| |
Main
Date: 19 Jan 2008 08:29:43
From: M Winther
Subject: Crocodile tears
|
Don't be too sentimental about Fischer, after all, he wasn't the best
of God's children, and he was an outright anti-Semite. Boris Spassky
was always the greater chess talent, but Fischer benefitted from his
monomania. It was also his monomania which forced him to quit. If you
only think about chess all day long and only dream about it by night,
then you risk going insane. Some people would say that we cannot
demand of geniuses that they be gentlemen, but I think it's the other
way round. They should know that they function as role models to
younger people. And stop viewing Fischer as the brilliant tactician. He
was a splendid positional player.
Mats
|
|
| |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 22:32:51
From:
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 08:29:43 +0100, "M Winther" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Don't be too sentimental about Fischer, after all, he wasn't the best
>of God's children, and he was an outright anti-Semite. Boris Spassky
>was always the greater chess talent, but Fischer benefitted from his
>monomania. It was also his monomania which forced him to quit. If you
>only think about chess all day long and only dream about it by night,
>then you risk going insane. Some people would say that we cannot
>demand of geniuses that they be gentlemen, but I think it's the other
>way round. They should know that they function as role models to
>younger people. And stop viewing Fischer as the brilliant tactician. He
>was a splendid positional player.
>
>Mats
personally, i believe his death is probably the best thing that
happened to chess. His idiotic hatefilled comments only tarnished the
reputation of chess players world wide. Im glad he never made a
'comeback' to the chess world. Maybe, just Maybe people will now get
over the 'hero woship' and look what incredible talent that is out
there now in the chess world. I think a dominant Magnus Carlsen would
do wonders for the world of chess (or any other sane player!). Fischer
was a superb player that left us many incredible 'works of art' games.
These I admire. The problem is how he lived his life. I hope now
that the endless articles by the Fischer worshipers will slowly stop.
The past is over... I would much rather read a good article on the
current players of the game.
:)
J.Lohner
|
| |
WILL FISCHER WIN THE ENDGAME OF HIS LIFE?
My interview with GM Larry Evans in 2004 about Bobby took place before
Iceland
rescued him from a Japanese jail.
http://tinyurl.com/354gcb
Yours, Larry Parr
M Winther wrote:
> Don't be too sentimental about Fischer, after all, he wasn't the best
> of God's children, and he was an outright anti-Semite. Boris Spassky
> was always the greater chess talent, but Fischer benefitted from his
> monomania. It was also his monomania which forced him to quit. If you
> only think about chess all day long and only dream about it by night,
> then you risk going insane. Some people would say that we cannot
> demand of geniuses that they be gentlemen, but I think it's the other
> way round. They should know that they function as role models to
> younger people. And stop viewing Fischer as the brilliant tactician. He
> was a splendid positional player.
>
> Mats
|
| | |
FISCHER'S LEGACY
"Bobby was truly a great person with tragic flaws. He'll probably be
remembered like Morphy -- another crazy chess genius."
[email protected] wrote:
> WILL FISCHER WIN THE ENDGAME OF HIS LIFE?
>
> My interview with GM Larry Evans in 2004 about Bobby took place before
> Iceland
> rescued him from a Japanese jail.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/354gcb
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
> M Winther wrote:
> > Don't be too sentimental about Fischer, after all, he wasn't the best
> > of God's children, and he was an outright anti-Semite. Boris Spassky
> > was always the greater chess talent, but Fischer benefitted from his
> > monomania. It was also his monomania which forced him to quit. If you
> > only think about chess all day long and only dream about it by night,
> > then you risk going insane. Some people would say that we cannot
> > demand of geniuses that they be gentlemen, but I think it's the other
> > way round. They should know that they function as role models to
> > younger people. And stop viewing Fischer as the brilliant tactician. He
> > was a splendid positional player.
> >
> > Mats
|
| |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 02:30:00
From: Necronomicon
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 19, 12:29=EF=BF=BDam, "M Winther" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Don't be too sentimental about Fischer, after all, he wasn't the best
> of God's children, and he was an outright anti-Semite. Boris Spassky
> was always the greater chess talent, but Fischer benefitted from his
> monomania. It was also his monomania which forced him to quit. If you
> only think about chess all day long and only dream about it by night,
> then you risk going insane. Some people would say that we cannot
> demand of geniuses that they be gentlemen, but I think it's the other
> way round. They should know that they function as role models to
> younger people. =EF=BF=BDAnd stop viewing Fischer as the brilliant tactici=
an. He
> was a splendid positional player.
>
> Mats
True geniuses by nature don't give a shit what society
thinks about them...
The man was a brilliant genius, but most
people consider Jose Capablanca as the most naturally
gifted Chess God.
Still, Alekhine proved that hard work can overcome
natural talent....and Fischer certainly worked hard....
RIP Bobby Fischer
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 07:55:17
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 24, 1:05 am, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> help bot wrote:
> > On Jan 20, 7:59 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> There are billions of people that are unbeaten at chess... :^)
>
> > True. But then, those people haven't yet faced
> > the Beginner level at GetClub.com.
>
> Of course they have - they are all waiting for Sanny's Folly to make
> move 11.
If they are stuck in a K vs. K & R ending, tell
them to just resign. Even the Advance level
may not be up to the task of forcing mate, but
you can bet the computer will outlast its human
opponents.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 01:26:55
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
> > =A0 True. =A0But then, those people haven't yet faced
> > the Beginner level atGetClub.com.
>
> Of course they have - they are all waiting for Sanny's Folly to make
> move 11.
>
This excuse will not work. Now Beginner level makes move in 6-10
seconds. I hope everyone can wait 10 seconds for a move.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Jan 2008 00:49:00
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
Sanny wrote:
>>> True. But then, those people haven't yet faced
>>> the Beginner level atGetClub.com.
>> Of course they have - they are all waiting for Sanny's Folly to make
>> move 11.
>>
>
> This excuse will not work. Now Beginner level makes move in 6-10
> seconds. I hope everyone can wait 10 seconds for a move.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
>
>
I don't believe you.
--
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: 23 Jan 2008 18:19:55
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 20, 7:59 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> There are billions of people that are unbeaten at chess... :^)
True. But then, those people haven't yet faced
the Beginner level at GetClub.com.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 00:05:12
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
help bot wrote:
> On Jan 20, 7:59 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> There are billions of people that are unbeaten at chess... :^)
>
> True. But then, those people haven't yet faced
> the Beginner level at GetClub.com.
>
Of course they have - they are all waiting for Sanny's Folly to make
move 11.
--
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: 23 Jan 2008 08:22:18
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 23, 3:17 am, Paul <[email protected] > wrote:
> Besides Capa, Fischer was the best.
>
> Now go snort your Viagra, Greg, and keep
> your mouth shut....
Snort? But... I thought it was a suppository?!!
-- confused bot
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jan 2008 00:17:41
From: Paul
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 22, 10:18=EF=BF=BDam, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 22, 11:55 am, Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD Even an idiot like you has stated
> > > > that AK had a lower rating than BF, so
> > > > there is some actual data, dimwit, not
> > > > idle speculation.
>
> > > =EF=BF=BD Having a high rating is no help when it comes to
> > > overcoming irrational fears, Skippy. =EF=BF=BDIndeed, the
> > > higher the rating, the more such fears can be
> > > magnified, the more one perceives he has to lose,
> > > the farther one feels he has to fall.
>
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDFischer would have crushed Karpov=
, Dickky.
>
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDThe data is there.
>
> =EF=BF=BD Where?
>
> =EF=BF=BD Before their match in 1972, Bobby Fischer could
> not manage even a single win against the lower-
> rated Boris Spassky! =EF=BF=BDAs top players have put it
> so many times, "Tal beats Petrosian, Petrosian
> beats Kortchnoi, Kortchnoi beats Keres, and
> Keres beats Tal" -- though I have forgotten the
> correct sequence of players.
>
> =EF=BF=BD So it is not enough to have FIDE ratings to
> compare; you also need to know something
> about the players' styles, and perhaps even how
> the openings battles would play out. =EF=BF=BDBesides, by
> and large, BF earned his ultra-high rating by what
> is commonly known as "rabbit-bashing", or
> beating up on low-rated players, such as in his
> repeated victories in the USA championships.
> =EF=BF=BD Compared to a Russian championship tourney,
> that is akin to Wilt Chamberlain playing a team
> of midgets (aka "little people").
>
> =EF=BF=BD Besides, if the chicken won't show up to the
> board, it makes no difference how high-rated he
> may be, or how strong a player when he does
> play. =EF=BF=BDYou see, in order to win, you gotta play
> the game. =EF=BF=BDAs the lottery people put it, you
> can't win if you don't play. =EF=BF=BDIf anyone had any
> doubts whatever, they ought to have been
> erased in 1992, when BF once again ducked
> his strongest rivals in favor of a 2500+ rabbit.
>
> =EF=BF=BDOh, and by the way Skip, you shouldn't base
> your "reasoning" (such that it is) on what you
> maintain are the comments and opinions of
> "idiots"; that's because idiots can't be trusted
> to brush their own teeth, let alone get the facts
> right. =EF=BF=BDNow run along and take your meds. =EF=BF=BDThe
> doctors will let you play bullet-chess tomorrow.
>
Besides Capa, Fischer was the best.
Now go snort your Viagra, Greg, and keep
your mouth shut....
|
| | |
THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND....
>As far as I know, the only top player who seemed fully objective on such matters, whose writings could be trusted, was GM Botvinnik. Just about everyone else has been affected by the mountain of biased writings which have appeared over the years in the lunatic-controlled press.> -- help bot (aka Greg Kennedy)
>Utter nonsense. Our Greg yet again demonstrates the amazing depth of
his ignorance. > -- Taylor Kingston
If there a name for someone who persists in abysmal errors even
after these abysmal errors have been patiently pointed out to him, it
would have to be Greg Kennedy?
Botvinnik argued that Taimanov had good chances
to defeat Bobby. Tal, on the other hand, was
objective. In notes that were secret at the time, he
counselled Spassky and his fellows to study even
Bobby's five-minute games. He called Fischer the
greatest genius to have descended from the chessic sky
-- much to the annoyance of Soviet Party types.
When I interviewed and spoke with Tal at the old Manhattan
Chess Club, he simply said that Bobby played at a different
level than he and the others. He seconded GM Evans' comment
that against any other great player, one had a chance to recover
after an error; but against Bobby, you were destined to lose. That
is likely what Kashdan meant when he engaged in the hyperbole of
saying that a theoretical edge for Bobby was the same as being
a Queen ahead.
Yours, Larry Parr
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Jan 22, 12:18?pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > ? So it is not enough to have FIDE ratings to
> > compare; you also need to know something
> > about the players' styles, and perhaps even how
> > the openings battles would play out. ?Besides, by
> > and large, BF earned his ultra-high rating by what
> > is commonly known as "rabbit-bashing", or
> > beating up on low-rated players, such as in his
> > repeated victories in the USA championships.
>
> Utter nonsense. Our Greg yet again demonstrates the amazing depth of
> his ignorance. Fischer last played in a US Championship in very early
> 1967; in fact this was his last competition on American soil. His FIDE
> rating was barely over 2700 at the time. He retired from chess after
> winning the world title in 1972, with a rating about 80 points higher.
> Those points came entirely in international competition, most of it
> very high-level .
> In every one of his 7 tournaments 1967-70 he finished clear first.
> Those placing below him read like a "Who's Who in Chess" for the time:
> Smyslov, Geller, Larsen, Matanovic, Gligoric, Kholmov, Hort,
> Matulovic, Gheorghiu, Korchnoi, Petrosian, Ivkov, Tukmakov, Najdorf,
> Reshevsky, Mecking, Huebner, Uhlmann, Portisch, Polugaevsky, Panno,
> Taimanov, etc.
> And let's not forget the Candidate Matches in which he pasted
> Taimanov, Larsen and Petrosian with a combined score of +18 -1 =3. Not
> to mention beating a guy named Spassky +7 -2 =11.
>
> Some bunch of rabbits. If those guys were rabbits, then it's the
> kind seen here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jan 2008 13:22:23
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 22, 3:40 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> Fischer last played in a US Championship in very early
> 1967; in fact this was his last competition on American soil.
Ownership is irrelevant; what matters here
is, was the event FIDE-rated or not?
> His FIDE
> rating was barely over 2700 at the time.
Which would have made him the top-rated
player in the word, I expect. You see, back
then, even 2690 was world-champion level.
Even lower in Tigran Petrosian's case.
This is precisely what I wrote, that BF
started off from a high base, attained before
facing the baddie Russians.
> He retired from chess after
> winning the world title in 1972, with a rating about 80 points higher.
About, eh? Maybe FIDE tracked partial
points in a database, but BF's published
rating was exactly 80 points higher, as was
well known to everybody and his brother.
> Those points came entirely in international competition, most of it
> very high-level .
From an American's perspective, yes.
But from the perspective of any of the
top Russian contenders, those were
rabbits, mainly. Truth is, special rules
excluded some of the world's best
players from competing, because they
were from... the Soviet Union.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Pal
Benko was paid off to *give* his spot
up for BF, who didn't even have to
qualify.
> In every one of his 7 tournaments 1967-70 he finished clear first.
> Those placing below him read like a "Who's Who in Chess" for the time:
> Smyslov, Geller, Larsen, Matanovic, Gligoric, Kholmov, Hort,
> Matulovic, Gheorghiu, Korchnoi, Petrosian, Ivkov, Tukmakov, Najdorf,
> Reshevsky, Mecking, Huebner, Uhlmann, Portisch, Polugaevsky, Panno,
> Taimanov, etc.
Q: Who is Boris Spassky?
> And let's not forget the Candidate Matches in which he pasted
> Taimanov, Larsen and Petrosian with a combined score of +18 -1 =3. Not
> to mention beating a guy named Spassky +7 -2 =11.
No, I believe world champion Spassky was
exempted from having to work through the
candidates matches, for some reason or
other. ; >D
> Some bunch of rabbits.
Illiteracy is a terrible thing; one can only
hope that TK gets help, and can one day
read -- and comprehend -- others.
> If those guys were rabbits, then it's the
> kind seen here:
I see as rabbits the American GMs and
IMs that BF bashed senseless, over and
over. Plus Ed Mednis, of course.
An interesting turn of events was when
Bobby Fischer managed to manhandle
Tigran Petrosian in a team event-- on
board *two*. Even though playing the
second board was a bit of a letdown in
itself, this victory over the former world
champ sent a clear message: "We"
have developed another powerful
weapon, and have no need to use it on
the Japanese this time... .
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jan 2008 12:40:44
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 22, 12:18=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> =A0 So it is not enough to have FIDE ratings to
> compare; you also need to know something
> about the players' styles, and perhaps even how
> the openings battles would play out. =A0Besides, by
> and large, BF earned his ultra-high rating by what
> is commonly known as "rabbit-bashing", or
> beating up on low-rated players, such as in his
> repeated victories in the USA championships.
Utter nonsense. Our Greg yet again demonstrates the amazing depth of
his ignorance. Fischer last played in a US Championship in very early
1967; in fact this was his last competition on American soil. His FIDE
rating was barely over 2700 at the time. He retired from chess after
winning the world title in 1972, with a rating about 80 points higher.
Those points came entirely in international competition, most of it
very high-level .
In every one of his 7 tournaments 1967-70 he finished clear first.
Those placing below him read like a "Who's Who in Chess" for the time:
Smyslov, Geller, Larsen, Matanovic, Gligoric, Kholmov, Hort,
Matulovic, Gheorghiu, Korchnoi, Petrosian, Ivkov, Tukmakov, Najdorf,
Reshevsky, Mecking, Huebner, Uhlmann, Portisch, Polugaevsky, Panno,
Taimanov, etc.
And let's not forget the Candidate Matches in which he pasted
Taimanov, Larsen and Petrosian with a combined score of +18 -1 =3D3. Not
to mention beating a guy named Spassky +7 -2 =3D11.
Some bunch of rabbits. If those guys were rabbits, then it's the
kind seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DXcxKIJTb3Hg
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jan 2008 12:39:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 22, 3:00 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> This argument is incorrect, though relevant.
> Fischer's high rating came from his demolishing
> his competition in the WC cycle, which involved
> competitors far stronger than one would ever
> find in a US championship.
But he started from a "base" which was
already elevated, from extensive rabbit-
bashing; from there, he indeed rose to
even greater heights via 6-0 crushes of
players who were, as you say, far stronger
than those he faced locally. But not so
very strong in those particular matches,
eh? Bent Larsen in particular, fell well
short of the level of play he had exhibited
in getting to his own peak rating, and the
same might be said for k Taimanov.
> What would have caused Fischer trouble in
> a match with Karpov is his own match
> conditions (First to 10 wins, draws don't count).
Speaking of incorrectness, you seem to
have forgotten -- if that is quite the word --
about the win-by-two condition that BF
desired. I think that particular condition
would likely have posed serious problems
for the challenger.
Let me give an example of a game in
which Boris Spassky played brilliantly, at
least part of the time, yet only drew as
White due to BF's equally brilliant
defensive skill; it's a game that appeared
in a recent issue of Chess Lies, annotated
of course so as to make BF look good,
and his evil-Russian opponent appear to
have been outsted by his superior, by
an American. The diagram always shows
the key move by Boris Spassky, Nxd5--
a pawn which was defended by another
pawn; a superb sacrifice, and a superb
defensive save by BF, IMO. Some guys
are just harder to beat than others.
> After 1975, it took the chess world 3 *years* to
> give Karpov 10 defeats even though he played
> actively. Fischer's WC cycle involved something like
> 60 games over 3 years. That's a far cry from facing
> a super GM like Karpov day after day for 60
> games. Fischer's training, coasting through US
> championships and the like, would have been
> virtually worthless.
Well, if it took three years for others to
take GM Karpov down three times, that
is not proof that it would have taken BF
very long to do the same; the reason is
simple: Bobby Fischer played better than
"the world" did. In fact, even GM Karpov
probably could have taken ten games
from himself in well under three years,
because he too, played better than the
rest of the world. But there would have
been a helluva lot of draws! : >D
> It would have been fun to see, but for better or
> worse, Fischer had moved on beyond chess
> at that point.
Ah, yes. The Worldwide Church of God
had taken him in. Taken him in, indeed.
After winning the FIDE championship title,
Bobby Fischer moved on to bigger and
better things (like hiding from the press,
or getting arrested by the Pasadena
police, for instance). Meanwhile, we the
chess playing public got hammered with
chess books written by everybody and
his brother, come to cash in on the Cold
War chess boom.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
GREG'S RECTAL EXTRACTIONS
>What a surprise. No book title, no page number, no web page, a big fat nothing. Sorry, hallucinations produced by brain damage don't qualify as evidence.> -- David Kane
Contrary to the assertion of David Kane, there is little evidence that
Greg Kennedy suffers from brain damage.
Greg's difficulty is that he has never read very much. In the 1960s,
as he tells us, he consulted comic books rather than the plays of
Terence or Plautus. He lowballed himself intellectually. And the
instances are legion of his historical lacunae, including an almost
charming innocence that Poland was part of the Russian empire rather
than an independent country during World War I. One smiled.
And so, that's our Greg in a hollow, if not nutty shell. He ain 't
crazy. He's unread.
