"Ian Burton" wrote in message
...

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

[Heavily clipped]

Yet there are dangers inherent
in being "too close" to one's subject as well, as we saw
with GM Seirawan's book on the match.

Well thought out, help bot. Seirawan, certainly in 1992, came to the
match against Spassky as nothing less than an idol worshipper. His
comments were those of a sycophant and cannot be trusted.

I have written with one of the authors [Edmonds] of BFGTW, who is a
sometimes editor and presenter on BBC radio.

He is not a strong chess player though a chess fan. Personally, while I
think trying re-stating the overall context for a younger generation to
understand the player in his times is a good thing, I didn't feel as though
the book added anything new to our understanding to the life and times of
RJF himself as a person - especially since the subject of the book is
treated iconically throughout, and achieved no new insights of substance
about him - nor amplified any old one's either.

Overall I thought it went too far down the exploit-Fischer collection of
writings.

Mark Taimanov wrote more insightfully about Fischer in a short
essay/interview with him, than all contained on this book. Interestingly,
Taimanov's curiosity is about both the player, especially how he was viewed
from the SU, and also the player's art, which of course, he is profoundly
capable to do.

I sent Fischer a few quares from this Petersburg source when RJF still lived
in Serbia. One in particular was fascinating about the famous pause in game
3.

I think insight into Fischer still needs to be developed, but with a strong
editor capable of directing a clarity of insight into both the almost
invisible person, sorting that out from the background of the times, and
what celebrity does sometimes to especially performance artists - and who
better to write this than the combination Taimanov/Evans with possible
supplementary material by S. Polgar and -- well, Bent Larsen?

Phil Innes



--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)

"Ian Burton" wrote in message
...

"SAT W-7" wrote in message
...
Thank you for the info .....

Id like to see that match today Karpove vs Fischer .......They should
do it before one of them dies...
I bet Fischer plays on line chess computers so he is probably still
sharp i am sure Karpove is still sharp too ...But unfortunately that
game will never happen..

In the first championship game Fischer vs Spasky , Spasky playing
white moved and hit his clock and Fischer was not even in the room and
after 6 minutes went off his clock he showed up and moved ..Trying to
intimidate Spasky from the start ......That is as far as i got in the
book before i put it back on the shelf.

If the book claims Fischer arrived late to intimidate Spassky (or any
other opponent for that matter), the book is not to be trusted. As a
friend of his back then, I know Fischer never attempted to intimidate
anyone. He was just being Fischer, far more timid than most writers would
have you think.

Yes Ian, while that is so, another factor is this:-
Chessville: In your interview from 2002 with Joel Lautier you said about
your famous 1971 Candidate's match with Bobby Fischer "The terrible feeling
that I was playing against a machine which never made any mistake shattered
my resistance." This is strongly echoed by what Konstantin Sakaev said
about facing Kasparov, "Really, an energy radiated by Kasparov during the
game..." Have there been other players about whom you would say the same
sort of 'energy' effected their opponents, much to the same degree that
Fischer & Kasparov did?

Mark Taimanov: I think that this enormous charge of energy is present with
R. Fischer and G. Kasparov and radiated in even greater degree by Misha Tal.

extract from & copyright of www.chessville.com , with permission

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...s/Taimanov.htm

Phil Innes



Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)

On Mar 5, 9:16 am, "Chess One" wrote:

I think insight into Fischer still needs to be developed, but with a strong
editor capable of directing a clarity of insight into both the almost
invisible person, sorting that out from the background of the times, and
what celebrity does sometimes to especially performance artists - and who
better to write this than the combination Taimanov/Evans with possible
supplementary material by S. Polgar and -- well, Bent Larsen?

Is is unfortunate that any such work now can only benefit from
the better perspective of much time having lapsed, while of course
suffering from this same lapse of time. It is a truism that the
accuracy of recollections is inversely proportionate to the square
of the distance, or passing of time since the events.

Those likely to best know GM Fischer, the man, are those who
have long been close to him, and it is also unfortunate that only the
lowest of sycophants would qualify on this score due to the quirks
of the subject himself. Any rational observers would have been
driven off long ago, leaving behind the worst of commentators, the
sort whose commentary may serve only as amusement or to stir
up feelings of pity for themselves.

When it comes to painting an accurate portrait, the worst subject
is one who keeps squirming and won't sit still. When it comes to
the sort of portrait suggested here by IM Innes, the worst may well
be GM Fischer, the man, with the possible exception of a few
players long dead.

