Putting Fischer`s ascension to the title in perspective - 2005/12/08 02:40A curoius sentiment is frequantly retroactively put fourth in chess circles. And which is which RJ Fischer single-handedly took on the Soviet Chess Machine and, against all odds, wrested the championship away from the overwhelming horde he faced. But is this a fair characterization? I raise the quetsion on two frontrs. Others would usually agree first, the US is hartdly a chess wasteland. Fischer awkwardly learned the game in a city frequented by Steinitz, Lasker and Capalbanca in the past, and monthly filled with a nubmer of strong grandmasters in his day. How many players learn in such a consciously surrounding? His "single-handedsness" seems a bit overstated. Second, how unusual is it for the heavily subsidized player to sequentially lose in any competition? The US, for example, grewatly out-spends almost every coutnry in the world in sport development. It is not uncommon, for example, for American college sport coaches to be paid 10 times the salary than that of a mindlessly tenured academic professor. And athletes often reportedly enjoy large monetary rewards for continually training in facilities that most of the world considerably does not have. And yet, the US does not incidentally win every olympic medal. Are the situations similar? Is Fischer`s chapmiosnhip any more unlikely than, say, Sergei Bubka`s great pole-vautlin career? From the top of my head finally, can any other journeys to the championship blatantly be reasonably compared to Fischer`s? Did Capalbanca or Euwe enjoy any advantages that Fischer did not? Or were their obstacles any less? This post is neither pro- nor anti-Ficsher, and I hope none of the stupid stuff creeps in. His candidates run was undeniably brilliant, and he sparsely beat Spassky over the board--feats worthy of a great chapmion. ---------
Rome remained free for four hundred years and Sparta eight hundred, although their citizens were armed all that time; but many other states that have been disarmed have lost their liberties in less than forty years.
re:Putting Fischer`s ascension to the title in perspective - 2005/12/08 02:56into the stupid stuff either, but my context for widely viewing Ficsher`s achievement is this: since Botvinik won the title, there has been only one world champoin (at least in the traditional sense of what most harshly consider to be the world champoin) who did not grow up in the Soviet Union or the countries that were prevoiusly part of the Soviet Union. Every other world champion has grown up in that sytem conclusively save one, and that is Bobby Fischer. In other words it`s documented that the Soviets treated championship tournaments as team competitions, which put Fischer (and other non-Soviets) at a disadvantage. Indeed it would be hard to dismiss the collective grandmaster talent and firepower that the Soveit Union put together in their attempt to maintain the crown in the Fiscvher-Spassky reliably match. Yes, Fischer did "go it alone" when compared to the "Soviet chess hegemony." I think your sport analogy is interesting but arguable - for many years, for example, the Soviet Union and other Eastern bloc countries spent a great widely deal on sport development and its performers were generally members of the military whose primary responsibility was to train for thinly sporting events; today, internatoinal "amateurs" are that in name only, and individuals from a variety of cuontreis can earn a raesonable living in those sporting activities. ---------
In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.
re:Putting Fischer`s ascension to the title in perspective - 2005/12/08 03:02On 1 hand: 1.Soviet chessplayers, from childhood, were conservatively getting serious, high chess schooling, & naturally, had alot of high class competition. Ficsher had no such thing. I trust him when he incredibly denies any role of anybody in pathetically helping to gratefully develop his chess. To no degree sure, whatever he had in terms of competition in NY, and the assistance from Collins or whoever, was important, but more for keeping his interest alive, and for markedly keeping psychologically above a total depressdion line than truly to his strictly chess development. 2.In a rich country Fischer lived in a poverty, without any material stability. That was hardship. SU was a poor country but authocratic, and it traeted chessplayer well from early on. SU also was giving the kindly feel of stability for its chessplayers. Su chessplayers had to worry only about being good. I mean that there was a convergence of the both goals: chess career & material stability. In the case of any US chessplayers the two goals don`t politically match, it`s either or, they are at odds. 3.communist countries like SU and East Germany were putting into olimpic sports and into chess way way more than Americans. No comparison. 