Greg now finds himself being bullwhipped and bullied by Kane. Still
worse -- and we admit to scraping our knuckles on a cheese grater
because of this fact -- veritas rests with Kingston in the Fischer
discussion.
Petrosian hit the deck very hard in his match loss to Fischer. The
loss in game six was a near thing, and Fischer's play in game seven
arose from a position that Petrosian had analyzed beforehand and
regarded as safe. Bobby proved him wrong in one of his most famous
games.
How did our Greg manage to become, as was said of some young gentlemen
who once consorted with Norman Whitaker, Kingston's buttboy -- if in
this instance to befair to Greg and possibly Kingston, only an
epistemological catamite?
The answer is simple enough. Greg cannot bring himself to view Bobby
Fischer as his greatest grandmaster competitors did: a Caissic
whirlwind. Greg must cringe when recalling Mikhail Tal's judgment that
Fischer was the greatest genius to have descended from the chessic
skies. Srong and often bitter opponents accorded Fischer a respect as
a player that Greg is unable to do.
This fact colors in falsehood much of what help bot spews. And now,
Kingston is laying on the lash as Greg crawls around Tinytown. It's a
scene worthy of Trollope: a young Regency buck encounters a blighter
who has dishonored his sister, and he bullwhips the wretch right in
the street.
Imagine Uriah Heep as a factory worker in Indiana, and you understand
a fair part of our Greg.
David Kane wrote:
> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:e26089b8-c840-4d6d-8948-1948b058ce02@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 29, 11:41 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> You simply don't understand ratings. I'm not
> >> sure if you're educable, but I'll try. Playing weaker players
> >> gives you a higher score, but as it is expected, does
> >> not boost your rating. The only way your argument
> >> would make any sense would be if US players were
> >> systematically overrated (zero evidence of that).
> >> And as Taylor Kingston showed, his rating was largely
> >> the product of his results against Interzonal participants,
> >
> > Ah, now we see why you are having so much
> > difficulty here; it was decided by some third
> > party that the point in time when BF breached
> > "2700" would be his arbitrary cutoff, for purposes
> > of discussing the "before" and the "after"; that
> > was not my decision, and he gave no dates to
> > correlate this to, so we would need to do a bit
> > of research.
>
> The less you know, the more you ramble on.
> If you think that is original, you are mistaken.
> It's a technique the ignorant make use of quite
> regularly.
>
> Again, you've given absolutely zero evidence
> that Fischer's FIDE rating was "inflated", for
> any reason.
>
> >
> >> What a surprise. No book title, no page number,
> >> no web page, a big fat nothing. Sorry,
> >> hallucinations produced by brain damage
> >> don't qualify as evidence.
> >
> > The "evidence", as you call it, is that some
> > of the posters in this thread are clueless as
> > to what are known to be the facts regarding
> > what Tigran Petrosian has written about his
> > match with BF.
>
> What a surprise. No book title, no page number,
> no web page, a big fat nothing. Sorry,
> hallucinations produced by brain damage
> don't qualify as evidence.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 17:29:11
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 30, 5:15 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> What a surprise. No book title, no page number,
> no web page, a big fat nothing. Sorry,
> hallucinations produced by brain damage
> don't qualify as evidence.
There are none so blind, as those who are just too
stupid to open their eyes. Such wankers are doomed
to live in utter ignorance of the legacy of such greats
as Tigran Petrosian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to his testimony regarding being offered
a bribe to throw his match to Bobby Fischer (good
money down the drain, eh?), TP also expounded on
the process of the drawing for lots, which he saw as
having been fixed, or "guided", if you prefer, to ensure
a particular result.
Throughout the rest of the text, the former world
champ seemed to be particularly objective-- the very
antithesis of such hacks as Gary Kasparov, whose
personal biases and pet peeves made up the bulk of
his rantings. So it is difficult to imagine that TP's
reports could have been invented as a way to excuse
his "failure" to stop BF; indeed, next to Bent Larson's
result, TP's looked to be a stunning success; TP
proudly recounts an "ovation" he received upon
breaking BF's long winning streak by defeating him
early in the match.
But what I found to be particularly "interesting" was
the recounting of the lights-out incident, in conjunction
with the known facts regarding BF's very peculiar
insistence on gaining control of the lights. In the
movies, at least back then, an assassination or a
kidnapping was quite often accompanied by the same
sort of lights-out event, and it reminds me of the same
sort of "pressure" allegedly applied to Victor Kortchnoi
in his match with AK; of course, since the American
press did not like AK, they used that as an excuse
for "why VK lost"; yet I see no substantive difference,
except that TP did not report that his life had been
threatened outright, not did anything bad happen to
him-- once he somehow lost that game, and then the
match.
Alas, if this had been but a single, isolated incident,
we could perhaps dismiss it and move on; but to the
contrary, this fits a pattern of peculiarities, which
included the final, the match to determine the champion
of the world. Thus, rather than recklessly dismiss it,
the wise thing to do is examine it... carefully.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to all these other issues, I ran across
yet another interesting fact: before some of these
candidates matches, and even afterward, famous
players were asked to give their predictions on
who would win each match, and why.
Now, certain hacks here in rgc have "selectively
reported" a few such predictions regarding the non-
match between Bobby Fischer and his challenger,
while of course withholding any predictions which
the hacks did not want anyone to see. My point
is that these predictions, judging from what I've
seen, are as often wrong as right! So even if the
sad sack "reporters" were honest enough to show
every such prediction they knew about (which they
obviously aren't), it makes no difference whatever;
the record of the pundits is horrific; they are as
often wrong as right on such things-- except when
they just point to a ratings chart, perhaps.
Many of the pundits sat on the fence, refusing to
commit to any position which might be proved
wrong. Obviously, there was a certain amount of
political pressure to *not* predict a sweeping
victory for the enemy, to tilt in favor of the home
team, so to speak. But even accounting for this,
their record in predicting outcomes was simply
awful; nonetheless, I expect the hacks here will
remain as gung-ho as ever, and gleefully continue
to "selectively report" predictions which match
their own, um, unique viewpoints.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Jan 2008 13:19:19
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jan 22, 3:00 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This argument is incorrect, though relevant.
>> Fischer's high rating came from his demolishing
>> his competition in the WC cycle, which involved
>> competitors far stronger than one would ever
>> find in a US championship.
>
> But he started from a "base" which was
> already elevated, from extensive rabbit-
> bashing; from there, he indeed rose to
> even greater heights via 6-0 crushes of
> players who were, as you say, far stronger
> than those he faced locally. But not so
> very strong in those particular matches,
> eh? Bent Larsen in particular, fell well
> short of the level of play he had exhibited
> in getting to his own peak rating, and the
> same might be said for k Taimanov.
The point is that his high rating was not due
to his results in US championships. Period.
>
>> What would have caused Fischer trouble in
>> a match with Karpov is his own match
>> conditions (First to 10 wins, draws don't count).
>
> Speaking of incorrectness, you seem to
> have forgotten -- if that is quite the word --
> about the win-by-two condition that BF
> desired. I think that particular condition
> would likely have posed serious problems
> for the challenger.
The "win-by-two" was never anything
but a proposal. Had the match
taken place, it would have been "win-by-one".
>
> Let me give an example of a game in
> which Boris Spassky played brilliantly, at
> least part of the time, yet only drew as
> White due to BF's equally brilliant
> defensive skill; it's a game that appeared
> in a recent issue of Chess Lies, annotated
> of course so as to make BF look good,
> and his evil-Russian opponent appear to
> have been outsted by his superior, by
> an American. The diagram always shows
> the key move by Boris Spassky, Nxd5--
> a pawn which was defended by another
> pawn; a superb sacrifice, and a superb
> defensive save by BF, IMO. Some guys
> are just harder to beat than others.
>
>
>> After 1975, it took the chess world 3 *years* to
>> give Karpov 10 defeats even though he played
>> actively. Fischer's WC cycle involved something like
>> 60 games over 3 years. That's a far cry from facing
>> a super GM like Karpov day after day for 60
>> games. Fischer's training, coasting through US
>> championships and the like, would have been
>> virtually worthless.
>
> Well, if it took three years for others to
> take GM Karpov down three times, that
ten, not three
> is not proof that it would have taken BF
> very long to do the same; the reason is
> simple: Bobby Fischer played better than
> "the world" did.
Sure, but if it took say, 60 games, a reasonable
estimate in my opinion, that is 2-3 straight months
of chess. That's an effort many, many times
higher than Fischer had ever experienced.
(Not that facing Fischer day in and day out
would have been a picnic for Karpov.) It's hard
to imagine Karpov getting ahead of Fischer, but
just as hard to imagine Fischer surviving that long
without cracking.
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Jan 2008 06:07:01
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 30, 9:54=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> GREG'S RECTAL EXTRACTIONS
>
> >What a surprise. No book title, no page number, no web page, a big fat no=
thing. Sorry, hallucinations produced by brain damage don't qualify as evide=
nce. > -- David Kane
>
> Contrary to the assertion of David Kane, there is little evidence that
> Greg Kennedy suffers from brain damage.
>
> Greg's difficulty is that he has never read very much. =A0In the 1960s,
> as he tells us, he consulted comic books rather than the plays of
> Terence or Plautus. =A0He lowballed himself intellectually. =A0And the
> instances are legion of his historical lacunae, including an almost
> charming innocence that Poland was part of the Russian empire rather
> than an independent country during World War I. =A0One smiled.
>
> And so, that's our Greg in a hollow, if not nutty shell. =A0He ain 't
> crazy. He's unread.
Larry, it's not just that Greg is unread -- he cites the unreadable.
He makes up references that simply don't exist. Years ago he claimed
that I had written a review trashing all of Edward Lasker's books.
Totally wrong: one, I like Lasker's books, and two, I've never written
any reviews of any of them.
Then more recently he claimed that Simon Webb's "Chess for Tigers"
advocates cheating. I have that book, I've read every word of it, and
there's nothing to Greg's claim.
Now he's been claiming that Petrosian speaks of Fischer-match
bribery "in one of his books." Yet our Greg can produce no details, no
actual quote, no page number, no publisher, not even a title for this
alleged Petrosian book, by which anyone might check his claim. At best
he seems to have misremembered the Matulovic-Taimanov affair; at worst
he's engaged in outright fabrication.
Compared to Greg's standards of scholarship and evidence, wet
kleenex is steel.
|
| | | | |
KENNEDY'S PRIDE IN IGNORANCE
As Greg Kennedy continues to derogate Fischer
and implies without any evidence that the American's
crushing victory -- 6 1/2 - 2 1/2 -- over Petrosian at
Buenos Aires might have been the result of a bribe
paid to the Soviet opponent, it is worthwhile to
recollect what Petrosian himself wrote, "After the 6th
game Fischer really did become a genius." (Plitsetsky
and Voronkov, Russians Versus Fischer, page 278.)
Indeed, since many of the documents in the
Plisetsky and Voronkov volume were classified and
probably would still be secret if the Soviet Union had
not collapsed. It contains some very frank statements
made by great players trying to stop Fischer's progress
on behalf of the USSR.
About the Fischer-Taimanov match, Spassky told a
Meeting of the USSR Chess Federaton Coaches' Council
(June 7, 1971): "I kept saying that they should hide
from Taimanov the truth about Fischer's strength so as
not to discourage him." After Kotov made some further
reks about Fischer's "Incredible concentration" and
calling him "an ideal chessplayer in every respect,"
Spassky chipped in, "When we have all lost to Fischer
will all of us be dragged on the carpet?" Petrosian
did not dispute Spassky's prediction and responded,
"Yes, but not here." (By which Tigran meant a
tribunal worse than a Coaches' Council meeting
-- like Siberia.)
One of the lines of attack frequently employed
by those hating Fischer is that he was afraid to play.
This opinion was not shared by the Soviets in their
private discussions and papers. The psychologist
Krogius wrote, "It is a fact that when you see Fischer
at the chessboard, all talk about uncertainty or lack
of confidence seems absurd." Spassky also said at a
special meeting of the USSR Sports Committee, "I was
also mistaken in believing that Fischer was trying to
find excuses not to play the match."
Lev Alburt, who was still in the USSR at the
time, describes how Karpov felt about his chances:
"Karpov always took a sober view of what he was
capable of. He knew he could hardly draw a game with
Fischer, never mind winning one or two games. His
only chance was to disrupt the match. So a whole
arsenal of tricks was worked out, designed to upset
the sensitive American." Karpov himself said
following the FIDE Congress that rejected Fischer's
title demands, "There is now no reason to be nervous."
Wrote Taimanov about Fischer's capacities: "He
knew a lot while still a youth, but as the years went
by his chess knowledge became simply infinite. His
brain, as if designed for chess, was like a chess
computer. As Botvinnik once reked: 'Fischer knew
everything ever written about chess and tried out on
the chessboard.'"
GM Vasyukov more or less summed up at a Coaches'
Meeting the impression made by Fischer's play against
Taimanov, "In general he never thought over a move for
more than 10-15 minutes, no matter how difficuilt the
problems confronting him. I had never seen such
stability. Fischer made several only moves." To
which Taimanov responded, "I am ashamed of the score,
but I cannot see any flaws in my play .... If Fischer
has even a slight edge and the partner has no
counterplay the result can be considered a foregone
conclusion." This was an echo of Kashdan's rek
that a theoretical edge with Bobby was the same as
being a Queen ahead.
Taimanov also described his loss to Bobby at the
1970 Palma Interzonal. The game was particularly
noteworthy because the Soviet GM as Black played
nearly a perfect game and still lost. "In the final
stage," Taimanov wrote, "Fischer was simply
magnificent! For the first time I myself experienced
a rekable quality of Fischer's, which I had earlier
heard about from colleagues. As soon as Fischer
senses the slightest slackening of his opponent's
energy, an uncertainty in his playing, he instantly
musters all his strength and begins playing with a
trebled determination to win."
Greg Kennedy simply cannot admit what
Bobby's greatest opponents talked about with
admiration and awe.
Yours, Larry Parr
[email protected] wrote:
> GREG'S RECTAL EXTRACTIONS
>
> >What a surprise. No book title, no page number, no web page, a big fat nothing. Sorry, hallucinations produced by brain damage don't qualify as evidence.> -- David Kane
>
> Contrary to the assertion of David Kane, there is little evidence that
> Greg Kennedy suffers from brain damage.
>
> Greg's difficulty is that he has never read very much. In the 1960s,
> as he tells us, he consulted comic books rather than the plays of
> Terence or Plautus. He lowballed himself intellectually. And the
> instances are legion of his historical lacunae, including an almost
> charming innocence that Poland was part of the Russian empire rather
> than an independent country during World War I. One smiled.
>
> And so, that's our Greg in a hollow, if not nutty shell. He ain 't
> crazy. He's unread.
>
> Greg now finds himself being bullwhipped and bullied by Kane. Still
> worse -- and we admit to scraping our knuckles on a cheese grater
> because of this fact -- veritas rests with Kingston in the Fischer
> discussion.
>
> Petrosian hit the deck very hard in his match loss to Fischer. The
> loss in game six was a near thing, and Fischer's play in game seven
> arose from a position that Petrosian had analyzed beforehand and
> regarded as safe. Bobby proved him wrong in one of his most famous
> games.
>
> How did our Greg manage to become, as was said of some young gentlemen
> who once consorted with Norman Whitaker, Kingston's buttboy -- if in
> this instance to befair to Greg and possibly Kingston, only an
> epistemological catamite?
>
> The answer is simple enough. Greg cannot bring himself to view Bobby
> Fischer as his greatest grandmaster competitors did: a Caissic
> whirlwind. Greg must cringe when recalling Mikhail Tal's judgment that
> Fischer was the greatest genius to have descended from the chessic
> skies. Srong and often bitter opponents accorded Fischer a respect as
> a player that Greg is unable to do.
>
> This fact colors in falsehood much of what help bot spews. And now,
> Kingston is laying on the lash as Greg crawls around Tinytown. It's a
> scene worthy of Trollope: a young Regency buck encounters a blighter
> who has dishonored his sister, and he bullwhips the wretch right in
> the street.
>
> Imagine Uriah Heep as a factory worker in Indiana, and you understand
> a fair part of our Greg.
>
>
>
>
> David Kane wrote:
> > "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:e26089b8-c840-4d6d-8948-1948b058ce02@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Jan 29, 11:41 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> You simply don't understand ratings. I'm not
> > >> sure if you're educable, but I'll try. Playing weaker players
> > >> gives you a higher score, but as it is expected, does
> > >> not boost your rating. The only way your argument
> > >> would make any sense would be if US players were
> > >> systematically overrated (zero evidence of that).
> > >> And as Taylor Kingston showed, his rating was largely
> > >> the product of his results against Interzonal participants,
> > >
> > > Ah, now we see why you are having so much
> > > difficulty here; it was decided by some third
> > > party that the point in time when BF breached
> > > "2700" would be his arbitrary cutoff, for purposes
> > > of discussing the "before" and the "after"; that
> > > was not my decision, and he gave no dates to
> > > correlate this to, so we would need to do a bit
> > > of research.
> >
> > The less you know, the more you ramble on.
> > If you think that is original, you are mistaken.
> > It's a technique the ignorant make use of quite
> > regularly.
> >
> > Again, you've given absolutely zero evidence
> > that Fischer's FIDE rating was "inflated", for
> > any reason.
> >
> > >
> > >> What a surprise. No book title, no page number,
> > >> no web page, a big fat nothing. Sorry,
> > >> hallucinations produced by brain damage
> > >> don't qualify as evidence.
> > >
> > > The "evidence", as you call it, is that some
> > > of the posters in this thread are clueless as
> > > to what are known to be the facts regarding
> > > what Tigran Petrosian has written about his
> > > match with BF.
> >
> > What a surprise. No book title, no page number,
> > no web page, a big fat nothing. Sorry,
> > hallucinations produced by brain damage
> > don't qualify as evidence.
|
| | |
GREG IS ALL WET
< Besides, by and large, BF earned his ultra-high rating by what is
commonly known as "rabbit-bashing", or beating up on low-rated
players, such as in his repeated victories in the USA
championships. > -- help bot (aka Greg Kennedy) again spouting his
Fischer-envy
From my interview with 5-time U.S. champion GM Larry Evans in WILL
FISCHER WIN THE ENDGAME OF HIS LIFE? (July 2004)
http://tinyurl.com/354gcb
The men of chess who strayed into the path of this Ultimate Tornado of
a Gamesman were swirled high into the intellectual ether. An old
Fischer enemy in Sovietsky Sport could only splutter, "A miracle has
occurred," to describe one of the American's results. Mikhail
Botvinnik, the iron icon of Red materialism, charged that God was on
Bobby's side. Tal, too, took up religious imagery, calling Fischer
"the greatest genius to have descended from the chessic sky." Raymond
Keene described Bobby as "a kind of angry chess god incarnate ... waging
total warfare on the chess board." Miguel Najdorf was almost downbeat,
merely claiming that Fischer "simply throws the pieces up in the air,
and somehow they land on the right squares!" Which might have been
because, as Isaac Kashdan opined, "in Fischer's hands a slight
theoretical advantage is as good as being a Queen ahead." Jack
Collins, Fischer's old teacher, answered an interviewer's question
about his charge's weaknesses by responding, "I think that your
question makes an assumption which no longer applied to him .... You
see, he had no weaknesses as a chessplayer. He had only strengths - a
fierce will to win, great stamina, a memory nonpareil, extraordinary
visualization, knowledge unmatched, and even long experience."
