"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...

Taylor Kingston wrote:

I'm more interested at the moment in what annotator made your claim
that 11...Nh5 was a blunder.

Look, "Dr. Blair", I was NOT QUOTING ANYONE. It was
me. I wrote it myself, without quoting myself or anyone else.
You'll never get it, you quote freak! ;D

And another thing, if I say that GK says he is not quoting anyone, neither
am I quoting him, since to quote him would look like this, GK said; " Look,
"Dr. Blair", I was NOT QUOTING ANYONE.... ". Instead of quoting him I am
referring to what he said.

IIRC, there are at least 50 books on the
1972 match. With that many annotators, one can probably find just about
any opinion one wants for many of the moves.

You forgot about magazines. People like, say, Larry
Evans, often annotate a famous game in a magazine
article instead of writing a whole book. And then there
is Informants and NIC (ask IM Innes, he knows what
these are 'cause he's really good).

so does the other near-IM who came by last night and gave me 2 more NiCs in
exchange for other chess gear - GK is much more interesting now that he is
outside of chess, although much he says seems a bit much! since i'm not so
sure he did those things while he was in chess

They are not all correct.

I seem to recall that GM Timman has "revised" some
of his own work, including faulty analysis. Compare this
to Fine's BCE, which was *perfect* on the first go!

However, I have entered the position in Fritz8.

Why? The best program is not Fritz8, but again,
IM Innes' "Rybka". This is why he is a nearly-an-IM,
while you linger way down around 2300+.

True, Rybka is a tough bird to beat, and at 10 minute games I have never
done it, only drawn once.

In other words, the
evaluation difference between Fischer's move and Fritz's recommended
move is about one-fifth of a pawn.


That's now how Dr. Fine put it. He claimed that
GM Fischer's N-h5 was, well, on the verge of
demonstrating psychosis, neurosis, and a lot of
other osis'es of psychological origin. And his pal,
Dr. Freud, agreed. They say he hated his Father,
wanted to "marry" his Mother, and that chess was
a substitute whereby he could "kill" his Father
symbolically, by checkmating his opponents.

You only forgot Freud's cigars. You think there is a market for a Freudian
chess set? Jungians would have orgasms over it! The repressed twits!

You
may find this hard to believe, but these sickos
have it all worked out into a system, sort of like
Nimzowitch.


These are not blunder numbers.

Once again, you are nitpicking my choice of terms,
in defense of Fischer. My point was obviouly nothing
to do with nits or picks, but centered around the idea
of a near-IM asking us about Fischer's N-h5 move --
which seemed ludicrous. A near-IM ought to be
giving us a lecture on this move, not inquiring whether
or not it is sound.

We real near-IMs prefer to demonstrate, not talk about. Its an elitist thing
you learn about when you get your official rat-pack writing pack. Never
explain! it says, then goes on to say why you shouldn't.

One guy who did not mindlessly praise GM Fischer's
every move was GM Ruebin Fine --

I have not read Reuben Fine's book on the match. However, the reviews
I've seen were strongly negative.

Yet these reviews were negative only because of
Dr. Fine's Freudian approach -- not because his move
annotations were poor. Mr. Fine talked a lot about
psychology (surprise!) in his book, and not everyone
buys into Freud's way of thinking. (But in Dr. Fine's
defense, this was all the rage back when he went to
shrink school.)

Fine didn't like Morphy either. Obviously a repressed girls-shoes kinda guy,
turned bitter-librarian after having his hopes shattered by Euwe. Course, in
those days you couldn't wear girls shoes outside, since they thought you
weren't a man, nowadays its the opposite.


who by the way, saw
"Knights moving to the rim" in ways you never dreamed
possible!

"To dweam the impossible dweam ..." -- E. Fudd in "Man of Wa Mancha"

Except for HMS Pinafore, MOWM was my favorite
G & S play. Especially with Arnold Swartzenegger
playing the title role. My favorite song was:

"I've nevur wost in battew or game;
I'm simpwy da best by fawr.

When swords are cwossed, it's always da same;
one blow, and aw revoiwr!

And I thought you were a cultural-challenged kid from the plains,
intimidated by us east-coast model intellectuals. I had a model of a model
intellectual once, made of a soft wood and you could throw darts across the
room and they would stick in.

near-Phil.

-- help bot

On Nov 4, 2:36 am, "help bot" wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
I'm more interested at the moment in what annotator made your claim
that 11...Nh5 was a blunder.

Look, "Dr. Blair", I was NOT QUOTING ANYONE. It was
me. I wrote it myself, without quoting myself or anyone else.