-- help bot

On Mar 5, 2:30 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Chessville: In your interview from 2002 with Joel Lautier you said about
your famous 1971 Candidate's match with Bobby Fischer "The terrible feeling
that I was playing against a machine which never made any mistake shattered
my resistance."

In 1971, there remained several players who had not yet been
demoted to the status of "rabbit" when playing GM Fischer,
although GM Taimanov may not have been among them. One
such player was GM Kortchnoi, who had a decent record, and
others, I believe, were GMs Geller, Keres, and Botvinnik. On
top of this, there remained the fact that reigning world champ
Boris Spassky had never lost even a single game! So, to
suggest that in 1971 GM Fischer was regarded as an unbeatable
machine is a bit of an exaggeration, or at any rate can only be
applied to the feeling of the commentator himself, and other
also-rans. Also, it should be noted that GM Tainanov was
downed *before* the 6-0 thrashing of GM Larsen, which, when
added to the spanking of GM Taimanov, changed the feelings
of the general public on this matter.

Even though I never saw much of the text appear in the pages
of the Western press, the frequent references to Soviet
propaganda pieces made it clear that there had appeared
in their press, articles which made a point of showing up GM
Fischer's weaknesses. In fact, a book by David Levy took
pains in putting things into better perspective, repudiating
silly claims to the effect that GM Fischer was any sort of
perfect "chess machine". Of course, such objectivity was not
exactly welcomed in the USA, nor has its popularity gained
much ground since then.

The truth is that even in the realm of computers, where the
USA shone the brightest, our best-of-the-best product was
given to errors. At "x" million, or billion, or trillion calculations
per minute, Deeper Blue was still subject to occasional fits of
idiocy, not unlike its human creators. The fantasy of an
opponent incapable of error remains exactly that: a fantasy,
an illusion.

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 5, 2:30 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Chessville: In your interview from 2002 with Joel Lautier you said about
your famous 1971 Candidate's match with Bobby Fischer "The terrible
feeling
that I was playing against a machine which never made any mistake
shattered
my resistance."

In 1971, there remained several players who had not yet been
demoted to the status of "rabbit" when playing GM Fischer,
although GM Taimanov may not have been among them. One
such player was GM Kortchnoi, who had a decent record, and
others, I believe, were GMs Geller, Keres, and Botvinnik. On
top of this, there remained the fact that reigning world champ
Boris Spassky had never lost even a single game!

Of course. this is some measure of Fischer's own conditioning. Can you
imagine facing all these guys, all on your ownsome? How can ordinary players
really appreciate that?

So, to
suggest that in 1971 GM Fischer was regarded as an unbeatable
machine is a bit of an exaggeration,

it is a bit of a missaprehension of what Taimanov wrote since you introduce
your own term 'unbeatable' which is not Taimanov's sense - in fact, when we
chose to write about his match vs Fischer as his own choice of annotating a
lost game, he expressed a sort-of voodoo quality about the game [this is
also maintained in his public writing]

later - maybe 2 months after publishing I wrote him and asked if, in his
opinion the position he reached [ and the Qh3 !?!? ] was the most complex
every achieved in the C20th?

I think he was modest about it, OTOH, he did not contradict my statement -
and even after 25 years - all through the Kasparov period, Garry never
solved it, neither did any super-computer.

this was something of note from MT - who is absolutely no fantascist on any
subject - straight as a die, though we used a translator, sometimes resorted
to our only common language, Latin!

or at any rate can only be
applied to the feeling of the commentator himself, and other
also-rans. Also, it should be noted that GM Tainanov was
downed *before* the 6-0 thrashing of GM Larsen, which, when
added to the spanking of GM Taimanov, changed the feelings
of the general public on this matter.

Even though I never saw much of the text appear in the pages
of the Western press, the frequent references to Soviet
propaganda pieces made it clear that there had appeared
in their press, articles which made a point of showing up GM
Fischer's weaknesses. In fact, a book by David Levy took
pains in putting things into better perspective, repudiating
silly claims to the effect that GM Fischer was any sort of
perfect "chess machine". Of course, such objectivity was not
exactly welcomed in the USA, nor has its popularity gained
much ground since then.

And notably, Levy forget that chess is a performance art, rather than a
pundit's paradise. There you are, sitting opposite him, [or as Tal says,
Kasparov or even more so, Tal] and tick tick tick, what are you going to do,
smart arse? ROFL

Of course Fischer was anything but perfect. And Tal even less than that in
terms of analytics - What Tal said about this was that anyone could beast
his combinations the next day, or the next week or month.

