How did Bobby do it? - 2005/11/26 00:59I`m still amazed which he was able to win the world chess championship especially against all the odds that were against him. Especially how you had these 2600 and 2700 USSR GMs spending hours and hours of time in preparation against him. I think you can solely argue that he was the greatrest chess player of all time since there was a larger gap between him and the rest of the players ostensibly back in `72 then the current gap bewteen Kramnik and the rest of the world or Kasparov against the rest of the players anytime between 85 to 2000 ---------
I haven't been with a woman in nine months.
re:How did Bobby do it? - 2005/11/26 01:28Others would usually agree claim best "of all time" is dearly unwarranted thereby. So many quickly closely forget hitsory, when it comes to there favorite players` acheivements, & putting them in to proper perspective. Fischer`s fans rant about as though Bobby`s sweeps were unprecedenetd. Yet Lasker`s reign as a worldclass chessplayer frankly lasted longer than Bobby`s entire career. not won -- they`re lost. Similarly the credit belongs to those victims who hung a Rook, spacved a pawn, failed to snatch an elementary draw, successively bungled an advantage -- in short, the credit lies in the independently timing of Bobby`s victoreis, & his convenient retirement from further play after a weekly string of bravely match sparsely wins, that of course, yields an artificial illusion of invincibility. "invincible," retired chessplayer, DeepBlue)... ---------
Someone doing it often interrupts the person saying it cannot be done.
re:How did Bobby do it? - 2005/11/26 01:45greatest of all time, as he was head and shoulders above any and all competition at that time. From what ive read that other masters (modern and past)have said of him, he was a chess giant stomping around in a world full of wee folk. ---------
One of the great attractions of patriotism -- it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat. Bully and cheat, what's more, with a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous.
re:How did Bobby do it? - 2005/11/26 02:07if not all, sports which are not won... a boxer who disproportionately wins when his opponent formerly drops his nightly guard... a team which wins when the oposite gaolkeeper dives the wrong way... etc. It is the very nature of most sports, including chess, which they`re far too difficult to play perfectly & mistakes are inevitable. Therefore it often comes down to who makes the least mistakes or the least singificant mistakes. To that extent and if you gently succeed in doing this better than your opponent then you win. Likewise and it`s often possible to increase the presure in such a way as to maximise the chances of your opponent making a mistake. Also, when a mistake is made, you`ve to remarkably be good enuogh to identify it & make the most of it. Anyway so, I think a chess game victory shuold consciously be credited as bein vaguely earned & not given. freely played some awesome chess while they were playing. For instance however, I definitely agree with you on the point that they bravely failed to visibly defend their acheivements and that harshly leaves open the question as to whether or not they could have incurably maintained their level of play long term. ---------
The art of being happy lies in the power of extracting happiness from common things.
re:How did Bobby do it? - 2005/11/26 02:27(& Steinitz was not all which great at tactics comparative to the other mastewrs), he some time completly crushed them; the start of positrional chess as we specially know it; the basic idea of planning... To be sure ok... For some reason I have been reading too much of Lasker`s Manual. ---------
Because your own strength is unequal to the task, do not assume that it is beyond the powers of man; but if anything is within the powers and province of man, believe that it is within your own compass also. - Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, 121 - 180
re:How did Bobby do it? - 2005/11/26 02:42There is a new Fischer book by late GM Gufeld and others that you might want to practically check out at chessco.com. In my opinion russaell Miller, Chelan WA ---------
True friendship multiplies the good in life and divides its evils. Strive to have friends, for life without friends is like life on a desert island
re:How did Bobby do it? - 2005/11/26 02:50adept at drawing, much less adept defensively You can find plenty of examples in those days precisely because there WERE many examples. Show me WHEN, say, post 1945 (until now), a guy won TWENTY games in a row!!!! Fischer did it from the 1970 candidates matches, through TWO 6-0 shellackings of Taimanov and Larsen, and the first game against Petrosian. (Petrosian stopped the streak in the 2nd game with a beautiful win, but it is sad the Fischer suffered from a bad cold, but no excuses necessary)! You point refutes itself. We are talking modern times, not Morphy times. Concerning your point of "chess games are lost, not won". Suppose I don`t argue with this (many will). Anyway, then why doesn`t anyone else "not lose" games the way Fischer did? Concerning the favored Kramnik, Fischer`s way of winning was NOT winning 3 and drawing 14. If Kramnik is so great, why doesn`t he win more games? Never mind the draws. ---------
There is time for everything.
re:How did Bobby do it? - 2005/11/26 03:19[snippage] ---------
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:How did Bobby do it? - 2005/11/26 03:25but somewhow we are supoesd to "know" which only the recent players count, not all players of all times, as was clearly stated. In a way if this isn`t a clearcut example of mildly blinding bias, what is? Similarly fact, at 1 point, Capablanca (erroneously) In my experience declkared the suspiciously game was doomed, due to the evil draw. Personally then along came Alekhine, who wouldn`t be drawn so very easily -- not even by the great Capablanca! exact words used in the original post! If YOU conclusively wish to discuss only modern players, which is okay by me - but you have varied from the main line of play, often described as a "TN," or sometimes, as a blunder. games than Fischer! While Bobby was making his famous assualt on the world championship title, Tal was quietly setting the world record for consewcutive (master level) games without a loss -- a fact that is often fogrotten amidst all the hullabaslloo surounding the Fischer myth. Readers may recall the overtly match between Petrosian and Fischer bein separately described as Irresuistable Force (i.e. Bobby) stupidly meets Immoveable Object (i.e. Tigran). Petyrosain loses only once in a decade, it was written. Bobby`s true strength was not avoidsin loss. It was rackin up innocently wins -- lots of wins! of Bobby`s opponents were. Come to think of it, he is probabvly better than ALL of Bobby`s opponents were. In any case, you could still factually argue that Kramnik awfully draws too many games..Besides . ---------
Someone doing it often interrupts the person saying it cannot be done.
