< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
|Jan-12-15|| ||Petrosianic: <1978? No one was discussing 1978 until you posted about it. Seems like you are the unsettled person :)>|
I'm just trying to take you seriously. You seem to get so rattled, whenever anyone says anything negative about Fischer. Even that silly comment about Botvinnik almost outliving Fischer provoked ??? style replies from you, as if even living long was some kind of competition. (FWIW, at the risk of ruining your day, Botvinnik lived to be 83). This is obviously something massively emotionally important to you, but you also seem to regard yourself as able to function as an unbiased observer, which you clearly can't. What do you think I'm unsetteled about, BTW? Karpov? You forgot to make it clear.
With your <express> permission, as granted by you here, I will doubt all I want.
|Jan-12-15|| ||perfidious: <anarchist: And you can doubt all you want....>|
Guess the rules, as codified by you, are that you are allowed to question anything, but no-one else is afforded the same right.
<....but I just got back from a 5K run, which I was able to do because I was energized by a restful sleep. Yeay for me!>
|Jan-13-15|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Petrosianic> Well your last post gave me a nice laugh - thank you! |
I am not sure what to make of it. is it tongue-in-cheek? serious?
Anyway, the part where you write about living long being some kind of competition (to me) is either a complete joke or you are reading stuff into my comments on your end that simply is not present on my end.
Some stuff I write is serious and some is meant to be humorous. I always thought it was obvious which was which most of the time. Maybe I am wrong...
In any event, comparing what I actually feel or think to what you imagine I feel or think has been a most entertaining exercise for me these past few days.
|Jan-13-15|| ||Petrosianic: You say you didn't understand it, but you laughed at it anyway. Why? Just to be on the safe side?|
Perhaps you're being funny, and you have a very self-deprecating sense of humor. But the character you play, of someone jarred to the core any time anything remotely negative is said about Fischer is funny. Let us say that it's deliberately funny, and you're doing a parody of extreme fanboys.
I knew a guy like that once. Had all the people here beat hands down. Was such a super-duper Star Trek fan, that he would literally go catatonic any time the show was criticized. Even the really awful episodes, like Spock's Brain or The Way to Eden. He'd get very still, very quiet, not saying anything to anyone (apparently trying to keep from exploding), and then rush out of the room once he'd calmed down enough to move. Bizarre case. A lot worse than just getting rattled because someone said Botvinnik almost outlived Fischer. Do you think you could incorporate some of Art's schtick into your own act?
|Jan-13-15|| ||Everett: <Most objective, serious commentators think Fischer would have defeated Karpov in a match played under Fischer's non-negotiable rules. >|
Hypothetically, of course. Most serious commentators ignored the fact that Fischer hadn't played serious chess in 2+ years. So a Fischer who was <prepared, focused, sane, etc.> would be a favorite. But what were the chances of all that lining up like it did from 70-72? If history before and after those years are admitted as evidence, the chances are slim.
|Jan-13-15|| ||Petrosianic: By "objective commentator", I think he meant "the average American fan". No objective commentators were named, and it seems probably that this was not a serious claim, just a part of the comedy act that thegoodanarchist says he's doing.|
|Jan-24-15|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Petrosianic: ...
Perhaps you're being funny, and you have a very self-deprecating sense of humor. But the character you play, of someone jarred to the core any time anything remotely negative is said about Fischer is funny>
Again, reading stuff into my comments that simply is not there on my end. If I slam an anti-Fischer post for being completely ridiculous it is because I am not going to let utter nonsense pass without a refutation. I am having a good time. You should try to as well.
<...just a part of the comedy act ...>
Stubbornly refusing to understand, you are. Probably just to try to get a rise. Hmmm, curious.
|Oct-21-15|| ||kamagong24: ah! opening of the day! my favorite!|
|Oct-21-15|| ||eternaloptimist: When I think of the St. George Defense I think of this game. It's amazing that Karpov didn't even change expressions after Miles played 1...♙a6. The fact that Miles beat him w/ this opening shows that psychology can play a huge part in a chess game.|
|Apr-04-16|| ||The Kings Domain: Playing 1)... a6 against the champ? Miles was a character indeed.|
|Apr-04-16|| ||Howard: This game received widespread attention when Miles died, in late 2001.|
|Apr-23-16|| ||whiteshark: Two game related photos (© Lars Grahn): http://larsgrahn.blogspot.de/2009_0...|
|Jul-19-16|| ||Hunter16: To do this against Karpov(Super GM and current world champion at that time)requires an equally large amount of bravery and positional understanding vs.Karpov,one of the best positional players in history.|
|Jul-19-16|| ||Petrosianic: Yes, beating the world champion is difficult. You certainly 'it the nail on the 'ol head there.|
|Aug-02-16|| ||j4jishnu: There is nothing wrong in the opening, especially when Miles is playing against one of the best Champions that ever lived. The opening repertory is just "unorthodox", all you can say. Well played Miles.|
|Aug-02-16|| ||Ultra: Fischer has an effect on patzers not unlike Trump has on the establishment. |
Their true motivations are revealed by ugly characters....
|Aug-07-16|| ||Hunter16: Well actually look at it,the opening is only 'incorrect'because it doesn't challenge the centre.But on the other hand though,Miles plays in a true hypermodernist style (Cough Cough Nimzowitsch!:))and goes for a queenside fianchetto and proceeds to attack White's centre.Nothing very major long really in my eyes.But yes,certainly not one of the better openings out there.|
|Aug-07-16|| ||Hunter16: I meant if we look at it* and nothing wrong*sorry for the typo!;)|
|Aug-08-16|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Well.. Fischer didn't lose to 1... a6 afaik|
|Nov-04-16|| ||Domdaniel: Didn't Korchnoi (in 1974, before his first match with Karpov, when he was still a Soviet citizen) say something like "I will try to beat Karpov to save him from Fischer" ...?|
I love what Miles did here. But it's not as radical as some people seem to think.
|Jan-19-19|| ||Pyrandus: ?
" didn't lose to 1... a6 afaik"
"Afaik"? Dont understand. Afaik?
|Jan-19-19|| ||keypusher: as far as i know|
|Jan-19-19|| ||Granny O Doul: It has always bothered me that 1...a6 got dubbed the "incorrect opening" rather than the "incorrect defense".|
|Jul-28-19|| ||Fusilli: <Domdaniel: ... I love what Miles did here. But it's not as radical as some people seem to think.>|
I think it was pretty radical, both in psychological and historic ways. The underdog provokes the beast in a completely unexpected, shocking way, and comes out victorious. It's a lesson on attitude, especially when you are the underdog.
For Miles himself, however, it may have been less heroic than we often assume. Until this, Miles had an =2 -5 score against Karpov, having had the black pieces in all five losses. Miles must have thought, what the heck, if I am going to lose, at least I'll have fun.
|Jul-28-19|| ||plang: I don't see it as any more "incorrect" than Alekhine's Defense or the Modern Defense or the English Defense.|
It is just another example of hypermodernism.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·