|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-12-11 | | unferth: <Petrosianic>
precisely. at this point, I'm convinced that ughaibu is simply trolling. |
|
Aug-12-11
 | | perfidious: <Petrosianic> and <unferth> Had there been any willingness on the part of <ugh> to actually discuss this, I'd have had a go at it. As <unferth> says, the way this has gone is simply trolling, however. Guess <Petrosianic> is right: it is a diminution of Spassky's title win that he was seeded into the 1967-69 cycle by virtue of losing the '66 final. (Cue heavy irony) Maybe <ugh> would've given his championship greater credence had he won in 1966 instead, though even there, he qualified from the double-round event at Moscow in 1964. The possibilities for foolishness are endless, not to mention unnecessary, really, as these were all great champions. |
|
| Aug-12-11 | | ughaibu: The replies I've been getting, on this thread, are quite silly. How does being seeded according to results and as stipulated in the rules of the system compare with missing out a part of the course? It doesn't. At least it was a nice surprise to get support from Sneaky. |
|
| Aug-12-11 | | BarcelonaFirenze: Guys, ughaibu is right, Fischer DID NOT compete in te Zonal. That said, it seems that for the rest uf us, IT DOES NOT MEAN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Best regards!! |
|
| Aug-12-11 | | Petrosianic: <How does being seeded according to results and as stipulated in the rules of the system compare with missing out a part of the course? It doesn't.>
Karpov got in legitimately, so did Fischer. If you wanted to smear Karpov, you could <truthfully> say "It's part of Karpov's "legacy" that he got into the Interzonal by beating kids, rather than having to compete in the much tougher Soviet Championship Zonal." There's nothing wrong with the way he got in, but by phrasing it that way, I'm implying that there was, even though I haven't actually found anything wrong. You might not realize how often changes and substitutions were made in these things. It's quite on the cards that if Fischer hadn't been so abrasive and unreliable, that they might have just GIVEN him a spot in the Interzonal without making Benko drop out. That would not be unprecedented for a stick-things-together-with-chewing-gum-and-paper-
-clips organization like FIDE. As it was, given the very real possibility that he might not finish an interzonal he started, they didn't want to increase the number of players. Spassky was gifted a spot in a Candidates (not just an interzonal), you know. He got a free pass to the 1985 Candidates because France, as the host nation, was allowed to pick any representative they wanted to fill one slot. Once he was in, he had a chance to win, just like anyone else. I don't like this implication that "You're in, but you can't REALLY win." If you don't deserve to be there, you're not going to win, which solves the problem. |
|
Aug-12-11
 | | diceman: Fischer also didn’t enter:
The Boston Marathon,
The Soapbox Derby,
The Pillsbury Bake-off,
The Indy 500.
His horse “Maroczy Bind” was entered in the Kentucky Derby,
However, Fischer withdrew him do to poor track lighting and camera noise. |
|
Aug-12-11
| | perfidious: <Petrosianic: ....Spassky was gifted a spot in a Candidates (not just an interzonal), you know. He got a free pass to the 1985 Candidates because France, as the host nation, was allowed to pick any representative they wanted to fill one slot....> In 1985, I had the pleasure of meeting Spassky, who struck me as a likable fellow. It's obvious I wasn't the only person who liked him, as he was awarded a spot in the 1977 candidates after not coming close to qualifying from Manila, as you noted above, plus this. It seems to have been overlooked, the more so as he lost to Korchnoi in the 1977-78 final, then failed at the Montpellier tournament in 1985. |
|
| Aug-12-11 | | Petrosianic: I'm not criticizing him for either 1977 or 1985. 1985 was a gift, but so what? Only somebody worthy would have been able to make use of such a gift. Give me a spot in the Candidates, and I'm not going to win. France got to pick a player, they picked him. Perfectly legal. If he'd beaten the odds and won, how could anyone argue that he didn't belong there? And his spot in the 1977 Candidates wasn't a gift at all. He was the next player in line after Fischer dropped out. The rule was that dropouts were replaced with the next highest finisher from the previous (1974) candidates. That meant one of the semifinal losers, Petrosian or Spassky. Petrosian had successfully qualified from the '76 interzonal, so it went to Spassky. Had Spassky been unavailable, Robert Byrne would have been next in line. |
