|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 69 OF 99 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-19-12 | | twinlark: Still. you'd have to wonder the extent to which three years away from the game would have reduced his match fitness. Had Fischer kept playing and then defended against Karpov, he would have been hot favourite in everyone's book. It's the absence from the game that raised the doubt. His absence reduced those odds, probably to luke-warm favourite. |
|
| Aug-19-12 | | twinlark: <Eggman> Good metaphor that: rock, paper, scissors. |
|
| Aug-19-12 | | Jim Bartle: "Good metaphor that: rock, paper, scissors."
Or, cerca 2001: Kasparov, Shirov, Kramnik. |
|
| Aug-19-12 | | RookFile: I think the grandmasters in 1975 knew about the layoff then too. What they also knew was that there was wasn't anybody alive who was as capable as Fischer was putting at putting win after win after win up on the board in match play, once he got rolling. At the first sign of weakness of an opponent, Fischer's eyes would light up like a shark. |
|
| Aug-20-12 | | zoren: any more news to what happened to Boris? seems like there's a loooooot more to the story. |
|
Aug-20-12
 | | Troller: <RookFile: I have never seen a record of any grandmaster, anywhere in the world, who thought in 1975 that Karpov would be favored over Fischer.> I have. I might even be able to point you to it online; sadly it's in Danish. But like <eggman> I have never seen anyone suggesting he would have "demolished" Fischer. |
|
Aug-20-12
 | | HeMateMe: I think a three year layoff is a pretty good equalizer. |
|
| Aug-20-12 | | Everett: <Fischer was putting at putting win after win after win up on the board in match play, once he got rolling.> Big deal, he only did it during one run, so what? The reason this is repeated about Fischer is because people think this makes up for 10 lost years of GM-level chess playing against up-and-comers. Meanwhile Spassky won through the candidates twice, Korchnoi twice, Smyslov twice, Anand twice (and a couple of FIDE's as well) And it doesn't matter how we think Fischer would have done after '72. One thing is for sure; Lasker, Alekhine, Karpov and Kasparov each were great champions, defending titles and taking all comers (who could pay, in Lasker's case, and as long as they weren't named Capablanca, in Alekhine's case, but still, they were there) And Spassky played some great chess after '72, giving chess fans something to learn from, something to aspire to. I wouldn't be surprised, actually, if given a second chance, Spassky would defeat an erratic, hungover-from-the-championship-Fischer in '75. Or even Petrosian. Truth is, Fischer immediately became weaker once he became champion, like most, because the fire to BECOME champion was gone. History has shown he was not like Karpov and Kasparov; he wasn't even Spassky or Tal or Smyslov, or even Bronstein. He stopped after his only WC, and while all the other greats had more to give the game, Fischer was spent. He blew his soul into becoming champion, and couldn't keep his world together enough, or didn't care enough, or whatever, to continue. That's it. In '75, he couldn't bring it, and that's why he didn't. And this is the Spassky page. So enough of this garbage. |
|
Aug-20-12
 | | harrylime: Just looking at the quality of the games in the '78 match reveals much. Chess is either one continual progression of improvement and ascent, or it mirrors mankind and history, that of leaps forward and steps back ..With troughs and apogees.. I really do believe Korchnoi was not a better player in '78 than he was in say, '66.. it's just the chess climate had changed . . I agree with <Eggman> re 'styles' .. Tho Ali's win against Foreman was not entirely convincing lol But it's a good point to consider. |
|
| Aug-20-12 | | Broon Bottle: Yes Fischer was stronger than Spassky. But we must not forget that he wouldn't have got his chance if not for pal benko's generosity. Fischer also needed several shoves to face up at Rekjavik. As for karpov, he turned ut to be a greater player thanks to his longevity. The match between Fischer and Karpov (like Alek Capa 2) is one of our great laments.