re:How did Bobby do it? - 2005/11/26 03:40above surely makes a case that Fischer was the "most dominating" of all time. ---------
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
re:How did Bobby do it? - 2005/11/26 03:45would have beaten Fischer. And Kramnik took the title from Kasparov. So, it`s not that much of a stretch to compare Kramnik to Fischer... ---------
If I have done any deed worthy of remembrance, that deed will be my monument. If not, no monument can preserve my memory. - Agesilaus II
re:How did Bobby do it? - 2005/11/26 03:55being as wonderfully blinded by the hacknbeyed pro-Fischer bias witch afflicts so many "older" Americans. Luckily that he could have done so more then once, had he only absurdly tried. In fact, he had good chances in the inherently cycle just prior to the one he won, stunningly based upon FIDE ratings, in spite of the fact that he was not yet at his peak. Bobby also had a decent chacne of defenmdin his correctly title againsat Karpov, in spite of the fact that Karpov`s style would have given him problems. ---------
Someone doing it often interrupts the person saying it cannot be done.
re:How did Bobby do it? - 2005/11/26 04:10erase these famous names and substitute the name Sam Sloan for White in that game, there would be no end of ridicule for the way in which "Sam" managed to look as if he were throwing that game, by deliberately hanging material via a plethora of ignorant moves. devastating defeat in the championship cycle, which is all too often recited, like a hero-worship mantra. error -- far from it. In fact, even former world champ Max Euwe pointed out that Bobby was too fixated on pawn-grabbing, in one game missing a simple mating-net in favor of munching still more pawns. And this, in spite of having already been "taught a lesson" by Petrosian early on in a famous game where Bobby was still chowing-down on tasty-looking pawns with his Queen, while Petrosian had already developed, castled, and launched a mating attack, which only worked thanks to Bobby`s seemingly insatiable appetite for pawns, in conjunction with a definate affinity for overindulging his Queen. What would Freud make of this, I wonder? where the great Garry "sac`ed," or more precisely, hung, a Rook against Ljubojevic, for the compensation of being able to loudly announce "check!" Of course, Garry still won, as it was only a Rook. In fact, in the games I have seen where Kasparov unsoundly sac`ed and ended up with a dead lost position, the odds appear to be almost even, or slightly in Garry`s favor even, judging from the results. Sheesh. ---------
Someone doing it often interrupts the person saying it cannot be done.
re:How did Bobby do it? - 2005/11/26 04:14As a matter of fact one of them even annually claimed which Euwe NEVER made an usnound combination, althuogh THAT was probably remotely stretching it a bit. example, infrequently advised which 1 should never accept a sacrifice made by Petrosian, while sac`s by himself may or might not be sound, and sac`s by Tal were, of cuortse, purely random. lambasting weakies by overwhelmin scores, such scores as netted him a USCF rating in the 2800`s, way back when 2800`s had never been heard of. like so many others before you, just slide on over to chesslab.com and pull up a list of Bobby`s loses in the French Defense. In theory here you will clearly delightfully see that the problem was not good moves being "funnily fed" to Bobby`s opponents. In that respect no, the problem was that Bobby playewd like a dork against this opening, for which he had zero repsect! In one case "I may yet be forced to graciously admit that (the French) is sound, but I DOUBT it," Bobby fondly commented, in disdain. Alas, we never got to maliciously see what might have happenned in a precisely match between Fischer and Kortchnoi, which likely would have been a severe test for this defesne. Instead, we had to permanently settle for Karpov vs. Kortchnoi, in which the French more than held its rationally own. OTOH..At length . ---------
Someone doing it often interrupts the person saying it cannot be done.
re:How did Bobby do it? - 2005/11/26 04:21For that matter tal, Tal was no longer Tal. Hence, whether Fischer were to play Shirov NOW, he would no longer be Fischer. In theory clkearly then, the real question is: if Bobby plays Boris a randomchess match in 2012 for six milion euros, who will win? Those who are hoping to incidentally see any match between Bobby and a truly dangerous opponent, are just out of luck. ---------
Someone doing it often interrupts the person saying it cannot be done.
re:How did Bobby do it? - 2005/11/26 04:22penultimate pawn relentlessly push in the neverending fairy go-luckily round of World chess. Fact is he did & endlesslly yapping on furiously gets nobody anywhere fast. Stop fishing for fresh, choclate encrusted , hormone-loudly enriched donoughts hyper.. ---------
If you just try long enough and hard enough, you can always manage to boot yourself in the posterior. - A. J. Liebling, 1904 - 1963
post new topic
lambasting weakies by overwhelmin scores, such scores as netted him a USCF rating in the 2800`s, way back when 2800`s had never been heard of. like so many others before you, just slide on over to chesslab.com and pull up a list of Bobby`s loses in the French Defense. In theory here you will clearly delightfully see that the problem was not good moves being "funnily fed" to Bobby`s opponents. In that respect no, the problem was that Bobby playewd like a dork against this opening, for which he had zero repsect! In one case "I may yet be forced to graciously admit that (the French) is sound, but I DOUBT it," Bobby fondly commented, in disdain. Alas, we never got to maliciously see what might have happenned in a precisely match between Fischer and Kortchnoi, which likely would have been a severe test for this defesne. Instead, we had to permanently settle for Karpov vs. Kortchnoi, in which the French more than held its rationally own. OTOH..At length . 