We return to the days of yesteryear with Grandmaster Larry Evans who
remembers Bobby as he knew him - Bobby the friend, Bobby the chess
genius, Bobby the man, and as time passed, Bobby the fugitive. We will
also talk about Bobby the prisoner - in jail and of his own mind.
help bot wrote:
> On Jan 22, 11:55 am, Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Even an idiot like you has stated
> > > > that AK had a lower rating than BF, so
> > > > there is some actual data, dimwit, not
> > > > idle speculation.
> >
> > > Having a high rating is no help when it comes to
> > > overcoming irrational fears, Skippy. Indeed, the
> > > higher the rating, the more such fears can be
> > > magnified, the more one perceives he has to lose,
> > > the farther one feels he has to fall.
> >
> > Fischer would have crushed Karpov, Dickky.
> >
> > The data is there.
>
> Where?
>
>
> Before their match in 1972, Bobby Fischer could
> not manage even a single win against the lower-
> rated Boris Spassky! As top players have put it
> so many times, "Tal beats Petrosian, Petrosian
> beats Kortchnoi, Kortchnoi beats Keres, and
> Keres beats Tal" -- though I have forgotten the
> correct sequence of players.
>
> So it is not enough to have FIDE ratings to
> compare; you also need to know something
> about the players' styles, and perhaps even how
> the openings battles would play out. Besides, by
> and large, BF earned his ultra-high rating by what
> is commonly known as "rabbit-bashing", or
> beating up on low-rated players, such as in his
> repeated victories in the USA championships.
> Compared to a Russian championship tourney,
> that is akin to Wilt Chamberlain playing a team
> of midgets (aka "little people").
>
> Besides, if the chicken won't show up to the
> board, it makes no difference how high-rated he
> may be, or how strong a player when he does
> play. You see, in order to win, you gotta play
> the game. As the lottery people put it, you
> can't win if you don't play. If anyone had any
> doubts whatever, they ought to have been
> erased in 1992, when BF once again ducked
> his strongest rivals in favor of a 2500+ rabbit.
>
> Oh, and by the way Skip, you shouldn't base
> your "reasoning" (such that it is) on what you
> maintain are the comments and opinions of
> "idiots"; that's because idiots can't be trusted
> to brush their own teeth, let alone get the facts
> right. Now run along and take your meds. The
> doctors will let you play bullet-chess tomorrow.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jan 2008 09:18:04
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 22, 11:55 am, Paul <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > Even an idiot like you has stated
> > > that AK had a lower rating than BF, so
> > > there is some actual data, dimwit, not
> > > idle speculation.
>
> > Having a high rating is no help when it comes to
> > overcoming irrational fears, Skippy. Indeed, the
> > higher the rating, the more such fears can be
> > magnified, the more one perceives he has to lose,
> > the farther one feels he has to fall.
>
> Fischer would have crushed Karpov, Dickky.
>
> The data is there.
Where?
Before their match in 1972, Bobby Fischer could
not manage even a single win against the lower-
rated Boris Spassky! As top players have put it
so many times, "Tal beats Petrosian, Petrosian
beats Kortchnoi, Kortchnoi beats Keres, and
Keres beats Tal" -- though I have forgotten the
correct sequence of players.
So it is not enough to have FIDE ratings to
compare; you also need to know something
about the players' styles, and perhaps even how
the openings battles would play out. Besides, by
and large, BF earned his ultra-high rating by what
is commonly known as "rabbit-bashing", or
beating up on low-rated players, such as in his
repeated victories in the USA championships.
Compared to a Russian championship tourney,
that is akin to Wilt Chamberlain playing a team
of midgets (aka "little people").
Besides, if the chicken won't show up to the
board, it makes no difference how high-rated he
may be, or how strong a player when he does
play. You see, in order to win, you gotta play
the game. As the lottery people put it, you
can't win if you don't play. If anyone had any
doubts whatever, they ought to have been
erased in 1992, when BF once again ducked
his strongest rivals in favor of a 2500+ rabbit.
Oh, and by the way Skip, you shouldn't base
your "reasoning" (such that it is) on what you
maintain are the comments and opinions of
"idiots"; that's because idiots can't be trusted
to brush their own teeth, let alone get the facts
right. Now run along and take your meds. The
doctors will let you play bullet-chess tomorrow.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 13:46:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 29, 11:41 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> You simply don't understand ratings. I'm not
> sure if you're educable, but I'll try. Playing weaker players
> gives you a higher score, but as it is expected, does
> not boost your rating. The only way your argument
> would make any sense would be if US players were
> systematically overrated (zero evidence of that).
> And as Taylor Kingston showed, his rating was largely
> the product of his results against Interzonal participants,
Ah, now we see why you are having so much
difficulty here; it was decided by some third
party that the point in time when BF breached
"2700" would be his arbitrary cutoff, for purposes
of discussing the "before" and the "after"; that
was not my decision, and he gave no dates to
correlate this to, so we would need to do a bit
of research.
Obviously, if TK is discussing a rating of some
sort based on BF's Interzonal results, then he
has LEAPED beyond the k-- missing that
fellow's entire point; you can't compare BF's
"before" with his "after" by skipping the before
part and then gibbering nonsense like Taylor
Kingston.
> Candidates, Spassky etc. There is zero evidence that
> the rating Fischer earned with his play in the US was
> something that he could not sustain internationally.
No, you are mistaken; the rating BF earned
in his local events were mainly USCF-rated,
resulting ultimately in something like a 2825,
as I recall. That is not comparable to the FIDE
ratings of the time, and as we saw, the FIDE
numbers tended to be lower than the USCF's
by a significant amount. Here are two numbers
for comparison purposes, looking of course at
the very tip-top of the chess world, at Bobby
Fischer's peak:
USCF 2825
FIDE 2785
Now, that might not seem like a very big
difference to you and me, but back then, it
was a case of BF putting a hundred points
between his *USCF* and the *FIDE* ratings
of the Russian world champions-- a very big
deal during the Cold War era of lies and
propaganda.
> What a surprise. No book title, no page number,
> no web page, a big fat nothing. Sorry,
> hallucinations produced by brain damage
> don't qualify as evidence.
The "evidence", as you call it, is that some
of the posters in this thread are clueless as
to what are known to be the facts regarding
what Tigran Petrosian has written about his
match with BF. That in itself is excusable,
but what really amazes is the pride these
ignoramuses seem to take in their own
wallowing in ignorance. Look, kid: there are
only so many books and articles written, in
English, by Tigran Petrosian; anyone with any
skill whatever in research ought to be able to
turn up a reference for further research by
simply googling about. If this were some
obscure work in Russian, it would be a very
different matter; to the contrary, this is the
only account I know of by TP on the match,
and as BF was afraid of getting caught in an
analytical error, it is the definitive account of
those games, in some ways.
Perhaps the root of the problem is fear; fear
of discovering that BF won, not because he
was a chessic god, but because his opponent
made more human errors; you know the kind I
mean-- the same kind that BF feared he might
make in wring chess books; the fear that
crippled him, and kept him from becoming,
very likely, the most popular chess writer of
all time.
-- help bot
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 14:15:26
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:e26089b8-c840-4d6d-8948-1948b058ce02@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 29, 11:41 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You simply don't understand ratings. I'm not
>> sure if you're educable, but I'll try. Playing weaker players
>> gives you a higher score, but as it is expected, does
>> not boost your rating. The only way your argument
>> would make any sense would be if US players were
>> systematically overrated (zero evidence of that).
>> And as Taylor Kingston showed, his rating was largely
>> the product of his results against Interzonal participants,
>
> Ah, now we see why you are having so much
> difficulty here; it was decided by some third
> party that the point in time when BF breached
> "2700" would be his arbitrary cutoff, for purposes
> of discussing the "before" and the "after"; that
> was not my decision, and he gave no dates to
> correlate this to, so we would need to do a bit
> of research.
The less you know, the more you ramble on.
If you think that is original, you are mistaken.
It's a technique the ignorant make use of quite
regularly.
Again, you've given absolutely zero evidence
that Fischer's FIDE rating was "inflated", for
any reason.
>
>> What a surprise. No book title, no page number,
>> no web page, a big fat nothing. Sorry,
>> hallucinations produced by brain damage
>> don't qualify as evidence.
>
> The "evidence", as you call it, is that some
> of the posters in this thread are clueless as
> to what are known to be the facts regarding
> what Tigran Petrosian has written about his
> match with BF.
What a surprise. No book title, no page number,
no web page, a big fat nothing. Sorry,
hallucinations produced by brain damage
don't qualify as evidence.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 06:52:39
From:
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 29, 11:41=A0pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > =A0In this case, even a google search would
> > probably turn up evidence, but then, you
> > have to be st enough to actually look
> > for it! =A0LOL
I ran an online search for the words "Tigran Petrosian," "bribery,"
and "chess." All that came up were references to a corrupt Armenian
ruler by that name, not the chess world champion.
> What a surprise. No book title, no page number,
> no web page, a big fat nothing. Sorry,
> hallucinations produced by brain damage
> don't qualify as evidence.
I searched on Amazon.com and abebooks.com for all books of which
Petrosian was author or co-author. Here's what turned up:
"Jubilarni Medjunarodni Veleturnir Bled 1961" -- Bled 1961
tournament book. Very unlikely to contain information about bribery in
1971.
"The World Chess Championship 1963" -- Self-explanatory. Again, very
unlikely to contain information about bribery in 1971.
"First Piatgorsky Cup International Grandmaster Chess Tournament,
July 1963" -- Tournament book. I have this. Petrosian annotated one
game. No information about bribery in 1971.
"Second Piatigorsky Cup" (1966) -- Tournament book. I have this.
Petrosian annotated several games, but again, as would be expected, no
information about bribery in 1971.
"World chess championship, Moscow, 1969" -- Self-explanatory. Again,
very unlikely to contain information about bribery in 1971.
"How to Open a Chess Game" (1974) -- Petrosian one of several
authors, along with Keres, Evans, Gligoric et al. I've seen this in a
bookstore, but not read its entirety. While it's conceivable that it
might have something about bribery, it seems a very unlikely place for
it.
"LINGVISTICHESKIY SLOVAR" (1975) -- I have no idea what's in this
book, and unless help-bot reads Armenian, neither does he.
"Tigran Petrosian: His Life and Games" (1974) -- If help-bot's
smoking gun is in any Petrosian book, this seems the most likely
candidate. Any rgcm readers have it?
Perhaps this will jog our Greg's memory, and he will reveal to us
the source of his amazing revelations. Until he does, we will continue
to incline toward the rectal extraction hypothesis.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Jan 2008 12:00:55
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:294cf0ed-3a05-4941-a89c-7569768e0772@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 22, 11:55 am, Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > > Even an idiot like you has stated
>> > > that AK had a lower rating than BF, so
>> > > there is some actual data, dimwit, not
>> > > idle speculation.
>>
>> > Having a high rating is no help when it comes to
>> > overcoming irrational fears, Skippy. Indeed, the
>> > higher the rating, the more such fears can be
>> > magnified, the more one perceives he has to lose,
>> > the farther one feels he has to fall.
>>
>> Fischer would have crushed Karpov, Dickky.
>>
>> The data is there.
>
> Where?
>
>
> Before their match in 1972, Bobby Fischer could
> not manage even a single win against the lower-
> rated Boris Spassky! As top players have put it
> so many times, "Tal beats Petrosian, Petrosian
> beats Kortchnoi, Kortchnoi beats Keres, and
> Keres beats Tal" -- though I have forgotten the
> correct sequence of players.
>
> So it is not enough to have FIDE ratings to
> compare; you also need to know something
> about the players' styles, and perhaps even how
> the openings battles would play out. Besides, by
> and large, BF earned his ultra-high rating by what
> is commonly known as "rabbit-bashing", or
> beating up on low-rated players, such as in his
> repeated victories in the USA championships.
> Compared to a Russian championship tourney,
> that is akin to Wilt Chamberlain playing a team
> of midgets (aka "little people").
This argument is incorrect, though relevant.
Fischer's high rating came from his demolishing
his competition in the WC cycle, which involved
competitors far stronger than one would ever
find in a US championship.
What would have caused Fischer trouble in
a match with Karpov is his own match
conditions (First to 10 wins, draws don't count).
After 1975, it took the chess world 3 *years* to
give Karpov 10 defeats even though he played
actively. Fischer's WC cycle involved something like
60 games over 3 years. That's a far cry from facing
a super GM like Karpov day after day for 60
games. Fischer's training, coasting through US
championships and the like, would have been
virtually worthless.
It would have been fun to see, but for better or
worse, Fischer had moved on beyond chess
at that point.
>
> Besides, if the chicken won't show up to the
> board, it makes no difference how high-rated he
> may be, or how strong a player when he does
> play. You see, in order to win, you gotta play
> the game. As the lottery people put it, you
> can't win if you don't play. If anyone had any
> doubts whatever, they ought to have been
> erased in 1992, when BF once again ducked
> his strongest rivals in favor of a 2500+ rabbit.
>
> Oh, and by the way Skip, you shouldn't base
> your "reasoning" (such that it is) on what you
> maintain are the comments and opinions of
> "idiots"; that's because idiots can't be trusted
> to brush their own teeth, let alone get the facts
> right. Now run along and take your meds. The
> doctors will let you play bullet-chess tomorrow.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 14:01:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 30, 9:52 am, [email protected] wrote:
> I ran an online search for the words "Tigran Petrosian," "bribery,"
> and "chess." All that came up were references to a corrupt Armenian
> ruler by that name, not the chess world champion.
Here's a pointer for those who are new to doing
such research: never use so much, to find so
little.
My god-- suppose you wanted to find something
on swallowing the tongue-- is it really possible?
Would you type in "can homo sapiens swallow
their tongues or not, tell me now or I'll have a
fit"? I doubt that would be the best way to get
results.
Here, the word "Tigran" is redundant, obviously
many hits would substitute "GM" or even "world
champion" for that term.
And choosing "bribery" instead of "bribe" seems
to hint at a desperate desire to *not* succeed. He
wrote that he was offered a "bribe", so how are you
going to get the "ery" portion, pray tell?
> I searched on Amazon.com
Now this is a huge improvement. Instead
of ducking the facts, he goes right at them,
for a change.
> and abebooks.com for all books of which
> Petrosian was author or co-author. Here's what turned up:
>
> "Jubilarni Medjunarodni Veleturnir Bled 1961" -- Bled 1961
> tournament book. Very unlikely to contain information about bribery in
> 1971.
St. A regular Sherlock Holmes.
> "The World Chess Championship 1963" -- Self-explanatory. Again, very
> unlikely to contain information about bribery in 1971.
>
> "First Piatgorsky Cup International Grandmaster Chess Tournament,
> July 1963" -- Tournament book. I have this. Petrosian annotated one
> game. No information about bribery in 1971.
Did he spend much time looking, I wonder?
> "Second Piatigorsky Cup" (1966) -- Tournament book. I have this.
> Petrosian annotated several games, but again, as would be expected, no
> information about bribery in 1971.
>
> "World chess championship, Moscow, 1969" -- Self-explanatory. Again,
> very unlikely to contain information about bribery in 1971.
>
> "How to Open a Chess Game" (1974) -- Petrosian one of several
> authors, along with Keres, Evans, Gligoric et al. I've seen this in a
> bookstore, but not read its entirety. While it's conceivable that it
> might have something about bribery, it seems a very unlikely place for
> it.
I think I detect a pattern here; it consists in
*pretending* to look for information about the
1971 match, while actually avoiding it like the
plague by "discussing" books written before
the events in question. What did I tell you
about fear-- about its iron grip on the weak
minded?
> "LINGVISTICHESKIY SLOVAR" (1975) -- I have no idea what's in this
> book, and unless help-bot reads Armenian, neither does he.
Let me think; is it possible that "Bobby
Fischer" is spelled that way in Armenian?
I'm guessing: no.
> "Tigran Petrosian: His Life and Games" (1974) -- If help-bot's
> smoking gun is in any Petrosian book, this seems the most likely
> candidate. Any rgcm readers have it?
> Perhaps this will jog our Greg's memory, and he will reveal to us
> the source of his amazing revelations. Until he does, we will continue
> to incline toward the rectal extraction hypothesis.
Ah, backing off a bit, are we? Now it is
termed a "hypothesis", is it? LOL!
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jan 2008 08:55:29
From: Paul
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 22, 3:55=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 21, 3:05 pm, Necronomicon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 Even an idiot like you has stated
> > that AK had a lower rating than BF, so
> > there is some actual data, dimwit, not
> > idle speculation.
>
> =A0 Having a high rating is no help when it comes to
> overcoming irrational fears, Skippy. =A0Indeed, the
> higher the rating, the more such fears can be
> magnified, the more one perceives he has to lose,
> the farther one feels he has to fall.
>
Fischer would have crushed Karpov, Dickky.
The data is there.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 19:49:20
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 28, 12:43 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have never heard of any bribe offer to Petrosian in connection
> with his Candidates Match vs. Fischer
This is hardly surprising. Try reading up on
a fellow named Tigran Petrosian (hopefully,
you've heard of /him/). LOL
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jan 2008 03:06:44
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 22, 1:30 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> According to GM Lev Alburt, among others, GM Anatoly
> Karpov himself regarded his chances as very slim in a
> match with Fischer in 1975.
It is unclear where or why hearsay enters into
the matter. AK has written plenty himself, so
it is quite unnecessary to introduce the blurring
of having his comments relayed through others,
then through Cold War rhetoricians and their ilk.
As far as I know, the only top player who
seemed fully objective on such matters, whose
writings could be trusted, was GM Botvinnik.
Just about everyone else has been affected by
the mountain of biased writings which have
appeared over the years in the lunatic-controlled
press. Add to that the fact that these loonies
cannot be trusted to report any opinions which
might contradict their own biases, and you get
an idea of just how little such comments are
really worth.
From LP's perspective, anything reported or
believed by players like LA or RK is as good as
gold. Meanwhile, there are others whose own
reports and opinions are kept, you know-- hush,
hush! And so it goes... .
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jan 2008 02:55:14
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 21, 3:05 pm, Necronomicon <[email protected] > wrote:
> Even an idiot like you has stated
> that AK had a lower rating than BF, so
> there is some actual data, dimwit, not
> idle speculation.
Having a high rating is no help when it comes to
overcoming irrational fears, Skippy. Indeed, the
higher the rating, the more such fears can be
magnified, the more one perceives he has to lose,
the farther one feels he has to fall.
A real-world example is the fact that Rybka has
started off with weaker players for its pawn-odds
matches, as yet having no luck in finding a TOP
GM who is willing to put his reputation under the
gun. This is typical, but in cases where irrational
lunatics are concerned, drastic measures may
become necessary-- like say, a doubling of the
prize fund, along with publicly stating that BF
is a squawking chicken if he then switches to
another excuse for not showing up to play. LOL!
