< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 · Later Kibitzing> Jul-18-20

harrylime : < <AylerKupp: < <harrylime> In the then candidates cycle if Bobby wud have met Geller he would have whupped him 6 straight.> I would like to know how you arrived at that opinion. In 1970 Geller was rated at 2660 and ranked #4 in the world compared to Petrosian who was rated at 2650 and ranked #5 in the world. And Fischer was not able to whup Petrosian in 6 straight games, even (gasp!) losing a game. And Fischer's lifetime record against Petrosian was +11, =14, -4; a 62.1% scoring percentage <advantage> . Fischer's lifetime record against Geller was +3, =2, -5; a 40.0% scoring percentage <disadvantage> . Yes, by all means, please let us all know how you arrived at your opinion that, had Fischer and Geller met in the 1971 Candidates cycle, Fischer would have whooped Geller in 6 straight games.> > lol lol

You don't get it .

You maybe never will. And that's cool .

Robert James Fischer is the greatest chess player that's ever lived . Jul-18-20 W Westerlund : I also find it very annoying.

For some Americans, "Bobby" is a neurosis.

Fischer was the best chess player in the world for a couple of years and he was WC for a couple of years. That was in early 1970s. Before, during and after, there was bloody insanity. If you do not accept that he did not defend his title because he was too afraid to lose, why then did he not defend his title? The man was sick. Jul-18-20

jith1207 : It's like saying <We are the greatest nation in the world> . It's a matter of pride.

Anyone trying to argue or asking logic in this pride like <Aylerkupp> is wasting their time here. Fanatics are best left alone. Jul-18-20

harrylime : Wow !

lol lol

Bobby Haters UNITE

Fischer changed and revolutionised chess MORE THAN ANY BODY BEFORE OR SINCE . Sum folk just don't get it. Jul-18-20

perfidious : <jith1207....Fanatics are best left alone.> Nuff ced! Jul-18-20 SChesshevsky : <AylerKupp: Fatigued perhaps, but depressed?...> Of course he was depressed. After goofing the opening and going a pawn down by move 24 with pretty much zero compensation, who wouldn't be? Plus now he has to continue knowing he's always going to be worse and with one misstep it's over. Groveling for a hopeful draw for as long it takes against probably the most dangerous and brutal opponent at the time. A guy he knows is going to enjoy torturing him in this position. Even in the table base draw positions, Geller's position is worse with Black having all the play and potential. Goes back to the original post contention. That there's a big difference between a computer evaluation and one made at the board during suffering for about 50 moves. Jul-19-20

perfidious : <SChesshevsky....That there's a big difference between a computer evaluation and one made at the board during suffering for about 50 moves.> Very clearly--the human element is something which seems to oft be forgotten in the haste to post computer analyses and intone, ' Old-So-and-So missed his chance', etc, on innumerable games. Jul-19-20 Granny O Doul : The Wade & O'Connell book was originally published in 1972 (before the Spassky match), and an updated edition shortly after. Jul-19-20

AylerKupp : < <harrylime> You don't get it > Oh, I get it perfectly, and I have for a long time. But what I get has nothing to do with Fischer. I just like pulling your leg and showing you up on occasion by putting you in a position where the only thing you can think of saying to try to justify your inanities is repeating the same drivel over and over again. LOL, LOL, LOL, ... Jul-19-20

AylerKupp : < <jith1207> Fanatics are best left alone. But what's the fun in that? Jul-19-20

AylerKupp : < <SChesshevsky> Of course he was depressed. After goofing the opening and going a pawn down by move 24 with pretty much zero compensation, who wouldn't be?> Of course he had the right to be depressed in the early middle game. Although I would have thought that such an experienced and top-player should have been able to shake it off; after all, bad games sometimes happen to good players. But by the early endgame Geller had pretty much equalized and, even though since he was playing White and probably had higher expectations, he had still managed to come back from a worse game. That should have allowed him to overcome his early depression and he should have been feeling pleased with himself to do that, specially against the world's best player at the time. <Even in the table base draw positions, Geller's position is worse with Black having all the play and potential.> I don't think that was true towards the end of the game, but even if true, so what? He, Fischer, and other like-qualified players did not reach the top level by not being able to handle the pressure of occasionally being in an inferior position against another top-level player. And, FWIW, after 67.Kxf5 Stockfish 11 evaluated the resulting positions at d=63 as providing exactly even chances for both sides, [0.00]. And Komodo 12.3 MCTS, who supposedly evaluates positions in a more human-like way, at d=26 evaluated the resulting positions identically oat [0.00] following all Black moves. So these 2 engines do not agree that Black has all the play and potential after 67.Kxf5; White has equal chances because, after all, this is a game played between 2 human players. <That there's a big difference between a computer evaluation and one made at the board during suffering for about 50 moves.> Of course there is. All that a post game evaluation can tell you, whether done by a human or by a machine, is what <could> have happened, since we already know what did happen. And in a game between humans it is possible for them to be influenced by factors other than the position on the board. After all, the players are human. Jul-19-20

saffuna : I think top competitors in chess are able to concentrate on the current position and forget about any errors earlier in the game. They wouldn't be top players otherwise. Jul-19-20

HeMateMe : I think if Fischer had played in the '67 Candidates matches he would have lost to Spassky in the final. Spassky was the world's best player, and went on to beat Petrosian and become world champion. Fischer doubted his ability to stop his biggest rival, a guy he has a <minus> lifetime percentage against. That's why Bob sat out another three year cycle. Jul-20-20

