|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 73 OF 73 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Nov-04-12
 | | perfidious: On numerous occasions of late here at CG, I have seen aspersions cast on Karpov's record as champion. While his style was hardly the most exciting, it was effective and he compiled a brilliant tournament record. What comes next, Kasparov's achievements were diminished in stature because he lost his match to Kramnik? Lasker, another mediocrity because of his loss to Capablanca? One can also foresee the future: if Carlsen fails to make a clean score when he finally plays for the title, he also becomes 'just another player'. Every hero has clay feet if one probes long and hard enough. These were all great champions. Let it lie. |
 |
| Nov-04-12 | | drnooo: Fischer culd have played anoyone in the world, free world anyway after 72. Period. For big money. Plenty of backers etc. He chose not to. If you can say that anyone that far gone actually made a semblance of rational decisions.
Then where would that have put the soviets, his beating everyone, proclaiming the was the best, without Fide, a drumbeat in the papers month after month. Ultimately they would have been shamed into a match, without Fide or admitting they were cowards.
Fischer and Fischer alone caused the
entire thing to collapse by his absurd demand for ten wins since by that admitting he had not clear way to an
overwhelming victory against Karpov.
I have stated this before, that if he
did not jump in front with a nice lead
he was already starting to unravel and would have lost the match.
You cannot separate his kind of madness from declining chess strength altogether.
Sure he might have beaten Karpov, but Karpov was an extremely solid, hungry player and had he been able to hold fast for the first four or five games,
my guess is that Fischer would have started to crumble, not the other way around.
In short, at that point Karpov was sane, Fischer wasn't and Karpov's nerves were better. Also the soviets by then were aware that Fischer could play a lot more than e4 and would have been ready with a slew of monstrous innovations: Fischer knew that too, and
finally would have been overwhelmed by
too much coming in from all sides.
He also had to have seen just how Karpov thrashed Spassky. Thrashed being about the only way to describe it.
In fact it would not have been altogether surprising to me that Fischer might have been equally humiliated, once Karpov had his teeth in him. |
|
| Nov-04-12 | | drnooo: the same could be done here and now with Carlsen had he so chosen. He easily could have thrown down one hundred thousand to the top five or six in the world, declaring it winner take all, as in poker championships for the world.
Any of these guys can afford that.
The entire affair taking outside the auspices of Fide. A double round robin. Or some elmination set up so that some of the early losers are gone,
the ramaining oncs to duke it out, creating suspense etc: good TV.
Probably even finding backers and maybe not even having to put up their own money, just the threat of it, till the backers fall in. Point being that the five or six have exclusive TV rights, sponsors, and all the benefits
that go with it.
But none of them, even as far back as Kasparov and his lame attempts, were
business and TV oriented.
Instead look at how something as ghastly as Fide still got to pull the
puppet strings.
All it would take for chess to be returned to the hands of the best players is one really good businessman. |
|
Nov-04-12
 | | AylerKupp: <drnooo> I think that it is important for all of us to differentiate Fischer the person from Fischer the chess player. No matter what we might think of Fischer as a person, that doesn't (or shouldn't) affect our opinion of all the magnificent chess games he played. Of course, once Fischer the person, by his behavior, began to affect Fischer the chess player (as in his refusal to defend his title against Karpov), then it is more difficult to do so. Still, we should try. And even Karpov in his video on Fischer's games with GM Ron Henley indicated that he felt his chances of defeating Fischer in 1975 were 40%. I would certainly take Karpov's opinion that Fischer's chances in 1975 were better over anyone else's opinion. And while Fischer may not have been TV oriented, it's a tough case to make that he wasn't business oriented. Throughout his career Fischer fought to improve conditions for professional chess players; better prize money, better playing conditions, etc. Today's top players can thank Fischer for the high prizes offered in top-level tournaments and matches. |
|
Nov-04-12
| | perfidious: <AylerKupp> If Karpov felt he was a 3-2 dog against Fischer in 1975, sounds reasonable to me. He was cold-blooded and objective to a fault in his approach, though some statements I have read later on various topics may have come across as self-serving. Whatever private daemons Fischer may have battled cost him more than anyone. As I have stated elsewhere, he was responsible for such improvements as have been made at the higher levels of chess, though it remains a difficult way of earning a living for 'typical' GMs of 25-2600 level. |
|
Nov-14-12
 | | whiteshark: When the throne of the Absolute is left vacant, the relative usurps it... -- Allan Watts |
|
Nov-28-12
