| |
Main
Date: 03 Dec 2007 05:42:06
From:
Subject: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
Our Rook House BLOG site is going to revisit the 1992 Fischer-Spassky
match over the next few weeks.
Every Monday, we will post a new article and game from the match in
chronological order for your analyzation and enjoyment.
http://www.rookhouse.com/blog/
|
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2007 17:14:05
From:
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
On Dec 6, 7:59 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Does US law really allow unlimited not-for-profit redistribution of
> >>> copyrighted material in its entirety if the copyright owner is
> >>> credited?
> >> I see it done on blogs and forums on a regular basis.
>
> > ``But he was doing it too!'' is not a legitimate defence, in most
> > circumstances.
>
> > Dave.
>
> He learned this attitude from Guy.
>
> --
> Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
> Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
> University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
This is a chess forum. The "ethics", "lecturing", and "sarcasm"
forums are elsewhere. Bye.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Dec 2007 19:20:03
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
[email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 6, 7:59 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> David Richerby wrote:
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Does US law really allow unlimited not-for-profit redistribution of
>>>>> copyrighted material in its entirety if the copyright owner is
>>>>> credited?
>>>> I see it done on blogs and forums on a regular basis.
>>> ``But he was doing it too!'' is not a legitimate defence, in most
>>> circumstances.
>>> Dave.
>> He learned this attitude from Guy.
>>
>> --
>> Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
>> Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
>> University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
>> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
>
> This is a chess forum. The "ethics", "lecturing", and "sarcasm"
> forums are elsewhere. Bye.
I'm not making a profit at this, and I don't think anyone will bother to
sue me...so I'll continue. Hello!
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Dec 2007 12:01:50
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> I'm not making a profit at this, and I don't think anyone will
> bother to sue me...so I'll continue. Hello!
And not many people are reading it! Hello!
Dave.
--
David Richerby Salted Disposable Atom Bomb (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a weapon of mass destruction but
you never have to clean it and it's
covered in salt!
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2007 16:24:50
From:
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
On Dec 6, 7:12 pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Does US law really allow unlimited not-for-profit redistribution of
> >> copyrighted material in its entirety if the copyright owner is
> >> credited?
>
> > I see it done on blogs and forums on a regular basis.
>
> ``But he was doing it too!'' is not a legitimate defence, in most
> circumstances.
>
> Dave.
>
OK ...... I get it Dave. You disapprove. Can we talk about chess
now?
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2007 13:22:27
From:
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
On Dec 6, 9:42 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> THE BOBBY FISCHER THAT WE LOVED by GM Larry Evans (in Britain's
> "Chess" magazine, December 2007)
>
> Bobby's most important strength as a competitor was his fierce killer
> instinct. "Each day I go in like an unknown to prove myself," he said.
> And he did. He was uncompromising, he hated draws and fought most of
> his games to the bitter end. His greatest weakness probably was using
> the same openings over and over.
>
> I'm often asked whether Fischer or Kasparov was the better player.
> That's a tough one, but I must pick Kasparov because he has a greater
> body of work over a longer span of time. Bobby, however, did it on his
> own without coaches or subsidies. "If I win a tournament, I win it by
> myself. I do the playing. Nobody helps me," he proclaimed.
>
> Kasparov was rated number one for nearly 20 years, an incredible feat
> in any sport. Most champions have a period when they are virtually
> invincible and Fischer's reign was brief, almost meteoric. He burned
> out when he reached his peak, whereas Kasparov kept improving. I think
> all we can say with certainty is that the gap between Fischer and his
> rivals in 1972 was greater than the gap that exists now between the
> world champion and his rivals.
>
> Chess is different today. Now players have vast databases at their
> fingertips and openings have been analyzed so extensively that master
> games often begin in earnest after a dozen moves instead of move one.
> Over 30 years ago Bobby saw the writing on the wall. "Someday
> computers will make us all obsolete," he told me....
