|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Mar-09-13
 | | Peligroso Patzer: <Phony Benoni>: Thank you for the interesting historical background in your post from <Dec-25-09>. It might be more accurate to state, however, that "Panno did have a <theoretical> chance to advance" (revising your text by inserting the word "theoretical"). Inasmuch as those chances included the condition that Panno must win his game against Fischer, Panno probably realized that his practical chances were zero. Precisely zero. Panno's other game against Fischer from the same year (Fischer vs Panno, 1970, 1-0 in 36 moves) was a convincincing win for Fischer. Finally, in closing I will note that today is the 70th anniversary of Fischer's birth. Requiescat in pacem. |
|
| May-01-13 | | porcospino289: Or Requiescat in pace, Peligroso. May he rest in peace. "in pacem" would be "May he rest into peace." "pacem" is accusative, "pace" probably ablative, and what is wanted here. "Requiescat" third person singular present subjunctive, of course. |
|
| May-01-13 | | Petrosianic: <Inasmuch as those chances included the condition that Panno must win his game against Fischer, Panno probably realized that his practical chances were zero. Precisely zero.> By that reasoning, Kovacevic had no chance to beat Fischer either. Even though he did it. But that had nothing to do with why Panno didn't play the game. It was a scheduling dispute. All the players who really did have zero chance to qualify played their last round games anyway. |
|
| May-01-13 | | Catspaw: Just for the record:
1) There is really no glory in being a warrior nation. The French have had their share of war, and not being protected by the seas, have not always had an easy time of it. 2) Have a little respect for the guys who died in some pretty silly wars, led by incompetents or cryptofascists (as in WW2). If anyone cares to read Alistair Horne's three books on the subject of French and German enmity and wars (from 1870-1940)... you might learn to be a little more respectful. Among other things, you will be reminded that the French put up staggering resistance to the "bleeding-dry" programme of Falkenhayn at Verdun. The French lost more men there than the Americans in the entire war. The Americans, anyway, never fight a war against a stronger enemy (they prefer countries like Granada and Panama). Which is why they "won" Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan.... right??? |
|
| May-01-13 | | Petrosianic: You think Panno was trying to be a warrior nation by not playing the game? Or was Fischer trying to be a warrior nation by playing 1. c4? Either way, I've never heard that one before. |
|
May-01-13
 | | keypusher: <The French have had their share of war, and not being protected by the seas, have not always had an easy time of it.> Fair point. They also were champs of the War League, Land Division from about 1650 until Bismarck. Not bad! <The Americans, anyway, never fight a war against a stronger enemy (they prefer countries like Granada and Panama).> There haven't been a lot of candidates. Presumably Britain would count in 1776 and 1812. Maybe we can fight a war with China in 20 years or so? Would that make you happy? |
|
May-01-13
 | | diceman: <Catspaw: The French have had their share of war> If you dont like war,
you can always surrender.
<The French lost more men there than the Americans in the entire war.> That’s not achievement.
That’s what you’re not supposed to do. |
|
Sep-22-13
 | | Fusilli: <jackpawn> <I think it was more of an excuse to avoid playing Fischer... He probably felt he was going to lose anyway so why bother.> Not at all. This is not how GMs think. As <Analyze This> put it, most players relish the chance to play a super GM... especially grandmasters! Assuming Panno was scared of Fischer is way off. See <PB>'s post quoting Larry Evans. |
|
| Jan-21-14 | | Pedro Fernandez: Hey <jackpawn>, your post has been the most ignorant one I ever seen in any forum. Maybe you possess such a kind of honor and dignity, but not GM Panno. PS. BTW, I'm not Argentinian. |
|
| Sep-06-14 | | Ke2: I've never really understood this 1.c4, was it a joke? Fischer played it only a few times and never before 1970. |
|
| Sep-06-14 | | RookFile: Well, Fischer knew folks were going to be getting stuff ready to meet his 1. e4. For example, in the 4th game of the 1972 match, Spassky very close to winning after 1. e4 c5 with a prepared opening. It made sense to have a 2nd weapon available. |
|
| Sep-08-14 | | BobbyDigital80: Larry Evans claims in his article that Panno resigned after the hour was up but he also said Panno was forfeited for not showing up within the first hour. So did Panno resign or was he forfeited? If he resigned, Fischer would've gained rating points. |
|
| Sep-30-14 | | todicav23: I guess Panno didn't want to play a reversed Sicilian with a tempo in minus, against mighty Fischer. |
|
| Jul-16-16 | | Jivvi: Such an explosive opening. 😉 |
|
Jan-14-17
 | | HeMateMe: Who's move is it? I can see why chess clocks were needed... |
|
| Nov-05-17 | | bengalcat47: This reminds me of Pillsbury's win against von Bardeleben at Hastings in 1895. |
|
| Mar-11-19 | | rcs784: Fischer couldn't play before sundown on a Saturday? Did this have something to do with that Worldwide Church of God cult he was part of? And what did he do in Iceland, where the sun pretty much never sets in the summer? |
|
Mar-11-19
| | HeMateMe: interesting that Fischer, a hater of world Jewry, adopted a similar worship schedule as they. He would not play chess from Sundown Friday until sundown Saturday, imposed upon him by the Moonie cult he was in at the time (they took his Reykjavik purse money, too). I think that's the same schedule that orthodox Jews follow. Reshevsky had some scheduling difficulties in his career because of this. In Iceland Bob just picked a set 24 period each week where he would not play chess, and stuck to it. My dentist would not eat or drink from sun up to sun down during the worship time of Ramadan. Scared the crap out of me, but he never fell asleep with the drill in my mouth, so it all worked out ok. |
|
Apr-03-19
 | | USDreadnought: Seems disrespectful to a grand master's time to resign without giving it your best shot. As another grandmaster once said, "No one ever won a chess game by resigning." |
|
Jan-24-22
 | | OrangeTulip: interesting maneuvering game |
|
| Oct-17-22 | | Ninas Husband: This game was no day at the beach. Or maybe it was! :) |
|
| Oct-17-22 | | Ninas Husband: I'm assuming the Stockfish analysis of this game was meant as a joke. |
|
| Oct-17-22 | | Petrosianic: <Ninas Husband>: I'm assuming your reference to Stockfish analysis was meant as a joke. |
|
| Oct-18-22 | | paavoh: Hmm... In the light of a recent game, perhaps Panno also thought his opponent was a cheater... ;-) |
|
| Sep-05-23 | | MaczynskiPratten: Several comments on this page miss the point that Panno had announced in advance his intention not to turn up because of scheduling problems, and thus effectively resign. Covered in various books and also on earlier pages of kibitzing. So Fischer only played 1 c4 rather than his usual e4 because he knew Panno wouldn't be there. Nothing to do with politics. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