 | | Joshka: While I believe this is an important match, that never took place, is there any reason why none of the Lone Pine tourneys are not given any specific area for discussion? Weren't these the FIRST ALL GM tourneys in the World? They were in California/Fischer's backyard (he must have secretly attended a couple of them at least, no?) If these tourneys are given an area for discussion, give me the link?..thanks in advance! |
|
| Nov-28-12 | | RookFile: I'd like to see stuff about New York 1924 and New York 1927. |
|
Nov-28-12
| | perfidious: <Joshka: ....is there any reason why none of the Lone Pine tourneys are not given any specific area for discussion?> Maybe in time-people such as <Benzol> and <Phony Benoni> have their hands full with other events of the past now. <....Weren't these the FIRST ALL GM tourneys in the World?....> Lone Pine was never exclusively a grandmaster level event, though across the years, the rating requirements were considerably tightened. Had I attained my peak (low 2300s USCF) as early as 1971, I could have played at Lone Pine. Here's an overview, courtesy of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_P... |
|
Nov-28-12
 | | Phony Benoni: <RookFile>: New York (1924) ;
New York (1927)
You can find others at: Tournament Index . As yet, there doesn't seem to be an efficient way to search for them aside from finding a game from the tournament and seeing if the event name at the top of the page is a link. <Joshka> <perfidious> This page is part of the History of the World Championship Series (as can be seen in the banner at the top), a special project of <cg> which was finished some time ago. Until recently, the discussion pages in this series were the only ones set up for kibitizing of historical tournaments, as opposed to the pages routinely set up for current tournaments. The new Historical Tournament Pages are the result of a project which began just a few months ago. Biography/Games Editors have been going through tournament collections assembled by members and updating information such as dates and round numbers of games. These updated collections are then sent through a voting process, and upon approval are automatically converted into Historical Tournament Pages. This process has been rather idiosyncratic so far simply because it is based on individual members' games collections. If nobody has done a collection for a tournament, it cannot get into the process. As far as I can tell, there is only one collection completed for any Lone Pine tournament: Game Collection: Lone Pine 1979, and it will need some work before it is can become an official tournament page. But now that there has been a request, I'll try and look into it. Probably the best way to make a recommendation is to leave a note at Biographer Bistro. There's no guarantee that action can be taken immediately, but at least it will be on the record. Of course, you should doublecheck Tournament Index to be sure the event isn't done already. Another useful source for suggestions is Game Collection: Historical Tournaments 1: Fully Updated, though be aware I'm in the process of updating this and many of the tournaments listed there have already been done. As I mentioned, this process has been done somewhat at random so far. A <few> suggestions would be a nice guide, as well as an indication that our work is being noticed and appreciated. But please be reasonable about how much you ask for. Remember that this is volunteer work, done for the love of chess history, a desire to improve the site, simple satisfaction--and most imporantly a shot at a Caissar nomination. |
|
| Nov-28-12 | | Everett: <AylerKupp: <drnooo> I think that it is important for all of us to differentiate Fischer the person from Fischer the chess player. No matter what we might think of Fischer as a person, that doesn't (or shouldn't) affect our opinion of all the magnificent chess games he played.> You know, it is very human to consider things as a whole, and also very human to separate things into little compartments. Your opinion on how kibitzer's ought to view Fischer <"doesn't (or shouldn't) affect our opinion of all the magnificent chess games he played.> In short, you can tell others what to think, but they don't <and shouldn't> listen to you. |
|
Nov-28-12
| | AylerKupp: <Everett> You are quite right that it is very human to both consider things as a whole as well as to separate things into little compartments, particularly when it suits us. That's also very human. I have 2 hopefully funny observations along those lines: a. The world is divided into two kinds of people, those that divide things into two parts and those that don't. b. The world is divided into 10 kinds of people, those that understand binary and those that don't. And of course my observation is my opinion and my opinion only. I try not to tell others what to think, although I am not above "making suggestions" as many others also do when they try to influence their thinking. But everyone will form their own opinions. And I hope that you realize that the same goes for you. You can certainly form an opinion as to whether you should listen to me or not, but don't presume to tell others whether they should listen to me or not. That's up to them to decide, not you. |
|
| Nov-28-12 | | Everett: <And I hope that you realize that the same goes for you. You can certainly form an opinion as to whether you should listen to me or not, but don't presume to tell others whether they should listen to me or not. That's up to them to decide, not you.> Quite right!
