|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 70 OF 99 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-21-12 | | Petrosianic: <I wouldn't be surprised, actually, if given a second chance, Spassky would defeat an erratic, hungover-from-the-championship-Fischer in '75.> I would, because Fischer would not have played at all if he were in that condition, against Spassky or anyone else. If you look at his later career, he ducked out of matches against people like Gligoric and Quinteros (people he was likely to beat even if significantly off form) rather than risk looking bad in victory. If he had sat down at all in 1975, I would assume that he was ready to play and win. If he wasn't ready, he wouldn't play. Period. |
|
Aug-21-12
 | | Eggman: <<For 6 years, form 1964-1969, B.Spassky was (by far) the best.>> I do see how this claim can be supported. Spassky by 1969 was the most accomplished player, having twice won the candidates and topping it all off with the world championship, but it would be hard to put him clearly ahead of Fischer, Petrosian, or Stein during these years. His match victories over Tal, Larsen, and Korchnoi might put him ahead of these players, but ahead "by far"? If ratings had existed back then I think you'd find several players (Spassky, Petrosian, Fischer, Tal, Larsen, Korchnoi) playing musical chairs for the top half dozen spots in the rankings. |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | Everett: <"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.> And this is the only angle that matters, of course.
<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.> That's pretty funny! Like Sousse, and all the candidate matches in '65 and '68? Yes, he won all the tournaments he was in, except the big ones he chose to bail on, the <most important> ones. And if it wasn't a gift from Benko and others to let him in late, he would have bailed on the 70-72 cycle as well. Consistent is the very last thing Fischer was. He could reign his energy in and focus it only for a time. And it is likely that his inability to control his intensity that made the breaks necessary for his health. |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | EdZelli: brankat: For 6 years, form 1964-1969, B.Spassky was (by far) the best. Oh really !
You forgot the 1966 World Championship Match.
The buck stops there ;-)
It was not Spassky that won it.
Nevertheless, Spassky was a wrecking ball
in the 60s. cheers, |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | Petrosianic: Only in 1970-1972 was Fischer consistent. And in American-only tournaments, of course. At the beginning of 1970, he'd only won a mere 7 International tournaments, a couple of them (Reykjavik, Mar del Plata, Netanya, Vinkovki) quite weak. The biggest events he played to completion in the middle period were the Capa Memorial, the Havana Olympiad and Piatigorsky 2, none of which he won. At the beginning of 1970, Fischer's biggest tournament was probably still the 1962 Interzonal. As far as the Benko business goes, interzonal substitutions were not uncommon. But would you believe that Frank Brady's new book, "Endgame" (among numerous other factual errors and omissions) makes no reference to this incident. Brady actually theorizes that Benko may still have had a grudge against Fischer in 2000 over their fight in 1962 but never in the whole book mentions that Benko gave up his interzonal spot for him. |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | Everett: <EdZelli> in the spirit of winning when it counted, the both Petrosian and Spassky were indeed the two who ruled from '62-'69. |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | achieve: <And this is the only angle that matters, of course.> Err, no - you won't sneak that one by, mr everett. Important one, but not the only one.
