LiamToo wrote:
help bot wrote:
Bobby Fischer, exagerate? No way! Those guys at the Passadena
jailhouse are as busted as the King's Gambit. Bobby's got them in
a virtual full Nelson, like when he played Bxh2!! against Spassky.

That Bxh2!! was the most brilliant move that Fischer ever made. I


I have Bobby on Wednesdays and Fridays, but I may be
able to work you in on say, Monday afternoons. My
secretary will handle the details.

Let's start by rooting out the reason you fail to accept the
reality of Fischer's non-infallibility, his few but very real
blunders OTB. This should prove very interesting.


-- shrink bot


PS: I golf on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and yes it does
take the entire day for me to get once 'round the course,
because some %$*&%$# put ponds and sand traps in the
way to make my life miserable. Okay, that's not the real
reason he put them there, but it often *seems* like it.

wrote:

BOBBY'S MOST FAMOUS MOVE

In CHESS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP 1972 GM Evans has this to
say about 29...Bxh2 in game one, which is probably Bobby's most
famous move.

A miscalculation which is not fatal in itself, although most players
attributed Fischer's loss to this capture of the "poisoned" pawn. Black
is not content to settle for a draw and he wants to keep winning
chances alive. Having demonstrated that the champion could not
achieve the vestige of an advantage with White, Fischer now seems
to be saying "you can't draw with me that easily!"

After 30 g3 GM Evans noted:

Spassky bolted upright in his chair. His first reaction must have
been that he overlooked something. "Fischer must see something
we don't," whispered a reverential fan. In the rear of the hall
Spassky's second, Soviet Grandmaster Ewfim Geller, was
smiling broadly from ear to ear.


It is not surprising that, many years ago when Evans' mind
was not yet so clouded as it is today, he was able to accept
the fact that Fischer's Bxh2 blunder in fact lost material. His
weak attempts to reinterpret this as a deliberate act, however,
clearly indicate that his cold war mentality was already a
serious handicap, causing him to twist and spin events such
as to "fit in" with his contorted, cold war version of reality.

-------

I did not know that Spassky had bolted upright in his chair,
or that Geller had also outcalculated Fischer on this turn --
very interesting. Spassky is one of those players who is
not afraid to work small advantages in the endgame, though
he is most remembered for his brilliant attacks, like his
famous miniature of Larsen. Oddly enough, the players who
are remembered for working small advantages in the endgame
include Fischer himself, along with Petrosian, Karpov, and
Botvinnik. (Capablanca required no advantage whatever in
the endgame in order to win.)

-- help bot

Taylor Kingston wrote:
Louis Blair wrote:
If someone has a copy of No Regrets handy perhaps
they can find something on the Bxh2 move. If I
remember correctly, there was a question about
it in one of the interviews.

I can find only a very brief mention, on page 15. The first press
conference of the 1992 match, on 1 September, had this exchange between
Ivan Solotaroff of Equire magazine and Fischer:

Q: Why did you take on h2 in the game against Spassky in 1972? Were
you trying to create winning chances by complicating a drawn position?
A: Basically, that's right, yes.


In a courtroom, this kind of thing is referred to as "leading
the witness", and is disallowed because of its obvious
diversion from the idea of finding the _truth_.

-------

Truth be told, I'd wager that Fischer would love to have
6-0'ed Spassky, just as he had others, if for no other
reason than to erase the painful memories of all those
games where he had failed against Spassky in the past.

But in this game, where Spassky had White, he was not
allowed to dictate the course of the game; Spassky took
the unexpected course of not playing for a big edge as
White, not avoiding the possibility of a draw, not taking
any risk of loss (Fischer's specialty was winning as
Black, while other players settled for draws). It was
almost as if Fischer's magical powers of strong counterplay
had been rendered useless, "negated" in the style of
Petrosian.

Evans went into one of his typical spin-frenzies over this
game, falling into "denial" and bleating that Spassky had
"no" advantage, when he obviously did. The propagandist's
toolbox is again accessed in order to "change the subject"
from Fischer's miscalculation to the realms of match
psychology (pretending the blunder was so simple that
Fischer *must* have played it deliberately). In fact, the
refutation of Fischer's blunder required not one, but two
(or 100%) of the White pieces to retreat, and such retreats
are one of the most commonly overlooked ideas, and not
only by patzers. Nonbelievers need look no further than
Fischer's prior games against Spassky in order to find
other examples of him blundering, but Levy's book on
Fischer's early career gives a wider variety of examples.