<a. The world is divided into two kinds of people, those that divide things into two parts and those that don't.> This is funny, in a way, because only the individuals who would divide the world into two kinds of people would make such a statement. The rest... wait a minute, that leaves two groups of people... ;-) |
|
Nov-28-12
| | AylerKupp: <Everett> Work on b. If you get it I think that you will find it even funnier. |
|
| Nov-28-12 | | Everett: <AylerKrupp> Oh, I get b, but I appreciate more the inescapable logic and philosophy of "a" compared to the simple math/computer language joke in "b". Thank you for them both! |
|
Nov-29-12
| | Joshka: <perfidious> Wow, yes, you're a very strong player with a rating like that. Thanks for the Lone Pine info. Hard to believe that Bobby never hung around that town during any of these tourneys, that were held there for 10 years or so. Think Roman gave an account of meeting Bobby there during one of these tourneys, there had to be more? Again thanks for the info! |
|
Nov-29-12
| | Joshka: <Phony Benoni> hey thanks for the Game collection on Lone Pine....I see a book for sale on ebay about Lone Pine as well, I remember Bobby Darin wanted to hold an all GM tourney in 1973 for a supposed record sum of 25K, but his untimely death thwarted his getting this off the ground, I believe it was supposed to be held in Vegas. Again thanks for the info!! |
|
| Jan-19-13 | | david19: I think the FIDE championship format up to 1972 was just about perfect and should be re-introduced.
Championship match of 24 games with 16 moves per hour. In the event of a tied match the champion retains the title. No Botvinnik replay rule though. Candidates tournament the previous year with eight players - previous champion or challenger plus previous Candidates finalist along with top 6 players on a knock out basis.
Zonal and Inter-zonal qualifications could be replaced or used in addition with elo ratings.
Fisher and then Kasparov/Short destroyed it completely. |
|
Jan-19-13
 | | harrylime: TBH this is almost a no brainer..
A primed and motivated Fischer would've beat ANYONE in 1975... There really is'nt that much to discuss . |
|
Jan-19-13
| | AylerKupp: <david19> One practical problem would be to select who to invite to the Candidate tournament(s). In 1972 there were 81 players rated above 2500 and (only) 15 rated among 2600. In 2012 there were 775 rated above 2500, 221 rated above 2600, and 48 rated above 2700. So you would either need to have a series of knockout tournaments or, say, invite the top 32 pr 16 rated players to participate in the tournament. And in a knockout tournament or series of knockout tournaments anything can happen; a relatively low-rated player in top form can rise to the occasion and win it all. This happened in the 1999 FIDE tournament when Khalifman emerged as the eventual winner, in 2001 when Ponomariov emerged as the eventual winner, and in 2004 when Kasimdzhanov emerged as the eventual winner. One side benefit of the selection via ratings is that rating points would then become truly important, particularly in the year prior to the tournament, so there may be more players accepting the risks of trying for a win to gain rating points. I personally don’t think that the previous Candidates finalist or the previous challenger should be given any special consideration. A lot can happen in 3 years (assuming that the current interval is retained); the previous Candidates finalist and/or the previous challenger’s strength might have declined, and either or both of them might have been a fluke as in 1999, 2001, and 2004. I think that it would be best if the top 32 or top 16 players at the time were involved, regardless of past performance. |
|
Jan-19-13
| | Joshka: <Karpov stating "I don't know how Fischer feels about it, but I consider it a huge loss that he and I never played our match."> Amazing, never heard Bobby asked how he felt about it. If he ever did comment to somebody about it, that person is still not talking! |
|
Jan-20-13
| | AylerKupp: <Joshka> He might have been asked but declined to answer. All we really know is that we don't know how Fischer felt about it. Too bad. |
|
Feb-25-13
 | | Conrad93: If the Cramer proposal was agreed on, the match would have lasted several days or months, considering how secure Karpov is and how efficient Fischer is. |
|
| Feb-25-13 | | RookFile: Nah. Karpov would physically weaken after about 20 games. It's just the way he was. |
|
Mar-09-13
 | | Benzol: Remembering that they met several times I think it's clear that both men wanted to play this match but Karpov was hamstrung by the Soviet authorities and Fischer by his own demons. One of the matches that never happened leaving chess poorer as a result. A great pity. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 73 OF 73 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
 |
|
In 1974, Fischer's challenger was decided: he was an emerging Russian chess superstar,