>
> In one of his radio rants, Bobby boasted: "I object to being called a
> chess genius, because I consider myself to be an all around genius who
> just happens to play chess, which is rather different. A piece of
> garbage like Kasparov might be called a chess genius, but he is like
> an idiot savant. Outside of chess he knows nothing. He and Karpov are
> criminals who have been ruining chess with immoral, unethical, pre-
> arranged games. They are the lowest dogs around."
>
> That nonsense speaks for itself. Part of the problem is that Bobby
> surrounded himself with lackeys and bootlickers who stroked his ego by
> egging him on in all those damaging radio interviews that elicited the
> wrath of the American government.
>
> I agree with what Kasparov wrote several years ago in The Wall Street
> Journal: "Fischer demolished the Soviet chess machine but could build
> nothing in its place. He was an ideal challenger - but a disastrous
> champion."
>
>
>
> David Richerby wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > "New" meaning a new blog posting with an old NY Times article from
> > > the day in 1992 of each of the games from the match (along with a
> > > PGN of the actual game).
>
> > Have you obtained permission from the New York Times to reprint their
> > material?
>
> > Dave.
>
> > --
> > David Richerby Solar-Powered Dictator (TM): it's like
> >www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a totalitarian leader but it doesn't
> > work in the dark!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fischer reflects a need in a game that is dying. Chess is dying in
front of us.
With computers, and Ilyumzhinov, there will never be another Bobby
Fischer, absent
genetic engineering. Even if chess is randomized as Fischer suggestes,
it will
just improve the odds of a computer. All that is left is a discussion
on is Chess NP complete,
amoung computer scientists.
Fischer is important to chess due to the lack of hero's. We have none.
The last hero
is a jew hater being committed in an insane aslyum in Iceland. How
fitting!
The game is dying.
cus Roberts
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2007 09:32:25
From:
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
On Dec 6, 12:04 pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby wrote:
> >> Have you obtained permission from the New York Times to reprint
> >> their material?
>
> > No. I credited them with the article and I am not making money off
> > of the article. That is sufficient.
>
> It's certainly not sufficient under English law. Does US law really
> allow unlimited not-for-profit redistribution of copyrighted material
> in its entirety if the copyright owner is credited?
>
> Dave.
>
I see it done on blogs and forums on a regular basis. It's a 15year-
old newspaper article about chess that I am not passing off as my
own. If they wanted to "come after" me and every other person out
there that has done that, then they have waaaaayyyy too much time on
their hands.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Dec 2007 18:58:45
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
[email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 6, 12:04 pm, David Richerby <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> David Richerby wrote:
>>>> Have you obtained permission from the New York Times to reprint
>>>> their material?
>>> No. I credited them with the article and I am not making money off
>>> of the article. That is sufficient.
>> It's certainly not sufficient under English law. Does US law really
>> allow unlimited not-for-profit redistribution of copyrighted material
>> in its entirety if the copyright owner is credited?
>>
>> Dave.
>>
>
> I see it done on blogs and forums on a regular basis. It's a 15year-
> old newspaper article about chess that I am not passing off as my
> own. If they wanted to "come after" me and every other person out
> there that has done that, then they have waaaaayyyy too much time on
> their hands.
So, you see no difference between what you should do and what you can
get away with?
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2007 00:12:21
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Does US law really allow unlimited not-for-profit redistribution of
>> copyrighted material in its entirety if the copyright owner is
>> credited?
>
> I see it done on blogs and forums on a regular basis.
``But he was doing it too!'' is not a legitimate defence, in most
circumstances.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Surprise Tool (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ handy household tool but not like
you'd expect!
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Dec 2007 18:59:44
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
David Richerby wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Does US law really allow unlimited not-for-profit redistribution of
>>> copyrighted material in its entirety if the copyright owner is
>>> credited?
>> I see it done on blogs and forums on a regular basis.
>
> ``But he was doing it too!'' is not a legitimate defence, in most
> circumstances.
>
>
> Dave.
>
He learned this attitude from Guy.
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2007 08:27:48
From:
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
> Bobby's most important strength as a competitor was his fierce killer
> instinct. "Each day I go in like an unknown to prove myself," he said.
