|
Player: Robert James Fischer
| page 1 of 1; 11 games |
 |
 |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Aug-01-15
 | | AylerKupp: <Absentee> Of course, suggesting that in 1961 anyone curious about Reshevsky's religion should look at his Wikipedia page was in itself a joke. |
|
| Aug-01-15 | | Absentee: I meant his being an orthodox jew. |
|
Dec-14-15
 | | offramp: The intro quotes Chess Review:
<Fischer said he wouldn’t accept the forfeit. He said: “We agreed before the match there could be no forfeits. It’s just a little joke they’re trying to play on me...."> They agreed there would be no forfeits? How does that work? You can turn up as late as you want, or not at all, and still not forfeit? And wouldn't it be a little suspicious if one of the players was constantly suggesting a no-forfeit rule? Reshevsky's spider-sense MUST have tingled a bit. |
|
Dec-14-15
 | | TheFocus: I hope we can all agree that Fischer got screwed over in this match. I did a lot of research on this and he definitely got a raw deal. |
|
Dec-14-15
| | TheFocus: Basically, they listened to the referee, they listened to Mrs. Piatigorsky, and they listened to Reshevsky, but no one took Fischer's concerns seriously. To me, it was just another black mark on Reshevsky. One of many. |
|
Dec-14-15
 | | Sneaky: I think what Bobby must have meant is, that they agreed that if something comes up to prevent a game from being played, it would be replayed. This fiasco is just yet another example of what happens when agreed upon conditions are revised after the fact. |
|
| Dec-14-15 | | Petrosianic: <This fiasco is just yet another example of what happens when agreed upon conditions are revised after the fact.> Assuming they were agreed upon. Nobody's ever seen any match documents that show that. Even now nobody seems quite sure what the agreement was supposed to have been. <TheFocus: I hope we can all agree that Fischer got screwed over in this match. I did a lot of research on this and he definitely got a raw deal.> Yes and No. Yes, it's outrageous that a match patron would subordinate a match to her own personal social schedule, as though they were some kind of trained seal act. But Fischer took the situation and made a crisis out of it. That game of forfeiting a game to make a point, and then trying to get it back later is one he played several times during his career (never with success). You're not clear on exactly what you found, and seem to want us to accept it without hearing it. That doesn't suggest a lot of confidence on your part. What I found when researching it is that Mrs. P moved a game to the morning to accommodate her own schedule (she wanted to go to a concert later that day). Reshevsky, the older man, showed up, Fischer claimed it was too early to play (even though he'd played morning games at Leipzig the year before) and forfeited. One would think that there might have been a better way to protest Mrs. P's selfishness than to walk out on one of the biggest matches in US history. Reshevsky claimed that Fischer had had enough of the match, and wanted out, after guaranteeing he'd win Game 11 and then coming up short. It may not be true, but Fischer made it possible for Reshevsky to go around saying that. |
|
Dec-15-15
| | TheFocus: < Reshevsky, the older man, showed up, Fischer claimed it was too early to play (even though he'd played morning games at Leipzig the year before) and forfeited> It doesn't matter at all that Fischer played in the morning at Leipzig. The games in the 1961 match were not scheduled for the morning. So, what makes it okay to change during the games to a time that one person did not agree to? I find it more admirable that Fischer stuck to his guns. This debacle was the reason that Fischer did not play in the 1963 Piatigorsky Cup. Of course, he later reconciled with Mrs. P and he was the first one to receive an invitation to the 1966 PC. <Reshevsky claimed that Fischer had had enough of the match, and wanted out, after guaranteeing he'd win Game 11 and then coming up short.> So why then did Fischer keep on trying to have the (illegal) forfeit overturned and the final four games be played? Doesn't sound like he was trying to avoid finishing the match. Face it, Fischer got screwed, but he didn't get kissed. |
|
| Dec-15-15 | | Petrosianic: <TheFocus>: <So, what makes it okay to change during the games to a time that one person did not agree to?> It's not "okay". Didn't you hear me call Mrs. P selfish? (She was one of the Rothschilds, you know. Nuff said). The external factors were simply too difficult for Fischer to overcome, but not too difficult for the more experienced player. You know the story about Botvinnik having Ragozin blow smoke in his face. And I seriously doubt Mrs. P ever gave the players any guarantees about never changing start times. She seemed to do things at her whim. I doubt she actually broke any promises, only behaved selfishly (which the players knew about her going in). You made it sound as though Reshevsky had done something unethical simply by showing up for his own game. <I find it more admirable that Fischer stuck to his guns.> I find it more admirable that winning the match was Reshevsky's top concern. If Fischer hadn't been embarrassed after Game 11, it might have been his top concern too. Beating Reshevsky head-to-head would have been the next best thing to a world title match. As it was, the honor of First Man to Beat Reshevsky in a Match went to Korchnoi instead. Oh, but at least Fischer was well-rested for his next event... six months later. Fischer's mistake here was comparable to guarding an unimportant pawn and leaving his Queen hanging. It cost him a defeat in this match, a non-participation in the 1st Piatigorsky Cup, and didn't harm Mrs. P at all. If it HAD harmed Mrs. p, he would have done any worse, as she would simply have taken her marbles and gone home, and the chess world would have suffered more than a proper conclusion to this one match. |
|
Dec-15-15
 | | diceman: <Reshevsky claimed that Fischer had had enough of the match, and wanted out, after guaranteeing he'd win Game 11 and then coming up short.> ...at least it's an unbiased source.
