On Dec 13, 6:36 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

According to the article, in 1992 Bobby Fischer was willing
to play without the unfair advantage he requested for the
1972 match; it says that if they had tied 9-9, the match
would be declared drawn and the prize money shared
equally. I guess that's a self-mate... .

They say people "mellow" with age. I guess that applies to Bobby as
well??

All the propagandists agreed that this was a matter
of principle, so no mellowing with age could have the
slightest affect. In fact, as we saw with the battle
between GMs Lasker and Capablanca, only the allure
of money could break the spell.

A more apt description is that Fischer's propagandists

AFAIK, Bobby Fischer hired no propagandists,
although there were plenty of propagandists who
were quick to jump at the chance to defend his
every whim, for their own reasons.


portrayed the issue as matter of principle. The reality
is that Fischer wouldn't have played Karpov under
*any* conditions, no matter how favorable.

Idunno. It looked as though BF tried very hard
to get out of playing Boris Spassky, but failed in
the end when even the match rules were tossed
out on his behalf.


From Fischer's point of view, he had everything
to lose by playing and nothing to gain.

That's mostly true; yet did not Jose Capablanca
manage to take the title without the loss of a single
game? Did not champions like GMs Steinitz,
Lasker, and Botvinnik hold the title more than just
one "cycle"? Surely then, BF had room for some
gain. Besides, at only 2780, there were many
more FIDE rating points out there for the taking;
at GetClub, Zebediah has driven one level down to
a ridiculously low 400+ rating; why could not BF
attempt to push all his rivals below 2700, 2690, or
even 2680, by beating them over and over? Look
at what Gary Kasparov managed to achieve in that
realm.


-- help bot