|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 17 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-12-09 | | Petrosianic: Actually, the acronym is "LMAO". (Cause "Laughing A$$ My Off" makes no sense). <BOBBY PUT HIS TAIL BETWEEN HIS LEGS and RAN and played LuLU for the rest of his miserable life.> As did you when challenged on your claims in the Fischer thread, if you recall. Whoosh! It was like the Roadrunner. I expected you to say "Beep Beep". I don't want to repeat points made there. Let's just pretend you lost the same argument here too. One thing that never came up there, though, is worth going into... <During the match Fischer complains about lights again (among other things)("GM Distraction" was his middle name). They call the ref. The ref. stops the clock when it is Bobby's turn. Bobby does not leave the table and keeps sitting down while they try to move the table. This in trun infuriates Tigran. Cheap tricks by the one-time wonder again.> You seem to have heard about half of this story, so let's fill in your blank spots. What happened is that there was a power <failure> (Certainly a good reason to complain about the lights). The clocks were stopped while they tried to restore them. Fischer was sitting at the board in semi-darkness, pondering his move. Petrosian objected that he shouldn't be studying the position while the clocks were stopped. The referee asked him to leave, but Fischer said he preferred to stay, and that the referee could re-start his clock, which he did. Of course, Fischer normally preferred bright lights, but he was in trouble in that game (Game 1), and didn't want to pull himself away even if it meant analyzing in the gloom. I'm at a loss to see how that constitutes a "trick", dirty or otherwise. |
|
| Jun-12-09 | | VaselineTopLove: Hey don't blame Fischer for his antics. They were a lot less cheap than what the Soviets had been pulling off against him until he became world champion. He had good reasons to be paranoid about many things. And he wasn't the first or the last one to be subjected to such treatment. Bronstein, Keres, Korchnoi, etc. faced the same bull#!%@ and probably worse. |
|
| Jun-12-09 | | andrewjsacks: The Soviets pulled no "antics" against him. Only in his deranged mind. |
|
| Jun-13-09 | | arsen387: <the Soviets had been pulling off against him until he became world champion> actually even if they did, there's nothing outrageous or strange. Or should they support Fischer during his match against Spassky? who do you support during Olimpic Games? of course first and foremost the sportsmen from your country and that's also not strange. And that Fischer became champion even against such collaboration just speaks about his genius and enormous diligence. But also I agree that much of that 'antics' was really in his mind, like the Curacao collusion. Don't want to go into debates about that topic again, just will say, that when so many Jews around there's no way that they would chose to make an Armenian the winner. that's how were things in Soviet and are also in the world (and that's also normal, Jews support Jews, just like all the other nations do). And can't understand why some kibitzers feel the need to post again and again about some ownage. These two players met many times and both won some beautiful games against each other, though Fischer a little more. Why they can't just admit that these 2 World Champions were great players and enriched this game that we love very much. Talking about ownage is very disrespectful towards these two geniuses, Fischer also wasn't always the winner during his career |
|
| Jun-13-09 | | Absentee: <Bobby could never play at the same depth as Tigran.> He could play much better, in fact.
Overall record: Robert James Fischer beat Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian 10 to 4, with 15 draws.
The first win being scored in 1961, age 18.
<Only by lies and manipulation. Bobby's nickname was the lightman. He pulled the name trick on Boris and hijacked the 72 match. > Fischer won by playing near flawless chess. Modern computer analysis proves it.
See http://web.zone.ee/chessanalysis/su...
<BOBBY LOST 7 games in Curaco (even to the lowely Benko) and still cried conspiracy.> Bobby also:
- played the 'game of the century' at 13
- became the youngest ever Grandmaster
- qualified for the World Championship candidates at 15 - won the US championship everytime he partecipated
- won the 1963 USC 11-0, or 100%
- won at Stockholm 1963 leading by 2.5 points
- won Herceg Novi 19/22, 4.5 points ahead of Tal
- beat Taimanov 6-0
- beat Larsen 6-0
- scored an unprecedented 20 consecutive wins at WC-level - peaked at 2785, some 100 points ahead of the competition - still has the highest winning percentage in modern history of chess But I guess this doesn't matter, huh?
