|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-30-11 | | BobCrisp: <David has done a good deed for the chess community by having assembled so much of Bobby's memorabilia in a single - safe - location. And, of course, sharing it with us.> Remind me, what was the asking price of his recent <Fischer> tome? Are we to prostrate ourselves gratefully as the rich man casts us crumbs from his table? And I'm still asking the question: how much, if any, of his collection originally came from the <Bekins mega-robbery>? |
|
| May-30-11 | | parisattack: I believe the original price for the Fischer tome was $300 when issued a couple years ago. The deluxe edition was more, of course. Given the nature of the material, the quality of the publication, the production numbers, the work involved I doubt Mr. Delucia made much on the book. I just don't think it would have come out very well as a Hardinge-Simpole, sorry. One could always snag a nice 'Chess Magazine Owned by Bobby Fischer' for $100 on eBay, catch a piece of the action. The answer is still 'If you don't pay your bills, s*&t can happen.' |
|
| May-30-11 | | TheFocus: <BobCrisp> <Remind me, what was the asking price of his recent <Fischer> tome?> Well, I paid $330 for my copy. Worth every cent. I have all three of DeLucia's books. Spent over $900 for them. <Are we to prostrate ourselves gratefully as the rich man casts us crumbs from his table?> "A prophet is never honored in his own country."
As to the Bekins sale, you do know that Bobby got almost all of that back, don't you? So, don't shed any tears for Bobby's loss. And if DeLucia did buy it, I can't think of anyone better to have it. |
|
| May-30-11 | | TheFocus: <paris> The NIC issue was earlier this year. |
|
| May-30-11 | | BobCrisp: <Well, I paid $330 for my copy.> It certainly keeps the riff-raff out.
<As to the Bekins sale, you do know that Bobby got almost all of that back, don't you?> I know he got some of it back (via <Silman> or <Donaldson>, wasn't it?) but not the degree to which you suggest. It still remains a somewhat murky affair. Did you ever speak to <Bob Ellsworth> about it? |
|
| May-30-11 | | TheFocus: <BobCrisp> No. have not talked to Ellsworth, nor plan to. The Bekins affair is a trivial matter to me. Like I say, Bobby got back more than you think. Perhaps DeLucia did acquire most of it. Bravo for him, I say. From the pictures and inventory in his book, I would say he did. But if so, I am glad one man has it, than for 100 people swapping it back and forth on eBay. Larry Evans is only recently deceased and you can find his library on eBay being sold to the highest bidder, book by book. I can understand Bobby being upset, though. I still agonize the loss of two photo books that have been lost. No duplicates. |
|
| May-30-11 | | BobCrisp: <No. have not talked to Ellsworth, nor plan to.> I phoned him once but he didn't care to talk about it. He sounded very American, though. <The Bekins affair is a trivial matter to me.> Trivial matters are important to me.
<Like I say, Bobby got back more than you think.Perhaps DeLucia did acquire most of it. Bravo for him, I say. From the pictures and inventory in his book, I would say he did.> This appears somewhat contradictory, unless you're suggesting that <DeLucia> acquired much of <Fischer>'s property after his death. |
|
| May-30-11 | | TheFocus: <BobCrisp> Although I have e-mailed DeLucia a few times, I never asked him. It is not often advisable to ask collectors how or when they acquired their holdings. Plus, I would rather respect his privacy on that matter. I may need to ask for further "borrowings" from him in the future, so I will err on the side of discretion. It is common knowledge that Frank Brady asked DeLucia if he could look at his collection for <Endgame>. The echo of DeLucia's "NO!" is still being heard!! |
|
| May-30-11 | | bronkenstein: Does anybody know what was the score of the 1992. ˝secret˝ match ? |
|
| May-31-11 | | TheFocus: <bronkenstein> No. Only that Fischer won the match. |
|
| May-31-11 | | parisattack: <The echo of DeLucia's "NO!" is still being heard!!> Same answer I received some years back. I think only AA has actually spent time with that collection. |
|
| Jul-24-11 | | wordfunph: Quote of the Game:
"I felt very bad, because I knew it was a terrible shock to lose with white so quickly. Smyslov is normally a great gentleman, but at that moment he just stopped the clock and left
immediately, because he felt ashamed of himself for losing such a game." - GM Svetozar Gligoric
Source: Modern Chess Miniatures by Neil McDonald |
|
| Oct-01-11 | | jerseybob: In World Chp.events(which this game comes from), I'll stand by what I say: Gligorich wasn't in Smysvlov's league. And that's not to downgrade Gligorich; I'd gladly take his talent! |
|
| Oct-01-11 | | Shams: <In World Chp.events(which this game comes from), I'll stand by what I say: Gligorich wasn't in Smysvlov's league. > Given that the latter was World Champion, this seems an uncontroversial statement. |
|
| Oct-03-11 | | jerseybob: Shams: You're right, it's not. |
|
| Dec-14-11 | | King Death: < jerseybob:...Gligoric wasn't in Smyslov's league as a player...> Right. Gligoric was only good enough to make the Candidates 3 different times. Let's see: that's 3 times more than Ulf Andersson, Walter Browne and John Nunn, who weren't too bad as players. |
|
| Dec-24-11 | | jerseybob: You could make a list much longer than just Browne, Nunn and Anderson. Lots of great players haven't made the Candidates. I was simply talking about the performance of Smyslov v. Gligoric in Championship events like Interzonals and Candidates tourneys. Smyslov at his peak had that certain something that Gligorich did not. |
|
Dec-25-11
 | | FSR: Smyslov's second-shortest loss in the database. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... The shortest is Smyslov vs Hjartarson, 1995. |
|
| Feb-06-16 | | Marmot PFL: Strange game by Smyslov. if he nothing better than Rc3 by move 16 than it's really looking bad. |
|
| Feb-07-16 | | RookFile: One thing about Gligoric was he was terrific at opening play. The same with Fischer. Evidently, around this time, for whatever reason, Smyslov had not been putting the work into his openings that he might have. He resigns after Gligoric's 18....Bf5. Later, in the same tournament, he had practically a lost game right out of the opening against Fischer. |
|
Feb-07-16
 | | perfidious: What <jerseybob> said was correct: Gligoric was a formidable player, but not in the class of Smyslov in world title play, though as <King Death> noted, thrice a candidate--no mean feat for a non-Soviet player. |
|
Feb-18-16
 | | plang: 4 dxc?! was weak but Gligoric is especially critical of 9 b4? which led to Black opening the queenside while being better developed. He also gives 13 e3..Nc6 14 Nd5..Nxd5 15 cxd..Ne5 as being a tougher defense but by that time the position was already close to winning for Black. |
|
| May-20-21 | | sudoplatov: According to Stockfisch,13.Nh3 is the big mistake and suggests that 13.Nf3 is better. Perhaps Smyslov overestimated his position or he was just needed a win. |
|
May-20-21
| | perfidious: <sudoplatov....Perhaps Smyslov overestimated his position or he was just needed a win.> Smyslov likely misjudged things here; for that development seems odd. As to 'needing a win', only Keres had any hope of threatening Tal's spot at the top of the leader board and even that was all but mathematically decided, this being the third round from the end. |
|
| Nov-01-21 | | RookFile: Smyslov experiments with complications before castling his king. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