> And he did. He was uncompromising, he hated draws and fought most of
> his games to the bitter end. His greatest weakness probably was using
> the same openings over and over.
>
> I'm often asked whether Fischer or Kasparov was the better player.
> That's a tough one, but I must pick Kasparov because he has a greater
> body of work over a longer span of time. Bobby, however, did it on his
> own without coaches or subsidies. "If I win a tournament, I win it by
> myself. I do the playing. Nobody helps me," he proclaimed.
>
> Kasparov was rated number one for nearly 20 years, an incredible feat
> in any sport. Most champions have a period when they are virtually
> invincible and Fischer's reign was brief, almost meteoric. He burned
> out when he reached his peak, whereas Kasparov kept improving. I think
> all we can say with certainty is that the gap between Fischer and his
> rivals in 1972 was greater than the gap that exists now between the
> world champion and his rivals.
>
> Chess is different today. Now players have vast databases at their
> fingertips and openings have been analyzed so extensively that master
> games often begin in earnest after a dozen moves instead of move one.
> Over 30 years ago Bobby saw the writing on the wall. "Someday
> computers will make us all obsolete," he told me....
>
> In one of his radio rants, Bobby boasted: "I object to being called a
> chess genius, because I consider myself to be an all around genius who
> just happens to play chess, which is rather different. A piece of
> garbage like Kasparov might be called a chess genius, but he is like
> an idiot savant. Outside of chess he knows nothing. He and Karpov are
> criminals who have been ruining chess with immoral, unethical, pre-
> arranged games. They are the lowest dogs around."
>
> That nonsense speaks for itself. Part of the problem is that Bobby
> surrounded himself with lackeys and bootlickers who stroked his ego by
> egging him on in all those damaging radio interviews that elicited the
> wrath of the American government.
>
> I agree with what Kasparov wrote several years ago in The Wall Street
> Journal: "Fischer demolished the Soviet chess machine but could build
> nothing in its place. He was an ideal challenger - but a disastrous
> champion."
I thoroughly agree with your take on all of this. It is often
difficult to state an unbiased opinion on Fischer because of all of
his complexitites:
You have to like him for all of the following:
The amazing impact he had on chess at the time (clubs, sales,
interest, etc.).
Bringing the world championship to the U.S. (if you're an American).
His all out desire to win and not settle for a draw.
The fact that he basically did things on his own; while the Soviets
had multiple seconds, therapists, etc.
The fact that he is mostly responsible for the Candidates format being
changed for the better (in my opinion).
His introduction of the Fischer clock and time controls widely used
today.
The novelties he introduced to the game through his brilliant play.
You can also easily dislike him for:
His anti-semitism reks and beliefs.
His ridiculous difficulties when it came to game/tournament conditions
(lighting, board squares, cameras, money, chairs, spectators, etc.)
His arrogance that everyone else was always wrong and/or stupid.
Walking away from the game of chess when it (and he) was at it's
highest and robbing us many more brilliant matches.
The man is definitely a double-edged sword ..... you can love him and
hate him all at the same time.
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2007 08:08:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
On Dec 6, 10:42 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Bobby's most important strength as a competitor was his fierce killer
> instinct. "Each day I go in like an unknown to prove myself," he said.
> And he did. He was uncompromising, he hated draws and fought most of
> his games to the bitter end. His greatest weakness probably was using
> the same openings over and over.
>
> I'm often asked whether Fischer or Kasparov was the better player.
At the time this comment was made, GK was still
playing chess, so it's not exactly clear why the past
tense was chosen here.
> That's a tough one, but I must pick Kasparov because he has a greater
> body of work over a longer span of time. Bobby, however, did it on his
> own without coaches or subsidies. "If I win a tournament, I win it by
> myself. I do the playing. Nobody helps me," he proclaimed.
>
> Kasparov was rated number one for nearly 20 years, an incredible feat
> in any sport. Most champions have a period when they are virtually
> invincible and Fischer's reign was brief, almost meteoric. He burned
> out when he reached his peak, whereas Kasparov kept improving. I think
> all we can say with certainty is that the gap between Fischer and his
> rivals in 1972 was greater than the gap that exists now between the
> world champion and his rivals.