-- help bot

Louis Blair wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote (28 Aug 2006 10:56:09 -0700):

7 I can find only a very brief mention, on page 15 [of No
7 Regrets]. The first press conference of the 1992 match,
7 on 1 September, had this exchange between Ivan
7 Solotaroff of Equire magazine and Fischer:
7
7 Q: Why did you take on h2 in the game against
7 Spassky in 1972? Were you trying to create winning
7 chances by complicating a drawn position?
7 A: Basically, that's right, yes.

_
This would seem to contradict the idea (mentioned by
LiamToo, 28 Aug 2006 07:57:23 -0700) that "Bxh2!!
and then game 2" was part of an attempt by fischer "to
strenghten Spassky's confidence and make the entire
match interesting".


I'm pretty sure I remember Fischer once admitting he
just blundered, in one of his longwinded radio interviews,
perhaps. Many fans seem to be under a spell, actually
believing that this was simply not possible! How quickly
we forget. Fischer's talent was such that he did blunder
less frequently than others, but he was definitely not
infallible. In fact, Fischer admitted he had made analytical
mistakes in his book, MSMG, while attacking the hacks
who "translated" it into algebraic notation.

-- help bot

Taylor Kingston wrote:
LiamToo wrote:
That Bxh2!! was the most brilliant move that Fischer ever made. It was
even a draw after that but, it had to be done. It was simply a stroke
of genius.

As far as I know, this interpretation is unwarranted by the facts. I
believe the final verdict is that objectively, 29...Bxh2? was a bad
move, one that turned a theoretical draw into a loss. Extensive
analysis by Olafsson and Timman, on pages 38-40 of "Fischer World
Champion" (New In Chess, 2002) demonstrates this. That Spassky later
erred, playing 36.a4 instead of 36.Kg4, does not change 29...Bxh2? from
a bad move to good.


Uh-oh. You are using logic here, and thus there is no
way they are going to be able to comprehend.


The path to a draw allowed by 36.a4 was as narrow
as a wasp's waist, and Fischer failed to find it, playing 39...f5?
instead of 39...e5, and so ultimately he lost.


Oddly enough, Fischer's diehard fans have little trouble
in admitting he lost this one game; where they falter is
in admitting he made any bad moves, except "deliberately".


If Fischer were a poker player, he could have been a great
one too. As they sat down to play, Bobby saw poker tells from Spassky.
He saw fear.

Highly debatable. Fischer himself said "I don't believe in
psychology, I believe in strong moves."


He lied. Fischer was a practicing psycho logist. Okay,
maybe not a logist.


What would a genius do to strenghten Spassky's confidence and make the
entire match interesting? Bxh2!! and then game 2.

I would instead tend to agree with Edmondson's assessment that,
psychologically speaking, it was 11...Nh5 in game 3 that beat Spassky,
if such a thing can be attributed to any single move.


I'm sorry, but that was just another weak move on Fischer's
part. The fact that Spassky failed to find a refutation OTB tells
us nothing about Fischer, only Spassky.

Several of Fischer's games against Spassky show him
getting strategically outplayed, so his dire need to win
was frustrated except insofar as he could do so by means
of inferior moves/plans. Tactically, Fischer was superior in
that match. And chess is 93.2% tactics....

-- help bot

MISCALCULATION

It is not surprising that, many years ago when Evans' mind
was not yet so clouded as it is today, he was able to accept
the fact that Fischer's Bxh2 blunder in fact lost material. His
weak attempts to reinterpret this as a deliberate act, however,
clearly indicate that his cold war mentality was already a
serious handicap, causing him to twist and spin events such
as to "fit in" with his contorted, cold war version of reality. --
Help Bog

Instead of spouting your usual drivel, if you actually to take the
trouble to read what GM Evans wrote (he was an eyewitness)
he called Bxh2 a MISCALCULATION in a dead even position.