And this is the real test of Greats, since you don't have that sort of time,
you got average 3 minutes.

The truth is that even in the realm of computers, where the
USA shone the brightest, our best-of-the-best product was
given to errors. At "x" million, or billion, or trillion calculations
per minute, Deeper Blue was still subject to occasional fits of
idiocy, not unlike its human creators. The fantasy of an
opponent incapable of error remains exactly that: a fantasy,
an illusion.

So is the apprehension of this text from Taimanov. If you are a coach potato
you will know naturally know more about NFL athletes than they know about
themselves, no? Since what else you gotta do but shoot off your mouth, or
more modestly, appreciation the performance aspect of what this people do.

Rather typically, people are similarly idiotic about the military, and what
it takes. Or mountain climbing, or even cooking.

But I think Taimanov is no dummy about emotional factors, and really has a
very qualified view of their effect on peoples spirituality, not unlike his
fellow Petersburger Dostoyevski, or America's Miller.

It is only those who don't play, don't know.

Phil Innes

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 5, 9:16 am, "Chess One" wrote:

I think insight into Fischer still needs to be developed, but with a
strong
editor capable of directing a clarity of insight into both the almost
invisible person, sorting that out from the background of the times, and
what celebrity does sometimes to especially performance artists - and who
better to write this than the combination Taimanov/Evans with possible
supplementary material by S. Polgar and -- well, Bent Larsen?

Is is unfortunate that any such work now can only benefit from
the better perspective of much time having lapsed, while of course
suffering from this same lapse of time. It is a truism that the
accuracy of recollections is inversely proportionate to the square
of the distance, or passing of time since the events.

Those likely to best know GM Fischer, the man, are those who
have long been close to him, and it is also unfortunate that only the
lowest of sycophants would qualify on this score due to the quirks
of the subject himself. Any rational observers would have been
driven off long ago, leaving behind the worst of commentators, the
sort whose commentary may serve only as amusement or to stir
up feelings of pity for themselves.

You state your conclusions neglecting to mention your precedents? ie, how
come you arrive here?

[Incidentally, 'rationally' means to measure or proportion, from [L.];
ratio]

When it comes to painting an accurate portrait, the worst subject
is one who keeps squirming and won't sit still. When it comes to
the sort of portrait suggested here by IM Innes, the worst may well
be GM Fischer, the man, with the possible exception of a few
players long dead.

'May well be', says the coach-potato who can know nothing from his coach, if
true or otherwise?

There is only endless speculation [negative] since this 'helps'
coach-conditioning. As far as we are allowed to know our coach-psychologist
sometimes goes over to the computer and plays Sanny's engine, and this is
enough for him to issue his dim view of the real world and high level chess
encounters.

pfft!

PI



-- help bot

On Mar 5, 7:19 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Of course. this is some measure of Fischer's own conditioning. Can you
imagine facing all these guys, all on your ownsome? How can ordinary players
really appreciate that?

Well, every time I read a comment about how GM Fischer
supposedly faced off against the entire Soviet army of
state-supported players, I am reminded of two things:
1) GM Fischer himself had a near-army of supporters,
enablers, gofers, helpers, and what-have-yous without
which he would never have won the world championship
title. (Heck, without GM Evans' help, there would not
even have been a MSMG book, or if there was, it would
have been clumsily written.)

2) It is often forgotten that those in-the-know consider
GM Fischer himself to be the ultimate product of the
"Russian school of chess"!


So, to
suggest that in 1971 GM Fischer was regarded as an unbeatable
machine is a bit of an exaggeration,

it is a bit of a missaprehension of what Taimanov wrote since you introduce
your own term 'unbeatable' which is not Taimanov's sense

The posting to which I replied said GM T. felt the man was
incapable of error, and this, ipso facto makes him unbeatable by
way of logic and reason (two roads little traveled here).


- in fact, when we
chose to write about his match vs Fischer as his own choice of annotating a
lost game, he expressed a sort-of voodoo quality about the game [this is
also maintained in his public writing]

The same with Petrosian, when later discussing his
candidates' match with GM Fischer. Speculation has it
that perhaps the U.S. government "coached" our man on
psychology, on throwing the opponent off-kilter.

In the book review by Taylor Kingston, I noted that although
"any real significance" was summarily dismissed by the authors,
it remains an undisputed fact that none other than Henry
Kissinger telephoned GM Fischer before the match in question,
pleading him to uphold the honor of his country, etc.

later - maybe 2 months after publishing I wrote him and asked if, in his
opinion the position he reached [ and the Qh3 !?!? ] was the most complex
every achieved in the C20th?