Larry Parr neglected to note the date referred to
above as "now", but a bit of research would no doubt
debunk the claim in any case.
At his very peak, BF was FIDE rated 2785, about
85 points or so ahead of rivals like Boris Spassky
and Mikhail Tal. By comparison, Gary Kasparov
at his peak was about that same distance ahead
of his closest rivals.
That's the trouble with being objective: you have to
live with the facts instead of always tweaking them
to suit one's every whim.
> Chess is different today. Now players have vast databases at their
> fingertips and openings have been analyzed so extensively that master
> games often begin in earnest after a dozen moves instead of move one.
One description of how certain GMs used to
prepare in the old days had a rekably similar
scenario; the key difference was in the use of
computers, which are more efficient at this type
of work and which afford a much larger database
of games.
> Over 30 years ago Bobby saw the writing on the wall. "Someday
> computers will make us all obsolete," he told me....
>
> In one of his radio rants, Bobby boasted: "I object to being called a
> chess genius, because I consider myself to be an all around genius who
> just happens to play chess, which is rather different. A piece of
> garbage like Kasparov might be called a chess genius, but he is like
> an idiot savant. Outside of chess he knows nothing. He and Karpov are
> criminals who have been ruining chess with immoral, unethical, pre-
> arranged games. They are the lowest dogs around."
>
> That nonsense speaks for itself. Part of the problem is that Bobby
> surrounded himself with lackeys and bootlickers who stroked his ego by
A practice later adopted by a close associate of
BF, as we have seen.
> egging him on in all those damaging radio interviews that elicited the
> wrath of the American government.
Let's not forget about the spitting incident from
1992; the arrest may not have occurred until years
later, but the indictment was already handed down.
> I agree with what Kasparov wrote several years ago in The Wall Street
> Journal: "Fischer demolished the Soviet chess machine but could build
> nothing in its place. He was an ideal challenger - but a disastrous
> champion."
The Soviet chess machine is still chugging
along, thank you. What will finally "demolish"
it is Fritzrybka, in an attack of blinding speed
and [CPU] power!
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2007 07:45:35
From:
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
>.Have you obtained permission from the New York Times to reprint their
> material?
>
> Dave.
No. I credited them with the article and I am not making money off of
the article. That is sufficient.
> By 1992, the main reason for broad interest in a
> GMs Fischer/Spassky match was to see what had
> happened to the former's level of play, and compare
> that to the endless hype in the media. Unfortunately,
> Gary Kasparov had already surpassed him. In truth,
> the original match was more interesting, for both
> players were simply at a higher level then.
>
> -- help bot
Agreed.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Dec 2007 18:57:17
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
[email protected] wrote:
>> .Have you obtained permission from the New York Times to reprint their
>> material?
>>
>> Dave.
>
> No. I credited them with the article and I am not making money off of
> the article. That is sufficient.
Says who?
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| | |
Date: 06 Dec 2007 17:04:57
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Have you obtained permission from the New York Times to reprint
>> their material?
>
> No. I credited them with the article and I am not making money off
> of the article. That is sufficient.
It's certainly not sufficient under English law. Does US law really
allow unlimited not-for-profit redistribution of copyrighted material
in its entirety if the copyright owner is credited?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Carnivorous Whisky (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ single-malt whisky but it eats flesh!
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Dec 2007 18:57:55
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
David Richerby wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> David Richerby wrote:
>>> Have you obtained permission from the New York Times to reprint
>>> their material?
>> No. I credited them with the article and I am not making money off
>> of the article. That is sufficient.
>
> It's certainly not sufficient under English law. Does US law really
> allow unlimited not-for-profit redistribution of copyrighted material
> in its entirety if the copyright owner is credited?
>
>
> Dave.
>
No, of course not. Why would you think so?