MISCALCULATION

It is not surprising that, many years ago when Evans' mind
was not yet so clouded as it is today, he was able to accept
the fact that Fischer's Bxh2 blunder in fact lost material. His
weak attempts to reinterpret this as a deliberate act, however,
clearly indicate that his cold war mentality was already a
serious handicap, causing him to twist and spin events such
as to "fit in" with his contorted, cold war version of reality. --
Help Bog

Instead of spouting your usual drivel, if you actually to take the
trouble to read what GM Evans wrote (he was an eyewitness)
he called Bxh2 a MISCALCULATION in a dead even position.

wrote:

MISCALCULATION

It is not surprising that, many years ago when Evans' mind
was not yet so clouded as it is today, he was able to accept
the fact that Fischer's Bxh2 blunder in fact lost material. His
weak attempts to reinterpret this as a deliberate act, however,
clearly indicate that his cold war mentality was already a
serious handicap, causing him to twist and spin events such
as to "fit in" with his contorted, cold war version of reality. --
Help Bog

Instead of spouting your usual drivel, if you actually to take the
trouble to read what GM Evans wrote (he was an eyewitness)
he called Bxh2 a MISCALCULATION in a dead even position.


This is what is known as "selective quoting".

When Larry Parr wants Evans to say x, he finds and
quotes words saying x. When he wants Evans to have
said y, he finds and quotes only words where GM Evans
said y. Mr. Parr has, once again, inadvertently speared
Evans by pointing out his inconsistency.

Obviously, I was talking about Larry Parr's earlier quote;
the one where he said x, not y. It is hardly surprising that
Evans has contradicted himself over the years, taking
different positions on this issue. A part of Evans wants
to do right, to point out when Fischer tries to pull a fast
one. But another part of him is pulled in the opposite
direction.

Even with the brief Evans comment above, one can easily
find fault. In this case, Evans has deliberately lied regarding
the small advantage Spassky had when Fischer blundered
with Bxh2. While Larry Parr might be forgiven for making
this kind of analytical error, a GM ought to know better.

I won't argue whether or not Black can "hold a draw" in
this inferior position, as that is not the real issue. The issue
for me is that some of the commentators were heavily biased,
and calling this famous position dead even, a "dead draw",
or any other phrase which ignores the fact of White's small
advantage reveals personal bias which has no place in proper
chess analysis.

This is the very same sort of bias which led Larry Parr to
deliberately snip the Evans quote I was responding to, in favor
of a brief comment where Evans took the opposite stance,
admitting that Fischer miscalculated. One does not
"miscalculate" deliberately (that is called throwing the game).

-- help bot

wrote:
MISCALCULATION

It is not surprising that, many years ago when Evans' mind
was not yet so clouded as it is today, he was able to accept
the fact that Fischer's Bxh2 blunder in fact lost material. His
weak attempts to reinterpret this as a deliberate act, however,
clearly indicate that his cold war mentality was already a
serious handicap, causing him to twist and spin events such
as to "fit in" with his contorted, cold war version of reality. --
Help Bog

Instead of spouting your usual drivel, if you actually to take the
trouble to read what GM Evans wrote (he was an eyewitness)
he called Bxh2 a MISCALCULATION in a dead even position.


Stop pounding the "send" key like that! Here, take
this pill, you will feel much better. Try to remain calm.
It's only a game, you know.

-- doc bot

LiamToo wrote:

If Fischer were a poker player, he could have been a great
one too. As they sat down to play, Bobby saw poker tells from Spassky.
He saw fear.

I remember that there was a commentator who made the comment that
Spassky had the same deadpan expression whether he was mating or being
mated, or at least I think I do.

I think Spassky was a ball of conflicting ideas and emotions, and this
heightened during the match, which makes speculation difficult. But I
am not sure if Spassky gave anything away by facial expressions or body
language.

Again, this is the product of an aging memory, but I always thought the
most appropriate thought was that at some point in the match Fischer
"smelled" victory - and I use that term deliberately, almost like an
animal that tracked his rather conflicted and sometimes lazy prey.

One of my favorite and most fruitless what ifs is what if both players
had been clicking on all cylinders - the popular vote goes to Fischer,
but I still think Spassky could have won....