|
Aug-13-11
| | perfidious: <Petrosianic> Bear in mind that, unlike one other poster in this mess, I've no axe to grind-I was simply pointing out what is well known. What's unfortunate re Spassky's legacy is that he will be remembered more for his loss to Fischer by casual fans than his impressive record in the run-up to the title during the sixties. Fischer may well have been the strongest player going in the second half of the 1960s when he played, but therein lay the problem: he was not terribly active during much of that time. Larsen was the best tournament player in the world from about 1967-70, but Spassky's match performances in the 1965-69 cycles give him overall superiority to the former, in my opinion. On another topic, was Geller the player named to take Botvinnik's place after the latter refused to participate in the '65 candidates' matches, due to his second-place tie with Keres at Curacao? My recollection is that Tal, Spassky, Larsen, Smyslov, Portisch (after a playoff) and Ivkov won six slots, with Stein and Bronstein being excluded because of the rule regarding the number of players from a single country (read: the Soviet Union, of course). |
|
| Aug-13-11 | | ughaibu: If events in 1985 are part of Spassky's "run", then events in 1975 are part of Fischer's. Or, to put it otherwise, what possible relevance can these points about Spassky have? |
|
| Aug-13-11 | | Petrosianic: The relevance is simply that had Spassky won, he would have been champion without reservation or qualification. And it would have been a very impressive run. Everyone would be talking about how 48 year old Spassky bowled over everyone and regained the title. Nobody would care about his seeding, even though it may be that had he needed to qualify he wouldn't have even bothered trying. 1975 is a different run for Fischer than 1972. Rather than "run", say "cycle". Fischer performed fantastically in FIDE Cycle #8. In Cycle #9 he did abysmally, and didn't win a single game. In Cycle 10 he again dropped out of the Candidates without playing a game. |
|
| Aug-13-11 | | Petrosianic: <What's unfortunate re Spassky's legacy is that he will be remembered more for his loss to Fischer by casual fans than his impressive record in the run-up to the title during the sixties.>
True, fame is funny that way sometimes. People remember Babe Ruth as chunky and overweight just because all the films of him were made late in his career. Steinitz isn't remembered as the behemoth he was, he's more remembered for matches he played in his late 50's. <Fischer may well have been the strongest player going in the second half of the 1960s when he played, but therein lay the problem: he was not terribly active during much of that time.> I don't think he was, but the matter is definitely debatable. His performance from 1964-1969 is closer to his earlier stuff than it is to 1970-1972. For instance, against the Soviets, he scored something like 42% in the middle years, slightly higher in the early years, but over 70% in 1970-1972. |
|
| Aug-13-11 | | Petrosianic: <On another topic, was Geller the player named to take Botvinnik's place after the latter refused to participate in the '65 candidates' matches, due to his second-place tie with Keres at Curacao?> Yes. Geller and Keres played a match soon after Curacao, to determine who had finished second, and Keres won a narrow victory. You might ask why were they in such a hurry to figure out something that wouldn't matter for 3 years. The reason is that Botvinnik was hinting that he might not defend his title at all, and was thinking about just retiring. Had that happened, the plan was to play a championship match between Petrosian and the 2nd place finisher at Curacao, so they had to know who that was. In the end, Botvinnik did play and it didn't matter. Hindsight is 20/20. So, the seeds for 1965 were Botvinnik and Keres. When Botvinnik dropped out, his spot went to Geller anyway, making the Keres-Geller match redundant. |
|
| May-28-14 | | Mudphudder: Is this the game that Fischer showed up late with like 30mins left on his clock and blitzed out the entire game to beat (and majorly piss off) Reshevsky? |
|
May-28-14
| | perfidious: <Mudphudder> Believe it was <three> minutes remaining before he would otherwise have defaulted. |
|
| May-28-14 | | Petrosianic: No, that was this game:
Fischer vs Reshevsky, 1967 |