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2007 07:42:25
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
THE BOBBY FISCHER THAT WE LOVED by GM Larry Evans (in Britain's
"Chess" magazine, December 2007)
Bobby's most important strength as a competitor was his fierce killer
instinct. "Each day I go in like an unknown to prove myself," he said.
And he did. He was uncompromising, he hated draws and fought most of
his games to the bitter end. His greatest weakness probably was using
the same openings over and over.
I'm often asked whether Fischer or Kasparov was the better player.
That's a tough one, but I must pick Kasparov because he has a greater
body of work over a longer span of time. Bobby, however, did it on his
own without coaches or subsidies. "If I win a tournament, I win it by
myself. I do the playing. Nobody helps me," he proclaimed.
Kasparov was rated number one for nearly 20 years, an incredible feat
in any sport. Most champions have a period when they are virtually
invincible and Fischer's reign was brief, almost meteoric. He burned
out when he reached his peak, whereas Kasparov kept improving. I think
all we can say with certainty is that the gap between Fischer and his
rivals in 1972 was greater than the gap that exists now between the
world champion and his rivals.
Chess is different today. Now players have vast databases at their
fingertips and openings have been analyzed so extensively that master
games often begin in earnest after a dozen moves instead of move one.
Over 30 years ago Bobby saw the writing on the wall. "Someday
computers will make us all obsolete," he told me....
In one of his radio rants, Bobby boasted: "I object to being called a
chess genius, because I consider myself to be an all around genius who
just happens to play chess, which is rather different. A piece of
garbage like Kasparov might be called a chess genius, but he is like
an idiot savant. Outside of chess he knows nothing. He and Karpov are
criminals who have been ruining chess with immoral, unethical, pre-
arranged games. They are the lowest dogs around."
That nonsense speaks for itself. Part of the problem is that Bobby
surrounded himself with lackeys and bootlickers who stroked his ego by
egging him on in all those damaging radio interviews that elicited the
wrath of the American government.
I agree with what Kasparov wrote several years ago in The Wall Street
Journal: "Fischer demolished the Soviet chess machine but could build
nothing in its place. He was an ideal challenger - but a disastrous
champion."
David Richerby wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "New" meaning a new blog posting with an old NY Times article from
> > the day in 1992 of each of the games from the match (along with a
> > PGN of the actual game).
>
> Have you obtained permission from the New York Times to reprint their
> material?
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Solar-Powered Dictator (TM): it's like
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a totalitarian leader but it doesn't
> work in the dark!
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2007 06:31:57
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
On Dec 5, 2:58 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > The top post in this thread says you will post a "new"
> > article and game every Monday. Does this mean that
> > all the commentary will be snatched from the Cold War
> > era?
>
> "New" meaning a new blog posting with an old NY Times article from the
> day in 1992 of each of the games from the match (along with a PGN of
> the actual game).
>
> I am a big Spassky fan and even have a book from the 1992 re-match
> that is signed by him. If any of the 1992 articles that I post from
> the NY Times reflect any bias, I hope that you will comment on the
> blog site (http://www.rookhouse.com). I will do the same.
That Cold War rubbish just makes me want to go
to, say, chessgames.com and replay the games
as is, sans lunacy. An entire book could be written
to debunk such biased trash, but it is hardly possible
for anyone to keep up with all the hacks.
By 1992, the main reason for broad interest in a
GMs Fischer/Spassky match was to see what had
happened to the former's level of play, and compare
that to the endless hype in the media. Unfortunately,
Gary Kasparov had already surpassed him. In truth,
the original match was more interesting, for both
players were simply at a higher level then.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2007 00:40:40
From: Sanny
Subject: Please add GetClub Site on your Links Column.
|
GetClub Chess is a place where you can play with Computer as well as
Human Opponents Online.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Incase you want to earn referrer fees. Just Login and Get the referal
Link and you will earn $5.00/ Player you refer.
Bye
Sanny
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2007 11:58:24
From:
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
> The top post in this thread says you will post a "new"
> article and game every Monday. Does this mean that
> all the commentary will be snatched from the Cold War
> era?
