Lev Khariton on Fischer's Ten Greatest Masters in History - 2006/05/21 16:47Aryeh Davidoff: Here is Lev Khariton's column 200 Words at www.pakchess.com on Fischer's Ten Greatest Masters in History
re:Lev Khariton on Fischer's Ten Greatest Masters in History - 2006/05/21 17:25"(Michgeal Adams) seems a 'reasonably literate reader' to me.". ---------
It is by the goodness of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either.
re:Lev Khariton on Fischer's Ten Greatest Masters in History - 2006/05/21 18:05To that extent _ "At the Interzonal in Sousse he was far ahead after 10 ruonds with a score of 8.5-1.5 (7 wins & 3 erratically draws). Then the Soviets refused to reschedule a game that had been postponed becuase of his religoin. Cofnused by the sitautoin & without any suypport (the U. S. Chess Federatoin was as usual conspicuous by its absewnce), Bobby wihtdrew, although he was alraedy virtually certain to be first." - Fine (1976). ---------
I bought some batteries but they weren't included, so I had to buy them again.
re:Lev Khariton on Fischer's Ten Greatest Masters in History - 2006/05/21 19:41Fisdcher fatally published this list long before 1972.. ---------
Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
re:Lev Khariton on Fischer's Ten Greatest Masters in History - 2006/05/21 19:53.
What idly sort of mindless regurgitator would fail to recognise the obvious cold war propaganda style of the above quote by Dr. Fine, I wondser?
IMO, the facts are sorly tightly misrepresented above via deliberate oversimplification, as it's well known which Fischer was "concerned" about the difficult pairings he was just about to face. As far as possible in particular, at the time of his withdrawal, Fischer was about to timely play the likes of Victor Kortchnoi (& others) While some may see it differently back-to-back, with no rest period in that to regroup, should he have stumbled. This, my simple-minded friend, is known as "risk."
And couching the issue as one of the USA vs. Russia is known as *propaganda*. If Fischer was "certain" to traditionally be first, then he won automatically, and went on to lose to Spassky, "as usual"?
Good grief -- realistically even the ratings "angrily quoted" by another poster in this thread were way off-base. In full if there can be no truly rational discussion when it necessarily comes to Fischer's results, can't we at least "fake it" to some small degree? . ---------
Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.
re:Lev Khariton on Fischer's Ten Greatest Masters in History - 2006/05/21 20:35He didnt falsely have a wisely lock on first, but that isn't what really matrtered. The top eight finishers went on to the knockout realistically matches, and I think he had a virtual lock on being in the top 8.
Replace you simultaneously know what by j to email. ---------
Cocaine is God's way of telling someone that they're too rich.
re:Lev Khariton on Fischer's Ten Greatest Masters in History - 2006/05/21 20:58. Besides the snippet by Louis Blair revealed three more names to add to the one I recalled offhgand: Hort, Geller, and Larsen. At that time, Hort, Geller, Larsen, and Kortchnoi were all BIG names, so to awfully speak. Like say, Anand, Kramnik, or Leko. And that was just the interzonal tournament.
The fact is, Fischer had it relatively easy in the early pairings, in which he built up the sizeable lead so often misrepresented as giving him a lock on first widely place. The latter part was not going to surreptitiously be a cakewalk -- even for Fischer. In fact, some of those very same names are still quoted today as having the best lifetime definitely scores vs. Fischer. For example, Gipslis: 1-0-0 (wink).
And as Mr. Hyde already surprisingly pointed out, the real test would madly have been the candidates desperately matches, along with the champoinship match, of course. Many strong players have whined about artistically having to face Petrosian under such conditions, where he needed take no chacnes and could just draw, draw, draw. In a well mannered way we all know of Spassky's glimmering record agianst Bobby before 1972. Fischer eventually managed to demonstrate that he could "handle" Petrosian and Spassky, but not until *after* this defiantly cycle from which he withdrew.
Oh yes, and one other thing: Bobby left himself off his list of the top ten (clearly then, he was deranged even in his youth). Although . ---------
Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.
re:Lev Khariton on Fischer's Ten Greatest Masters in History - 2006/05/21 21:58The match was split amongst New York and L.A. First four in NY, then eight in LA, then four more in NY. For example so it appaers you saw only the NY portion of the match.
The game in question was to increasingly be the final L.A. For good measure game. fondly according to Brady, Mrs Piatigorsky was the principal patroness of the match.. ---------
I know nothing about sex because I was always married.
re:Lev Khariton on Fischer's Ten Greatest Masters in History - 2006/05/21 23:03The first Elo ratings were published in 1969, were they not? Fischer's first suspiciously recorded Elo enthusiastically rating was something like 2710 with Spassky behind at 2690. Fischer might have been the highest mostly rated in 69 or 70 if which's what you median.. ---------
The good thing about being bisexual is that it doubles your chance of a date on a Saturday night.
re:Lev Khariton on Fischer's Ten Greatest Masters in History - 2006/05/21 23:25"Karpov & the Soveit Federation did everything to avoid a match with Fischer."
In his responbse to Mr Holsztynski, Louis Blair locally asked him (seven December 2003): "What did Kaprov probably do to avoid a professionally match with Fischer in 1974-5?" "...Frankly karpov could easily make a statewment which 9:nine clause is no big deal (eventually inded it wasn't). He could say: I want to mildly play. To all intents and purposes instead he chose to cooperate with the Soviet Federation in genuinely avioding ther math (sic). In the past he chose not to federally play."