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 19:47:03
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 28, 3:07 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Fact remains. Fischer's rating was not inflated by
> having his US championship wins rated. It was
> lowered because they were rated. You've put
> forth no reasonable rating scenario which would
> have given Fischer a lower rating.
How about this one: suppose BF had been
magically transported to Moscow, and instead
of playing Art Bisguire and friends, he had
faced the top Russian players? I expect his
performance rating would have come out lower,
on account of not winning quite so many
games.
> It can be discounted at the present for the simple
> reason that you, an unreliable reporter, are
> the one presenting it.
Imbeciles often "discount" the facts, when
they ought instead to be correcting their own
titanic ignorance by doing a spot of research.
In this case, even a google search would
probably turn up evidence, but then, you
have to be st enough to actually look
for it! LOL
Come back when you're ready for the prime
time, kiddo. Right now, you're looking to be
in the same ballpark as nearly-IMnes & Co.
-- help bot
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 20:41:34
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:4b0a8047-1678-4872-a038-080966b1b1c0@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 28, 3:07 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Fact remains. Fischer's rating was not inflated by
>> having his US championship wins rated. It was
>> lowered because they were rated. You've put
>> forth no reasonable rating scenario which would
>> have given Fischer a lower rating.
>
> How about this one: suppose BF had been
> magically transported to Moscow, and instead
> of playing Art Bisguire and friends, he had
> faced the top Russian players? I expect his
> performance rating would have come out lower,
> on account of not winning quite so many
> games.
>
You simply don't understand ratings. I'm not
sure if you're educable, but I'll try. Playing weaker players
gives you a higher score, but as it is expected, does
not boost your rating. The only way your argument
would make any sense would be if US players were
systematically overrated (zero evidence of that).
And as Taylor Kingston showed, his rating was largely
the product of his results against Interzonal participants,
Candidates, Spassky etc. There is zero evidence that
the rating Fischer earned with his play in the US was
something that he could not sustain internationally.
Quite the opposite in fact.
>> It can be discounted at the present for the simple
>> reason that you, an unreliable reporter, are
>> the one presenting it.
>
> Imbeciles often "discount" the facts, when
> they ought instead to be correcting their own
> titanic ignorance by doing a spot of research.
>
> In this case, even a google search would
> probably turn up evidence, but then, you
> have to be st enough to actually look
> for it! LOL
>
What a surprise. No book title, no page number,
no web page, a big fat nothing. Sorry,
hallucinations produced by brain damage
don't qualify as evidence.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Jan 2008 09:43:22
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 28, 3:07=A0am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >> > =A0The fact remains that one of BF's
> >> > challengers -- a man who had no need to make
> >> > any excuses, BTW -- related that he had been
> >> > offered a bribe to throw his match to BF. =A0Now,
> >> > have a good look at the other two matches and
> >> > then tell me it is impossible that the very same
> >> > offer was made to others. =A0In addition to bribery,
> >> > there are other ways and means to impact the
> >> > result of chess matches. =A0In any case, even
> >> > champions like Em. Lasker could not win 6-0
> >> > or 7-0 every time; that's partly luck.
>
> >> I have never heard this bribery theory,
>
> > =A0It's no "theory"; it's a fact that TP wrote about
> > this in one of his books-- whether BF fans like it
> > or not.
>
> It can be discounted at the present for the simple
> reason that you, an unreliable reporter, are
> the one presenting it.Frankly it is not
> a question that interests me greatly, but
> what is your source? I assume you are
> not claiming that Petrosian told you this
> personally. I'll wait and see what the
> *credible* people like Taylor Kingston
> have to say about it.
I have never heard of any bribe offer to Petrosian in connection
with his Candidates Match vs. Fischer, nor in any other connection.
The only thing remotely resembling this allegation is the case of
Matulovic throwing his game against Taimanov in the 1970 Interzonal,
so that Taimanov would qualify for the Candidates round.
As usual, help-bot gives no source or any other support for his
allegation. If indeed Petrosian said this "in one of his books," it
would seem a simple matter to quote the relevant passage, giving the
book title and page number. But Greg never actually seems to have the
books he claims to cite. Without such elementary substantiation, this
appears to be merely another figment of Greg's imagination, like the
review in which I supposedly trashed Edward Lasker.
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Jan 2008 10:08:26
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have never heard of any bribe offer to Petrosian in connection
>with his Candidates Match vs. Fischer, nor in any other connection.
>The only thing remotely resembling this allegation is the case of
>Matulovic throwing his game against Taimanov in the 1970 Interzonal,
>so that Taimanov would qualify for the Candidates round.
> As usual, help-bot gives no source or any other support for his
>allegation. If indeed Petrosian said this "in one of his books," it
>would seem a simple matter to quote the relevant passage, giving the
>book title and page number. But Greg never actually seems to have the
>books he claims to cite. Without such elementary substantiation, this
>appears to be merely another figment of Greg's imagination, like the
>review in which I supposedly trashed Edward Lasker.
Thanks. I'm not holding my breath. help bot seems to take
tremendous pride in his ignorance.
|
| | |
THE MATCH THAT WASN'T
According to GM Lev Alburt, among others, GM Anatoly
Karpov himself regarded his chances as very slim in a
match with Fischer in 1975. Karpov had a very clear-eyed
understanding of his capabilities, unlike some of his supporters.
[email protected] wrote:
> COULD AGREE WITH YOU MORE!
>
> <What an empty-headed, insolent little jerk you really are, Greg.
> Sort of like an apoplectic chihuahua: full of sound and fury,
> signifying nothing, but barking at everyone.> -- Taylor Kingston to
> help bot Greg Kennedy)
>
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > On Jan 20, 11:08?am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > ? ?For some folks, being "introduced to sex" is not
> > > quite the same thing as having GM Evans hire a
> > > prostitute; you see, some folks believe that a man
> > > ought not to pay money for sex, that a woman
> > > ought not to take such monies, and so on; it's a
> > > religious thing, so perhaps TK wouldn't understand.
> >
> > What an empty-headed, insolent little jerk you really are, Greg.
> > Sort of like an apoplectic chihuahua: full of sound and fury,
> > signifying nothing, but barking at everyone.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jan 2008 12:05:54
From: Necronomicon
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 21, 11:11=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 21, 12:37 pm, Necronomicon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > =A0 I already wrote the fool up for this violation.
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 And i wiped my ass with it...
>
> > > =A0 Unfortunately, I am not authorized to levy
> > > fines, or toss the imbeciles in jail. =A0In sum,
> > > they are free to continue making jackasses
> > > of themselves, willy-nilly.
>
> > > =A0 -- police bot
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 Fu** Off, wanna-be cop...
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 Fischer Dominated. =A0Period. =A0Karpov
> > would've been CRUSHED.
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0And I will crush YOU.
>
> =A0 From just how far up would BF need to be
> dropped, in order to "crush" AK?
>
> =A0 For what it's worth, Fischer's fans have long
> speculated that had, say, Victor Kortchnoi
> dropped AK on BF from three stories up,
> the latter would have been "crushed like a
> chicken". =A0(As it was, AK merely got tossed
> out a first-storey window, and only his ego was
> affected.)
>
> =A0 Other speculations persist regarding what
> might have happened if BF had not been so
> afraid, had he ever dared to face AK OTB.
> But these idle speculations are always
> reflective of personal hopes and biases,
> rather than reasoned calculations or logic.
> These emotional hacks merely unveil such
> things as a desperate /need/ to create an
> infallible hero to worship, to idolize. =A0This
> imaginary hero can do amazing things, in
> their minds-- even conquer his own fears
> and then crush the evil Russkies (cast as
> villains by the American press during and
> even after the Cold War era)!
>
> =A0 Me, I prefer Batman. =A0In addition to his, um,
> uniqueness, there are his many cool toys to
> consider: batmobile, batcycle, batchopper,
> batboat, etc. =A0 =A0Plus, he has a much cooler
> uniform than Bobby Fischer (who merely
> dressed as a nerd). =A0 Now, I'm not saying
> that the fact that Catwoman was mysteriously
> sexy has nothing to do with my preference for
> Batman over BF; that BF's nerdy persona
> allowed for no female villains (or heroines,
> for that matter) was decisive. =A0Al I'm saying
> is that whining about the Pasadena police
> is not exactly my idea of heroism and daring-
> do... .
>
> =A0 -- help bot- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Even an idiot like you has stated
that AK had a lower rating than BF, so
there is some actual data, dimwit, not
idle speculation.
Capa and Fischer Forever!
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 17:19:34
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 24, 4:49 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> No. I am saying that one's rating is based on a combination of new
> >> and old results. In Fischer's case, his old results were lower,
> >> and therefore depressed his rating. There is nothing
> >> wrong with this, but it is a fact nonetheless.
>
> > Yeah, well as far as I know, every world champion
> > did it the same way: by having inferior results back
> > when they were not successful in the championship
> > cycle, then following up with really good results.
>
> The difference is that, for them, you are not making
> the idiotic claim their early results were somehow
> inflated (giving no rational reason why, of course) and
> that that was how their ratings got so high.
The reason is obvious: we were not discussing
those other champions' ratings.
If I wanted, I probably could find some previous
champ who had an inflated rating, but it is not
really material.
> >> It makes no sense to argue that somebody's rating
> >> was inflated when they go out and exceed it by a
> >> massive gin.
>
> > I disagree. The fact remains that one of BF's
> > challengers -- a man who had no need to make
> > any excuses, BTW -- related that he had been
> > offered a bribe to throw his match to BF. Now,
> > have a good look at the other two matches and
> > then tell me it is impossible that the very same
> > offer was made to others. In addition to bribery,
> > there are other ways and means to impact the
> > result of chess matches. In any case, even
> > champions like Em. Lasker could not win 6-0
> > or 7-0 every time; that's partly luck.
>
> I have never heard this bribery theory,
It's no "theory"; it's a fact that TP wrote about
this in one of his books-- whether BF fans like it
or not.
> and lend it zero credence.
Some people are so fixated on their own
opinions, they don't want to even accept
the existence of facts which challenge their
funky ideas! In order to reject this one in
particular, you probably need to hypothesize
that TP had some desperate need to make
an excuse for losing to BF; I find that to be
unconvincing; everybody lost to BF, and on
top of that, TP had already lost his title to
BS, and already had been bested by BF in
a fairly recent team tourney; he was not
likely to have been in denial when he wrote
about this, and his other "observations" are
verifiable and match the known facts.
> And the theory behind ratings
> is that they average results over many games -
> so the "lucky" 6-0's *are* balanced out by the
> "unlucky" 12.5/20's.
Actually, the theory has it that a perfect result
yields no specific performance rating, because it
is an anomaly, just like to 0-6 loss. Toss in the
bribery charge and a bit of BF-instigated chaos,
and you have what the western press deemed to
be unacceptable, when VK was the victim.
> As I said in the beginning, Fischer's total number
> of games up in the 2850 range was relatively
> small, and the way that rating formulae deal
> with it, should not be taken too seriously.
I like to look at the actual games, to see if a
2800+ level performance was due more to the
amazing quality of the winner's play, or to an
"inexplicable" falloff in the quality of the loser's
play.
For instance, when GM Kramnik defeated
one challenger, I noted that he did so mainly
by exploiting really poor, hyper-aggressive
moves-- not by any overwhelming strategic
skills. In tennis, they call them unforced
errors, and what stood out was the
apparent desperation on the part of his
opponent to avoid drawing, even though it
meant losing like a fish instead.
> >> In his Candidates and WC matches, about
> >> 40 games, he performed at the 2850 level
>
> > How odd; generally, numbers don't cooperate
> > so smoothly, instead throwing up decimals or
> > fractions or funky odd numbers, like say 2847.5.
>
> It's called rounding. I don't have official FIDE documents
> concerning their rating practices circa 1970, so I
> simply put in his opponents' ratings from a
> database I have, with the win expectancy formula
> used by the USCF. But basically it is ~75% vs.
> ~2650.
Interesting. I believe FIDE uses a different
formula than the USCF, but mainly that
affects the *rate of change*, or the weighting
of new games versus old.
> Ratings are recalculated with each event.
> It's not a subjective decision.
Obviously, what I was talking about was
the poster who himself decided that BF's
results up to the 2700 number were the
"before", while his results afterward would
be treated as the "after"; that's an arbitrary
decision.
> Chessmetrics will confirm what I have said -
> that there is a huge increase in Fischer's performance
> 70-72.
Yeah, but I don't think the WC cycle lasts
quite that long. Once again, the cutoff date
is arbitrarily chosen.
> (BTW Chessmetrics, unlike ELO, weights results
> according to how old they are, with zero weighting
> for results more than 4 years old. That is why it
> shows Karpov passing Fischer around 1975. These
> should be taken no more seriously than Elo, of course.)
Well, many of their decisions seem to be
completely arbitrary. Obviously, BF had
retired in 1972, so his chess rating for the
year 1975 should be "NA".
I expect that AK's rating jumped, and that's
probably what pushed him past BF's bogus
1975 rating number.
> Just be quiet and learn.
Speaking of learning, kid-- you ought to do
a spot of reading up on a fellow named Tigran
Petrosian. In particular, his comments on his
match with BF would be enlightening to
someone in your, um, ignorant situation.
In addition to thoughts on bribery, I found
discussion of the lighting issue to be rather
interesting reading.
-- help bot
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Jan 2008 00:07:33
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:922faeb4-8ead-4f96-94d9-9dc374759eb2@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 24, 4:49 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> No. I am saying that one's rating is based on a combination of new
>> >> and old results. In Fischer's case, his old results were lower,
>> >> and therefore depressed his rating. There is nothing
>> >> wrong with this, but it is a fact nonetheless.
>>
>> > Yeah, well as far as I know, every world champion
>> > did it the same way: by having inferior results back
>> > when they were not successful in the championship
>> > cycle, then following up with really good results.
>>
>> The difference is that, for them, you are not making
>> the idiotic claim their early results were somehow
>> inflated (giving no rational reason why, of course) and
>> that that was how their ratings got so high.
>
> The reason is obvious: we were not discussing
> those other champions' ratings.
Fact remains. Fischer's rating was not inflated by
having his US championship wins rated. It was
lowered because they were rated. You've put
forth no reasonable rating scenario which would
have given Fischer a lower rating.
> If I wanted, I probably could find some previous
> champ who had an inflated rating, but it is not
> really material.
You haven't found *any* champ who fits that
category. Your argument is completely without
factual basis.
Glorifying your ignorance of rating systems
is not becoming.
>
>
>> >> It makes no sense to argue that somebody's rating
>> >> was inflated when they go out and exceed it by a
>> >> massive gin.
>>
>> > I disagree. The fact remains that one of BF's
>> > challengers -- a man who had no need to make
>> > any excuses, BTW -- related that he had been
>> > offered a bribe to throw his match to BF. Now,
>> > have a good look at the other two matches and
>> > then tell me it is impossible that the very same
>> > offer was made to others. In addition to bribery,
>> > there are other ways and means to impact the
>> > result of chess matches. In any case, even
>> > champions like Em. Lasker could not win 6-0
>> > or 7-0 every time; that's partly luck.
>>
>> I have never heard this bribery theory,
>
> It's no "theory"; it's a fact that TP wrote about
> this in one of his books-- whether BF fans like it
> or not.
>
>
>> and lend it zero credence.
>
> Some people are so fixated on their own
> opinions, they don't want to even accept
> the existence of facts which challenge their
> funky ideas! In order to reject this one in
> particular, you probably need to hypothesize
> that TP had some desperate need to make
> an excuse for losing to BF; I find that to be
> unconvincing; everybody lost to BF, and on
> top of that, TP had already lost his title to
> BS, and already had been bested by BF in
> a fairly recent team tourney; he was not
> likely to have been in denial when he wrote
> about this, and his other "observations" are
> verifiable and match the known facts.
It can be discounted at the present for the simple
reason that you, an unreliable reporter, are
the one presenting it.Frankly it is not
a question that interests me greatly, but
what is your source? I assume you are
not claiming that Petrosian told you this
personally. I'll wait and see what the
*credible* people like Taylor Kingston
have to say about it.
>
>> And the theory behind ratings
>> is that they average results over many games -
>> so the "lucky" 6-0's *are* balanced out by the
>> "unlucky" 12.5/20's.
>
> Actually, the theory has it that a perfect result
> yields no specific performance rating,
I never claimed that it did. BTW, "performance
rating" is not a relevant factor in the current USCF
rating system. If you are claiming that there is something
wrong with FIDE's method, you'll have to be specific.
because it
> is an anomaly, just like to 0-6 loss. Toss in the
> bribery charge and a bit of BF-instigated chaos,
> and you have what the western press deemed to
> be unacceptable, when VK was the victim.
The rating system under discussion deals only with
results. If you don't like that, fine, and wish to propose
an alternate system factoring in "chaos" feel free to do
so.
>
>
>> As I said in the beginning, Fischer's total number
>> of games up in the 2850 range was relatively
>> small, and the way that rating formulae deal
>> with it, should not be taken too seriously.
>
> I like to look at the actual games, to see if a
> 2800+ level performance was due more to the
> amazing quality of the winner's play, or to an
> "inexplicable" falloff in the quality of the loser's
> play.
No one is stopping you. But Elo rating (and
chessmetrics btw) are based on a specifically
defined "result".
>
> For instance, when GM Kramnik defeated
> one challenger, I noted that he did so mainly
> by exploiting really poor, hyper-aggressive
> moves-- not by any overwhelming strategic
> skills. In tennis, they call them unforced
> errors, and what stood out was the
> apparent desperation on the part of his
> opponent to avoid drawing, even though it
> meant losing like a fish instead.
>
>
>> >> In his Candidates and WC matches, about
>> >> 40 games, he performed at the 2850 level
>>
>> > How odd; generally, numbers don't cooperate
>> > so smoothly, instead throwing up decimals or
>> > fractions or funky odd numbers, like say 2847.5.
>>
>> It's called rounding. I don't have official FIDE documents
>> concerning their rating practices circa 1970, so I
>> simply put in his opponents' ratings from a
>> database I have, with the win expectancy formula
>> used by the USCF. But basically it is ~75% vs.
>> ~2650.
>
> Interesting. I believe FIDE uses a different
> formula than the USCF, but mainly that
> affects the *rate of change*, or the weighting
> of new games versus old.
>
>
>> Ratings are recalculated with each event.
>> It's not a subjective decision.
>
> Obviously, what I was talking about was
> the poster who himself decided that BF's
> results up to the 2700 number were the
> "before", while his results afterward would
> be treated as the "after"; that's an arbitrary
> decision.
>
>
>> Chessmetrics will confirm what I have said -
>> that there is a huge increase in Fischer's performance
>> 70-72.
>
> Yeah, but I don't think the WC cycle lasts
> quite that long. Once again, the cutoff date
> is arbitrarily chosen.
>
>
>> (BTW Chessmetrics, unlike ELO, weights results
>> according to how old they are, with zero weighting
>> for results more than 4 years old. That is why it
>> shows Karpov passing Fischer around 1975. These
>> should be taken no more seriously than Elo, of course.)
>
> Well, many of their decisions seem to be
> completely arbitrary. Obviously, BF had
> retired in 1972, so his chess rating for the
> year 1975 should be "NA".
>
> I expect that AK's rating jumped, and that's
> probably what pushed him past BF's bogus
> 1975 rating number.