<P.S. Playing a devout jew didn't serve his purpose anymore (refused to play on Sat. to harass other players) so he showed his true colors.> Fischer never played the jew, devout or not. He only asked for sabbaths during his involvement with the WCC. "In the next World Championship cycle, at the 1967 Sousse Interzonal, <Fischer scored a phenomenal 8.5 points in the first 10 games>. His observance of the Worldwide Church of God's sabbath was honored by the organizers, but <deprived Fischer of several rest days>, which led to a scheduling dispute. Fischer forfeited two games in protest and later withdrew, eliminating himself from the 1969 World Championship cycle.[48]" And these, my friend, are facts.
A few quotes, now:
"It is also important to remember that he was a real chess gentleman during games. He was always very fair and very correct." (Tal) "Fischer is the greatest genius to descend from the chess heavens." (Tal) "I think that the gap between Fischer and his opponents is still the widest in chess history." (Kasparov) "The gap between him and his closest rivals was the widest there ever was between a World Champion and the other top-ranking players of his time. He was some 10-15 years ahead of his time in his preparation and understanding." (Kasparov) "Soviet Grandmasters privately scoffed at Karpov’s chances in 1975. Most pundits believed he would lose… and lose badly." (Alburt) |
|
| Jun-13-09 | | VaselineTopLove: <actually even if they did, there's nothing outrageous or strange.> Yes they are outrageous underhanded tactics, illegal in the eyes of any professional chess player. What the soviets did, did not benefit chess in anyway and were on many occasions outright evil. On the contrary Fischer's rants went on to secure better playing conditions, fair rules, more prize money and more rights for all players. |
|
| Jun-15-09 | | arsen387: <VaselineTopLove> So will you find it outrageous or strange if before Anand-Topalov match Cheparinov will start to work for Topalov's team and try to make everything depending on him for Topalov to become WC? <What the soviets did, did not benefit chess in anyway and were on many occasions outright evil. On the contrary Fischer's rants went on to secure better playing conditions, fair rules, more prize money and more rights for all players.> agree with the second statement, but the first one seems very very biased :) |
|
| Jun-15-09 | | ewan14: In an interview Raymond ( Fischer also played short draws at you know where in 1962 but they were not pre - arranged ) Keene said that Petrosian's most awkward opponent was Bobby Fischer !! |
|
| Jun-15-09 | | Petrosianic: <Fischer forfeited two games in protest and later withdrew, eliminating himself from the 1969 World Championship cycle.[48]" And these, my friend, are facts.>
That last one is slightly in arrears. Actually, Fischer forfeited <three> games at Sousse: to Gipslis, Hort, and finally to Larsen. A popular myth is that Fischer withdrew while leading, though actually Larsen had already taken the lead even before their game. Not that it really matters. Had Fischer completed the tournament, it's a virtual certainty that he would have qualified for the Candidates, which is the only thing in an Interzonal that matters. That Fischer withdrew from Sousse is also not as simple as you make it sound. According to Profile of a Prodigy, he was extremely ambivalent about it. He was in Tunis the day of the game, and tried to make it back. The US Embassy supplied him a car and tried to get him back to Sousse by game time. If he'd gotten back in time, he'd probably have played, even with the two previous forfeits still hanging, but he was unable to do so, and was ejected from the tournament after his 3rd forfeit. The ironic thing in all this is that years before (1962), Eliot Hearst had run an "Absurd Headlines" Contest in Chess Life, where readers submitted joke headlines. One of the entries was "Fischer Withdraws from Interzonal to Permit Reshevsky to Qualify". And that's very nearly what happened at Sousse. Reshevsky got the final qualifying spot. If Fischer had stayed in, Reshevsky probably wouldn't have made it. Spooky, huh? Almost like that Kennedy/Lincoln thing. |