That contradicts your earlier statement: "The refutation has been
published, but I couldn't say where, exactly."

You'll never get it, you quote freak! ;D

Suit yourself. However, this inclines me to doubt that any such
"refutation" has actually been published.

You forgot about magazines. People like, say, Larry
Evans, often annotate a famous game in a magazine
article instead of writing a whole book.

OK, if the refutation's in a magazine, feel free to cite the
magazine. I don't see it in the 1972 Chess Life & Review, where both
Robert Byrne and Burt Hochberg praise 11...Nh5.
Oh, and Evans did write a book on the match.

I seem to recall that GM Timman has "revised" some
of his own work, including faulty analysis. Compare this
to Fine's BCE, which was *perfect* on the first go!

You have got to be kidding. It's well known that "Basic Chess
Endings" has many errors.

However, I have entered the position in Fritz8.

Why?

Because that is the analysis engine I have.

The best program is not Fritz8, but again,
IM Innes' "Rybka".

OK, tell us what Rybka's verdict is on move 11 of game 3 of the 1972
match.

I have not read Reuben Fine's book on the match. However, the reviews
I've seen were strongly negative.

Yet these reviews were negative only because of
Dr. Fine's Freudian approach -- not because his move
annotations were poor.

On the contrary, Fine's annotations definitely came under fire.

Except for HMS Pinafore, MOWM was my favorite
G & S play. Especially with Arnold Swartzenegger
playing the title role. My favorite song was:

"I've nevur wost in battew or game;
I'm simpwy da best by fawr.
When swords are cwossed, it's always da same;
one blow, and aw revoiwr!

That was not "Man of Wa Mancha." That was Sir Wancewot (Wobert Gouwet
on stage, Fwanco Newo in the film) in "Camewot," which was not by
Gilbert and Sullivan, but by Werner and Woewe.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...

However, I have entered the position in Fritz8.

Why?

Because that is the analysis engine I have.

God! I don't think Fischer was playing Fritz!

Interestingly Kasparov says in NiC 3/2006

"Topalov made an unwise opening choice, a sharp line in the semi-slav,
that gave the imaginative Spaniard the sort of game he prefers. While
preparing for Vallejo last year we had a couple of interesting ideas in that
variation, but Yury weighed in with this piece of common sense:

'why try to beat Vallejo in a sharp line where he'll feel creative and
energized. He feels much happier in these sharp positions. Play something
dull and dumb!'

And that's just what I did, winning a long game. Its good to remember that
there is more to choosing the best opening than finding the best moves."

//Gary Kasparov.

Though it is an ignored factor by current commentators, I personally credit
Fischer with the same sense of what to play to rock and roll his opponent.
And the truth of it is, he demonstrated it.

Phil Innes

The best program is not Fritz8, but again,
IM Innes' "Rybka".

OK, tell us what Rybka's verdict is on move 11 of game 3 of the 1972
match.

I have not read Reuben Fine's book on the match. However, the reviews
I've seen were strongly negative.

Yet these reviews were negative only because of
Dr. Fine's Freudian approach -- not because his move
annotations were poor.

On the contrary, Fine's annotations definitely came under fire.

Except for HMS Pinafore, MOWM was my favorite
G & S play. Especially with Arnold Swartzenegger
playing the title role. My favorite song was:

"I've nevur wost in battew or game;
I'm simpwy da best by fawr.
When swords are cwossed, it's always da same;
one blow, and aw revoiwr!

That was not "Man of Wa Mancha." That was Sir Wancewot (Wobert Gouwet
on stage, Fwanco Newo in the film) in "Camewot," which was not by
Gilbert and Sullivan, but by Werner and Woewe.

Isn't the line that calls 11...Nh5 into question something like 12.Bxh5
gh 13.a4 Ne5 14.Nd1 followed by Ne3? I think the idea was Gligoric's:
check his CL Game of the Month column for 1973 or 1974--should be
mentioned there.

Kasparov in MGP4 writes en passant that Spassky's team had prepared him
for 11...Nh5, but that Spassky didn't play the prepared line. (Shades
of Geller's brilliant ...Qb7! that could have been played in Game 6.)

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 4, 2:36 am, "help bot" wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
I'm more interested at the moment in what annotator made your claim
that 11...Nh5 was a blunder.

Look, "Dr. Blair", I was NOT QUOTING ANYONE. It was
me. I wrote it myself, without quoting myself or anyone else.

That contradicts your earlier statement: "The refutation has been
published, but I couldn't say where, exactly."