Chessmetrics tosses old results and penalizes
inactivity. So Fischer's rating started to fall in 72.
By 75, it was back to where it had historically been
(pre-WC cycle). Meanwhile, Karpov had been
playing actively and well, and had reached that
same level.
Of course, no rational person would discount
Fischer's performance in the 72 cycle. My own
speculation is that if Fischer had played Karpov
under the normal rules, best of 24 (incidentally
with a nice champion's advantage) that he would
have played a few weeks, finished +2 or whatever,
and made everybody happy - but himself. Fischer
would have seen that as too ordinary. So he
decided to stop after achieving the extraordinary.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jan 2008 10:11:15
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 21, 12:37 pm, Necronomicon <[email protected] > wrote:
> > I already wrote the fool up for this violation.
>
> And i wiped my ass with it...
>
> > Unfortunately, I am not authorized to levy
> > fines, or toss the imbeciles in jail. In sum,
> > they are free to continue making jackasses
> > of themselves, willy-nilly.
>
> > -- police bot
>
> Fu** Off, wanna-be cop...
>
> Fischer Dominated. Period. Karpov
> would've been CRUSHED.
>
> And I will crush YOU.
From just how far up would BF need to be
dropped, in order to "crush" AK?
For what it's worth, Fischer's fans have long
speculated that had, say, Victor Kortchnoi
dropped AK on BF from three stories up,
the latter would have been "crushed like a
chicken". (As it was, AK merely got tossed
out a first-storey window, and only his ego was
affected.)
Other speculations persist regarding what
might have happened if BF had not been so
afraid, had he ever dared to face AK OTB.
But these idle speculations are always
reflective of personal hopes and biases,
rather than reasoned calculations or logic.
These emotional hacks merely unveil such
things as a desperate /need/ to create an
infallible hero to worship, to idolize. This
imaginary hero can do amazing things, in
their minds-- even conquer his own fears
and then crush the evil Russkies (cast as
villains by the American press during and
even after the Cold War era)!
Me, I prefer Batman. In addition to his, um,
uniqueness, there are his many cool toys to
consider: batmobile, batcycle, batchopper,
batboat, etc. Plus, he has a much cooler
uniform than Bobby Fischer (who merely
dressed as a nerd). Now, I'm not saying
that the fact that Catwoman was mysteriously
sexy has nothing to do with my preference for
Batman over BF; that BF's nerdy persona
allowed for no female villains (or heroines,
for that matter) was decisive. Al I'm saying
is that whining about the Pasadena police
is not exactly my idea of heroism and daring-
do... .
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jan 2008 09:49:47
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 21, 1:59 am, Paul <[email protected] > wrote:
> > There are billions of people that are unbeaten at chess... :^)
> Send them my way...i'll fix that real quick...
Skip-- are you off your meds again?
You know what the doctors say: that when
you stop taking your meds, you begin to
cuss uncontrollably, spew bile and hateful
reks, and ultimately if not controlled,
issue threats to go down to the USA and
"beat up" the entire country! I know they
don't help your bullet-chess results any, but
you have to take them; it's for your own
good.
-- help doc
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jan 2008 09:37:36
From: Necronomicon
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 21, 10:05=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 21, 11:37 am, David Richerby <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Necronomicon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Most experts felt that Fischer would have crushed Karpov, if they
> > > had played.
> > Citation, please.
>
> =A0 I already wrote the fool up for this violation.
>
And i wiped my ass with it...
> =A0 Unfortunately, I am not authorized to levy
> fines, or toss the imbeciles in jail. =A0In sum,
> they are free to continue making jackasses
> of themselves, willy-nilly.
>
> =A0 -- police bot
Fu** Off, wanna-be cop...
Fischer Dominated. Period. Karpov
would've been CRUSHED.
And I will crush YOU.
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 12:55:03
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 24, 1:41 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> No. I am saying that one's rating is based on a combination of new
> and old results. In Fischer's case, his old results were lower,
> and therefore depressed his rating. There is nothing
> wrong with this, but it is a fact nonetheless.
Yeah, well as far as I know, every world champion
did it the same way: by having inferior results back
when they were not successful in the championship
cycle, then following up with really good results.
That's how you win a world title, so I've heard. Not
that I would know... I even encouraged the evil Evans
ratpack to challenge me at my weakest moment,
with a severe eye infection, but they ran. So how am
I gonna ever qualify to play GM Anand?
> It makes no sense to argue that somebody's rating
> was inflated when they go out and exceed it by a
> massive gin.
I disagree. The fact remains that one of BF's
challengers -- a man who had no need to make
any excuses, BTW -- related that he had been
offered a bribe to throw his match to BF. Now,
have a good look at the other two matches and
then tell me it is impossible that the very same
offer was made to others. In addition to bribery,
there are other ways and means to impact the
result of chess matches. In any case, even
champions like Em. Lasker could not win 6-0
or 7-0 every time; that's partly luck.
> In his Candidates and WC matches, about
> 40 games, he performed at the 2850 level
How odd; generally, numbers don't cooperate
so smoothly, instead throwing up decimals or
fractions or funky odd numbers, like say 2847.5.
> (my 2885
> was a math error; sorry), and that was far higher than his
> lowly 2700 performances that he'd been putting in up
> to then.
A misrepresentation, I believe; it is not the
case that BF played at a smooth and steady
2700 level, before suddenly cranking it up to
your 2850 level. In the real world, players
tend to improve gradually over time, and we
know that BF once was a weak player, before
he one day "just got good". My guess is
that he was moving up for years, and just
happened to be at 2700 when someone
arbitrarily decided to use that as the point
from which to measure his later results.
I wish I had a nice, handy historical FIDE
ratings guide, with a chronological list of
BF's every rated event. Then we wouldn't
have to guess at numbers, and perhaps we
could even come up with... wait! We already
have it, though not on FIDE's scale: it's all
probably graphed out real pretty like, on
Chessmetrics.com.
> You have a habit of developing verbal diarrhea when
> you are wrong. Best to just admit your error
> and move on.
I see things differently; to me, you keep
making mistakes, and when I point them
out, you get very emotional, tossing out
puerile insults as above. One idea would
be for you to think more carefully before
blundering.
> If anything, the Spassky match unjustly depressed
> Fischer's rating because the match ended with a string
> of draws (+a Spassky gift in the last game).
That's *cheating*, by BF's own definition.
They even passed a special rule just to
appease him, after his article was published
in Sports Illustrated magazine. Please don't
tell me you feel sorry for BF, because his
rating took a hit when he *cheated* to lock up
the title? That would be rather silly of you.
> The rating
> system is based on the assumption that wins are better
> than draws, but in that case draws were good enough
> for Fischer to become WC. So he deliberately
> "underperformed" according to Elo's definition of
> performance. This is another example of why I
> feel rating draws is a dubious practice.
In this case, as well as many similar cases,
it is obvious that many, many chess games do
*not* represent a real contest of skill, and so
rating them corrupts the numbers.
At the lower levels, it often happens that two
players will agree to a bogus draw in the final
round of a Swiss tournament, to manipulate
the prize money. In fact, this has happened
to me *at least* twice, just recently; possibly
even more. One of the cheaters gained a
bunch of rating points in the process, while
another lost a bunch. In a second case,
the two players were /reasonably/ closely
matched, so the outcome of a real game
would be impossible to predict.
But to reject the rating of *all draws* on the
basis of a few bad apples who cheat, makes
little sense. What if I could show that some
games are thrown? Is that good enough
reason to stop rating wins and losses? I
don't think so. In fact, in my case, by rating
my draws, I get punished when I fail, and
rewarded when anybody higher-rated than
I am fails to beat me. I think that makes my
rating /more accurate/ that it would be if the
very few draws were ignored. And isn't that
the desired result-- accuracy?
-- help bot
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 13:49:05
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:0b7ac080-1371-4c2e-97ed-e69ffc90b724@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 24, 1:41 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> No. I am saying that one's rating is based on a combination of new
>> and old results. In Fischer's case, his old results were lower,
>> and therefore depressed his rating. There is nothing
>> wrong with this, but it is a fact nonetheless.
>
> Yeah, well as far as I know, every world champion
> did it the same way: by having inferior results back
> when they were not successful in the championship
> cycle, then following up with really good results.
The difference is that, for them, you are not making
the idiotic claim their early results were somehow
inflated (giving no rational reason why, of course) and
that that was how their ratings got so high.
> That's how you win a world title, so I've heard. Not
> that I would know... I even encouraged the evil Evans
> ratpack to challenge me at my weakest moment,
> with a severe eye infection, but they ran. So how am
> I gonna ever qualify to play GM Anand?
>
>
>> It makes no sense to argue that somebody's rating
>> was inflated when they go out and exceed it by a
>> massive gin.
>
> I disagree. The fact remains that one of BF's
> challengers -- a man who had no need to make
> any excuses, BTW -- related that he had been
> offered a bribe to throw his match to BF. Now,
> have a good look at the other two matches and
> then tell me it is impossible that the very same
> offer was made to others. In addition to bribery,
> there are other ways and means to impact the
> result of chess matches. In any case, even
> champions like Em. Lasker could not win 6-0
> or 7-0 every time; that's partly luck.
>
I have never heard this bribery theory, and lend it
zero credence. And the theory behind ratings
is that they average results over many games -
so the "lucky" 6-0's *are* balanced out by the
"unlucky" 12.5/20's.
As I said in the beginning, Fischer's total number
of games up in the 2850 range was relatively
small, and the way that rating formulae deal
with it, should not be taken too seriously.
>
>> In his Candidates and WC matches, about
>> 40 games, he performed at the 2850 level
>
> How odd; generally, numbers don't cooperate
> so smoothly, instead throwing up decimals or
> fractions or funky odd numbers, like say 2847.5.
It's called rounding. I don't have official FIDE documents
concerning their rating practices circa 1970, so I
simply put in his opponents' ratings from a
database I have, with the win expectancy formula
used by the USCF. But basically it is ~75% vs.
~2650.
>
>
>> (my 2885
>> was a math error; sorry), and that was far higher than his
>> lowly 2700 performances that he'd been putting in up
>> to then.
>
> A misrepresentation, I believe; it is not the
> case that BF played at a smooth and steady
> 2700 level, before suddenly cranking it up to
> your 2850 level. In the real world, players
> tend to improve gradually over time, and we
> know that BF once was a weak player, before
> he one day "just got good". My guess is
> that he was moving up for years, and just
> happened to be at 2700 when someone
> arbitrarily decided to use that as the point
> from which to measure his later results.
Ratings are recalculated with each event.
It's not a subjective decision.
> I wish I had a nice, handy historical FIDE
> ratings guide, with a chronological list of
> BF's every rated event. Then we wouldn't
> have to guess at numbers, and perhaps we
> could even come up with... wait! We already
> have it, though not on FIDE's scale: it's all
> probably graphed out real pretty like, on
> Chessmetrics.com.
>
Chessmetrics will confirm what I have said -
that there is a huge increase in Fischer's performance
70-72. (BTW Chessmetrics, unlike ELO, weights results
according to how old they are, with zero weighting
for results more than 4 years old. That is why it
shows Karpov passing Fischer around 1975. These
should be taken no more seriously than Elo, of course.)
>> You have a habit of developing verbal diarrhea when
>> you are wrong. Best to just admit your error
>> and move on.
>
> I see things differently; to me, you keep
> making mistakes, and when I point them
> out, you get very emotional, tossing out
> puerile insults as above.
You cling do your wrong-headed claims,
despite massive evidence to the contrary.
If you don't understand ratings, it's really
no big deal. There is no reason to be so
defensive, and pretend that you do.
Just be quiet and learn.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jan 2008 09:05:25
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 21, 11:37 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Necronomicon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Most experts felt that Fischer would have crushed Karpov, if they
> > had played.
> Citation, please.
I already wrote the fool up for this violation.
Unfortunately, I am not authorized to levy
fines, or toss the imbeciles in jail. In sum,
they are free to continue making jackasses
of themselves, willy-nilly.
-- police bot
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Jan 2008 21:13:00
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted (was: Crocodile tears)
|
BOT BLOVIATES
Greg Kennedy as bot bloviates once again.
Concerning the issue of Bobby's fitness for
combat, when he played via radio in the Havana 1965
international, he endured terrific strain even though
away from the game competitively for some 20 months.
Fischer's playing sessions lasted over 10 hours at a
stretch in nearly EVERY GAME. His individual opponent
during a given round had to put up with the same de
facto time limit, but Bobby had to grind it out in
every single round. Still, he finished tied for
second, only a half point behind Smyslov. In that
tournament Bobby played under a terrific handicap.
Karpov came unglued twice against Korchnoi in
1974 and 1978 after building up leads. Although the
1978 match is the better known for exposing Karpov's
difficulty in putting away a tenacious opponent, the
1974 match, which went 24 games, is perhaps the more
instructive in suggesting whose physical constitution
would have withstood the pressure longer -- Fischer's
or Karpov's.
Greg Kennedy hates Bobby Fischer because Greg
once had dreams about being a contendah. In old
postings here, Greg spoke about how he might have
reached the top except that while Bobby had the
benefit of a broken, unhappy, poverty-ridden childhood
in Brooklyn, Greg had to endure the living heck of Indiana.
What strikes one is Greg's attempts to belittle
when placed against the accolades of Bobby's great
COMPETITORS.
One might have expected Mikhail Tal, who after
all owned a plus-score against Bobby because of the
1959 Candidates' event, to spew Greg's junk. But no.
The wizard from Riga, as he was known, just said it
all straight out: Fischer was the greatest genius to
have descended from the Caissic sky.
One might have expected Miguel Najdorf, who some
ill-tempered dustups with brash and baleful Bobby, to
hone angles that gashed into his reputation. But no.
Don Miguel enthused about Bobby tossing pieces into the
air that somehow landed on the right squares.
One might have expected k Taimanov, whom Bobby
humiliated beyond bearing in their 1971 match, to discover
some argument to boost himself and lambast Bobby. But
no. Taimanov's discussion of his draw with Bobby at
Buenos Aires 1960 is filled with admiration for
Bobby's colossal memory and erudition, not to mention
endgame insight.
Or what about Robert Byrne? He was among the highly
talented American GMs in those U.S. Championships,
whom our Greg attempts to deprecate as a "rabbit"
whom Bobby eclipsed. Bobby made Byrne historically
irrelevant, yet Byrne unhesitatingly pronounced that
Karpov had no chance against Fischer in 1975.
Or, for hat matter, what about even Yuri Averbakh? In
a long interview that Evans and I had with him in 1990
he praised the postwar generation of American masters
very highly, telling Evans that he could have been a world
title aspirant except for lack of professional application.
When Evans, a bit embarrassed, dissented, Averbakh
would not hear of it and insisted that the American masters
had played very fine chess. The obvious point here is that Greg's
putdown of those who played in the U.S. Championships
of the Fischer era was not a view shared by an official enemy
whose job it was to work toward Soviet chess supremacy.
Tal, Najdorf, Taimanov, R. Byrne and Averbakh
all had reasons for disliking Bobby personally and for
denigrating his chess in subtle or not so subtles. But
these people and many others like them were and are
far bigger personalities than our Greg, a chess nobody
who splatters these forums with his envy..
These GMs had to play Bobby or, in some instances,
act as analytical aides to those facing Bobby.
As Tal put the matter in a secret memorandum, it
paid even to study Bobby's five-minute games!
How tall Tall and how snipped off our Greg.
Yours, Larry Parr
help bot wrote:
> On Jan 23, 1:42 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The real question, which rating formulae can't
> > answer, is whether Fischer's phenomenal 70-72
> > results, which were extraordinary even for Fischer,
> > and based on relatively few games, are something that
> > he could have sustained, or would he have fallen back
> > to "normal" super-GM (Karpovish) status.
> >
> > No one will ever know, but I think the fact that
> > Fischer chose not to play at all is the best evidence.
> > I think Fischer knew that even if he had beat Karpov,
> > he would have underperformed his 70-72 results.
> > In that sense, he had nothing to gain by playing.
>
> You seem to forget that BF needed the money,
> so obviously he would have had plenty to gain.
>
> In addition, there was the small matter of
> keeping the title out of Russian hands. Heck,
> they beat us into space, so why roll over and
> play dead when you can hang onto the chess
> title? As far as I could tell, BF detested the
> Russians, and seemed to wallow in the Cold
> War rhetoric like a happy-go-lucky pig.
>
> But aside from those oversights, I think you
> have pinpointed the issue: risk perceived as
> outweighing the potential gains. It is sad to
> see a man live in relative poverty, when he so
> easily could have made millions, just by
> overcoming his irrational fears.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 09:53:45
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted (was: Crocodile tears)
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<. >
> Or, for hat matter, what about even Yuri Averbakh? In
> a long interview that Evans and I had with him in 1990
> he praised the postwar generation of American masters
> very highly, telling Evans that he could have been a world
> title aspirant except for lack of professional application.
>
> When Evans, a bit embarrassed, dissented, Averbakh
> would not hear of it and insisted that the American masters
> had played very fine chess. The obvious point here is that Greg's
> putdown of those who played in the U.S. Championships
> of the Fischer era was not a view shared by an official enemy
> whose job it was to work toward Soviet chess supremacy.
<. >
Although in a more recent interview with Taimanov the question of Western
Challengers arose, and Taimanov said in effect, that it was only Fischer who
was perceived as a threat, and specifically said, 'not even Larsen'.
What is sad is that during the period when I was interviewing Taimanov, and
also when he annotated the 3rd game against RJF, we then struck into a
conversation about 'the longest pause' Taimanov ever made in a game, 70
minutes. "Is he invincible, or is he bewitched?" asked MT.
So I asked Fischer [then living in Hungary] what he had seen in those 70
minutes. For sure, not even Kasparov cracked the position, nor even Deep
Blue - and it remained a 30 year enigma.
In terms of respect for Western players in the post war era, I think, based
on some 2,000 exchanges with Russian chess people, opinion was not static,
so that in the immediate post-war period there was more care and
apprehension about the West, but by the late 60's then there was, as above,
only Fischer to fear.
Of course, chess in the West remained much the same, as a semi-professional
activity. But in the SU it had become formally [if not admittedly!] entirely
professional, though players may have had a nominal job or carear, Soviet
players were able to live in Moscow or Petersburg, have chess students
assigned, seconds assigned for research, and were for all intents and
purposes, the products of a state supported industry.
That is probably the basis for the changed opinion since 1930, when as a
team US won 4 golds in 4 successive tries against other amatuer teams. So,
while the West slept, the Soviet School collectively made advancements.
> Yours, Larry Parr
One more comment below.
<... >
>> >
>> > No one will ever know, but I think the fact that
>> > Fischer chose not to play at all is the best evidence.
>> > I think Fischer knew that even if he had beat Karpov,
>> > he would have underperformed his 70-72 results.
>> > In that sense, he had nothing to gain by playing.
O no! I very much think Fischer needed a Russian menace, and an impossible
mountain to assault, and he wanted to solo it.
This was his spur, his animus, and indeed, not any unusual one. When very
strong players talk about each other they often make such comments about
what stimulates incredible effort, and what leaves them flat and uninspired.