The performance ratings as calculated by Sonas have proven to be a solid yardstick along which performance, peak performance and relative dominance can be established. If anything it shows that Spassky was a primus inter pares, could be considered to be "the best" at (several?) junctures in his illustrious career, but not "by far." As worded here:
<If ratings had existed back then
I think you'd find several players (Spassky, Petrosian, Fischer, Tal, Larsen, Korchnoi) playing musical chairs for the top half dozen spots in the rankings.> Spassky did take part once in the Hoogovens Beverwijk (1967 - moved to Wijk aan Zee the next year), and Spassky won it with a +7 score, 11.0/15 .... Convincing but with very few rivals, cept Larsen, Lutikov and Gligoric, Donner finishing in great 3rd place. In other words, I am interested in Tournament results, strong participation, during the "Brankat years". Speaking of,
I thought this was pretty sobering:
<The biggest events [Fischer]
played to completion in the middle period were the Capa Memorial, the Havana Olympiad and Piatigorsky 2, none of which he won. At the beginning of 1970, Fischer's biggest tournament was probably still the 1962 Interzonal.> |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | Everett: <achieve> Even more sobering is the fact that Fischer played in very few high-level tournaments (compared to other greats) during his career. There are some reasons for this. One, his career was short. Second, he took breaks. Third, he skipped a few during the years he could have racked up some wins... and fourth, there were fewer of these tournaments then there are now. <whatthefat> put together a list of tournament performances of the WCs, and rated the tournaments based on the number of top 10 participants present (based on Sonas' chessmetrics, I believe). Not only did Fischer's tournament performance reputation take a hit, but so did Karpov's. Sorry I don't have the link. I don't know how to search or call such material up through the site. |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | Everett: <achieve> BTW, I am also a fan of tournament results, DRR ideally. Prefer it over match play, if (and it is a significant if) collusion can be minimized. But, the truth remains that matches and tournaments have been sprinkled throughout history, and each event has a relative value based on the circumstances. This is exactly where statistics begin the fall apart. They are just one piece of a complex puzzle. |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | RookFile: Yeah, it's too bad. Spassky had his share of impressive wins, but he had too many tournaments where he was 5th place, 6th place, 8th place, etc. to be rated as the best. |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | Broon Bottle: Spassky, i think, would never claim to be the best, Fischer proved to be stronger. But (returning to my point) Karpov is better than Fischer in the scheme of things, longevity, defending title, tournament record... BTW, Boris, much love from london. |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | Eyal: During 1964-69 Fischer may have had a more consistent string of strong results than Spassky; but on the other hand he played considerably less (less than half the number of games & events), and took on a considerably less challenging set of tasks – first not participating at all in the 1964-66 WC cycle, and then dropping out at the middle of the Interzonal during the next cycle. Putting aside team & exhibition events, and counting the 1963/64 US Championship (which finished on January 2nd) as belonging to "1964-69", Fischer won 7 out of 9 tournaments in which he participated during this period: 3 US Championships, Skopje & Monte Carlo 1967, Vincovci & Netanya 1968 (but it should be noted that in the latter – http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... – the opposition was so weak that it would have been ridiculous if Fischer wouldn’t have won it); in all of them he finished clear 1st. In the Capablanca Memorial he finished shared 2-4 and in Santa Monica (Piatigosky Cup) 1966 as clear 2nd. In the 1967 Sousse Interzonal he was doing great with 8.5/10, but then dropped out. During the same period, Spassky won 9 out of 15 tournaments in which he participated: Belgrade, the Soviet "Super-Zonal" & the Amsterdam Interzonal in 1964; the Chigorin Memorial & Hastings in 1965; Santa Monica in 1966; Hoogovens & the Chigorin Memorial in 1967; San Juan in 1969. In 5 of these he finished clear 1st, in 4 shared. (Among the former, the 1964 Zonal [http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... ] & Santa Monica [http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... ] should be noted as especially strong – I’d say they qualify as "super-tournaments", which during the 60s were much rarer than now. Santa Monica is the only non-team event in which Spassky & Fischer played together during the relevant period.) In the tournaments that he didn't win, Spassky finished 4th in the Chigorin Memorial 1964, shared 5-6 in the Chigorin Memorial 1966, shared 3-4 in Winnipeg 1967, shared 6-8 in Moscow 1967, shared 2-3 in Palma de Mallorca 1968 & 5th in Palma de Mallorca 1969. And, of course, he also won 7 out of 8 matches against several of strongest players in