"help bot" wrote in message
...
On May 5, 8:15 am, "Chess One" wrote:

But the effect of other players on Karpov, who can be said to have an
artistic temperament to chess, was that he said he could never really get
excited [artistically] at the prospect of playing Kasparov - but Korchnoi
provided him a huge stimulus - and he quantified that, by saying
something
like 85% of his creative energies.

He then continued on this theme, in Karpov on Karpov, to state that
Fischer
would have been his greatest challenge, in the 90th percentiles.

That is an artistic tribute and a sincere one to Fischer-the-player.

It seems likely that this particular blather was a
response to the innumerable attacks "on Karpov",
but by others.

Sorry, that sentence doesn't parse.

One of these others was of course,
Gary Kasparov, who continued to belittle his
adversary until he signed a contract forbidding it,
not very long ago.

'these others'? Did you announce your own topic yet?

What I wrote is that Karpov fessed up to things he did as world champion,
that he later was not proud of, and that he is the first I know to have done
this in writing.

He also admitted a personal element about his own creativity in respect of
specific opponents. I do not understand from greg Kennedy who can't even
admit his own name, what the hell he knows or thinks or speculates upon - or
even what his opinion is, never mind how informed it is.


The ploy was to suggest that GK was unworthy,
or that AK had not necessarily tried his darnedest
to excel against him; a rather obvious cop-out or
lie.

In what way, even in a general sense, are people who like Bach but not
Beethoven deploying cop-out tactics or lying?

To me, this is no different from the multitude
of lies and fabrications told by master story-teller
Gary Kasparov, many of which targeted Anatoly
Karpov, casting him as the main villain in twisted
plots which virtually always contained serious
flaws and self-contradictions, not to mention
casting errors (GK as the hero??!).

These strong players are all of a muchness to Greg Kennedy, who BTW, had not
admitted reading the chess bio I quote from, or anything else to inform his
opinions. Maybe all GMs look and act the same to him?

Far better if Fischer-the-player had continued to believe in pawns rather
than suffer the fate of the [self] abandoned celebrity.

Another possibility was for Bobby Fischer to
refuse to compete, but at the same time craft
numerous works on the game, which quite
naturally would have been best-sellers. That
would have solved his financial woes, while at

Fischer had no especial financial woes [laugh]

the same time affording him an outlet in which
to critique the play of other grandmasters, and
bash the FIDE, the USCF, and most of all, the
Russians and the Jews who were all "out to get
him". (Hey, if /I Was Beaten in a Pasadena
Jailhouse/ sold, then why not /The World Wide
Plot to Get Bobby Fischer/?)

Because that would be a completely trite response to the issues in his life,
and address issues as if written by a persona created by the public, not an
actual person.

As far as the public was concerned there was no Fischer-the-person, there
was only the chess hero. And when heroes don't compete any more for us, we
the public resent the fact, and want to punnish the Hero.

The fate of abandoned-celebrity is to be treated just as you have done here
with Karpov and Kasparov. You can no longer fantasize yourself into their
situations, neither can you get there by you own efforts - intolerable
situation! - [for fantacists] so you 'kill' him still, even though Fischer
is dead.

This is why Taimanov said that he pitied all these Russian kids whose only
route out of their drab regional futures was their chess, and that he
thought was too brittle a base to withstand much of life.

Phil Innes


-- help bot