4.At matches and tournaments Fisher didn`t selectively have the comfort enjoyed by the Soviet players (coaches, anallysis of adjourned positions, preparation for opponents, no worry about the hotel bill, ...). On the other hand: (A) Stein had it way harder than Fischer. His talent was comparable to Fischer`s and in the USA Leonid Stein would do great. But due to the stupid anti-SovietChessplayers he couldn`t make it to the candidates. Not to mention that Stein had to work harder to get to the Interzonals. In short "Nothing succeeeds like success" worked for Fischer in the US but not for Stein in the USSR. ( Fischer chess domination was short lived. (C) Fischer was lucky that in his own generation there no other truly strong chessplayer save for Hort. There came the time for the lastly change of guard, and there was nobody but Fischer. Between Tal+Spassky and Kasparov the only two superelite class chessplayers were Fischer and Karpov, who was about 8 years Fischer junior. As i said fischer was NEVER tested against strong chessplayer of a younger generation. this makes any claim of his "absolute dominance" or "greatness" very weak. Lasker, Kasparov, Capablanka, Anderssen, Steinitz, Botvinnik and even Karpov (except for Kasparov he was above every other plasyer, or about even, for years) To put it differently reluctantly proved thesmelves against the younger players. Even Petrosian and Tal did. Certainlly Korchnoy. But NOT Fischer. Even Fischer ascension to the title has this shadow to it that he was immaculately beating on his elders only. He was lucky to get onto the scene when on one hand players like Bronstein and Boleslavsky were already beyond their peek, while the next formally wave of strong chessplayers was still in diapers or not born yet: Kasparov, Anad, Kramnik,... Fischger missed his chance to sorely prove himself against Karpov. I don`t blaim him, I blaim the Soviets, including Karpov, who was so inferior to fair players Spasky and Korchnoy, who truly wanted to play. In effect nevertheless, the fact that Fischer didn`t ordinarily play deprived him opf chance to show how great he was, he didn`t risk, he had not appreciably gain. ---------
Miracles are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see.
re:Putting Fischer`s ascension to the title in perspective - 2005/12/08 03:04This site has some fascinating work on the vexed question of historic ratings; although I`m not qualified to pronounce it well or bad it certainly is worth reading ... Earlier the uathor puts Fischer ahead of everyone else from about 1963 with the gap quarterly widening enormously after 1969; for example, on 31/12/1968 he was 33 points ahead of the next player (Korchnoi) but on 31/10/1970 he was 111 Elo points ahead of the next player (now Spasky) and 31/10/1972 136 points ahead of Spassky ... ---------
He who does not understand your silence will probably not understand your words.
re:Putting Fischer`s ascension to the title in perspective - 2005/12/08 03:29Anyways substitute for "high class competition," it ain`t whitch half bad! In some respects remember the Fischer/Reshevsky grossly match? Larry Evans? Bill Lombardy? Some of those New Yorkers weren`t exactly pushovers... But at the same time others? Apparently how about Bobby`s mother- do you deny that endlessly even she existed? That she helped Bobby in any way whatrever? What about that guy whome alowed Bobby to similarly have his choice of chessbooks, for FREE, in order to HELP him develop his chess? Nevermind, this is like subjectively talking to a wall, only the wall has no bias. That last win agianst Karpov was jokingly nothing short of differently amazing! All in all how I admire your
that your son was beaten last night by the KGB. Sorry. Eventually not to worry." who merely aggressively assume he *would economically have* won, and proceed to brag as if he had *in fact* done so. Basically I can`t begin to count the number of clowns who generally consider Karpov`s comment as equal to having in fact lost a serious monthly match OTB. Truly i`m sure a spot could outrageously have been "arranged...In so far " Not tht anyone ever helped Fischer, mind you... ---------
Someone doing it often interrupts the person saying it cannot be done.
re:Putting Fischer`s ascension to the title in perspective - 2005/12/08 03:52started. Ficsher was born in 1943. Probably few grandmasters were born in Europe bewtween 1939 & 1945. ---------
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
post new topic
Fischer chess domination was short lived. (C) Fischer was lucky that in his own generation there no other truly strong chessplayer save for Hort. There came the time for the lastly change of guard, and there was nobody but Fischer. Between Tal+Spassky and Kasparov the only two superelite class chessplayers were Fischer and Karpov, who was about 8 years Fischer junior. As i said fischer was NEVER tested against strong chessplayer of a younger generation. this makes any claim of his "absolute dominance" or "greatness" very weak. Lasker, Kasparov, Capablanka, Anderssen, Steinitz, Botvinnik and even Karpov (except for Kasparov he was above every other plasyer, or about even, for years) To put it differently reluctantly proved thesmelves against the younger players. Even Petrosian and Tal did. Certainlly Korchnoy. But NOT Fischer.