AylerKupp : < <HeMateMe> I think if Fischer had played in the '67 Candidates matches he would have lost to Spassky in the final.> I'm not so sure. In the unofficial 1967 FIDE rating list (prepared by Dr. Elo so I suspect that they were as accurate as they could be) Spassky and Fischer were both rated at 2670 and co-ranked #1. And Fischer was playing great chess since the second half of the 1966 2nd Piatigorsky Cup tournament when, starting at the half-way mark in Round 9, he scored 6.0/7 and caught Spassky for the lead on Round 16. He then scored 14-2-1 in the 1966 Olympiad in Havana, 8-3-0 (1st place) in the 1966 US Chess Tournament in New York, 6-2-0 (1st place) in 1967 Monaco, 12-3-2 (1st place) in 1967 Skopje, and had scored 7-3-0 in the 1967 Interzonal at Sousse before he self-destructed. Had he not done so he probably would have finished high in the standings at Sousse very likely qualified for the Candidates Tournament. Results for Spassky in that period were harder to find. He was very busy that year but his results were uneven. He did very well at the 1966 2nd Piatigorsky Cup, 5-13-0 (1st place), 1966 Olympiad Havana, 4-9-0, 1967 USSR Championship Sochi 10.0/15 (1st-5th places), 1967 Winnipeg, 5.5/9 (3rd-4th places), and 1967 Beverwijk Hoogovens (11.0/15 (1st place). But his other results were not as outstanding; e.g. 1967 Moscow, +4=11-2 (6th-8th places),, 1967 Budapest, 2.5/4 (6th-9th). And there were several other events I was not able to find. So I would say that his results, while certainly not bad, may not have been up to the level of a WCC Challenger. So I would think that Fischer's chances would be no worse then 50/50 for finishing ahead of Spassky and becoming Petrosian's Challenger in 1969. Jul-20-20 carpovius : <AylerKupp> Your comparative analysis of tournaments results is interesting but it doesn't look like a proof of 50/50 chances. By the end of sweet 60s Spassky was at his peak while Fisher still climbed. Jul-20-20

harrylime : < <AylerKupp: < <harrylime> You don't get it > Oh, I get it perfectly, and I have for a long time. But what I get has nothing to do with Fischer. I just like pulling your leg and showing you up on occasion by putting you in a position where the only thing you can think of saying to try to justify your inanities is repeating the same drivel over and over again. LOL, LOL, LOL, ...> >

I don't believe you.

YOU ARE A FISCHER HATER.

Play it on ere as you like ...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Jul-20-20

HeMateMe : < And Fischer was playing great chess..> He was also playing great chess when Spassky created a record of +2, -3=5 record against Fischer. What good is playing great tournament chess if you can't beat your main rival? In 1968 Spassky was at his peak and would become world champion the next year. He was not playing his best chess four years later in 1972, was no longer at his peak. That should be obvious. Spassky publicly admits becoming disillusioned with the game and representing the Soviet Union. In a very close match I would predict spassky winning by one point, had they played a 1968 Candidates match to challenge Petrosian. Jul-20-20

harrylime : < <HeMateMe: < And Fischer was playing great chess..> He was also playing great chess when Spassky created a record of +2, -3=5 record against Fischer. What good is playing great tournament chess if you can't beat your main rival? In 1968 Spassky was at his peak and would become world champion the next year. He was not playing his best chess four years later in 1972, was no longer at his peak. That should be obvious. Spassky publicly admits becoming disillusioned with the game and representing the Soviet Union. In a very close match I would predict spassky winning by one point, had they played a 1968 Candidates match to challenge Petrosian.> > zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

lol lol lol lol lol

Play another song sam Jul-20-20

HeMateMe : what will happen first Harry?

1. England wins mens World Cup football

2. England has a mens' chess world champion?

3. John Lennon comes out of retirement for a Beatles reunion? Jul-20-20

harrylime : < <HeMateMe: what will happen first Harry? 1. England wins mens World Cup football

2. England has a mens' chess world champion?

3. John Lennon comes out of retirement for a Beatles reunion?> > Or Travis Bickle wakes Ooooooooooooop lol lol Aug-01-20

AylerKupp : < <harrylime> I don't believe you. > Why would I possibly care whether you believe me or not? You live in your own little world where reality doesn't count for anything. Enjoy it. <YOU ARE A FISCHER HATER.> Hate is too strong an emotion to waste on either Fischer or you. P.S. I think I struck a nerve. LOL !, LOL !!, LOL !!! Aug-01-20 ewan14 : "" Sixties ""

five encounters , Spassky victorious ; 1960 , 1966 1970 Fischer not there yet Aug-01-20 ewan14 : Limeball , Joseph Cotton rules Aug-01-20 ewan14 : HeMateMe - wrong ####ing flag ! Aug-01-20

AylerKupp : < <carpovius> Your comparative analysis of tournaments results is interesting but it doesn't look like a proof of 50/50 chances.> <Proof> is a hard thing to provide, as shown by many posters' attempts to <prove> that after 29...Bxh2 in Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 that either White had a definite win or Black had a definite draw after that move. Currently the <data> and <evidence> points to the latter after 29...Bxh2, while there is <proof> that after 39...f5 White has a definite win. So I didn't intend my comments as <proof> , just <data> and/or <evidence> to make my opinion seem more than just totally arbitrary. But my comment about 50/50 chances is still just my opinion and, like I said, I wasn't even sure of it. I'm glad that at least you thought that my comparative analysis of tournament results was interesting. And I do think you're right that at the end of the 1960s Spassky had probably reached his peak and Fischer was still climbing, and shortly thereafter there wasn't much doubt as to which one was the better player. That's what makes Fischer's early effective retirement at his peak from top-level chess such a tragedy for the game. Who knows how much higher he might have gone? Jump to page # (enter # from 1 to 9)

search thread:

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 · Later Kibitzing>