the world at the time – his candidate matches vs. Keres, Geller (twice), Tal, Larsen & Korchnoi, and his WC match vs. Petrosian in 1969 (losing the one in 1966). |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | I play the Fred: <Broon Bottle> I think Fischer's fans see his purple patch of 1970-72 as conclusive evidence that Fischer would have dominated the rest of the decade in a similar fashion, and thus sort of <fill in the blanks>. He certainly had it in him to have a run of dominance comparable to Kasparov's record from 1985-2004, even with the rise of the young Karpov. But Fischer <can't> get credit for the things he <might> have done, even things he probably <would have> done. The record is set in stone, and it tells us that Fischer left chess at the age of 29. Most of the greats of the game had a decade at the top - sometimes more - left in them at the same age. |
|
Aug-21-12
| | Eggman: <<As we know, Fischer signed a contract to play, but Karpov didn't sign because it said they were playing the Professional world championship.>> We know this? If memory serves this is not consistent with Karpov's account in his autobiography, "Karpov on Karpov." My recollection is that Fischer seemed ready to sign, but Karpov balked the at the word "Professional", whereupon Campomanes tried to get Fischer to sign anyhow, promising to find some solution / compromise later, but Fischer refused. |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | RookFile: Try to focus. The topic was the 1960's. This is certainly Spassky's highwater mark. He won a bunch of matches and won some tournaments. Unfortunately, there is the small matter of his loss to Petrosian in the first time at bat. That slight detail forces some here to narrow the window as to when Spassky could have been the best to 1969 only. Hey, 1 year is still amazing, more than 99.99 percent of chessplayers out there. |
|
Aug-21-12
| | Eggman: Well said <Fred> (right said Fred?). We can't know exactly how Fischer's career would have gone, but it seems unlikely that he would have plummeted to #2 in the world rankings any time soon after '72. |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | twinlark: <it seems unlikely that he would have plummeted to #2 in the world rankings any time soon after '72.> lol |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | achieve: <Everett> <But, the truth remains that matches and tournaments have been sprinkled throughout history, and each event has a relative value based on the circumstances. This is exactly where statistics begin the fall apart. They are just one piece of a complex puzzle.> I couldn't agree more, actually with both of your contributions. <Oops, wrong page> And as I noticed we share the fondness of Edberg's genius on the Tennis court. ;) He actually is my top favorite from that era as well. And thanks to <Eyal> -- your synopsis of Spassky's '64-'69 tournament and match record is second to none, and can to the letter be pasted into the Spassky Bio. Thanks to all for clarifying on that wonderful decade of Chess in the Sixties. ;) They all deserve Gold medals, but only one at a time gets to wear one. |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | Everett: Thanks <Eyal>!
That info makes me even more impressed by Spassky's achievements during that time. For those who like the numbers, here is Fischer's performance ratings by event in Chessmetrics: http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... Snoop around and find the Spassky page for the same performance ratings, http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Play... and simply compare results from 64-69. |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | Everett: From 64-69
Spassky 15 X 2700+ performances (including 3 X 2800+ performances) Fischer 7 X 2700+ performances
Spassky was banging his head against the best while Fischer was picking and choosing his spots. And this is the point; when someone states < He (Fischer) certainly had it in him to have a run of dominance comparable to Kasparov's record from 1985-2004, even with the rise of the young Karpov,> the real answer is "no he didn't have it in him." There are real and legitimate reasons to see Fischer as someone who needed the breaks, the rest, the time away from competition. The crazy intensity he brought to the board is likely what caused him to need these breaks. I think the arc of Fischer's and Spassky's careers can be roughly summed up by comparing their respective matches vs. Larsen. They both won the first three games, all but ending the question of the winner. In '68, Spassky then coasted, even giving up a loss before winning another and eventually the match. Fischer only had one setting, and everyone knows the result in '71. Spassky perhaps understood the dangers of constant intensity better than Fischer, or maybe Spassky had more things to fall back on, or other interests in general that helped buffer the stormy seas of chess competition. It allowed him to play great chess for a much longer time. |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | rannewman: Hey Everett, it might be unrelated but it seems to me like that site is considering technical results for rating changes (unless I am miss-reading it). That should have some negatie impact on fischer preformance rating. Personaly, I don't realy belive rating/results to be the best indicator. In the mid/late 60's, Fischer was feared - he was the player that elite chess players would choose if they were asked "who do you not want to play against". I find it remarkable that despite the clear statistics that are being posted here, that this was the feeling at the time (and not now-days, when you can find alot of diffrent excuses for the admiration Fischer gets). Spassky had great results, then why didn't he posses that kind aure? |
