fires in his article, arguing that the Wins OR Points format was the worst of all, and the Karpov-Korchnoi match proved it. The fact that the other 6 Candidates matches proved the exact opposite meant nothing to him. The one he liked is the only one that counted.
Then in 1978, Karpov and Korchnoi played again in a Pure Wins match, the format that's supposed to produce decisive results. And they drew 18 out of the first 24. Maybe it wasn't the format at all.
Then, the first Karpov-Kasparov match in 1984 produced the final kiss of death. In the Best of 24 match, the guy in the lead might play it safe. But in 1984 BOTH players played it safe and just waited for the other guy to make a mistake. There was no urgency for EITHER player to try to win. That was the end of the Unlimited Match.
|Feb-06-18|| ||Petrosianic: Also, anyone who thought that the 1974 match was a case of a guy getting a lead and sitting on it obviously never played over the games. They're REALLY hard fought games between two equally matched players. Very few short draws, the games averaged almost 50 moves each (and some of the decisive games dragged that number down). Very underrated match with a lot of exciting games.|
|Feb-06-18|| ||Howard: Yes, the 1974 Karpov-Korchnoi match was rather underrated---the fact that it was saturated with draws, has caused a lot of people to pretty much ignore it over all these years.|
|Feb-06-18|| ||todicav23: There's a new theory why Fischer quit: "While Fischer's career was booming, the Illuminati put pressure on the chess world to force Bobby out".|
We also learn that "After 1992, Fischer went on to defeat any chess player he ever met, including beating Kasparov, Carlsen, Krammnik and Capablanca in a simul game, while playing blindfolded and giving them an advantage of knight, rook and three queens. The Jews payed Carlsen (who is 85.7% jewish) never to speak about it."
|Feb-08-18|| ||MissScarlett: <Below is part of the interview that took place while Bobby was returning to Iceland from Japan, he mentioned his frustration at the Karpov negotiations. In his mind, Karpov refused to play him, and he also thought he had won the vote in Amersterdam for his 10 game proposal.|
Man asks: "Do you regret stopping, do you regret not having defended your title againt Anatoly Karpov in 1975?">
Glad I clicked on this, because Fischer's interviews tend to be somewhat repetitive on the subject of chess, but this link reminded me that one of his arguments in favour of the 9-9 tie clause was his belief that Capablanca - Alekhine World Championship Match (1927) also had a tie clause.
He believed it 1974, believed it in 2005, I'm sure he believed it to the end:
<Christian Sánchez (Rosario, Argentina) writes:
‘In a letter published on page 715 of the November 1974 issue of Chess Life & Review Fischer wrote:
“... the Capa-Alekhine match did have a draw clause at 5-5. Yes, Alekhine had to win by 6-4 to take the title just the same as my match proposal ...
The Russians are also making a big to-do about this tie clause even though they are well aware from their own books of these facts. Yet they pretend that I’m asking for an unprecedented advantage! (See page 18 ‘Ten Champions of the World’, Moscow 1972 in Russian for Capa-Alekhine regulations – fotocopy enclosed.)”
The next page quotes a cable sent to FIDE by Fischer:
“... Alekhine needed at least a margin of six wins to four to become world champion, whereas Capablanca needed only five wins to retain his title, draws not counting ...”’>
Curious that both he and Kasparov picked up this canard from Soviet chess literature.
|Feb-08-18|| ||The Boomerang: "If Fischer had played Karpov like he played Spassky, 100:1 Karpov would have made mincemeat out of Fischer."|
Spassky was less thab Stellar games 1-10, and from 11-20 Fischer beat him 2-1 in wins.
Karpov beat a better Spassky 4-1 in 1974, so how did you calculate 100:1 odds??
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 69 OF 79 ·