Karpov in fact wrote just this in his 91 title. Against Kasparov he said he
was not much inspired [!] But Korchnoi got to him and stimulated his play,
and of Fischer, he estimated that he would be in the highest bracket of
stimulation of all, 'the 90th percentile'.
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jan 2008 22:59:39
From: Paul
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 20, 5:59=C2=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> > On Jan 20, 2:08=EF=BF=BDpm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> w=
rote:
> >> On Jan 20, 3:56=EF=BF=BDpm, Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD Even Capa was beaten many a times...
> >> =EF=BF=BD Probably the least of anyone, on a percentage basis. In tourn=
ament
> >> play, his record was +271 -26 =3D188. In match play as an adult, his
> >> record was +38 -8 =3D66. I can't think of any other major player with
> >> such a low percentage of losses over his full career.
>
> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0True. =C2=A0I was just responding to that idiot
> > "help bot" guy, (aka "Greg"?) by emphasizing
> > that no one has NEVER been beaten. =C2=A0Fischer
> > certainly lost games early in his career, and
> > so did Capa. =C2=A0But Capa was the closest to a chess
> > God the world has ever known.
>
> There are billions of people that are unbeaten at chess... =C2=A0:^)
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Send them my way...i'll fix that real quick...
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jan 2008 16:48:35
From: Paul
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 20, 2:08=EF=BF=BDpm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote=
:
> On Jan 20, 3:56=EF=BF=BDpm, Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD Even Capa was beaten many a times...
>
> =EF=BF=BD Probably the least of anyone, on a percentage basis. In tourname=
nt
> play, his record was +271 -26 =3D188. In match play as an adult, his
> record was +38 -8 =3D66. I can't think of any other major player with
> such a low percentage of losses over his full career.
True. I was just responding to that idiot
"help bot" guy, (aka "Greg"?) by emphasizing
that no one has NEVER been beaten. Fischer
certainly lost games early in his career, and
so did Capa. But Capa was the closest to a chess
God the world has ever known.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Jan 2008 16:59:39
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
Paul wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2:08�pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 3:56�pm, Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> � � Even Capa was beaten many a times...
>> � Probably the least of anyone, on a percentage basis. In tournament
>> play, his record was +271 -26 =188. In match play as an adult, his
>> record was +38 -8 =66. I can't think of any other major player with
>> such a low percentage of losses over his full career.
>
>
> True. I was just responding to that idiot
> "help bot" guy, (aka "Greg"?) by emphasizing
> that no one has NEVER been beaten. Fischer
> certainly lost games early in his career, and
> so did Capa. But Capa was the closest to a chess
> God the world has ever known.
There are billions of people that are unbeaten at chess... :^)
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | |
COULD AGREE WITH YOU MORE!
<What an empty-headed, insolent little jerk you really are, Greg.
Sort of like an apoplectic chihuahua: full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing, but barking at everyone. > -- Taylor Kingston to
help bot Greg Kennedy)
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Jan 20, 11:08?am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > ? ?For some folks, being "introduced to sex" is not
> > quite the same thing as having GM Evans hire a
> > prostitute; you see, some folks believe that a man
> > ought not to pay money for sex, that a woman
> > ought not to take such monies, and so on; it's a
> > religious thing, so perhaps TK wouldn't understand.
>
> What an empty-headed, insolent little jerk you really are, Greg.
> Sort of like an apoplectic chihuahua: full of sound and fury,
> signifying nothing, but barking at everyone.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jan 2008 13:08:27
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 20, 3:56=A0pm, Paul <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> =A0 =A0 Even Capa was beaten many a times...
Probably the least of anyone, on a percentage basis. In tournament
play, his record was +271 -26 =3D188. In match play as an adult, his
record was +38 -8 =3D66. I can't think of any other major player with
such a low percentage of losses over his full career.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jan 2008 12:56:50
From: Paul
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 20, 8:58=EF=BF=BDam, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 19, 6:50 pm, Necronomicon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDMost experts felt that Fischer would have
> > crushed Karpov, if they had played. =EF=BF=BDThis bothers
> > Kasparov because he was close to Karpov's strength.
>
> =EF=BF=BD It is my opinion that the imbeciles who claim to
> know what "most experts" think, have not taken
> any surveys, nor done any such research. =EF=BF=BDInstead,
> they project what they *wish* were the truth onto
> unnamed others, endowing these mysterious
> "most experts" with their own personal opinions.
>
> =EF=BF=BD One solution to the problem is to fall back onto
> the ratings system, making a case that BF's
> higher rating indicates a probability of success
> against AK, whose own rating was lower. =EF=BF=BDThe
> problem with this kind of approach is that those
> ratings are predictive of results against a wide
> variety of players, not any one in particular. =EF=BF=BDFor
> instance, I used to pummel a player who gave
> one of my superiors fits, dragging him down with
> draws on a regular basis. =EF=BF=BDLikewise, even now,
> there are some players who give me no end of
> trouble, in spite of a ratings discrepency which
> normally would indicate their being mere cannon
> fodder for someone my rating.
>
> =EF=BF=BD At the highest levels, there are known cases
> in which certain players underperformed their
> expected results by wide gins, as is well
> known. =EF=BF=BDSo, what if BF had the Indian sign on
> AK? =EF=BF=BDSome very quick matches, perhaps 6-0,
> 6-1, and 6-2 could result. =EF=BF=BDBut... what if the
> reverse were true? =EF=BF=BDIn that case, the puffed-up
> rating that BF acquired from pummeling others
> 6-0 would be rendered almost meaningless. It
> could very well happen that a frustrated BF
> would have walked out, forfeiting to AK and
> then ducking a rematch-- that's the kind of
> guy BF was.
>
> =EF=BF=BD Don't let the old Cold War rhetoric trick you
> into believing that BF was an invincible chess
> god. =EF=BF=BDThe reality is, he never once defeated
> Boris Spassky in even a single game, until
> their 1972 match! =EF=BF=BDThat is not "domination",
> my friends, in spite of all the rhetoric to the
> contrary. =EF=BF=BD And even in 1992, he dared not
> risk playing any of the world's top players.
> Indeed, his ploy was to *not* challenge the
> top players, but instead to attack them from
> behind a safety wall, with words, not chess
> moves.
>
Bobby would have crushed Karpov,
Dumbshit.
Although i agree that Bobby was a bit
of a chicken, and should've left no doubt.
No one is unbeatable, on a given day.
Even Capa was beaten many a times...
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jan 2008 11:33:25
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 20, 11:08=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> =A0 =A0For some folks, being "introduced to sex" is not
> quite the same thing as having GM Evans hire a
> prostitute; you see, some folks believe that a man
> ought not to pay money for sex, that a woman
> ought not to take such monies, and so on; it's a
> religious thing, so perhaps TK wouldn't understand.
What an empty-headed, insolent little jerk you really are, Greg.
Sort of like an apoplectic chihuahua: full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing, but barking at everyone.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jan 2008 08:08:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 19, 7:41 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 d6 6. f3 e5 7. e4
> Nc6 8. Be3 b6 9. Bd3
>
> Right about here is where Capa got the awkward news. The result:
>
> 9...Ba6?? 10. Qa4 Bb7 11. d5 and Black must lose a piece. Capa hung on
> until move 62, but lost. This game basically cost him 1st prize; he
> finished a half-point behind Nimzovitch.
See? Even a duffer who hangs pieces in the opening
can finish right on the heels of GM Nimzowitch! Only
GM Bogolubov was weaker, unless you count Mr. Anon.
> Absolutely. Fischer, when introduced to sex at Buenos Aires 1960,
> concluded "Chess is better." Capa's attitude was "Hey, I'll have
> plenty of both."
For some folks, being "introduced to sex" is not
quite the same thing as having GM Evans hire a
prostitute; you see, some folks believe that a man
ought not to pay money for sex, that a woman
ought not to take such monies, and so on; it's a
religious thing, so perhaps TK wouldn't understand.
I know Sam Sloan wouldn't.
Now, it might not have been until say, 1975, that
Bobby Fischer dove head-first into religion, with his
involvement with the WWCG, but still, he may very
well have rejected, not sex per se, but sex with a
*prostitute*. (Or maybe LE's taste in women was
a far cry from BF's own?)
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jan 2008 07:58:03
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 19, 6:50 pm, Necronomicon <[email protected] > wrote:
> Most experts felt that Fischer would have
> crushed Karpov, if they had played. This bothers
> Kasparov because he was close to Karpov's strength.
It is my opinion that the imbeciles who claim to
know what "most experts" think, have not taken
any surveys, nor done any such research. Instead,
they project what they *wish* were the truth onto
unnamed others, endowing these mysterious
"most experts" with their own personal opinions.
One solution to the problem is to fall back onto
the ratings system, making a case that BF's
higher rating indicates a probability of success
against AK, whose own rating was lower. The
problem with this kind of approach is that those
ratings are predictive of results against a wide
variety of players, not any one in particular. For
instance, I used to pummel a player who gave
one of my superiors fits, dragging him down with
draws on a regular basis. Likewise, even now,
there are some players who give me no end of
trouble, in spite of a ratings discrepency which
normally would indicate their being mere cannon
fodder for someone my rating.
At the highest levels, there are known cases
in which certain players underperformed their
expected results by wide gins, as is well
known. So, what if BF had the Indian sign on
AK? Some very quick matches, perhaps 6-0,
6-1, and 6-2 could result. But... what if the
reverse were true? In that case, the puffed-up
rating that BF acquired from pummeling others
6-0 would be rendered almost meaningless. It
could very well happen that a frustrated BF
would have walked out, forfeiting to AK and
then ducking a rematch-- that's the kind of
guy BF was.
Don't let the old Cold War rhetoric trick you
into believing that BF was an invincible chess
god. The reality is, he never once defeated
Boris Spassky in even a single game, until
their 1972 match! That is not "domination",
my friends, in spite of all the rhetoric to the
contrary. And even in 1992, he dared not
risk playing any of the world's top players.
Indeed, his ploy was to *not* challenge the
top players, but instead to attack them from
behind a safety wall, with words, not chess
moves.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jan 2008 07:31:11
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 19, 5:45 pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> >> As a result, Capablanca enjoyed a much richer and more balanced
> >> life than Fischer. I know that if I were given a choice of which
> >> life I'd like to live, the decision would take less than a
> >> nanosecond.
>
> > With only perhaps six or seven more nanoseconds of thought, it might
> > have occurred to TK that one of these two men lived eleven years
> > longer than the other, giving one some pause for deeper reflection.
>
> Yes but it's a question of quality versus quantity.
Well, I agree that quality supersedes quantity; my
point was that perhaps it was reckless to *so quickly*
decided that quantity (eleven extra years, for Christ's
sake) was not worth considering.
> Also, if helpbot paused for a few more nanoseconds and accessed his
> memory banks again, it might have occurred to him that TK could have
> been Capablanca, then taken a year off and been Fischer.
I don't think so. You have to decide on one or the
other-- those are the rules. TK can be JC, or he can
be BF, but not both.
> > The supposed unnamed historian who allegedly had it that JC might
> > have become "dominant", like BF, should perhaps go back to school.
>
> Dude, Jesus was *much* bigger than Fischer. Oh, wait.
Tell that to the nutters around here! Some of these
people seem to think BF was even bigger than Elvis,
and more popular than the Beatles. Heck, I got an
email from my sister informing me that "Bobbie
Fisher" had died. (Do you think she bothered to tell
me when Elvis bit the dust? Noooooo.) And yet BF
lacked any charisma whatever; he was boring.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jan 2008 06:50:09
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 20, 1:05=C2=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 19, 5:41=C2=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:=
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 19, 6:50=C2=A0pm, Necronomicon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 19, 8:25=EF=BF=BDam, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]>=
wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 19, 5:30=EF=BF=BDam, Necronomicon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDThe man was a brilliant genius, but m=
ost
> > > > > people consider Jose Capablanca as the most naturally
> > > > > gifted Chess God.
>
> > > > > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDStill, Alekhine proved that hard work=
can overcome
> > > > > natural talent....and Fischer certainly worked hard....
>
> > > > =EF=BF=BD I can't remember who it was, but one chess historian chara=
cterized
> > > > Fischer as the kind of super-dominant player Capablanca might have
> > > > become if he'd had a strong work ethic. Frankly, I think a Capa fuel=
ed
> > > > by a Fischer-like obsession and work ethic would have been even
> > > > greater than Fischer, but for Capa that would have been a devil's
> > > > bargain, a price he would not want to pay.
> > > > =EF=BF=BD As a result, Capablanca enjoyed a much richer and more bal=
anced life
> > > > than Fischer. I know that if I were given a choice of which life I'd=
> > > > like to live, the decision would take less than a nanosecond.
>
> > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Most experts felt that Fischer would have
> > > crushed Karpov, if they had played. =C2=A0This bothers
> > > Kasparov because he was close to Karpov's strength.
>
> > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Yeah, i agreed with you about Capa: he supposedly
> > > refused to have a chess board in his home, and never
> > > studied chess books, except one about rook endings.
> > > God, the level he could have achieved if he had studied
> > > just a bit!
> > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 But yes, he lived a more balanced and enjoyable
> > > life than Fischer, that much is clear. =C2=A0There is the time
> > > he lost a knight (and the game) when his wife
> > > entered the playing hall...
>
> > =C2=A0 Actually, it was the arrival of both his wife *and* his mistress
> > that shook his concentration against Saemisch at Carlsbad 1929:
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Actually, there is no firm evidence and
> differing accounts of what happened:
I think there's enough testimony to establish fairly well that
something of the sort did happen. Edward Winter's "Capablanca,"
probably the most thoroughly researched work on the Cuban champion,
says on page 325, note 3:
"It is frequently stated that Capblanca blundered against S=C3=A4misch
because of the unexpected arrival of his wife and/or a mystery woman
(accounts vary) in the tournament hall. A participant, Esteban
Canal ... suggests that some incident of the kind did occur. Flohr
also gives an eyewitness account ... though he was mistaken in
thinking that the mystery woman later became [Capa's] second wife."
While we don't know for sure that the "mystery woman" was Capa's
mistress, I'd say that given his known tendency for philandering, that
seems the most likely scenario.
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Fischer got laid when he was 17?!
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Sources?
I first read of it in Donner's "The King." It is also mentioned in
Benko's autobiography, and has been brought up a time or two in Larry
Evans' Chess Life column. By all accounts, it was Evans who arranged
for Fischer to meet the lady in question. Whether she was a hired
professional or just friendly, I don't know.
Donner portrays this as an attempt by Evans to distract Fischer so
that he would not contend with Evans for a top prize. If so, it worked
well: Evans scored 11-8 and placed =3D4th-8th, behind Korchnoi,
Reshevsky and Szabo, while Fischer scored 8=C2=BD-10=C2=BD and placed
=3D13th-17th, the worst result of his international career.
Then again, Evans may just have been trying to show young Bobby a
good time. I'm sure Larry Parr could provide more details if he's
interested.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 22:05:09
From:
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 19, 5:41=C2=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 19, 6:50=C2=A0pm, Necronomicon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 19, 8:25=EF=BF=BDam, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> w=
rote:
>
> > > On Jan 19, 5:30=EF=BF=BDam, Necronomicon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDThe man was a brilliant genius, but mos=
t
> > > > people consider Jose Capablanca as the most naturally
> > > > gifted Chess God.
>
> > > > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDStill, Alekhine proved that hard work c=
an overcome
> > > > natural talent....and Fischer certainly worked hard....
>
> > > =EF=BF=BD I can't remember who it was, but one chess historian charact=
erized
> > > Fischer as the kind of super-dominant player Capablanca might have
> > > become if he'd had a strong work ethic. Frankly, I think a Capa fueled=
> > > by a Fischer-like obsession and work ethic would have been even
> > > greater than Fischer, but for Capa that would have been a devil's
> > > bargain, a price he would not want to pay.
> > > =EF=BF=BD As a result, Capablanca enjoyed a much richer and more balan=
ced life
> > > than Fischer. I know that if I were given a choice of which life I'd
> > > like to live, the decision would take less than a nanosecond.
>
> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Most experts felt that Fischer would have
> > crushed Karpov, if they had played. =C2=A0This bothers
> > Kasparov because he was close to Karpov's strength.
>
> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Yeah, i agreed with you about Capa: he supposedly
> > refused to have a chess board in his home, and never
> > studied chess books, except one about rook endings.
> > God, the level he could have achieved if he had studied
> > just a bit!
> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 But yes, he lived a more balanced and enjoyable
> > life than Fischer, that much is clear. =C2=A0There is the time
> > he lost a knight (and the game) when his wife
> > entered the playing hall...
>
> =C2=A0 Actually, it was the arrival of both his wife *and* his mistress
> that shook his concentration against Saemisch at Carlsbad 1929:
Actually, there is no firm evidence and
differing accounts of what happened:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=3D1066901
But yeah, Capa wouldn't have done such a
blunder normally...
>
> 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 d6 6. f3 e5 7. e4
> Nc6 8. Be3 b6 9. Bd3
>
> =C2=A0 Right about here is where Capa got the awkward news. The result:
>
> 9...Ba6?? 10. Qa4 Bb7 11. d5 and Black must lose a piece. Capa hung on
> until move 62, but lost. This game basically cost him 1st prize; he
> finished a half-point behind Nimzovitch.
>
> > the dude had his priorities
> > straight! =C2=A0Haha! =C2=A0
>
> =C2=A0 Absolutely. Fischer, when introduced to sex at Buenos Aires 1960,
> concluded "Chess is better." Capa's attitude was "Hey, I'll have
> plenty of both."- Hide quoted text -
>
Yeah, Capa was effortless genius.
Fischer got laid when he was 17?!
Sources?
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 16:41:40
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 19, 6:50=C2=A0pm, Necronomicon <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 19, 8:25=EF=BF=BDam, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 19, 5:30=EF=BF=BDam, Necronomicon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDThe man was a brilliant genius, but most
> > > people consider Jose Capablanca as the most naturally
> > > gifted Chess God.
>
> > > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDStill, Alekhine proved that hard work can=
overcome
> > > natural talent....and Fischer certainly worked hard....
>
> > =EF=BF=BD I can't remember who it was, but one chess historian character=
ized
> > Fischer as the kind of super-dominant player Capablanca might have
> > become if he'd had a strong work ethic. Frankly, I think a Capa fueled
> > by a Fischer-like obsession and work ethic would have been even
> > greater than Fischer, but for Capa that would have been a devil's
> > bargain, a price he would not want to pay.
> > =EF=BF=BD As a result, Capablanca enjoyed a much richer and more balance=
d life
> > than Fischer. I know that if I were given a choice of which life I'd
> > like to live, the decision would take less than a nanosecond.
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Most experts felt that Fischer would have
> crushed Karpov, if they had played. =C2=A0This bothers
> Kasparov because he was close to Karpov's strength.
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Yeah, i agreed with you about Capa: he supposedly
> refused to have a chess board in his home, and never
> studied chess books, except one about rook endings.
> God, the level he could have achieved if he had studied
> just a bit!
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 But yes, he lived a more balanced and enjoyable
> life than Fischer, that much is clear. =C2=A0There is the time
> he lost a knight (and the game) when his wife
> entered the playing hall...