No. It is your obtuse insistence upon attacking
the word "blunder" which prevents you from being
able to comprehend a simple idea: that GM Fischer's
N-h5 move has been refuted, "busted", improved
upon, or if you prefer, demonstrated to be suboptimal.

Insisting that such analysis does not exist merely
shows the bias I refered to earlier. In particular, you
keep listing the names of American writers, many of
whom were strong supporters of GM Fischer at the
time of their analysis. Names like R. Byrne and
Larry Evans are good examples. IMO, if GM Fischer
farted, GM Evans would conclude it was a Russian
conspiracy against him, not a careless "slip". Only
once did GM Evans ever put the blame on GM Fischer,
and even then he later shifted ground (to a different
continent, on the other side of the planet). Even when
GM Fischer wrongfully attacked GM Evans for his
carelessness in analysing one particular ending, the
writer just accepted it as fate. He obviously thinks
Mr. Fischer is a god.


You'll never get it, you quote freak! ;D

Suit yourself. However, this inclines me to doubt that any such
"refutation" has actually been published.


I couldn't care less about your doubts. The fact
remains that this move has been speared by
analysis. I expect even GM Fischer will admit
this, or already has. Try to get past your
fixation on quotations and the term "blunder".


You forgot about magazines. People like, say, Larry
Evans, often annotate a famous game in a magazine
article instead of writing a whole book.

OK, if the refutation's in a magazine, feel free to cite the
magazine. I don't see it in the 1972 Chess Life & Review, where both
Robert Byrne and Burt Hochberg praise 11...Nh5.


Look, you're never going to get anywhere by focusing
on the material published around the time of this match.
The key word here is "perspective". It's something that
comes with the passing of time, and requires objectivity,
not unthinking endorsement.


Oh, and Evans did write a book on the match.

Of course he did. The one person who ought to have
written a book on that match but didn't, has the initials
R.J.F. Actually, I would prefer a double-book, wherein
both GMs Fischer and Spassky write about the games
and the match, with their different perspectives presented,
side by side for comparison. But it will never happen.

I seem to recall that GM Timman has "revised" some
of his own work, including faulty analysis. Compare this
to Fine's BCE, which was *perfect* on the first go!

You have got to be kidding. It's well known that "Basic Chess
Endings" has many errors.

My published *book* of corrections to this work shows
you may be lacking a sense of humor. Or perceptivity.


However, I have entered the position in Fritz8.

Why?

Because that is the analysis engine I have.

The best program is not Fritz8, but again,
IM Innes' "Rybka".

OK, tell us what Rybka's verdict is on move 11 of game 3 of the 1972
match.


As I tried to explain before, this is a program
owned by IM Innes, not me. I have already posted
the fact that I downloaded the free version (which is
purportedly much weaker) but it failed to work on my
computer. This is why I was hesitant to pay money
to buy the top-rated chess program, because it might
not even run on my computer. I saw a site which
gave Rybka a rating (which is meaningless except
for comparison to the other top programs) of 3000+,
and that impressed me. The last chess program I
bought is now perhaps 4 or 5 hundred points below
this, though it will not run on my current computer.

Another thing: in a position like this, it is important
to allow the program to analyse for a very long time,
to minimize the horizon effect. It's a complex
middlegame position, so even a strong program is
going to have a lot of "work" to do, and to check the
quality of its work, you need to carefully step forward
along its main line, to see if it balks on its previous
assessment. Ideally, one would analyse this position
in depth on several of the top-rated programs, and I
don't have any of them.


I have not read Reuben Fine's book on the match. However, the reviews
I've seen were strongly negative.

Yet these reviews were negative only because of
Dr. Fine's Freudian approach -- not because his move
annotations were poor.

On the contrary, Fine's annotations definitely came under fire.


Do you know of any counter-analysis to his spearing
of N-h5, which was not psychology related?

Speaking of coming under fire, this is precisely the
thing I was talking about earlier. Unless and until the
move can be assessed objectively, the endorsement by
such annotators as GMs Byrne and Evans must be seen
as semi-automatic, like the rifle. Nobody here is trying
to say that, psychologically, GM Fischer's move was
ineffective or a poor choice OTB. On the contrary, the
move is being criticized on the grounds of being inferior
to some other move(s). This difference is particularly
relevent to correspondence play, for example. No
matter if world champion Spassky went down to this
move, it is not a good idea to play it *now*, since it
has been shown to be inferior.


Except for HMS Pinafore, MOWM was my favorite
G & S play. Especially with Arnold Swartzenegger
playing the title role. My favorite song was:

"I've nevur wost in battew or game;
I'm simpwy da best by fawr.
When swords are cwossed, it's always da same;
one blow, and aw revoiwr!

