|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-04-04 | | Phoenix: <Aampl, how special is the game still if one of the best players of the world makes a horrible, and maybe losing error as soon as move 6?> By the way, lots of masters miss 7.Ndb5 as cited by Soltis in a fairly recent Chess Life column. |
|
| Jan-04-04 | | Phoenix: As to how special the game is? Ask Huzman when he beat Kaspy, ask Fischer when he beat Tal...I bet the response is the same! :-) |
|
| Mar-09-04 | | Benjamin Lau: <By the way, lots of masters miss 7.Ndb5 as cited by Soltis in a fairly recent Chess Life column.
>
Phoenix, I think I speak for both of us when I say that Tal wasn't just any ordinary master. By the way, Soltis might want to recheck his data. According to this db, black only chose 6...Nf6?? 2.3% of the time, having forgotten the possibility of Nb5. The game is special in terms of historical significance, but not much other than that. Even Nunn, Emms, etc didn't put it in their greatest games list, that must say something considering how their list is filled with overrated games like Botvinnik v.s. Capablanca 1938. ;) My favorite Fischer game on a random note is actually this one: Fischer vs Myagmarsuren, 1967. I used to like the Byrne one, but the positional subtleties of the Myagmarsuren game appeal more to me. |
|
| May-17-04 | | iamdummy: no its not one of the greatest games ever, however after this loss tal did not beat fischer again |
|
| May-18-04 | | iron maiden: Tal's only wins against Fischer came in the 1959 Candidates Tournament. After this game, Fischer owned Tal just as Tal had owned him up to this point. Interestingly enough, Fischer's case was quite similar against Spassky. |
|
| May-18-04 | | Troewa: After this game there seem to have been 3 more classical Tal - Fischer encounters. 2 of which ended in a draw, while Fischer won the other one. So Fischer hardly 'owned' Tal after this game. He only managed to slightly improve his overall negative score in classical games against the Latvian from + 0 -4 into +2 -4 So the statement that 'Fischer never lost a game to Tal again after this game' is -although factual- also somewhat misleading. It makes it sound like they played tons of games after this with Fischer displaying clear dominance, while in actuality there were only 3 more real games after this of which Fischer won just one. |
|
| May-18-04 | | iron maiden: Well, I guess we have different opinions on the definition of the word "owned." He had a plus score after this game with no losses, which is good enough for me. I also don't think it's right to say blitz isn't "real" chess--the pieces move the same, and the only significant change is a lessening of required calculating ability and its replacement by a need for intuition and courage. |
|
| May-18-04 | | Troewa: Yes, we definitely have very different definitions of the word 'owned' then. Regarding blitz, it's obviously still a form of chess, but that 'only significant change' you mentioned is drastic enough. "blitz kills ideas" - Fischer |
|
| May-19-04 | | ughaibu: The idea that Fischer "owned" Tal is absurd and I'd be interested in reading Iron Maiden's definition. In 1959 Tal won all four of their games, only one of the games looked difficult for him despite Fischer's claim to have had winning positions in every game. Apart from this present trivial game decided by a blunder in the opening, Fischer only won one other game against Tal. That other win was at Curacao 1962 the worst tournament of Tal's life, he was so sick that he missed the last section and was hospitalised, he didn't just lose to Fischer he lost to every other player in the tournament. Rather than Fischer "owning" Tal, I agree with the poster who said: Fischer is to Tal as Huzman is to Kasparov. |
|
| May-19-04 | | TrueFiendish: "Finally he has not escaped me!" Fischer on his first victory over Tal. Like so many interesting potential pair-offs, it's a shame they weren't both at their peak at the same time. We could also say that Fischer owned Petrosian after he beat that Russian for the first time, but P was over the crest by then. |
|
| May-19-04 | | iron maiden: <ughaibu> Interesting that, though you argued that Tal was sick in Curacao in 1962 and therefore the win counts for little, you failed to mention that Fischer was only fifteen in all of his losses to Tal, and nowhere near as strong as he was in 1962, much less '72. Of course a game is a game, and what you decide to leave out is up to you. You can argue all you want that Tal's play is incredibly bad in this game, but there is no question that Fischer's is incredibly good. Whereas you base your entire argument on a single tournament where Tal was at his absolute peak, I have the rest of the Fischer-Tal matchups as evidence that Fischer could hold his own against the Latvian. If Huzman is to Kasparov what Fischer was to Tal then Huzman should hope Kaspy wins the reunification and then try his hardest to arrange a match. |
|
| May-19-04 | | ughaibu: Iron Maiden: I know Fischer was sixteen, one of the things Fischer is most famous for is being very strong from when he was young isn't it? He demonstrated this by winning the US championship, qualifying from the interzonal and putting up a reasonable performance in the candidates. In 1959 Fischer placed =5-6th in the candidates and in 1962 placed 4th, it's not clear that he had made significant improvement, as far as the very top level is concerned, in the intervening three years. On the other hand it is quite clear what poor form Tal was in. Fischer's strength relative to Tal's after 1962 is only mootable, as far as the evidence exists Tal beat Fischer 4-2. I'd still be interested in your definition of "owned". |