|
| May-28-14 | | Mudphudder: Same game... |
|
| May-28-14 | | Petrosianic: (Rimshot) |
|
| May-28-14 | | Howard: Regarding Petrosianic's comment about Spassky from August, 2011, he is incorrect about Spassky's being seeded into the Interzonal "during his successful title run." First, he was not seeded into the 1964 Interzonal (the one Petrosian was apparently referring to). He took first place in a special 1964 Soviet zonal event in which seven players (including Korchnoi and Kholmov) competed--and that is how he landed in the 1964 tournament. He lost to Petrosian in the 1966 title match, as most of us know, and then was seeded into the Candidates in 1968. |
|
| May-28-14 | | Petrosianic: "Successful title run" would be 1969, not 1966. And he was seeded, but into the Candidates. If I said Interzonal, then that was wrong. |
|
| Jul-31-14 | | Howard: No big deal regarding the error, particularly since the 1964 Soviet zonal was an unusual type of event. Usually, the Soviet championship served as an interzonal qualifier (every three years, that is). But the 1964 Soviet zonal, which consisted of only seven participants, was an unusual case. Anyone know why it was done that way. For the record, Spassky got off to a poor start in that tournament, scoring only one point (!) out of his first four games. But he pulled himself together, and he ended up taking clear first in the 12-round event. Thus, he was bound for the Amsterdam interzonal. |
|
| Jul-20-18 | | ACMEKINGKRUSHER: Howdy,
I Started this "QUEST" 4 days ago when RAY asked me to look at a "FISCHER" game in the "Opening of the Day"! Well the game was Fabulous! We will go over it at ACME PAWN PUSHERS on Monday w/this one too. I was referred to this game with a WILD story & had to CHECK IT OUT! Prior to that I knew that Bobby was a FAB player with a few problems. The RUSSIANS Were In Fact "Out To Get Him" I also thought that Reshevsky was a very old Combatant who still played well as he got older! After reading ALL the KIBITZES I looked to the Internet and found The SI story and a whole bunch of STATS. Then I went to my own handy FISCHER Library and read what Brady wrote in "Profile of a Prodigy. Reading RUSSIANS Against FISCHER was also Very informative. Ive concluded that
1. FISCHER WAS RIGHT! He Played by THE RULES!
2. How can you WD from a TMT. and still be paired in The Next Round!
3. FISCHER was not treated correctly by his PEERS. I can understand the Russians threatening to leave if FIDE voted in his Favor! RESHEVSKY Too? I'm very glad that FISCHER has such a Positive record against him!
4. Reshevsky also not appearing for his game Adjournment with FISCHER.
Kindergartners have more couth. My Opinion of Sammy has SUNK to a LOW that he will Never Recover from!
5. It was Great to read that between games FISCHER actually got along with some of The other players on the beach. Even the "Problem Game" they played on him worked out eventually in Bobby's Favor as The Russians ended up with The EGGS on their faces.
In Conclusion:
We owe Modern CHESS Tournament Organization to many, but BOBBY had a GIANT Piece of it. At this particular Tournament BOBBY was NOT the Only one to complain about conditions. While BOBBY was not the Best To Get Along with, you can NEVER Take Away The Fact that he was THE BEST PLAYER OF HIS TIME! I have said more than once that he needed Direction at a young age and Since HE DIDN'T, he Really needed it more as he got older. A few tried and had limited success. BOBBY WILL NEVER BE FORGOTTEN along with MORPHY Lastly... It also pays to read The Kibitzing. Thank You ALL for what turned out to be one of the most informative 4 days spent reading about just one SMALL Piece of CHESS HISTORY! Go BOBBY!!! |
|
| Jul-20-18 | | ACMEKINGKRUSHER: Well, The First message is incorrect!
I get a 404 error message when trying to read about this Tournament! The BEST Sources are 1..CG.C of Course.
2. Brady's Profile of a Champion and His "ENDGAME"!
3. The RUSSIANS vs FISCHER where there was some nice info on what players did between rounds!
WAY TO GO BOBBY FISCHER!!! |
|
| Jul-20-18 | | ewan14: 1964 USSR zonal tournament came about due to Smyslov not qualifying from the usual USSR championship ( per Korchnoi ) Kholmov suffered as a result. |
|
| Jul-21-18 | | ACMEKINGKRUSHER: Howdy,
Ya Know WHAT?
FISCHER's "DEMANDS" seemed to be absorbed by FIDE in the Rules that govern CHESS these days. Just a THOUGHT! He Had it RIGHT so many years ago! Way to Go Bobby! |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