That was not "Man of Wa Mancha." That was Sir Wancewot (Wobert Gouwet
on stage, Fwanco Newo in the film) in "Camewot," which was not by
Gilbert and Sullivan, but by Werner and Woewe.

No matter, as their plays are hardly performed any
longer (except at Larry Parr's alma mater). You have
to admit, though, that the song above is faw bettuw
dan da one in Star Trek, the next generation. When
Siw Wancewot sang that he had nevuw wost in battew
or *game*, he of couwse was wefuwing to *chess*.
I don't have a clue what Captain Picard was singing
about.

-- help bot

(higher-rated than you at GetClub.com!)

Chess One wrote:

'why try to beat Vallejo in a sharp line where he'll feel creative and
energized. He feels much happier in these sharp positions. Play something
dull and dumb!'

And that's just what I did, winning a long game. Its good to remember that
there is more to choosing the best opening than finding the best moves."

//Gary Kasparov.

Though it is an ignored factor by current commentators, I personally credit
Fischer with the same sense of what to play to rock and roll his opponent.
And the truth of it is, he demonstrated it.


Ha! You choose to ignore the many times when GM
Fischer chose unwisely, and focus only upon this one
match. Up until the 1972 match, GM Fischer had never
once beaten GM Spassky, who himself could well be
credited for chosing wisely to essay the King's Gambit
which GM Fischer later blustered he had "busted". Or,
one could credit this game to a single mistake -- it
depends upon one's predisposition, one's biases. Some
would say that GM Fischer had more trouble with certain
openings, like the French Defense, for instance. So, did
all those players who deliberately chose 1. ...e6 "rock and
roll" GM Fischer, who mucked up by allowing this?

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:

'why try to beat Vallejo in a sharp line where he'll feel creative
and
energized. He feels much happier in these sharp positions. Play something
dull and dumb!'

And that's just what I did, winning a long game. Its good to remember
that
there is more to choosing the best opening than finding the best moves."

//Gary Kasparov.

Though it is an ignored factor by current commentators, I personally
credit
Fischer with the same sense of what to play to rock and roll his
opponent.
And the truth of it is, he demonstrated it.


Ha! You choose to ignore the many times when GM
Fischer chose unwisely, and focus only upon this one
match.

Tal also chose 'unwisely' and was for a time unbeatable in the world! The
point Kasparov is making is that it is necessary to play the opponent for
strengths and weaknesses [and other factors could be added, including time].
If the effect of Fischer's move is in doubt then Spassky's own testiment
should be enough to convince anyone that this move 'bust' him.

Fischer did very much the same on route to the title game, especially
against Taimanov. I asked Mark if he agreed that the third game was the most
complex position achieved in the entire C20th? While he would not have said
that himself, I don't think he disagreed. There is a record of his public
comments at Chessville in the Lessons Learned column.

In fact Taimanov/Fischer 3rd game, and the decision if to play Qh3 !?! was
not solved by anybody for over 20+ years - not even Kasparov nor any
computer analysis. Yet, at very great length Taimanov solved it.

I think the massive complexity and effect of some moves must be considered
in terms of who is playing, and the available time, rather than by
theoretical responses years or even decades later.


Up until the 1972 match, GM Fischer had never
once beaten GM Spassky, who himself could well be
credited for chosing wisely to essay the King's Gambit
which GM Fischer later blustered he had "busted".

Spassky was told by his chess handler's, even when he was beating everyone
with his KG, not to continue! I think they were right since it was not
sufficient to combat the 1st flite in chess.

It took some time to bust the Fischer bust of the KG - who was it who came
up with b3!

Or,
one could credit this game to a single mistake -- it
depends upon one's predisposition, one's biases. Some
would say that GM Fischer had more trouble with certain
openings, like the French Defense, for instance.

OTOH, he could play the King's Indian against anyone - and the GM joke about
their own bad play is "I can't even beat the King's Indian!"

So, did
all those players who deliberately chose 1. ...e6 "rock and
roll" GM Fischer, who mucked up by allowing this?

I'm sorry - what Kasparov is saying is the direct opposite of generic
comment, and latter-day analysis. He says there are some things to do
against specific opponents, and even at certain times. I would say that
history sides with Kasparov's opinion here, and I only add some examples of
it above, but these are very strong examples of a specificity in the art of
playing chess, not of generic 'theory' which takes insufficient note of the
condition of the players, and of course, is not happening in real time [tick
tick tick].