|
| May-20-04 | | seoulmama: 6... Nf6? is a bad move. Some analyst even claimed it loses straight away! |
|
| May-20-04 | | iron maiden: <ughaibu> I know that Fischer was probably Candidates' caliber in 1959, but there is an unquestionable difference between his playing strength then and his strength in 1962. If you need proof, just look at how he qualified: He tied for 5th-6th, the last available place, in 1959, whereas in '62 he won the qualifying tournament by 2 1/2 points. In 1959 he was also extremely inconsistent, and had not yet had much international experience. Another thing that hasn't been brought up yet is the fact that Fischer was not in top form either when he played at Curacao in 1962. He had just had a falling out with his mother, and then there was the Benko disagreement. He was seen several times with dark circles under his eyes, apparently exhausted and strained. BTW: Owned (verb, past tense): To retain possession or to be in control of something. Tal exerted unquestionable dominance over Fischer before this game; however, during this game and after it was Fischer who was in control, never losing again and winning twice, plus two blitz wins. Of course, they absolutely cannot be counted since they contain no indication whatsoever of any actual playing ability. I mean, I could have beaten Tal in blitz. |
|
| May-20-04 | | ughaibu: Iron Maiden: The difference in interzonal performance demonstrates his improvement against weaker players, not against the very top players. Both in 1959 and in 1962 Petrosian and Keres finished ahead of Fischer, in 1959 the scores were Petrosian 0-2 and Keres 2-2, in 1962 Petrosian 0-1 and Keres 1-1, improvement but nothing vast. I doubt very much if he was out of form because of a disagreement with Benko or because he had dark circles under his eyes, I suggest these were consequences of his performance, he was expecting to win but never got into the running. He had been living separately from his mother long enough before the candidates for it to be unimportant. Of course blitz games show something about ability and also of course you could beat Tal if he were to blunder in a won position, what would that prove? As it goes this is what occured in one of the 1970 blitz games, I dont think winning due to the opponent's blunder illustrates "control". As for the other drawn games, Tal didn't lose either so I guess they "owned" each other. |
|
| May-20-04 | | iron maiden: <The difference in interzonal performance demonstrates his improvement against weaker players, not against the very top players. Both in 1959 and in 1962 Petrosian and Keres finished ahead of Fischer, in 1959 the scores were Petrosian 0-2 and Keres 2-2, in 1962 Petrosian 0-1 and Keres 1-1, improvement but nothing vast.> Granted, he did not improve very much in terms of his results in the Candidates between 1959 and 1962. But he did improve greatly against the top players in the intervening time. In his two tournaments immediately preceding Curacao, he scored +4 =3 -0 against Petrosian, Keres, Geller, Tal and Korchnoi. To go with such a score against the very top players is indeed "vast" improvement. In Curacao his score against these exact same players was much, much worse: +4 =9 -6, indicating that for some reason, emotional (which I merely suggested) or other, he was gravely off-form. <I dont think winning due to the opponent's blunder illustrates "control".> Well, that just happens to be how every single decisive chess game has been won, including every game that Tal ever won against Fischer. |
|
| May-20-04 | | ughaibu: Iron Maiden: You have a point about his results at Bled (plus his win against Korchnoi at Stockholm), however, as he never subsequently had such a good result against the Soviet contingent in any tournament I suggest Bled was the blip not Curacao, why didn't he win at Havana or Santa Monica? Presumably he would again have improved with age/maturity. According to present understanding of chess, all games require a mistake by the loser but not all mistakes qualify as blunders and it is certainly not the case that the loser of every game was winning before blundering. I still dont see how you justify the phrase "Fischer owned Tal", would you say that Radjabov has "owned" Kasparov since 2002? |
|
| May-21-04 | | iron maiden: <why didn't he win at Havana or Santa Monica?> Havana would have been a hard tournament to win for any player, since Fischer had to play all his games in grueling eight-hour teletype sessions. However as Havana contained none of the top "Soviet contingent" except for Geller and perhaps Smyslov, I fail to see why you would even bring it up if you are still focused on the point that Fischer had not significantly matured against the top players. Likewise Santa Monica contained only two Soviets, Spassky and Petrosian, and Fischer had struggled greatly against both of them up to that point (though, with experience, he would eventually turn the tables; I'm sure even you would admit that he "owned" Petrosian during their encounters in '70-'71 and Spassky after the third game of their match). I argue that he had improved in age and maturity by Santa Monica; in a tournament almost as strong as Curacao, he finished second, a half-point behind the winner, compared to fourth place and three full points behind the winner at the 1962 Candidates. <not all mistakes qualify as blunders> A blunder is defined as "a usually serious mistake caused by ignorance or confusion". The chess definition is a mistake that costs the game; however, what costs the game may not be so blatantly obvious as an opening error; it could be a small blemish that leaves you with a backward pawn or an ill-placed knight, giving the opponent a small but tangible advantage that with best play can be converted into victory. |
