I started to read that at the library and it seem interesting...Just
wondering what you think of it..

I mite check it out next time i go..

On Mar 3, 8:42 pm, (SAT W-7) wrote:

I started to read that at the library and it seem interesting...Just
wondering what you think of it..

I mite check it out next time i go..


Well, one reviewer at Chessville.com was *forced* to read
it by his (cruel?) editor. Another book along similar lines is
Russians vs. Fischer.

------------

A lot of these books seem to include mindless regurgitations
such as the story about how the 1972 match was a showdown
between evil empire Russia and the good ol' USA; or the version
where GM Fischer is described as taking down the Russian
Bear "singlehandedly", which I'm sure would come as quite a
shock to his many facilitators.

On another tack, I recall reading a while back about some
new works by GM Kasparov, in which the great grandmaster
attempted to rewrite the history of chess to better suit his, uh,
tastes. Just as in days of old when sitting at the chessboard,
the resourceful grandmaster simply swept the facts before him,
and forcibly shifted the pieces and facts about to suit his fancy!

In view of so many book reviews pointing out a plethora of
mediocre quality stuff being stamped onto paper these days,
I have taken to allowing myself the luxury of doing without the
"wisdom" of recently printed chess material, except when it is
free.

Much of what is sold today is churned out for the primary
purpose of making money, by whatever method is deemed
efficient. And the rare exceptions seem to fall into a category
of fulfillment of some political agenda. In sum, it is better to
get the bare facts and think for oneself.

In this vein, let me point out that one after another of the
talking heads have determined (or are aping) that GM Fischer
has snapped; that his mind broke free from reality and this
explains why he says the things he does. But there are
other possibilities, apparently never even considered before
leaping to over-eager conclusions such as this.

Many of the things talked about have developed gradually
over the course of many years, and it makes little sense to
posit a sudden "snap" to explain them away. Others are of
the sort which it is not even allowed to discuss, let alone
examine with an objective eye to seek their grass roots.

Here, I will simply toss out an idea, and let the reader sift
through the many possibilities: Suppose, I say *suppose*
that GM Fischer is desperate for attention, that he may
feel sidelined, ignored, or forgotten. Now would this not
offer an alternative "explanation" as to his ranting and raving
and deliberate tossing out of offensive, uncouth jokes? I say
it does, and in fact, I believe the jokes cannot be properly
explained by the "snap"-doodle theory, whereas they are
perfectly suited to a man desperate for attention, or just
desperate to convince others of his supposed lunacy.

Too much of chess writing is of an unsupported, purely
ape the party line type. And this applies the more so when
considering the subject of GM Fischer, which is a very
emotional one for many Americans. In fact, one can almost
"feel" a certain discomfort, a certain displeasure in the fact
that the Russians, so to speak, have taken back the crown
and held onto it. But all this proves is that the game of
chess is very popular, and taken more seriously there than
here, and this is no big deal -- or at least it oughtn't to be.

-- help bot

On Mar 3, 5:42 pm, (SAT W-7) wrote:

I started to read that at the library and it seem interesting...Just
wondering what you think of it..

I mite check it out next time i go..

Both "Bobby Fischer goes to war", by David Edmonds
and John Eidinow, and "Russkye protiv Fischera"
("Russians against Fischer") by Sergey Voronkov &
Dmitrij Plisecky are excellent, very worhtwhile
for everyone who enjoys the chess history. **Both** are
well researched, have a lot of interesting material!!!
The earlier one is more in the style of a literary essay,
the lattter one is packed with facts and quotes; it contains
the collection of all games played by Soviets against
Fischer. You may read there about the secret talks
between Fischer and Karpov attempting to agree on a
match, and about the reaction (and even actions) to
those talks in the Soviet chess circles. And this is
but one example.

Regards,

Wlod

On Mar 3, 8:42 pm, (SAT W-7) wrote:
I started to read that at the library and it seem interesting...Just
wondering what you think of it..

I mite check it out next time i go..

A review: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review431.pdf

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.

"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.
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)

On Mar 4, 8:43 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
wrote:

Both "Bobby Fischer goes to war", by David Edmonds
and John Eidinow, and "Russkye protiv Fischera"
("Russians against Fischer") by Sergey Voronkov &
Dmitrij Plisecky are excellent, very worhtwhile
for everyone who enjoys the chess history. **Both** are
well researched,

The first decent review I found on this was at Chessville,
and its author seems to have spotted some things which
don't jibe with an evaluation of "well-researched". Be that
as it may, he seems to have shifted toward a more favorable
position on this, as he approached the finish. Now I am
going to read the review pointed to by Taylor Kingston.

-- help bot

On Mar 4, 6:28 pm, "Ian Burton" wrote:
"SAT W-7" wrote in message

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..

You may well be right about GM Fischer playing online
computers, for this is about the only way he could play
anonymously.

And I expect you are also right that such a match will
never take place. Indeed, GM Fischer should go down in
history as the man who avoided GM Karpov, and then
spent the next twenty years ducking GM Kasparov. ;D


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.

It has been *many* years, but I think I recall reading
that he was late for this game on account of oversleeping.

BTW, the best way to intimidate an opponent would be
to not even bother showing up for the first game, later
circulating a story about having been too busy playing
video games. In game two, you show up and slam out
1.g4, followed quickly by 2.h4. Don't laugh: this opening
line has never been tested at the GM level, and could
for all we know turn out to be perfectly sound. ;D

-- help bot

On Mar 4, 9:50 am, "Taylor Kingston" wrote:

A review:http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review431.pdf

A very well-written review, IMO.

BTW, in addition to the problems already noted by EW and
TK, in just reading excerpts from this review, I found additional
errors where the authors made assertions which are obviously
countermanded by the facts. This, to me, suggests a certain
unfamiliarity with the history of chess.

More to the point, is the general concept that the farther
one gets from the time of events, the less accurate will be
the reporting of events by witnesses. This of course is
counterbalanced by the advantage of having a better
perspective after the passing of time.

The first decent review I read, the one at ChessCafe.com,
questioned whether the authors even knew a Rook from a
Knight, and even after reading the review by Taylor Kingston,
I am not sure of the answer. 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.

-- help bot

"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.


--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)