Obviously chess playing is a combination of these two factors, and Kasparov
says which he thinks is the under-appreciated but dominant factor between
them.

Phil Innes

-- help bot

Chess One wrote:

I'm sorry - what Kasparov is saying is the direct opposite of generic
comment, and latter-day analysis. He says there are some things to do
against specific opponents, and even at certain times. I would say that
history sides with Kasparov's opinion here,


Has "history" even had time to "side" with Kasparov yet?
I think not. IMO, GM Kasparov has written more hooey
than any other chess writer I know of, and that includes
the world's foremost authority on everything!

It boils down to a given writer's predisposition. Take a
writer like GM Evans, and the verdict is in before the case
comes to trial: N-h5 was a brilliant psychological "move".
But take, say, Rybka, and N-h5 might be labeled as any
of the following, depending entirely upon preset thresholds
decided by its creator:

suboptimal
somewhat inferior
inferior
a mistake
a weak move
(I already "took back" my choice of the term "blunder",
because of the common notion that this implies a piece-
hanger level of mistake.)

What is clear is that it as certainly not the best move.


My games themselves are a powerful testament to my
belief in the idea of playing the opponent, as well as the
board. But you should keep in mind the famous quote
of GM Fischer in which he strongly stated the opposite
position as being his own. In view of this, it seems that
writers like GM Evans (among others) are missing the
self-contradiction in claiming GM Fischer's "suboptimal"
moves were deliberately chosen for psychological
purposes, as if to say he couldn't fathom the position
on the board and had to resort to psycho-guesswork in
order to effect a win. This may well apply to *many* of
my games, but GM Fischer's?

Again, this brouhaha over N-h5 merely shows how
RF wanted desperately to kill his brother and carry his
mother, as explained by Dr. Jeckyl in his book on the
match. Dr. Jung can explain everything, but he was
attacked last night by a creature closely resembling a
wolf/man, and for some reason he won't stop howling
at the moon. So we are left in the dark, but for the
unquestionable objectivity of Dr. Rybka -- the famous
Russian chess scientist.

-- Ct. Frankenstein

wrote:

Isn't the line that calls 11...Nh5 into question something like 12.Bxh5
gh 13.a4 Ne5 14.Nd1 followed by Ne3? I think the idea was Gligoric's:
check his CL Game of the Month column for 1973 or 1974--should be
mentioned there.


This sounds exactly like the analysis I was talking
about, which TK believes does not exist unless and
until it is *quoted* by someone. Obviously, TK and
Louis Blair are one and the same, posting under two
different names. Or four, if you believe Larry Parr's
accusations.
The funny thing is, I was not a USCF member back
in 1972/3, so I could only have read about this by
someone later quoting Geller, or quoting someone who
quoted Geller's analysis.


Kasparov in MGP4 writes en passant that Spassky's team had prepared him
for 11...Nh5, but that Spassky didn't play the prepared line. (Shades
of Geller's brilliant ...Qb7! that could have been played in Game 6.)

This is clear proof that GM Spassky threw the match.
As further evidence, he even practiced by throwing games
in his training against Karpov, just before playing GM
Fischer! As if all that weren't enough, GM Spassky
deliberately avoided playing the King's Gambit, which
for him would have made throwing the games much more
difficult. Even as early as game 1, GM Spassky tried his
best to allow an easy draw as White, but GM Fischer
wouldn't let him; the dimwitted American confounded
the Russian's plan by entraping his own Bishop by
snatching a poisoned pawn! Shortly thereafter, Spassky
"gave" GM Fischer a full point by negotiating regarding
the match score, instead of playing to win in earnest.

The last time we saw anything remotely similar to this
"tossing away" of points was when Frank Marshall was
around. I can still recall the look on the spectators' faces
when he moved his Queen where it could be captured
seventeen different ways, but his opponent was no slouch
at this game: he quickly resigned, before Marshall could
effect a forcing combination resulting in self-mate.

-- spinning bot

help bot wrote:
wrote:

Isn't the line that calls 11...Nh5 into question something like 12.Bxh5
gh 13.a4 Ne5 14.Nd1 followed by Ne3? I think the idea was Gligoric's:
check his CL Game of the Month column for 1973 or 1974--should be
mentioned there.


This sounds exactly like the analysis I was talking
about, which TK believes does not exist unless and
until it is *quoted* by someone.

For once, my memory was good: Kasparov talks about this idea at
length--originated by Ljubojevic, not Fischer--and briefly discusses
this position in the notes to Petrosian-Rashkovsky, USSR ch 1976 (MGP3
119-22).