|
| Jun-15-09 | | Petrosianic: <Keene said that Petrosian's most awkward opponent was
Bobby Fischer !!>
I don't know if I'd agree with that. Prior to 1970, Petrosian had lost only one game to Fischer, and that was a game where he threw away an even ending for no particular reason. In none of their other games had he ever been in much danger of losing, except perhaps in the 4 Queens game from 1959. In 1970-1972, Fischer was a difficult opponent, of course, because in those years, he was simply stronger overall. But that's not what people usually mean when they speak of "The difficult opponent". That phrase usually refers to somebody who does much better against a certain player than it seems, on paper, that he should do. Probably Petrosian's most difficult opponent was Portisch. He never beat him at all until their Candidates Match in 1974, against 4 defeats, and always seemed to get in trouble against him. Even a lot of games he succeeded in holding (like their game from San Antonio 1972), were uphill fights. |
|
| Jun-15-09 | | Tessie Tura: <I don't know if I'd agree with that. Prior to 1970, Petrosian had lost only one game to Fischer, and that was a game where he threw away an even ending for no particular reason.> If Karpov’s story in “Karpov v. Karpov” is to be believed, Petrosian felt confident enough against Fischer to offer himself up as the firewall against the Fischer post-1970 onslaught. Not the act of someone who doubts his chances against a troublesome opponent. He was wrong, of course, but nothing in their prior history head-to-head would have led him to think otherwise. |
|
| Jun-15-09 | | Petrosianic: Yeah, I know the story you mean, and I find it very odd that Korchnoi would have had such a defeatist attitude. The fact that the story came from Karpov, who a) didn't like Korchnoi, b) was not there at the time, and c) named no sources, makes me leary of it too. I agree with the sentiment, that Fischer was the strongest player in the world by far at that time, but I think there were a handful of people who would have had an outside chance of beating Fischer in a match even in 1971 if things went just right, and Korchnoi was one of those few people. I don't think his odds would have been that <great>. Maybe 25%. But that's certainly strong enough to fight tooth and nail for it. I find it very hard to imagine Korchnoi saying he had no chance and caving that way. But it's hard to tell, he was such a contrarian with his Soviet superiors. In 1980, Korchnoi aggressively pursued a match with Fischer and raised 3 million dollars for a challenge (of course that was 9 years later). I had this out with you know who a while back. I find the whole story very dubious just because of the final game of that match. Korchnoi vs Petrosian, 1971
One game left, with White, Korchnoi throws everything but the Kitchen Sink at Black, it blows up in his face, and he offers a draw in a lost position, which is accepted. It's exactly the kind of thing you'd expect from somebody in a must win game who's really going all out to win it and throwing caution to the winds. Are we supposed to believe that Korchnoi threw this game too, but Petrosian refused to take it? Why wouldn't he just resign in a lost position at the end? |
|
| Jun-15-09 | | VaselineTopLove: <So will you find it outrageous or strange if before Anand-Topalov match Cheparinov will start to work for Topalov's team and try to make everything depending on him for Topalov to become WC?> Throwing games/deliberately drawing games to make another player win is against the spirit of chess, is definitely unprofessional, and subject to punitive action if discovered. Why do you think FIDE changed the candidates match rules in the first place, if it didn't consider such underhanded tactics to be unfair? Not to mention other intimidation tactics that were employed by the soviets...it can be quite unsettling if you are the only American in a foreign land with everyone else ganging up against you, especially when the relationship between your countries is very fragile. |