"New" meaning a new blog posting with an old NY Times article from the
day in 1992 of each of the games from the match (along with a PGN of
the actual game).
I am a big Spassky fan and even have a book from the 1992 re-match
that is signed by him. If any of the 1992 articles that I post from
the NY Times reflect any bias, I hope that you will comment on the
blog site (http://www.rookhouse.com). I will do the same.
Thanks Again,
Morphy
|
| | |
Date: 06 Dec 2007 11:03:52
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> "New" meaning a new blog posting with an old NY Times article from
> the day in 1992 of each of the games from the match (along with a
> PGN of the actual game).
Have you obtained permission from the New York Times to reprint their
material?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Solar-Powered Dictator (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a totalitarian leader but it doesn't
work in the dark!
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2007 11:33:13
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
On Dec 5, 10:14 am, [email protected] wrote:
> I completely agree with your statements. My intention was only to
> publish the actual articles and games from the time of the match, as
> my site is predominantly a chess history site.
>
> I apologize if you thought that I posted the article as "my thoughts"
> or that I agreed with every word in the text.
>
> The "prologue" was just a New York Times article from the day before
> the match written by Robert Byrne. I was thinking that the attraction
> would more be his analysis of Game 6 from the 1972 match.
>
> As for the Herceg-Novi posting, I just put that up there as historical
> reference, as the present day World Blitz championship in Moscow had
> just finished.
>
> Thanks for the correspondance and please continue to comment and/or
> critique. It is definitely needed and appreciated ........ Morphy
The top post in this thread says you will post a "new"
article and game every Monday. Does this mean that
all the commentary will be snatched from the Cold War
era?
-----
A short time ago, Chess Lies had an article on one
of the GMs Fischer/Spassky matches, and I noticed
that the commentary was ridiculously biased against
GM Spassky. For instance, in the game where BS
as White sac'ed a Knight on d5, this was rejected in
favor of a shallow-search computer move, yet GM
Fischer was just barely able to salvage a draw! All
of the American's moves were plastered with exclams,
while the Russian's were queried for no particular
reason, apart from a heavy-handed personal bias.
With a little more time, these fancy-titled analysts
might have been shown by Fritz that their shallow-
search result was not so superior, after all. Just
like our very own nearly-an-IM Innes, no credit is
given, yet it is ever so obvious that the annotators
are often just "lifting" moves from their computers.
Here's the problem: in these complex middle games,
a lot of analysis time is required before the program
can make heads or tails of all that is going on, but
the analysts are zipping through the game quite
rapidly, confident that their 2900+ machine can
see everything. In fact, computers are not 2900+
because they see everything, but because they
*always* see the shallow stuff, unlike their human
counterparts.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2007 07:14:17
From:
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
> Okay, let me make it simple for you: the Cold
> War betwixt the USA and the USSR is over and
> done with; hence, it is pointless to saturate
> commentary on the games with lies, as in war.
>
> There is nothing to be learned from commentary
> designed to denigrate the abilities of top Russian
> players in favor of an American -- except perhaps
> how it reflects upon the unreliability of the writers,
> judged with hindsight.
>
> Here's a relatively simple example of what I am
> talking about: the article states that Bobby Fischer
> "put an end to" the Russian domination of chess;
> in fact he achieved only a brief interruption, and
> until Vishy Anand came along, the Russkies
> have dominated chess just the same as before.
>
> A single event is credited with showing America's
> superiority, whereas no mention is made of the
> undefeated record of Boris Spassky -- which was
> not merely blitz chess -- against the American.
>
> Perhaps a decade or two ago, that style of
> writing would be so commonplace as to pass
> muster in the West, but now it looks archaic,
> even silly. Take the acid test: do the anti-
> Soviet annotations stand up to scrutiny by an
> objective computer? I have yet to see any
> such annotations that do; even a recent issue
> of Chess Lies put a heavy spin on move
> annotations, to favor BF over BS. You wanna
> know what's funny? "Our" best hope at
> present is Gata Kamsky -- a Russian emigre.
> (Even if "we" were to win, "we" would lose!)