ch-cheers |
|
Aug-20-12
 | | perfidious: < Broon Bottle: Yes Fischer was stronger than Spassky. But we must not forget that he wouldn't have got his chance if not for pal benko's generosity....> It wasn't only Benko; all the non-qualifiers of the '69 zonal had to relinquish any claim to the place as well. |
|
Aug-20-12
| | harrylime: <BroonBottle> How did Karpov 'turn out' to be a 'greater' player than RJF? I'm intrigued. |
|
Aug-20-12
| | harrylime: <Everett> You are one Fischer hater ! lol lol Most of what you post regarding Fischer is nonsense... as ever.... |
|
| Aug-20-12 | | Everett: <Broon Bottle: Yes Fischer was stronger than Spassky> It depends "when." Through '70 Spassky was the stronger player, playing and winning when it counted. |
|
| Aug-20-12 | | EdZelli: harrylime: <BroonBottle> How did Karpov 'turn out' to be a 'greater' player than RJF? Karpov was World Champ many times over.
He actually put his title on the line several times and won, like any great world champion of any sport/game. He didn't chicken out like Bobby. Karpov played them all, the older crowd and the new comers such as Belyavsky, Vaganian, Kasparov etc. |
|
Aug-20-12
| | harrylime: <EdZelli>
Yeah, Karpov is the greatest. |
|
Aug-20-12
| | harrylime: < Everett: <Broon Bottle: Yes Fischer was stronger than Spassky>
It depends "when." Through '70 Spassky was the stronger player, playing and winning when it counted.> You are in denial.
Fischer had overtaken Boris Looooong before 1970. |
|
| Aug-20-12 | | polarmis: Spassky's sister comments on recent events:
http://www.whychess.org/en/node/2820 |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | waustad: Now the soap opera gets even stranger. |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | brankat: For 6 years, form 1964-1969, B.Spassky was (by far) the best. |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | brankat: Yes, the plot thickens :-) |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | twinlark: We definitely haven't heard the last of this. Stranger and stranger. |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | achieve: <brankat: For 6 years, form 1964-1969, B.Spassky was (by far) the best.> I'm afraid the numbers do not support this claim. Here's a <chessmetrics> graph with performance ratings for the years 1960-1969: http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... Fischer on top as early as 1964, and 1965, and the only series of months where Spassky is "the best" is during the first half of 1966, No. 1, and after that Fischer takes back over quite firmly. This per the Sonas Performance Rating calculations. FWIW - but at least Jeff Sonas has put in a lot of time and effort, although some dispute (some of) his "methods". That aside, I conducted my own little investigation on the scoring averages in 1967, and Fisher dominated with a 83% score, Spassky at 74%, Botwinnik with a surprising 76% (fewer games, but a decisive games, winning percentage, of +22 in 39 games), Korchnoi 70%, Smyslov 67, and Tal 66% scoring percentage for 1967. The numbers can be deceptive, as the opposition of eg Fischer in 1967 was below par, I remember, but have to check again. "Spassky being the best by far" must be a claim that can only be upheld by looking at the period that <brankat> mentions from a different angle, as there are Major tournament victories, and indeed the World Title in 1969. |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | RookFile: I think the issue is consistency. Spassky need make no apologies for winning the extremely strong 2nd Piatargorsky cup, for example, with Fischer in second. Fischer was undeniably more consistent - for the most part, he pretty much won whatever tournament he was in, while Spassky had some bad tournaments, where he would be 8th place or something. |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | achieve: Let me just add that <brankat>'s knowledge of chess history and the players of those times, among which he grew up, is far outweighing mine, I wasn't even around in those years, even the Fischer-Spassky WC match is not in my conscious memory. That's why I need to do some fairly basic and sofar insufficient research, and Sonas of course has a more respectable story to tell, as a statistician. I like Spassky tremendously, feel sorry for the recent developments around him, and actually hoped that Brankat's statement was more or less true, yet felt the need to check some data. Which can be very deceiving and misdirecting if not put in proper and detailed context. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 69 OF 99 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