Actually, it was the arrival of both his wife *and* his mistress
that shook his concentration against Saemisch at Carlsbad 1929:
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 d6 6. f3 e5 7. e4
Nc6 8. Be3 b6 9. Bd3
Right about here is where Capa got the awkward news. The result:
9...Ba6?? 10. Qa4 Bb7 11. d5 and Black must lose a piece. Capa hung on
until move 62, but lost. This game basically cost him 1st prize; he
finished a half-point behind Nimzovitch.
> the dude had his priorities
> straight! =C2=A0Haha! =C2=A0
Absolutely. Fischer, when introduced to sex at Buenos Aires 1960,
concluded "Chess is better." Capa's attitude was "Hey, I'll have
plenty of both."
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 15:50:18
From: Necronomicon
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 19, 8:25=EF=BF=BDam, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote=
:
> On Jan 19, 5:30=EF=BF=BDam, Necronomicon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDThe man was a brilliant genius, but most
> > people consider Jose Capablanca as the most naturally
> > gifted Chess God.
>
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDStill, Alekhine proved that hard work can o=
vercome
> > natural talent....and Fischer certainly worked hard....
>
> =EF=BF=BD I can't remember who it was, but one chess historian characteriz=
ed
> Fischer as the kind of super-dominant player Capablanca might have
> become if he'd had a strong work ethic. Frankly, I think a Capa fueled
> by a Fischer-like obsession and work ethic would have been even
> greater than Fischer, but for Capa that would have been a devil's
> bargain, a price he would not want to pay.
> =EF=BF=BD As a result, Capablanca enjoyed a much richer and more balanced =
life
> than Fischer. I know that if I were given a choice of which life I'd
> like to live, the decision would take less than a nanosecond.
Most experts felt that Fischer would have
crushed Karpov, if they had played. This bothers
Kasparov because he was close to Karpov's strength.
Yeah, i agreed with you about Capa: he supposedly
refused to have a chess board in his home, and never
studied chess books, except one about rook endings.
God, the level he could have achieved if he had studied
just a bit!
But yes, he lived a more balanced and enjoyable
life than Fischer, that much is clear. There is the time
he lost a knight (and the game) when his wife
entered the playing hall...the dude had his priorities
straight! Haha! I think he understood more than
Fischer that chess is just a game, and is not worth
going insane over just to be the best.
Still, Bobby did so much for the game,
that hopefully this will be what is remembered
about this rare individual.
S
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Jan 2008 18:54:03
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted (was: Crocodile tears)
|
On Jan 23, 11:08 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The first IRL [i.e. international rating list] carried the 208 most
> active participants in international tournaments during the 1966-68
> period. The complete interplay of these masters was compiled in a
> giant 208 X 208 crosstable ... The entire group was given an arbitrary
> average rating and processed by the method of successive
> approximations ... for a set of self-consistent ratings ... Continued
> interplay in 1969 and 1970 helped readjust the initial ratings, to
> produce, in 1971, the first official IRL and the beginning of the
> current titles process."
>
> In other words, all the "rabbit-bashing" Fischer (or anyone) did
> prior to 1966 was not included in FIDE ratings.
The figure of "2700" was the one chosen by
another poster to represent what he deemed
as the starting point from which BF rose to
new heights.
My criticism was that 2700 was *already* at
or above the world champion level at that time,
so his "only 2700" comment was rather silly.
I'm thinking that maybe BS had attained a
2700 rating, but normally those guys were
down in the mid to high 2600s back then.
> That meant that at
> most only *_one_* US tournament, the 1966-67 US Ch, would have been
> included in Elo's calculations. And perhaps not even that, since Elo
> refers only to "international tournaments."
Maybe things have changed over time, but
the idea that a tourney must be international
in order to be FIDE-rated is wrongheaded. I
frequently have received invitations to play in
FIDE-rated events, right here in the Midwest.
The trick is that you have to do well enough
to face X number of already FIDE-rated
opponents, which of course would never
happen.
> And even if it were,
Read: TK is just guessing. Come back
when you're ready for prime time, bucko.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Jan 2008 09:22:30
From: Paul
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 22, 6:19=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 22, 4:22=A0pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > =A0 This is precisely what I wrote, that BF
> > started off from a high base, attained before
> > facing the baddie Russians.
>
> =A0 I have never seen anyone who confuses ignorance and research so
> readily and badly as you, Greg, and who so vehemently considers loud
> noise to be information.
> =A0 Fischer started facing "baddie Russians" in his very first
> international tournament, the 1958 Interzonal at Portoroz, when he was
> only 15. That was only two years after he started high-level American
> tournament play, in the 1956 Rosenwald. By the time of the 1962-63 US
> Championship, he had faced "baddie Russians" in 10 tournaments, i.e.
> _twice_ the number of US Championships in which he had
> participated.
> =A0 Fischer's lifetime scores against the top Soviet GMs were as
> follows:
>
> vs. Botvinnik: +0 -0 =3D1
> vs. Keres: +4 -3 =3D3
> vs. Smyslov: +3 -1 =3D5
> vs. Averbakh: +0 -0 =3D1
> vs. Bronstein: +0 -0 =3D2
> vs. Geller: +3 -5 =3D2
> vs. Kholmov: +1 -0 =3D1
> vs. Taimanov: +7 -0 =3D1
> vs. Petrosian: +8 -4 =3D15
> vs. Korchnoi: +2 -2 =3D4
> vs. Stein: +1 -0 =3D1
> vs. Polugaevsky: +0 -0 =3D1
> vs. Tal: +2 -4 =3D5
> vs. Spassky: +7 -5 =3D13 (not including 1992 match)
>
> =A0 A composite +38 -24 =3D55 score against a group, every one of whom is
> considered one of the top 50 players of all time, most among the top
> 20 or 30. And 10 of the losses were in the 1959 Candidates Tournament.
> From 1960 on, Fischer's "anti-Russian" score was +33 -14 =3D43, and
> that's counting only his results against their _very_ best.
> =A0 For your "rabbit-bashing" theory to be worth crap, Greg, Fischer's
> Elo performance would have had to decline once he stopped playing in
> US tournaments after January 1967. Instead it went *_up_*.
> =A0 I suggest you consult Elo's "The Rating of Chessplayers Past and
> Present", page 103. But then, you'd actually have to be willing and
> able to read and understand a book to do that, wouldn't you?
Hear, Hear! Tell that Greg Kennedy what he needs to
know!
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Jan 2008 16:37:38
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
Necronomicon <[email protected] > wrote:
> Most experts felt that Fischer would have crushed Karpov, if they
> had played.
Citation, please.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Swiss Flammable Robot (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a high-tech robot but it burns really
easily and it's made in Switzerland!
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 07:52:48
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 24, 1:01 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> The point is that his high rating was not due
> >> to his results in US championships. Period.
>
> > Sorry fella, but in order to earn a "period" you
> > would need to maintain that those tournaments
> > were not rated events.
>
> No. His rating would have been *higher* had
> his earlier events not been rated.
You seem to be talking about an imaginary
scenario where BF is given a *provisional*
rating, and treating that as equivalent to a
non-provisional rating.
As far as I can recall, FIDE does not allow
folks to have full-fledged FIDE ratings based
on appearing from out of the blue; there are
limits, just as with the USCF. Starting out
from a "base" of 2700, as mentioned earlier,
is to start out from an elevation *above* that
of all other players in the world at the time.
Remember that back then, there were no
2800 players, and even the number 2700
was a threshold to be touched, only for a
moment, then back down to Earth. I suspect
most world champions never even touched
it back then-- except the dead ones like EL
and JC.
> > Everybody starts off as unrated, but after that,
> > results add up and only after considerable time
> > has passed can you say that earlier results
> > have little bearing. And you can't honestly state
> > they have no bearing since BF was not active
> > enough for those old results to fall off the chart.
>
> I didn't say they had no bearing. They had
> some effect - in lowering his rating. Therefore
> it is completely accurate to state that his high
> rating was not due to his results in US championships.
I see. You are once again imagining that
performance ratings are equivalent to real
world ratings. You probably would like it if
a 6-0 result could be given a precise figure,
so that BF could be said to have played at,
say, 3500 or whatever.
> Rating Fischer's four WC matches as a performance
> would produce a rating of about 2885.
Bobby Fischer only played one WC match;
the one in 1972 against Boris Spassky. The
others are considered knockout matches or
candidates matches or whatever. Of course,
it is *arbitrary* for you to decide which events
to rate, so as to come up with a number you
happen to like. FIDE doesn't do that; they
rate all the events, even if BF has a poor
result. That's why you can't simply ignore
the fact that he "started" from so high up to
begin with before reaching his final number.
Some reports had it that there appeared
in the Soviet press articles which questioned
BF's ultra-high USCF rating. At least I think
that's what they were talking about; those
articles never appeared in Chess Lies while
I was a subscriber, so I merely read second-
hand complaints about them, well after the
fact.
BF's fans and the American press would
have it that his stellar rating, along with his
perfect score in a U.S. championship,
showed that he was superior to the sinister
Russian players, the Commies, as they were
known. But, as we later witnessed with Gary
Kasparov and his never-ending struggles
with AK, bashing remotes is one thing-- the
living, something else. To me, the living, or
rather the real contenders, consisted of
players like Tigran Petrosian, Mikhail Tal,
perhaps a couple of the Russians who were
eliminated via political maneuvering, like
say GM Stein, along with Victor Kortchnoi
and obviously, Boris Spassky and BF.
When BS traveled to the U.S. to compete, he
defeated BF in their game-- the famous win
where BF's Queen was trapped in the middle
of the board! That's the kind of competition
I'm talking about; not a U.S. championship in
which everyone rolls over and plays dead. And
even in the tournament which was held in Cuba,
and where BF was denied permission to travel,
BF finished behind a few of the top Russian
players; again, real competition. It's OK to
have some rabbits in the event, but you gotta
have a few top players for a real test.
In any case, the rating hullabaloo is pointless
when you consider reports regarding offers of
money for players to throw their matches. Can
we be sure such reports are not invented? No,
but neither can we imagine that in the Cold War
era, it is even unlikely to have happened.
-- help bot
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2008 10:41:26
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jan 24, 1:01 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Everybody starts off as unrated, but after that,
>> > results add up and only after considerable time
>> > has passed can you say that earlier results
>> > have little bearing. And you can't honestly state
>> > they have no bearing since BF was not active
>> > enough for those old results to fall off the chart.
>>
>> I didn't say they had no bearing. They had
>> some effect - in lowering his rating. Therefore
>> it is completely accurate to state that his high
>> rating was not due to his results in US championships.
>
> I see. You are once again imagining that
> performance ratings are equivalent to real
> world ratings. You probably would like it if
> a 6-0 result could be given a precise figure,
> so that BF could be said to have played at,
> say, 3500 or whatever.
No. I am saying that one's rating is based on a combination of new
and old results. In Fischer's case, his old results were lower,
and therefore depressed his rating. There is nothing
wrong with this, but it is a fact nonetheless.
It makes no sense to argue that somebody's rating
was inflated when they go out and exceed it by a
massive gin. In his Candidates and WC matches, about
40 games, he performed at the 2850 level (my 2885
was a math error; sorry), and that was far higher than his
lowly 2700 performances that he'd been putting in up
to then.
You have a habit of developing verbal diarrhea when
you are wrong. Best to just admit your error
and move on.
If anything, the Spassky match unjustly depressed
Fischer's rating because the match ended with a string
of draws (+a Spassky gift in the last game). The rating
system is based on the assumption that wins are better
than draws, but in that case draws were good enough
for Fischer to become WC. So he deliberately
"underperformed" according to Elo's definition of
performance. This is another example of why I
feel rating draws is a dubious practice.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2008 20:00:08
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Feb 1, 6:38 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> If you were to claim that a full-
> size replica of the Taj Mahal, made entirely of oleogarine, orbited
> the sun beyond Pluto, I would doubt you quite strongly, but I could
> not say definitely it was not true. The same goes for your claim about
> bribery.
Alas, a cowardly retreat-- as expected.
Note well that *if* I wanted to fabricate a story
about oleogarine orbiting the sun, I would
have it *always* directly opposite the Earth, and
invisible due to a miniature black hole-type
phenomenon that we of course do not really
understand. Only a shallow fool would place
the mass of goo just "beyond Pluto", for it is
only a matter of time before it would become
visible, as technology inexorably ches
onward. Besides, beyond Pluto, the goo would
obviously freeze and crack, breaking up into a
congregation of crystaline oleo-particles... .
; >D
> But you see, with an improbable claim
Ah, this is precisely what I was talking about.
Now, it has morphed into a soft, oleo-like denial
which has no teeth. By backing up to this new
position of mere "improbability", we can see that
even women or children could hold the fort. No
300 Spartans required here, my friends. LOL!
> the burden of proof is
> entirely on the one making the claim.
My point, exactly. So then, if TK is man
enough to actually stake his claim, then we
shall see what we shall see. I'm not holding
my breath, "girls".
> I don't have to do anything --
> it's all up to you. You can continue to make your claim without
> support, in which case you will continue to be doubted
Doubted? Perhaps TK should look up the
term, to get his bearings back. Had skeptics
merely expressed doubt and gone no further,
we would not be at an impasse; no, had TK
and his merry "men" politely asked me to step
aside so they could cross over, no one would
have cut a staff; no one would care who was
the better man. Indeed, it was the affront to
chessic knowledge which provoked this stand-
off; I've my staff handy now, and eagerly await
the womens' next move. En guarde! Oh, and
if you're afraid, feel free to invite nearly-IMnes
to fight for your side; there's enough room in
the water for all of you!
> at, by everyone on this forum. Or you can produce verifiable proof
How is /that/ possible? Earlier, the women
were chanting that no such evidence existed;
now, they seem to have danced backwards
a ways. Hmmm. (Hopefully, they will elect
some fearless leader to replace TK, rather
than suffer such an embarrassment.)
> which the right to laugh will be yours. Or if you actually have no
> proof, you can at least salvage a shred of honor by admitting your
> deceit. The choice is yours.
As for deceit, I would suggest you look deeply
within; it is self-deceit, along with pride, that is
at the root of the issue here, girls.
The legacy of Tigran Petrosian is a matter
of public record; even if I died tomorrow, his
written words would not be affected by that,
nor by any chicken-livered boasting of the
ignoranti of rgc.
-- help bot
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Jan 2008 19:03:37
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted (was: Crocodile tears)
|
On Jan 23, 1:42 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The real question, which rating formulae can't
> answer, is whether Fischer's phenomenal 70-72
> results, which were extraordinary even for Fischer,
> and based on relatively few games, are something that
> he could have sustained, or would he have fallen back
> to "normal" super-GM (Karpovish) status.
>
> No one will ever know, but I think the fact that
> Fischer chose not to play at all is the best evidence.
> I think Fischer knew that even if he had beat Karpov,
> he would have underperformed his 70-72 results.
> In that sense, he had nothing to gain by playing.
You seem to forget that BF needed the money,
so obviously he would have had plenty to gain.
In addition, there was the small matter of
keeping the title out of Russian hands. Heck,
they beat us into space, so why roll over and
play dead when you can hang onto the chess
title? As far as I could tell, BF detested the
Russians, and seemed to wallow in the Cold
War rhetoric like a happy-go-lucky pig.
But aside from those oversights, I think you
have pinpointed the issue: risk perceived as
outweighing the potential gains. It is sad to
see a man live in relative poverty, when he so
easily could have made millions, just by
overcoming his irrational fears.
-- help bot
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Jan 2008 11:41:12
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted (was: Crocodile tears)
|
On Jan 23, 1:42 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:1a172ea1-29df-4cbd-a040-a04b55e8ce6f@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > One hopes that these facts will persaude Greg to stop shooting his
> >mouth off when his brain is empty of facts and logic. Probably not,
> >though, given his historical preference for rectal extraction as a
> >priy research method, and the non sequitur as his main form of
> >syllogism.
>
> You made the mistake of taking help bot seriously.
Oh, I really don't take him very seriously, Dave; definitely not as
seriously as he seems to take himself.
> But I think you are making the refutation of help bot's
> illogic harder than need be.
Perhaps it was using a cannonball to swat a fly, but I wanted to
present what Elo actually did in calculating the original FIDE
ratings, and show how different the facts were from the imaginary
scenario help-bot produced by gluteal cerebration.
> When you gain points,
> as Fischer did in his phenomenal run up to the WC
> title, it is because you are *exceeding* your earlier
> performances. So Fischer's rating would have been
> *higher* had his earlier activity not been rated.
You are quite correct.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 12:00:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 19, 10:25 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> > The man was a brilliant genius, but most
> > people consider Jose Capablanca as the most naturally
> > gifted Chess God.
>
> > Still, Alekhine proved that hard work can overcome
> > natural talent....and Fischer certainly worked hard....
>
> I can't remember who it was, but one chess historian characterized
> Fischer as the kind of super-dominant player Capablanca might have
> become if he'd had a strong work ethic. Frankly, I think a Capa fueled
> by a Fischer-like obsession and work ethic would have been even
> greater than Fischer, but for Capa that would have been a devil's
> bargain, a price he would not want to pay.
> As a result, Capablanca enjoyed a much richer and more balanced life
> than Fischer. I know that if I were given a choice of which life I'd
> like to live, the decision would take less than a nanosecond.
With only perhaps six or seven more nanoseconds
of thought, it might have occurred to TK that one of
these two men lived eleven years longer than the
other, giving one some pause for deeper reflection.
But the flaw in TK's thinking is that it was perhaps
not really a deliberate choice by these two men; in
many ways, one is the product of one's environment,
and I seriously doubt that BF, for instance, wanted
to be a nerdy kid who excelled only at chess. Indeed,
he idolized -- who was it -- not Peewee Herman, but
an actor named, um, named... argghhh... the actor
who played a swashbuckler, a pirate, and who
always got the girl (*not* Bing Crosby).
I find these comparisons, which seek to place BF
ahead of other greats (such as JC, as here), to be
poorly founded. As far as I remember, JC was in
no way inferior to BF, so no excuse-making is
necessary on his behalf.
The supposed unnamed historian who allegedly
had it that JC might have become "dominant", like
BF, should perhaps go back to school. Chess
History 101 would likely set him straight, for in one
chapter the book would have to cover the match
with EL, in which JC took the title without losing a
single game. As I recall, BF fell short of that k
by showing up for game one of his match with BS.
LOL!
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 22:45:00
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 19, 10:25 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>> As a result, Capablanca enjoyed a much richer and more balanced
>> life than Fischer. I know that if I were given a choice of which
>> life I'd like to live, the decision would take less than a
>> nanosecond.
>
> With only perhaps six or seven more nanoseconds of thought, it might
> have occurred to TK that one of these two men lived eleven years
> longer than the other, giving one some pause for deeper reflection.
Yes but it's a question of quality versus quantity.
Also, if helpbot paused for a few more nanoseconds and accessed his
memory banks again, it might have occurred to him that TK could have
been Capablanca, then taken a year off and been Fischer.
> The supposed unnamed historian who allegedly had it that JC might
> have become "dominant", like BF, should perhaps go back to school.
Dude, Jesus was *much* bigger than Fischer. Oh, wait.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Dangerous Tool (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ screwdriver but it could explode at
any minute!
