|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 28 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-08-03 | | sakki: <Someone posted to the effect that in 1975 of 400 conditions Fischer attempted to impose on the match all but one were accepted. That sounds to me like unparalleled influence. > Now you put your trust into posts ughaibu??? |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | ughaibu: Sakki: Nobody argued against that post, I respect the combined knowledge of the posting membership. |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | hickchess99: my cows are kept in a barbed-wire fence, which is supported by posts, so i put my trust in posts too. |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | sakki: ughaibu: so if no one argues a post then it must be correct? |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | sakki: of all the kibitzers here ughaibu i find you to be the least biased but on this subject i think maybe your mind is closed. How do you explain the FIDE rule change about restricting the amount of players from one country? |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | PVS: FISCHER'S INFLUENCE
FIDE stripped him of the world title, the only thing he cared about. The Soviets got it back the only way they could, by politics. I would say it was Soviet influence that carried the day in 1975. |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | Benjamin Lau: <PVS>
Once you defined it, it was much easier to understand what you were driving at. As I said before, it was late at night and I stated my belief in a way that made it correct and illogical. Nevertheless, I still believe that Sylvester's sentence suggests that communists are more inclined to lie. Perhaps he didn't mean to have it written in such a way, but a general interpretation would hold it as such. Certainly "commie" is an unnecessary and derogatory adjective, and so its intention and purpose seem to confirm my suspicions. Sylvester has not yet said anything that refutes my statements. |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | Benjamin Lau: <of all the kibitzers here ughaibu i find you to be the least biased but on this subject i think maybe your mind is closed.> I agree; years of hearing and reading people's "dangerously uncritical" attitude of Fischer have gotten to Ughaibu. |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | ughaibu: Sakki: It doesn't make it correct but in a case such as the conditions for the 1975 match that I know nothing about I accept the knowledge as presented here, the matter doesn't interest me enough to research it myself. About the rule change I've given my suggestion above, I also asked PVS whether the Soviets complained about the change, if they didn't then it seems reasonable to infer that they felt the previous system held no special advantage. Taking it further, shouldn't FIDE then have also changed the interzonals to a match format? I would also like an answer to my question as to why Fischer still refused to play after the rules had been changed. PVS: Did they strip him of the title? I have read that he resigned it by telegram. |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | Benjamin Lau: <FIDE stripped him of the world title, the only thing he cared about. The Soviets got it back the only way they could, by politics. I would say it was Soviet influence that carried the day in 1975. > FIDE stripped Fischer's title because he made a nuisance of himself. He actually had much more power than the Soviets, see his influence in the Spassky match for example. Fischer blew it though when he abused his power. FIDE got tired of hearing Fischer's trivial complaints. It doesn't matter how much power a person has if he/she blunders it all away. |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | PVS: You miss the entire point, the point is who had the influence. It was not Fischer. There was dispute between the Soviets and Fischer as to the conditions of the match. For the first time in chess history a challenger was permitted to dictate the conditions to the champion. Make that the second time, 1961 was the first, but that was an internal Soviet matter. |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | ughaibu: Benjamin Lau: This whole business came up because Fischer wrote an article. When Fischer lost a game to Spassky in 1960 he immediately wrote "A bust to the king's gambit", at that time Fischer was incapable of taking responsibility for losing, his reaction to Curacao was predictable. If Fischer had only written that in the last year or two would you give it any serious thought at all? You're right, the Fischer worship is annoying and unproductive. |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | ughaibu: PVS: Who put up the conditions? How many were agreed to? You've got a most peculiar concept of dictatorship. |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | ughaibu: I have no hatred of Fischer, where on Earth do you get that idea? I just dont think he had a signifigant point about Curacao, it was a childish reaction consequent to his disappointment at not winning. As was written in Chess at the time, "when you know you're going to win it's very difficult to accept fourth place". About "hatred" think about Fischer's of "Russians" or Korchnoi's of Petrosian. |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | Dickens: Fischer may have been unrealistic about his chances of winning (I think he was), but that does not mean his opponents did not fear him and get together to beat him. |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | Sylvester: PVS and ughaibu disagree on most things, but both know a lot about chess and I think of both of them as good guys. |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | sakki: imagine the bashing kasparov would get on this site if he had the views that fischer has today! but because fischer is so exalted he receives very little..... |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | Ashley: Sakki, Bobby Fischer does get "bashed" on this site, more than all other champions combined. Garry Kasparov does have some very extreme views, however his views involve the mass killing of Arabs, that seems to find favor in the US just now. |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | ughaibu: Dickens: If Petrosian had lost half his games with Geller and Keres he still would have come ahead of Fischer. PVS justifies this theory by quoting figures about time spent and number of moves. The average number of moves in games played by these three against "outside" opposition is given as 39.5 but if you look at the drawn games between Petrosian and Fischer you'll find their lengths 25, 23, 35 a mean of 28 and remember these are games of Fischer who is behind in the standings but who even in normal circumstances tries to win every game. A lot is made of Fischers 2.5 point winning margin in the interzonal, this is less than Kotov's winning margin in the 1952 interzonal, why dont we hear any theories about Kotov being robbed by cheats? In the candidates he was the only player to beat Smyslov, there's a stronger case here than Fischer had dont you think? |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | Ashley: I understand PVS to be using the time numbers to explain Petrosian finishing ahead of Korchnoi. PVS never said Fischer would have won. |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | ughaibu: PVS was quoting Soltis and I imagine Soltis used Korchnoi because he used the most time. I know PVS isn't saying Fischer would have won, he also hasn't said Korchnoi would have. Petrosians final score is of a higher percentage than Smyslov's was at Zurich 1953. |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | Ashley: What has Petrosian's final score being a higher percentage than Smyslov's at Zurich 1953 got to do with it? If you accept that the players cheated, it only proves the cheating was effective. |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | ughaibu: How does drawing games improve your score? It sacrifices half points. Petrosian, as demonstrated by his score played very well against strong opposition. |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | Ashley: Someone, probably PVS, already explained this yesterday. Those players were expected to get between 3.5 and 4.5 points in their games with each other. Getting 4 points with no effort whatsoever was a tremendous advantage, it left them rested for the 20 games they played with the other players. |
|
| Aug-08-03 | | ughaibu: Ashley: I've already answered that by the changing length of the draws and by the games against Korchnoi. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 28 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