<I find it more admirable that winning the match was Reshevsky's top concern.> ...by a Fischer forfeit? |
|
| Dec-15-15 | | RookFile: I think the point is one of focus. The experienced Reshevsky knew what he was there for - to win the match and ask questions later. Fischer let himself get distracted. |
|
Apr-18-16
| | offramp: A great match. Between two men who knew more about chess than three Karjakins Sellotape©®d together. |
|
| Feb-05-17 | | The Kings Domain: *Chuckles* Gotta admire Fischer's attitude; for all his flaws, the man had principle and at that age, admirable. His suspicions could have been correct - people can be such s*its when you're young, talented, and good-looking. |
|
Feb-05-17
 | | Joshka: What a refreshing experience to have another New Yawker on top of the news!!! Bobby didn't take @#$% from anybody, neither does Billy Joel, and God Bless our President Donald J. Trump!!!! |
|
Mar-21-17
 | | Sally Simpson: CHESS June 1962 (page 290)
"Bobby Fischer.19-year-old U.S.Champion, has moved in the New York Star Supreme Court to bar his former opponent, Samuel Reshevsky, from competing in any public chess exhibitions until the completion of a series of matches started between them last year. Fischer contends that in violation of chess custom, Reshevsky improperly claimed the 12th game of a 16 game series on the grounds that the youthful expert failed to appear." |
|
| Mar-21-17 | | RookFile: And Fischer was laughed right out of court, of course. |
|
| Mar-22-17 | | Petrosianic: <The Kings Domain: *Chuckles* Gotta admire Fischer's attitude;> There are many things to admire about Fischer. Running out on matches when the going got tough is not one of them. The proof of this statement is the fact that even now, a half century later, it bothers people very much that Fischer lost this match. |
|
Mar-22-17
| | offramp: For Fischer the phrase "The show must go on" was just a load of meaningless syllables. |
|
Mar-22-17
| | Sally Simpson: A brief...very brief interview with Fischer from the Belgrade 1959 Candidates. (it reads like it was walking interview, someone asking him question on his was to or from the playing hall. "Your most dangerous opponent?"
"Smyslov."
"Your pet desire?"
"Nothing."
"The biggest disappointed you ever had?"
"Nothing."
"World's best player"
"Smyslov."
"Your greatest passion?"
"Nothing."
"WHat do think about chess."
"Nothing."
"What do you think of the world chess situation." "Nothing."
(Page 55 CHESS, November 1959)
A few years later Bobby published his 10 ten players. Smyslov by then had fallen out of favour and was not given a hollowed top 10 spot. |
|
Mar-24-17
| | Sally Simpson: From the introduction.
"The problem began ten days ago when local officials rescheduled the twelfth game from Saturday to Sunday. Reshevsky will not play on the Jewish Sabbath." Fair enough, but I was reading a report about this match in the August 1961 CHESS (page 363) and B.H.Wood writes that Reshevsky played on a Saturday at Great Yarmouth stipulating someone write down the moves for him. A fact confirmed by Miss Scarlett.
Samuel Reshevsky (kibitz #1612) (It reads like the recording steward also had to press Reshevsky's clock.) Could they not have offered Reshevsky this 1935 solution? One wonders what Fischer would have made of this? "I too want a move recorder and clock button pusher, Reshevsky is saving energy!" |
|
| Mar-24-17 | | Olavi: <Could they not have offered Reshevsky this 1935 solution?> Reshevsky had become more orthodox. Botvinnik tells in his 1978 memoirs (Achieving the Aim in English, I believe) about the negotiations in 1948: "Excuse me, but earlier you played on saturdays?" "Yes, but then I lost my father. I was punished." |
|
Mar-24-17
 | | MissScarlett: Did Bobby ever win a court case? |
|
| Mar-28-17 | | Howard: How often was he in court, though ? |
|
Mar-28-17
| | MissScarlett: I had this particularly in mind (which, I find, is helpfully already online): Robert James Fischer It's in three parts. From Brady's description, it seems like an open and shut case in Bobby's favour, but, alas, there was no Paul Marshall. <The highlight of the MIFF presentation was the remarks of Bobby Fischer's lawyer Paul Marshall, who was interviewed for the film and appeared in the festival audience. Marshall clarified a position alluded to in the film, saying that Fischer was convinced that Marshall was CIA. It seems absurd to us in 2011, but maybe not so absurd to Fischer in 1972. [...]Bringing together all of the different perspectives of the film, Marshall spoke what might perhaps be a fitting coda for Bobby Fischer's life, one marked by personal pain and abandonment: "The more he depended on someone, the more he distrusted them."> http://dispatchesfromcoconutgrove.b... |
|
| Sep-13-17 | | RookFile: <Al Horowitz, founder of the independent periodical Chess Review, had a more nuanced approach. He examined Brady’s points, but also stressed that Fischer had been told of the time change for game 12 on August 3, and Fischer only objected a week later. > https://worldchesshof.org/exhibit/m... |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, is totally anonymous, and 100% free—plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.
|
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
- No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any gratuitous name-calling
of any members—including Admin and Owners—or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
- NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
- Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
- All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
- Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, visit the Kibitzer's Café.
|
|
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times. |
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
home |
about |
login |
logout |
F.A.Q. |
your profile |
preferences |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
chessforums |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
Notable Games |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
Store |
privacy notice |
contact us
Copyright 2001-2020, Chessgames Services LLC
|
Kibitzing