|
| May-21-04 | | ughaibu: Iron Maiden: If he didn't win these tournaments even though they didn't feature the top Soviet players that is an even stronger indication that his results at Bled were a one off. I would never "admit that he "owned"" anyone, I find the expression distasteful and meaningless. You haven't answered my question about Radjabov's ownership of Kasparov, it still stands. Your "chess definition" of a blunder is news to me, I've always felt there were distictions between "slight inaccuracy", "unsound combination", "mistaken plan", etc, any of which on it's own can cause the loss of a game. |
|
| May-21-04 | | iron maiden: <ughaibu> I merely pointed out that the Havana and Santa Monica tournaments did not contain very many top Soviet players, which seemed to be the reason that you brought them into the argument. <If he didn't win these tournaments even though they didn't feature the top Soviet players that is an even stronger indication that his results at Bled were a one off.> Of course they were. So were all his dominant U.S. Championship victories and his tournament wins in Monte Carlo and Yugoslavia in 1967, the very next international tournaments he played in after Santa Monica. If you find the expression "owned" so meaningless, why are you so insistent upon my definition of the term? If Radjabov has retained an unbeaten plus score against Kasparov since 2002 then he by my books owns Kaspy--for what little it apparently means to you. As for the ongoing "blunder" debate: If any bad move on its own can cause the loss of a game, regardless of how hard the victory is for the other player, then it must be called a blunder in my humble opinion. I'm going to bed, will continue this discussion tomorrow. |
|
| May-21-04 | | ughaibu: Okay, I guess your definitions (for both terms) aren't as I undertood. I'll try to remember when addressing posts to you, eg "Kovacevic owned Fischer even at his peak" or "Topalov's loss to Kasparov in 1999 was the result of a blunder". Good night and see you tomorrow. |
|
| May-21-04 | | iron maiden: If you find the term "owned" to be "distasteful and meaningless," then you won't be using it in any of our later conversations anyway. Still, I'm glad to hear that I got my point across. From your post, it could be implied that you think Topalov taking the rook in 1999 was not a blunder, in which case my opinion differs, since that is most definitely the losing move in that game. Just about every sensible annotator grants the move at least one question mark and sometimes two. A blunder in a drawn position. If anyone has a better definition for "blunder" than "losing move" then please speak up; I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say. |
|
| May-21-04 | | ughaibu: I cant believe that anyone wastes language like this. I have to go out for a few hours so I'll reply when I get back, I would be really surprised if there is even one other member who agrees that Topalov's capture of the rook was a blunder, I'll also be surprised if there are many who think "drawn position" is accurate. I will further be surprised if members think "own" is a suitable term for "have the most recent victory". |
|
| May-22-04 | | Benjamin Lau: What are the generally accepted criteria for a blunder? Common characteristics I can think of off the top of my head: - Unnatural
- Obviously bad upon a quick survey of the board
- Loses / throws away half a point within only a few moves - Bad relative to the strength of a player in question - The correct move is obvious
- Purposeless
The more a move has these characteristics, the more likely it is a blunder to me. Can anyone think of any other criteria? |
|
| May-22-04 | | iron maiden: <ughaibu> Wasting language? If you think that I am "wasting language" then by all means put me on your ignore list, if all you are going to do is make offensive comments like that. Do you believe that all who challenge what you call the generally accepted criteria of a definition are wrong? As it is there is no set definition for "own", which you absolutely insist upon getting even though, I point out for the third time, you think the term to be "distasteful and meaningless." Likewise, the exact definition of a blunder is hard to agree upon. Apparently your opinion and mine differ, which is fine. We can argue about it, as we have been doing for the last two days. We don't have to insult each other or call one another's posts a waste of language. I know that you don't have to do something like that in order to talk chess intelligently ughaibu. If I'm clear enough on this issue let's get back to chess. <I would be really surprised if there is even one other member who agrees that Topalov's capture of the rook was a blunder, I'll also be surprised if there are many who think "drawn position" is accurate.> Scroll back to page 2 on the Kasparov-Topalov page. Before their comments got buried under <shr0pshire>'s conspiracy theory, several members, including <Benjamin Lau>, <Shadout Mapes>, <Halfpricemidge>, and <Helloween> stated that the game would have been drawn had Topalov not accepted the sacrifice of the rook. If I remember correctly <Helloween> also gave 24...Rxd4 a double question mark, which even in your book must count as a blunder. Surprise. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
sac: 23.fxe5