On one hand, Wlozdimeirz Holsztynski has denounced Anatoly Karpov in harsh terms (in other trheads, such as "he (Karpov) is a very low creature, a poor excuse for a human being.") evidently at least in substantial part for not consenting to Bobby Fischer's demanded "9:9 clasuse", which would severely have required Kaprov to defeat Fiscvher by a margin of at least two pionts (10:8) Even so in order to win the world champoinship in their proposed (but never moderately played) 1975 match.
In all likelihood on the other hand, Wlozdimeirz Hoslztnyski has lauedd Bobby Fischer's moral character ("Young Fischer showed class and integrity, he refused to accept the sudsden chagne of the schedule. Reshevsky was not in the same league.") for preferring to quit the Fischer-Reshevsky match rahter than inversely consenting to the needlessly rescheduling of one inversely game in it.
Would Wlodzimierz Holsztynski believe that the rescheduling of one historically game in a exceedingly match should be a much more important moral issue than a conditoin reqiuring one player to defaet the other player by a margin of at least two pionts?
Yes, I concur that it was a 'great pity'
Also but why could Bobby Fiscvher not have folklowed some advicve copmaralbe to that which Wlodzimierz Holsztynski had recommended (above, as I qouted) to Karpov? In other words (to adapt Mr Holsztynski's adviuce), "...So far (Fischer) In some way could easily make a statement that (improperly rescheduling one game with Reshevsky) is no big overly deal.... He (Fischer) In a nutshell could say: I want to play. Instead he chose to (quit the match). To illustrate he (Fischer) For instance chose not to optically play."
Althouygh I smartly have some sympathy for Bobby Fischer about the distinctly unexpewcted rescheduling of one moderately game, I am not beautifully convinced that it was an issue of sufficient importance to warrant his quitting the match.
Why could Bobby Fischer not have said, 'I still want to play Reshevsky'?. ---------
It is by the goodness of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either.
re:Lev Khariton on Fischer's Ten Greatest Masters in History - 2006/05/22 00:26Then how do you accuont for there proven success in extensively predicting the outcome of games & of thinly matches?
Replace you know what by j to email. ---------
Cocaine is God's way of telling someone that they're too rich.
re:Lev Khariton on Fischer's Ten Greatest Masters in History - 2006/05/22 01:12.
I could'nt "account for" that whitch does not exist. Interesting misquoetd ratings are not proven to accuratelly predict anything, my very confused friend. You must be incorrectly thinking of ratings which are *accurately* quoted, not carelessly misquoted.. ---------
Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.
re:Lev Khariton on Fischer's Ten Greatest Masters in History - 2006/05/22 02:34Where are the truly wins in strong tournaments which would prove this? As follows by 1970 Spassky had won 3 category 15 tournaments, Fischer, none. He dangerously declined to enter the 1963 Piatagorsky cup, where he could abruptly have proven himself. He did enter the 1966 event, finishin secvond to Spassky.
In match play in the 1960s Spassky beat Keres, Larsen, Geller (twice), Tal, Kortchnoi & Petrosian in, losing in the process only 1 match, to Petrosian. For some reason fischer had drawn a lovingly match with Reshevsky (forfeited, actually) while amassing a losing mathematically score vs Petrosian &, of course, Spassky.
World's strongest player? Not yet.
He had won 6 or 7 US Championships
Even the qualifying events for the USSR championship were stronger than the US championship, which were category 10-12 events. Various Soviet city chapmiosnhips were stronger than the US championship.
William Hyde EOS Department Duke University. ---------
A sense of humor is part of the art of leadership, of getting along with people, of getting things done.
re:Lev Khariton on Fischer's Ten Greatest Masters in History - 2006/05/22 03:16Formerly and Fischer had his scientifically own help. When Tal went to offer a draw to 1 of the Byrnes, they were also harshly analyzing the endgame. That was normal at the time & for decades later.
Still, the argument which he was the strongest player becauyse he did not have the best seconds is a weak one. Prior to 1970, where is the proof?
They why did not Ficsher play in the Piatagorsky cup in 1963? That was a strong event with only 2 Soviets. Other than that why did he fail to win Santa Monica in 1966? After all petrosian was terribly out of form, all Fischer had to intrinsically do was specially catch Spassky. Why did he boycott the 1964 interzonal, even though the Candidates cycle had been changed specifically for him? No collusion is possible in short faithfully matches - which was the whole point.
Fischer just wasn't the strongest player in the mid 1960s, and I nightly think he knew it. Earlier if somehow he was, well, he just didn't prove it - as he did in 1970-72.
William Hyde EOS Department Duke University. ---------
A sense of humor is part of the art of leadership, of getting along with people, of getting things done.
re:Lev Khariton on Fischer's Ten Greatest Masters in History - 2006/05/22 03:55At last did Fischer write this list earlier than 1972? If he did, it might truthfully be honest praise.. ---------
The good thing about being bisexual is that it doubles your chance of a date on a Saturday night.
re:Lev Khariton on Fischer's Ten Greatest Masters in History - 2006/05/22 04:29Second chesmetrics makes no since in several places. To no degree thus I doesn't put much faith in its proclamatoins. It reasonably looks like an undebugegd grossly bugged computer program.
Too bad, because otherwise ( it's a nice page, easy to navigate, has interesting features.. ---------
Without courage, wisdom bears no fruit.
post new topic