|
| Aug-22-12 | | Petrosianic: <Eggman> We know this? If memory serves this is not consistent with Karpov's account in his autobiography, "Karpov on Karpov." My recollection is that Fischer seemed ready to sign, but Karpov balked the at the word "Professional", whereupon Campomanes tried to get Fischer to sign anyhow, promising to find some solution / compromise later, but Fischer refused.> You've got the story right. Karpov signed the contract, Fischer had the pen in his hand, but refused to sign at the last minute over the name issue. Campomanes said sign the contract now and we'll work out a mutually acceptable name later, but Fischer said "I can't do it that way, in stages". You're arguing with one of the local revisionist historians, who knows perfectly well that what he's saying isn't true, but thinks he can change history by telling the false version enough times. But you won't find that false version in any books or magazines. The "As we know" was bluff. |
|
Aug-22-12
 | | perfidious: <Eggman: ....Spassky by 1969 was the most accomplished player, having twice won the candidates and topping it all off with the world championship, but it would be hard to put him clearly ahead of Fischer, Petrosian, or Stein during these years. His match victories over Tal, Larsen, and Korchnoi might put him ahead of these players, but ahead "by far"?> Not sure how Stein enters this discussion, but I agree with your conclusion: there's no concrete evidence which supports the notion that Spassky was anything more than primus inter pares, impressive though he was in the late sixties. <....If ratings had existed back then I think you'd find several players (Spassky, Petrosian, Fischer, Tal, Larsen, Korchnoi) playing musical chairs for the top half dozen spots in the rankings.> Agreed, though by 1969 Tal's health had resulted in a bout of poor form. He was decisively defeated by Larsen in a match for the reserve spot in the Candidates and finished minus in the 37th Soviet championship at Moscow. Larsen would have merited a spot near the top, based on his excellent run in tournament play from 1967-1970. |
|
| Aug-22-12 | | achieve: <perfidious>: <Not sure how Stein enters this discussion> I was slightly surprised at first at <Leonid Stein>'s inclusion, but he was - upon closer examination - certainly "in the mix" with the top performers in the 1960's, along with the likes of Keres, Geller, Polugaevsky, Smyslov and Larsen.... Not often mentioned in such groups, include even Bronstein, but Stein won three Soviet Championship titles in the '60s, and this win in Moscow 1967 really jumps out; a star studded field: <The final standings and crosstable: 1st Stein 11/17 * ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 1 ½ 1 1 1
=2nd Smyslov 10/17 ½ * ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 1 =2nd Bobotsov 10/17 ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 =2nd Gipslis 10/17 ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 =2nd Tal 10/17 ½ ½ ½ ½ * 0 1 ½ ½ ½ 0 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1
=6th Portisch 9½/17 0 0 ½ ½ 1 * ½ 1 0 ½ 1 1 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ =6th Bronstein 9½/17 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 ½ ½ =6th Spassky 9½/17 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ * 0 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 =9th Geller 8½/17 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 * 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ =9th Najdorf 8½/17 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 1 * ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ =9th Keres 8½/17 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½
=9th Petrosian 8½/17 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ * 1 0 1 ½ ½ ½ >
Certainly Stein part of the "then" elite. Similarly for Lev Polu, a bit later (top 5), and Portisch also joined in the second half of the '60s as a contender for top spot in major tournaments. |
|
Aug-22-12
| | Eggman: Regarding Stein: he had plus scores against Spassky and Tal, and it's worth mentioning that Kasparov, in OMGP III, opined that had Stein qualified for the candidates (which he very nearly did), he might well have beaten Spassky in a match. In other words, this man perhaps deserves to be on the short list of greatest players who never became world champion. And certainly on the short list of all-time most underrated players. And Geller, by the way, is another '60s giant who probably deserves mention alongside Fischer, Spassky, Petrosian, Stein, Korchnoi, Larsen, Tal, etc., though certainly Spassky had his number. Ah, chess in the '60s! |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 70 OF 99 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