>
> -- help bot
I completely agree with your statements. My intention was only to
publish the actual articles and games from the time of the match, as
my site is predominantly a chess history site.
I apologize if you thought that I posted the article as "my thoughts"
or that I agreed with every word in the text.
The "prologue" was just a New York Times article from the day before
the match written by Robert Byrne. I was thinking that the attraction
would more be his analysis of Game 6 from the 1972 match.
As for the Herceg-Novi posting, I just put that up there as historical
reference, as the present day World Blitz championship in Moscow had
just finished.
Thanks for the correspondance and please continue to comment and/or
critique. It is definitely needed and appreciated ........ Morphy
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2007 05:51:06
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
On Dec 5, 7:51 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > The "prologue" begins with some ancient Cold War
> > Commie-bashing claptrap; how about an update?
> Not sure what you mean by this statement.
Okay, let me make it simple for you: the Cold
War betwixt the USA and the USSR is over and
done with; hence, it is pointless to saturate
commentary on the games with lies, as in war.
There is nothing to be learned from commentary
designed to denigrate the abilities of top Russian
players in favor of an American -- except perhaps
how it reflects upon the unreliability of the writers,
judged with hindsight.
Here's a relatively simple example of what I am
talking about: the article states that Bobby Fischer
"put an end to" the Russian domination of chess;
in fact he achieved only a brief interruption, and
until Vishy Anand came along, the Russkies
have dominated chess just the same as before.
A single event is credited with showing America's
superiority, whereas no mention is made of the
undefeated record of Boris Spassky -- which was
not merely blitz chess -- against the American.
Perhaps a decade or two ago, that style of
writing would be so commonplace as to pass
muster in the West, but now it looks archaic,
even silly. Take the acid test: do the anti-
Soviet annotations stand up to scrutiny by an
objective computer? I have yet to see any
such annotations that do; even a recent issue
of Chess Lies put a heavy spin on move
annotations, to favor BF over BS. You wanna
know what's funny? "Our" best hope at
present is Gata Kamsky -- a Russian emigre.
(Even if "we" were to win, "we" would lose!)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2007 04:51:00
From:
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
> The "prologue" begins with some ancient Cold War
> Commie-bashing claptrap; how about an update?
>
> -- help bot
Not sure what you mean by this statement.
The reason I'm only posting on the match once a week is that there is
not much traffic to the site yet. If I start to get some replies on
the the blog entries, I will start to post more frequently.
Thanks,
Morphy
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2007 00:55:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
On Dec 3, 8:42 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Our Rook House BLOG site is going to revisit the 1992 Fischer-Spassky
> match over the next few weeks.
>
> Every Monday, we will post a new article and game from the match in
> chronological order for your analyzation and enjoyment.
>
> http://www.rookhouse.com/blog/
The "prologue" begins with some ancient Cold War
Commie-bashing claptrap; how about an update?
------------
One thing that always amuses is the way that the
propagandists need to have it both ways; for instance,
they will proudly boast of Bobby Fischer's impressive
victory at Herceg Novi, even going so far as to use
that result to back claims of America's superiority
over the Russians (never mind that GM Reshevsky
finished below a host of Russkies), then turn right
around and complain that faster time controls have
"dumbed-down" chess. Now I ask you, what can
be faster (and hence, more dumbed-down) than
five minute blitz chess? When an entire article or
series of articles is dominated by the desperate need
to undermine the "enemy", the results can be a
hodgepodge of lies and fabrications, as we have
seen with the Larry Evans ratpack.
Another amusement is the effect of these "wars"
on analysis of the moves themselves; often as not,
the "enemy" is described as unable to do anything
right, while the local hero is right even when he is
wrong. I find it helpful to replay such games on my
computer, where the lunacy can quickly be separated
from the buffoonery; the imaginary, from the real.
I expect that when sufficient time has passed, all
the comments to these games will be ripe for a
no-nonsense rewrite from a rational approach.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 03 Dec 2007 10:38:42
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 Revisited
|
thanks , it should be interesting..
|
|