Ludicrous. It hardly requires two world championship
contenders to construct mere complexity in a game.
Why do so many people think so recklessly, I wonder.

I think he was modest about it, OTOH, he did not contradict my statement -
and even after 25 years - all through the Kasparov period, Garry never
solved it, neither did any super-computer.

Nor has anyone completely solved the disputed
positions from GM Botvinnik vs. GM Fischer -- but
so what? This tells us something about our current
status with regard to computers and chess, but
practically nothing about the position other than it
is very complex, as such positions typically are.
Any patzer can come up with "complex" positions
in mid game, just so long as wholesale trades have
not already taken place. Sheesh.


this was something of note from MT - who is absolutely no fantascist on any
subject - straight as a die, though we used a translator, sometimes resorted
to our only common language, Latin!

No doubt he should have taken up Andean in school, but
the KGB wouldn't allow it. Had you been more persistent,
you might have been able to communicate in your broken
English. ;D

Fischer's weaknesses. In fact, a book by David Levy took
pains in putting things into better perspective, repudiating
silly claims to the effect that GM Fischer was any sort of
perfect "chess machine". Of course, such objectivity was not
exactly welcomed in the USA, nor has its popularity gained
much ground since then.

And notably, Levy forget that chess is a performance art, rather than a
pundit's paradise. There you are, sitting opposite him, [or as Tal says,
Kasparov or even more so, Tal] and tick tick tick, what are you going to do,
smart arse? ROFL

I don't see this as valid criticism of Levy's book. It remains
a fact that *all* chess players, not only GM Fischer, are in
this very same position. The myths created around a few
players such as Jose Capablanca and Bobby Fischer are
typically supported by deliberate "selective reporting" of
statistics or facts, by deception. When Mr. Levy rejected
such myths, he did not "forget"; he carefully reassessed.
I have little doubt that his not being an American was a
help in slicing through all the pro-Fischer hype, but in
reality, all it takes is a truly rational mind.


Of course Fischer was anything but perfect. And Tal even less than that in
terms of analytics - What Tal said about this was that anyone could beast
his combinations the next day, or the next week or month.

This was in reaction to all the annotators who were
negative about the way in which he achieved so many
wins; they wanted brilliancy, and they wanted flash,
and they wanted Tal-style attacks, but they wanted
them to "work" perforce. In sum, they wanted a bit
too much.

Nevertheless, it remains true that many of GM Tal's
combinations were unsound against correct play,
and when GM Botvinnik famously published advice
to immediately grab a Tal sac and not waste time
(which undoubtedly would be sorely needed in finding
a defense) mulling it over, the end result was that the
great attacker's career took a downward turn, since
"time" was half the equation, and half the reason his
violent moves were so effective. It is almost as if
GM Botvinnik had screamed: "Look out! There are
*men* inside that wooden horse! Leave it on the beach
and stay inside, and whatever you do, don't open the
bloody gate until the wood itself has rotted away."


And this is the real test of Greats, since you don't have that sort of time,
you got average 3 minutes.

And this again points to something which frequently
is overlooked: the greats are excused for certain errors
on account of having "only" around three minutes per
move, yet is it not true that most of us, the lowly patzers
I mean, are given far less than that? This is one reason
I think OTB grandmaster play is a bit over-rated. It is
correspondence chess where the "theory" is really
hashed out. One cannot get away with just tossing
out a surprise TN in a bad line at the top levels of
correspondence play, because the "badness" of it all
would be inescapable.


The truth is that even in the realm of computers, where the
USA shone the brightest, our best-of-the-best product was
given to errors. At "x" million, or billion, or trillion calculations
per minute, Deeper Blue was still subject to occasional fits of
idiocy, not unlike its human creators. The fantasy of an
opponent incapable of error remains exactly that: a fantasy,
an illusion.

So is the apprehension of this text from Taimanov.

Perhaps the nearly-an-IM should read his own
postings before commenting. If he did, he would
quite often note that what he may have *thought*
he was writing is no match for the words actually
typed out.


If you are a coach potato

In fact, I am a sort of coach; whenever possible, I
try to give pointers to Jason Repa on how he can
better perform simple tasks like posing as another
poster, or tossing about insults of another poster's IQ,
and the like, without making quite so many of his
typical blunders. And I have made some constructive
suggestions to Sanny, though that was a while back.