|
| Jun-16-09 | | arsen387: OK, so you still talk about that alleged collusion. I've commented on that a couple of posts ago and don't want to start another endless debate about that. I'll just quit here |
|
| Jun-16-09 | | nero66: So still no help with 13 Bb5 |
|
| Jun-16-09 | | Eyal: Here are some concrete lines which demonstrate how <13.Bb5 axb5 14.Qxa8> might have allowed Black dangerous counterplay which Fischer probably wanted to avoid: 14...0–0 15.Qa5 d4 16.Rd1 Ng4 17.Nxb5 (17.f3? Bc5! 18.Ne4 d3+ 19.Kh1 f5! 20.Nxc5 Nf2+ 21.Kg1 Qd4 and Black is better; or 17.Qb6 Qf5 18.Qxd4 Bc5 19.Qf4 Bxf2+ 20.Kh1 Ba7 followed by Nf2+) 17...Bh4 18.f3 Bf2+ 19.Kh1 (19.Kf1?? Re8! and wins) 19...Bb7. Or 16.Nxb5 Bb7 (with the idea 17...Bxg2 18.Kxg2 Qg4+ and perpetual) 17.f3 Bc6 18.Na3 Nd5 or 18...d3 |
|
| Jun-16-09 | | ewan14: Sorry , I forgot about Portisch's record which is amazing Still that is what Ray Keene said
Going back to you know where in 1962
Geller certainly never through the kitchen sink ( when white ) at Petrosian when he could have |
|
| Jul-27-09 | | nimh: <Fischer won by playing near flawless chess. Modern computer analysis proves it. See http://web.zone.ee/chessanalysis/su... >
That is an old and outdated analysis. Old version of Rybka, methods used there are decifiet by current standards. Click here for a more recent one:
http://web.zone.ee/chessanalysis/su... |
|
| Aug-06-09 | | Ulhumbrus: <AnalyzeThis: <Ulhumbrus: After 14...Be6 White's B on d3 ties Black's QR to the defence of the a6 pawn for the rest of the game. If Black plays a Rook down for the rest of the game, is it surprising that he loses? This auggests that the move ...a5 is necessary, perhaps before White fixes Black's a pawn on a6 by the move 18 b4. >
But when do you want to play it? If 14....a5 then 15. Nb6 Rb8 16. Nxc8 Rxc8 17. Bd2 with a huge advantage.>
How about 13...a5 14 Bb5+ Kf8 |
|
| Sep-27-09 | | Ulhumbrus: When Fischer played 22 Nxd7+ (possibly warranting two exckamation marks) one Grandmaster kibitzer- possibly Najdorf- asked how he could part with such a wonderful Knight for Black's QB. In order to attempt an answer to the question,suppose we begin by turning upside down the assumption that White parts with a wonderful Knight for a miserable bishop. Suppose that we assume instead that White parts with a worthless Knight ( which appears wonderful) for a valuable bishop ( which appears miserable). This may suggest that Black's QB serves to keep White's Rooks out of c6 whilst the N does in fact little on c5. Now let us consider the matter further. In return for removing Black's QB, White gains c6 for his Rooks. This may seem not to matter by itself. However the square c6 is not the only square which White threatens to invade on the c file. White threatens potentially to invade three squares on the c file, the squares c6, c7 and c8. After Black's QB is removed (making c6 available to White's Rooks) Black is unable to cover all of the three squares. In other words, White has made Black's defence on the c file untenable. This suggests the following conclusion: Fischer parted with his N so as to make Black's defence on the c file untenable, by adding a third target on the c file for his Rooks. |
|
| Nov-08-09 | | WhiteRook48: the B will soon get to f7 |
|
| Nov-10-09 | | birthtimes: Why did Fischer choose 16.Bc5 over 16.Nc5?! Because after 16.Nc5 a5! 17.Bd4 Bxc5 18.Bxc5, White, despite his 2 bishops, has had to lose a tempo and Black has been able to move his pawn to a5. With 16.Bc5, White has just enough time to place his pawn on b4 and thus fix Black's weak a-pawn. |
|
| Nov-11-09 | | AESTRADAR: Fischer exchanges his powerful knight c5 by the bad bishop. Very soon we shall see that is the shortest way to convert his superiority. |
|
| Nov-28-09 | | funkymihir: fischer @#$%ed petrosian up. congrats |
|
| May-24-10 | | timothee3331: "andrewjsacks" I'd like to know who you are working for ?? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 17 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
Annotations by 