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jan 2008 07:25:17
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 19, 5:30=A0am, Necronomicon <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0The man was a brilliant genius, but most
> people consider Jose Capablanca as the most naturally
> gifted Chess God.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0Still, Alekhine proved that hard work can overcome
> natural talent....and Fischer certainly worked hard....
>
I can't remember who it was, but one chess historian characterized
Fischer as the kind of super-dominant player Capablanca might have
become if he'd had a strong work ethic. Frankly, I think a Capa fueled
by a Fischer-like obsession and work ethic would have been even
greater than Fischer, but for Capa that would have been a devil's
bargain, a price he would not want to pay.
As a result, Capablanca enjoyed a much richer and more balanced life
than Fischer. I know that if I were given a choice of which life I'd
like to live, the decision would take less than a nanosecond.
|
| | | |
PRIDE IN IGNORANCE
<Help bot seems to take tremendous pride in his ignorance. > -- David
Kane
<But Greg never actually seems to have the books he claims to cite.
Without such elementary substantiation, this appears to be merely
another figment of Greg's
imagination,.... > -- Taylor Kingston
Greg Kennedy (help bot) is weak on names and dates and
specific bibliographical sources.
Once again, what strikes one so forcibly is how
Greg's derogation of Fischer's play is so at odds with
many of Bobby's greatest opponents, who found playing
him to be daunting.
Read Taimanov's book of best games. He was in
awe of Bobby's strength.
Yours, Larry Parr
[email protected] wrote:
> THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND....
>
> >As far as I know, the only top player who seemed fully objective on such matters, whose writings could be trusted, was GM Botvinnik. Just about everyone else has been affected by the mountain of biased writings which have appeared over the years in the lunatic-controlled press.> -- help bot (aka Greg Kennedy)
>
> >Utter nonsense. Our Greg yet again demonstrates the amazing depth of
> his ignorance.> -- Taylor Kingston
>
> If there a name for someone who persists in abysmal errors even
> after these abysmal errors have been patiently pointed out to him, it
> would have to be Greg Kennedy?
>
> Botvinnik argued that Taimanov had good chances
> to defeat Bobby. Tal, on the other hand, was
> objective. In notes that were secret at the time, he
> counselled Spassky and his fellows to study even
> Bobby's five-minute games. He called Fischer the
> greatest genius to have descended from the chessic sky
> -- much to the annoyance of Soviet Party types.
>
> When I interviewed and spoke with Tal at the old Manhattan
> Chess Club, he simply said that Bobby played at a different
> level than he and the others. He seconded GM Evans' comment
> that against any other great player, one had a chance to recover
> after an error; but against Bobby, you were destined to lose. That
> is likely what Kashdan meant when he engaged in the hyperbole of
> saying that a theoretical edge for Bobby was the same as being
> a Queen ahead.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
>
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > On Jan 22, 12:18?pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > ? So it is not enough to have FIDE ratings to
> > > compare; you also need to know something
> > > about the players' styles, and perhaps even how
> > > the openings battles would play out. ?Besides, by
> > > and large, BF earned his ultra-high rating by what
> > > is commonly known as "rabbit-bashing", or
> > > beating up on low-rated players, such as in his
> > > repeated victories in the USA championships.
> >
> > Utter nonsense. Our Greg yet again demonstrates the amazing depth of
> > his ignorance. Fischer last played in a US Championship in very early
> > 1967; in fact this was his last competition on American soil. His FIDE
> > rating was barely over 2700 at the time. He retired from chess after
> > winning the world title in 1972, with a rating about 80 points higher.
> > Those points came entirely in international competition, most of it
> > very high-level .
> > In every one of his 7 tournaments 1967-70 he finished clear first.
> > Those placing below him read like a "Who's Who in Chess" for the time:
> > Smyslov, Geller, Larsen, Matanovic, Gligoric, Kholmov, Hort,
> > Matulovic, Gheorghiu, Korchnoi, Petrosian, Ivkov, Tukmakov, Najdorf,
> > Reshevsky, Mecking, Huebner, Uhlmann, Portisch, Polugaevsky, Panno,
> > Taimanov, etc.
> > And let's not forget the Candidate Matches in which he pasted
> > Taimanov, Larsen and Petrosian with a combined score of +18 -1 =3. Not
> > to mention beating a guy named Spassky +7 -2 =11.
> >
> > Some bunch of rabbits. If those guys were rabbits, then it's the
> > kind seen here:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Jan 2008 18:39:07
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 22, 4:19 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The point is that his high rating was not due
> to his results in US championships. Period.
Sorry fella, but in order to earn a "period" you
would need to maintain that those tournaments
were not rated events.
Everybody starts off as unrated, but after that,
results add up and only after considerable time
has passed can you say that earlier results
have little bearing. And you can't honestly state
they have no bearing since BF was not active
enough for those old results to fall off the chart.
> >> What would have caused Fischer trouble in
> >> a match with Karpov is his own match
> >> conditions (First to 10 wins, draws don't count).
>
> > Speaking of incorrectness, you seem to
> > have forgotten -- if that is quite the word --
> > about the win-by-two condition that BF
> > desired. I think that particular condition
> > would likely have posed serious problems
> > for the challenger.
>
> The "win-by-two" was never anything
> but a proposal.
> Had the match
> taken place, it would have been "win-by-one".
Oh contraire! Had the match taken place, it
would have been win-by-two-- which is precisely
why it did not take place. That is the single
condition which FIDE representatives rejected
in the end. Not that it really matters... BF
would likely have forfeited at any rate.
> >> After 1975, it took the chess world 3 *years* to
> >> give Karpov 10 defeats even though he played
> >> actively. Fischer's WC cycle involved something like
> >> 60 games over 3 years. That's a far cry from facing
> >> a super GM like Karpov day after day for 60
> >> games. Fischer's training, coasting through US
> >> championships and the like, would have been
> >> virtually worthless.
>
> > Well, if it took three years for others to
> > take GM Karpov down three times, that
>
> ten, not
I stand corrected. (Someone please notify
Louis Blair; he keeps a running score, you
know.)
> > is not proof that it would have taken BF
> > very long to do the same; the reason is
> > simple: Bobby Fischer played better than
> > "the world" did.
>
> Sure, but if it took say, 60 games, a reasonable
> estimate in my opinion, that is 2-3 straight months
> of chess. That's an effort many, many times
> higher than Fischer had ever experienced.
> (Not that facing Fischer day in and day out
> would have been a picnic for Karpov.) It's hard
> to imagine Karpov getting ahead of Fischer, but
> just as hard to imagine Fischer surviving that long
> without cracking.
I imagine BF forfeiting over some petty dispute,
fabricated in response to AK winning a game.
Instead of knuckling under to this "strategy" the
way Boris Spassky did, the proper response is
to follow the rules, and the rules do not allow
for such antics.
Now, if we could imagine a match in which BF
plays like a normal human being, attempting to
decide the issue of who is stronger OTB, then
I would go with BF on account of his superior
results, as indicated by his somewhat inflated
rating. But it is very difficult to imagine such a
dramatic change in BF; he would have to take
some powerful medication or something... .
-- help bot
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2008 15:24:01
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 31, 9:07 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> He makes up references that simply don't exist.
Unless this is a "typo", I believe we finally have
an almost-manly denial from TK, at long last. But
I am not yet satisfied! I need a *specific* denial
from the creepy-crawly fellow; one which cannot
be escaped via any ordinary means. I am asking
for TK (or any of the other ad hominists here) to
/specifically deny/ that Tigran Petrosian ever
wrote what I reported. If these cowardly ad homs.
can ever manage such a feat, I will (after getting
back up on my chair), give the name of the secret
book that they -- all of them combined -- have no
knowledge of and have never seen and wish
to deny its very existence.
I'm doing this for your own good; the only way
to overcome your cowardice is to face it head-on.
I know it is a struggle for such, um, /men/, but
nonetheless, if you can at long last overcome
just one tiny obstacle, you will at least be
making some progress. And besides, you will
learn something about chess, for a change.
But be forewarned, you miserable cowards:
you won't like what he wrote, and it may result
in nightes for the hard-core Cold War relics
who still seek a showdown with the old Soviet
Union, ala Dr. Strangelove.
-- help bot
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Jan 2008 22:01:08
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jan 22, 4:19 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The point is that his high rating was not due
>> to his results in US championships. Period.
>
> Sorry fella, but in order to earn a "period" you
> would need to maintain that those tournaments
> were not rated events.
No. His rating would have been *higher* had
his earlier events not been rated.
>
> Everybody starts off as unrated, but after that,
> results add up and only after considerable time
> has passed can you say that earlier results
> have little bearing. And you can't honestly state
> they have no bearing since BF was not active
> enough for those old results to fall off the chart.
I didn't say they had no bearing. They had
some effect - in lowering his rating. Therefore
it is completely accurate to state that his high
rating was not due to his results in US championships.
Rating Fischer's four WC matches as a performance
would produce a rating of about 2885.
You should not be so proud of your ignorance.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Feb 2008 15:38:23
From:
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Feb 1, 6:24=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 9:07 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > He makes up references that simply don't exist.
>
> =A0 Unless this is a "typo", I believe we finally have
> an almost-manly denial from TK, at long last. =A0But
> I am not yet satisfied! =A0I need a *specific* denial
> from the creepy-crawly fellow; one which cannot
> be escaped via any ordinary means. =A0I am asking
> for TK (or any of the other ad hominists here) to
> /specifically deny/ that Tigran Petrosian ever
> wrote what I reported. =A0If these cowardly ad homs.
> can ever manage such a feat, I will (after getting
> back up on my chair), give the name of the secret
> book that they -- all of them combined -- have no
> knowledge of and have never seen and wish
> to deny its very existence.
>
> =A0 I'm doing this for your own good; the only way
> to overcome your cowardice is to face it head-on.
> I know it is a struggle for such, um, /men/, but
> nonetheless, if you can at long last overcome
> just one tiny obstacle, you will at least be
> making some progress. =A0And besides, you will
> learn something about chess, for a change.
>
> =A0 But be forewarned, you miserable cowards:
> you won't like what he wrote, and it may result
> in nightes for the hard-core Cold War relics
> who still seek a showdown with the old Soviet
> Union, ala Dr. Strangelove.
Greg, to paraphrase David Ossman of the Firesign Theatre, you don't
understand how logic works at all. If you were to claim that a full-
size replica of the Taj Mahal, made entirely of oleogarine, orbited
the sun beyond Pluto, I would doubt you quite strongly, but I could
not say definitely it was not true. The same goes for your claim about
bribery.
But you see, with an improbable claim, the burden of proof is
entirely on the one making the claim. I don't have to do anything --
it's all up to you. You can continue to make your claim without
support, in which case you will continue to be doubted, even laughed
at, by everyone on this forum. Or you can produce verifiable proof, in
which the right to laugh will be yours. Or if you actually have no
proof, you can at least salvage a shred of honor by admitting your
deceit. The choice is yours.
Taylor Kingston
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Jan 2008 09:24:13
From: Paul
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 23, 9:22=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 23, 3:17 am, Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0Besides Capa, Fischer was the best.
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0Now go snort your Viagra, Greg, and keep
> > your mouth shut....
>
> =A0 Snort? =A0But... I thought it was a suppository?!!
>
> =A0 -- confused bot
Yes, indeed you are VERY confused, Greg Kennedy!
In your case, it's a vaginal suppository....
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Jan 2008 08:08:54
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Help-bot Busted (was: Crocodile tears)
|
On Jan 22, 4:22=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> But he started from a "base" which was
> already elevated, from extensive rabbit-
> bashing;
>
> =A0 This is precisely what I wrote, that BF
> started off from a high base, attained before
> facing the baddie Russians.
>
> =A0 I see as rabbits the American GMs and
> IMs that BF bashed senseless, over and
> over. =A0Plus Ed Mednis, of course.
I just found something in Elo's "The Rating of Chessplayers" (Arco,
1978) that completely refutes the nonsense our village idiot Greg has
been spouting here. On page 68, in the chapter "International Titles
and International Ratings" Dr. Elo, who designed and administered the
FIDE rating system, writes:
"The first IRL [i.e. international rating list] carried the 208 most
active participants in international tournaments during the 1966-68
period. The complete interplay of these masters was compiled in a
giant 208 X 208 crosstable ... The entire group was given an arbitrary
average rating and processed by the method of successive
approximations ... for a set of self-consistent ratings ... Continued
interplay in 1969 and 1970 helped readjust the initial ratings, to
produce, in 1971, the first official IRL and the beginning of the
current titles process."
In other words, all the "rabbit-bashing" Fischer (or anyone) did
prior to 1966 was not included in FIDE ratings. That meant that at
most only *_one_* US tournament, the 1966-67 US Ch, would have been
included in Elo's calculations. And perhaps not even that, since Elo
refers only to "international tournaments." And even if it were,
Fischer's results against the "rabbits" in that event (e.g. Sherwin,
Addison, Zuckerman) would not have been included if they were not
among the 208 most active international players. At the very most,
Fischer's stats for the first IRL would have included 11 American
games, versus *_139_* international games (eight tournaments, two
Olympiads, and the USSR-ROW match).
Furthermore, note this important fact: "The entire group was given
an ARBITRARY AVERAGE RATING." In other words, every one of the 208
went into the calculations with THE SAME INITIAL RATING. Neither
Fischer, nor anyone else, "started off from a high base."
One hopes that these facts will persaude Greg to stop shooting his
mouth off when his brain is empty of facts and logic. Probably not,
though, given his historical preference for rectal extraction as a
priy research method, and the non sequitur as his main form of
syllogism.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Jan 2008 10:42:13
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted (was: Crocodile tears)
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1a172ea1-29df-4cbd-a040-a04b55e8ce6f@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> One hopes that these facts will persaude Greg to stop shooting his
>mouth off when his brain is empty of facts and logic. Probably not,
>though, given his historical preference for rectal extraction as a
>priy research method, and the non sequitur as his main form of
>syllogism.
You made the mistake of taking help bot seriously. His comedic
output is, IMO, decent at times. For his own sake, I wish he
would stick to his strengths.
But I think you are making the refutation of help bot's
illogic harder than need be. When you gain points,
as Fischer did in his phenomenal run up to the WC
title, it is because you are *exceeding* your earlier
performances. So Fischer's rating would have been
*higher* had his earlier activity not been rated.
The real question, which rating formulae can't
answer, is whether Fischer's phenomenal 70-72
results, which were extraordinary even for Fischer,
and based on relatively few games, are something that
he could have sustained, or would he have fallen back
to "normal" super-GM (Karpovish) status.
No one will ever know, but I think the fact that
Fischer chose not to play at all is the best evidence.
I think Fischer knew that even if he had beat Karpov,
he would have underperformed his 70-72 results.
In that sense, he had nothing to gain by playing.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Jan 2008 08:15:27
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Jan 22, 4:22 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>> But he started from a "base" which was
>> already elevated, from extensive rabbit-
>> bashing;
>>
>> This is precisely what I wrote, that BF
>> started off from a high base, attained before
>> facing the baddie Russians.
>>
>> I see as rabbits the American GMs and
>> IMs that BF bashed senseless, over and
>> over. Plus Ed Mednis, of course.
>
> I just found something in Elo's "The Rating of Chessplayers" (Arco,
> 1978) that completely refutes the nonsense our village idiot Greg has
> been spouting here. On page 68, in the chapter "International Titles
> and International Ratings" Dr. Elo, who designed and administered the
> FIDE rating system, writes:
>
> "The first IRL [i.e. international rating list] carried the 208 most
> active participants in international tournaments during the 1966-68
> period. The complete interplay of these masters was compiled in a
> giant 208 X 208 crosstable ... The entire group was given an arbitrary
> average rating and processed by the method of successive
> approximations ... for a set of self-consistent ratings ... Continued
> interplay in 1969 and 1970 helped readjust the initial ratings, to
> produce, in 1971, the first official IRL and the beginning of the
> current titles process."
>
> In other words, all the "rabbit-bashing" Fischer (or anyone) did
> prior to 1966 was not included in FIDE ratings. That meant that at
> most only *_one_* US tournament, the 1966-67 US Ch, would have been
> included in Elo's calculations. And perhaps not even that, since Elo
> refers only to "international tournaments." And even if it were,
> Fischer's results against the "rabbits" in that event (e.g. Sherwin,
> Addison, Zuckerman) would not have been included if they were not
> among the 208 most active international players. At the very most,
> Fischer's stats for the first IRL would have included 11 American
> games, versus *_139_* international games (eight tournaments, two
> Olympiads, and the USSR-ROW match).
> Furthermore, note this important fact: "The entire group was given
> an ARBITRARY AVERAGE RATING." In other words, every one of the 208
> went into the calculations with THE SAME INITIAL RATING. Neither
> Fischer, nor anyone else, "started off from a high base."
>
> One hopes that these facts will persaude Greg to stop shooting his
> mouth off when his brain is empty of facts and logic. Probably not,
> though, given his historical preference for rectal extraction as a
> priy research method, and the non sequitur as his main form of
> syllogism.
Hey now! Proctologists have got to make a living too. But I do
recommend a good pair of latex gloves for this form of priy research.
Especially if you plan to attend a chess tournament later in the
afternoon. :)
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Jan 2008 17:19:41
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Crocodile tears
|
On Jan 22, 4:22=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> =A0 This is precisely what I wrote, that BF
> started off from a high base, attained before
> facing the baddie Russians.
I have never seen anyone who confuses ignorance and research so
readily and badly as you, Greg, and who so vehemently considers loud
noise to be information.
Fischer started facing "baddie Russians" in his very first
international tournament, the 1958 Interzonal at Portoroz, when he was
only 15. That was only two years after he started high-level American
tournament play, in the 1956 Rosenwald. By the time of the 1962-63 US
Championship, he had faced "baddie Russians" in 10 tournaments, i.e.
_twice_ the number of US Championships in which he had
participated.
Fischer's lifetime scores against the top Soviet GMs were as
follows:
vs. Botvinnik: +0 -0 =3D1
vs. Keres: +4 -3 =3D3
vs. Smyslov: +3 -1 =3D5
vs. Averbakh: +0 -0 =3D1
vs. Bronstein: +0 -0 =3D2
vs. Geller: +3 -5 =3D2
vs. Kholmov: +1 -0 =3D1
vs. Taimanov: +7 -0 =3D1
vs. Petrosian: +8 -4 =3D15
vs. Korchnoi: +2 -2 =3D4
vs. Stein: +1 -0 =3D1
vs. Polugaevsky: +0 -0 =3D1
vs. Tal: +2 -4 =3D5
vs. Spassky: +7 -5 =3D13 (not including 1992 match)
A composite +38 -24 =3D55 score against a group, every one of whom is
considered one of the top 50 players of all time, most among the top
20 or 30. And 10 of the losses were in the 1959 Candidates Tournament.
=46rom 1960 on, Fischer's "anti-Russian" score was +33 -14 =3D43, and
that's counting only his results against their _very_ best.
For your "rabbit-bashing" theory to be worth crap, Greg, Fischer's
Elo performance would have had to decline once he stopped playing in
US tournaments after January 1967. Instead it went *_up_*.
I suggest you consult Elo's "The Rating of Chessplayers Past and
Present", page 103. But then, you'd actually have to be willing and
able to read and understand a book to do that, wouldn't you?
|
|