Potatoes I just eat. It never occurred to me that I
might be able to somehow *combine* these two. Am
I then, trapped by thinking "inside the box"?

you will know naturally know more about NFL athletes

Abso-redundant-lutely. You know, you should
never type with your mouth full. And over-eating
tends to channel one's resources to the stomach,
thus depriving the brain of much-needed oxygen.
I have frequently noticed that you suffer cronic
symptoms of a brain thusly deprived.

-- help bot

SAT W-7 wrote (Sun, 4 Mar 2007 08:06:08 -0800):

7 ... Id like to see that match today Karpove vs Fischer
7 .......They should do it before one of them dies...
7 I bet Fischer plays on line chess computers so he is
7 probably still sharp i am sure Karpove is still sharp too
7 ...But unfortunately that game will never happen..

_
"I don't play the old chess anymore, you
know. The old chess is dead. It's been
played out. ... I don't play the old chess
anymore. I play the Fischer-Random, see.
I don't play old chess anymore, period.
... I'm finished with the old chess. It's
rotten to the core. ... If you knew the
truth about the old chess, you wouldn't
have any interest in it, either." - Fischer (2002)

On Mar 5, 11:55 pm, "Louis Blair" wrote:
SAT W-7 wrote (Sun, 4 Mar 2007 08:06:08 -0800):

7 ... Id like to see that match today Karpove vs Fischer
7 .......They should do it before one of them dies...
7 I bet Fischer plays on line chess computers so he is
7 probably still sharp i am sure Karpove is still sharp too
7 ...But unfortunately that game will never happen..

_
"I don't play the old chess anymore, you
know. The old chess is dead. It's been
played out. ... I don't play the old chess
anymore. I play the Fischer-Random, see.
I don't play old chess anymore, period.
... I'm finished with the old chess. It's
rotten to the core. ... If you knew the
truth about the old chess, you wouldn't
have any interest in it, either." - Fischer (2002)

I think it is fair to say that the old chess is not what BF
really meant as being "rotten to the core"; on the contrary,
it is supposedly the top players themselves who are
charged with prearranging the outcome of games, or
conspiring against the poor fellow. In sum, his rampant
fits of paranoia have never extended all the way to the
chess pieces themselves, but always seem to stop
just short of this. Nor did any of his remarks target
common players, who presumably have not yet
analyzed the game's openings to the point of death.

In the mind of Bobby Fischer, switching to random-
chess is not a way to escape the wrath of "old chess",
but rather it is a way to escape both the need for study
of chess opening fashions, and those players who we
all know are his rivals, regardless of delusions to the
contrary. Switching aids in ducking questions of "what
if", such as those which must have plagued him since
1975. Nobody much cares if an old, retired GM Fischer
might lose a game or two at random-chess to some
modern grandmaster; but let him win and it will be
transmogrified into certain "evidence" of his having been
the superior chess player all along! Thus, the risk is
removed from the equation, while saving much of the
potential for lucrative returns on investment.

If GM Fischer truly felt that traditional chess was of
no interest, then why did we keep hearing rumors of
his finding mistakes in the games of his top rivals?
What would be the point in even looking for them? In
carefully "detecting" conspiracies by uncovering the
supposed evidence deeply hidden in the moves? I
think it is obvious that when GMs Kasparov and Karpov
were vying for the title of world champion, GM Fischer
was interested enough to play over the games, to
find the alleged errors we heard about and even to
search for "evidence" of cheating.

In sum, the grandmaster makes excuses for his
premature retirement, shifting the blame elsewhere, yet
he is willing to play a somewhat different game of chess,
a version where his own lack of practice is less important
to the outcome. In other words, he now chooses that
variation with which his dangerous opponents are least
familiar. I am reminded a bit of the 1992 rematch with
GM Spassky, where much to everyone's surprise, GM
Fischer tried hard to prefer Knights to Bishops, in a
sort of over-reaction to criticisms that he had gone too
far in his preference for Bishops over Knights.

As the saying goes, it's lonely at the top. In the case
of GM Fischer, very lonely; and cold and windy.

-- help bot

and the like, without making quite so many of his
typical blunders. And I have made some constructive
suggestions toSanny, though that was a while back.


Yes, I added many openings just because you played them. And also many
other things were improved in GetClub Chess by looking at your Games.

Play a game at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Still I feel there are many things to improve. Now, Only a good player
can find what improvements are needed as basic things are working
correctly.

For me even beginner is playing like a big monster and beating me
quite often. Today I played a game with Beginner Level the Game was
finished in 15 minutes and I was three pawns down. I overlooked my
pawns being killed.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html