"help bot" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Mar 6, 8:01 am, "Chess One" wrote:

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.)

Though I don't think this much chessic help in 'the near-army'. Even in
Iceland he deployed his GM-second to fetch him drinks. period.

That's not the point.

It /is/ the same point as above.

The point is that this misrepresentation
is a manifestation of anti-Soviet bias, and that the tendency to
characterize any and all Soviets as strongly supported by the
entire state *while at the same time* characterizing GM Fischer
as standing all by himself is ludicrous.

I thought I just mentioned Spassky as the original Russian bad-boy of chess?
Hardly a 'soviet'! lol Even so, Spassky's freedom of action was heavily
limited by a small squadron of state goons. It is not anti-Soviet bias, it
is the truth of Soviet behaviors. Taimanov said that in the cold war era his
permit to travel to Liverpool was signed by Stalin himself. That's pretty
serious political attention to one person playing a game.

There was an army of
enablers behind the 1972 match victory, and pretending they
did not exist reveals nothing but the extent of this anti-Soviet,
overwhelmingly pro-Fischer bias.

Who is pretending? What I wrote is that in chessic preparation, Fischer made
little or no use of this army.

While cold-war rhetoric machinations were in place for the Soviets, they
were not absent from the American scene - its not 'just a game' when Henry
Kissinger call you up, and when Pres. Nixon goes on record about national
pride &c.

...

Fischer is an intensely private person, of the type who 'prefers
his own dream', not a collective one.

I should expect an "intensely private person" to not give
radio interviews in which he expounds on the size of his
bodily organs, the need to rid the world of Jews, and so
forth. Those are the actions of a person who is not so
much "private", as he is self-obsessed and uncouth.

Since these expostulations by Fischer were so rare - how many in 15 years?
2? Then being private AND ill-mannered, even crude and 'under-socialised',
are not mutually exclusive conditions.

Really, IM Innes, you ought to engage your brain a bit
before taking to the keyboard. :D

Really, ratings-obsessed corn-bot might say something beyond assertion of
patently silly assertions.

---

But Fischer didn't 'supposedly' do anything - he actually did face down
the
big State organisation of Russian chess, a seemingly impossible task for
anyone, let alone a lone wolf.

Self-delusion noted. I will grant the portion regarding
RF being a "lone wolf", however.

I don't understand whose self is referenced above, nor why another bland
assertion is made - this is not a question!

What is interestering is that he should meet the nearest Russian
equivalent
to himself in Spassky

This comment shows a good grasp on things; but it
must be noted that unlike GM Fischer, GM Spassky
never ventured into the bizarre, the wacky, the total
rejection of reality which enveloped his rival.

While Fischer had all the social graces of an angry rhino with toothache,
and much of that anger might be seen as single-child displacement, even so,
to Fischer their was nothing unreal about the anger. Unless we say this then
we have to state what 'real' means to ... whom? To non world champions to
whom Kissinger and Nixon didn't prate about, and to persons who weren't
world celebrities. Fischer's condition may seem unreal to them - just like
Agassi's condition is to corn-fed folks where you are.

--When someone asked Agassi what it was like to be rich, he replied very
honestly, by saying 'Its like everything is free". 'Unreal', no? But true
for Agassi.

--------

And this sets the stage for something only great players can do - I've
read
it before by GMs [playing against Kasparov eg] and is quite open comment
by
Tal - and this is the peformance aspect of chess. Essentially Fischer's
subsequent play is found to be unsound - but given an average 3 minutes
to
solve it, Taimanov took a huge amount of time over one move - more than
any
other in his whole life - 72 minutes.

Poor time management is not conducive to success
in world championship play. Neither is the hanging of
Rooks and whatnot.

? Are you really a patzer ? No one solved it in 25 years. I'm getting bored
with this corn


Fast-forward to the cusp of White's 20th move, and we read "I do not
stint
on one more diagram as it not only reflects both the culmination and
turning-point of this game, but the match as a whole. Fischer himself
later
recognized it: "It was the turning point of the match. Taimanov missed a
win by 20. Qh3."

I will not comment since IM Innes failed to specify
whether this comment is a direct quote of GM Fischer,
or if perhaps it was lifted from a random book by GM
Adorjan. As we know, much material so lifted is not
properly qualified as to what is included, and what is
not, etc. :D

As "we" know, says corn-fed who doesn't even have an "I". Maybe its real to
such folks without an "I" that they seek refuge in the herd and all bleat
"we" together? Its not exactly manly, but hey! We are as liberal as all
get-out in the ng. All types welcome!

For anyone interested in the actual subject matter; I already directly cited
the source of that comment to be Taimanov, from his annotated game, and
besides which it is also in his book 'I was Fischer's Victim'.

Can't get any more corn on this wagon. zzz

Cornfully, Phil Innes



There then follows extensive analysis of white options at 20. Taimanov
didn't solve it in that time - and no one else solved it for 25 YEARS!

My view is that there should be no surprise in GM
Taimanov's obsession with this one position from
just one of his losses in that match, for it represents
the very pinnacle of his chess career.

The truth is there are myriad such positions: positions
which no one has ever solved, even if they have been
around for centuries. It only means they are complex
positions, as I pointed out before. There is nothing
special in being a complex position, nor are such things
at all rare.

In fact, there are many simpler positions which were
never solved for a very long time, and even now, with
our speedy computers and killer chess programs,
there remain plenty of *endgames* which have yet to
be solved, let alone middlegame positions.

In sum, the real significance lies not at all in the
position's complexity, but in its *being perceived* as
the turning point of the match. Of course, those of us
"in the know" are all too aware that this match required
no turning point, for one of the two contestants was
simply over-matched. Given that level of perspective, it
all seems much ado about nothing.

-- help bot

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Chess One wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Chess One wrote:
I'm sorry for this verbal entanglement, but your offer constitutes a
tautology, or circular reference;

No it does not. [...]

My dictionary, it seems, is thicker than yours, to which you no
longer refer!

Um. My dictionary is the online version of the OED. The paper
version runs to twenty volumes and weighs nearly 140lbs.

I got one too! But how come you don't rate the whole post Dave - and gotta
cut stuff out?

Frankly, my
dictionary could beat your dictionary in a fight.


And so cutteth the lesson - though Dave is not so brave as to admit
he cuts the pecant parts.grin His is assertion only, beyond any
sense of reasoning with others. I rather doubt he will return to the
cut bits since they are too hard to answer.

I omitted the rest of your post because it appeared to be garbage.

Yeah, right )

To
repunctuate Shakira, ``You don't even know the meaning of the words.
I'm sorry.''

Up to you to cut and run, or declare yourself right. I don't mind, it was
your diversion, anyway.

PI


Dave.

--
David Richerby Slimy Drink (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ refreshing juice beverage but
it's
covered in goo!

On Mar 8, 6:26 am, David Richerby
wrote:

My dictionary, it seems, is thicker than yours, to which you no
longer refer!

Um. My dictionary is the online version of the OED. The paper
version runs to twenty volumes and weighs nearly 140lbs. Frankly, my
dictionary could beat your dictionary in a fight.

You two remind me of an old James Bond movie where
in one scene, Sean Connery discusses the importance
of "tight-fitting bolts". Here, this would correspond with the
relative size of your dic-tionaries.

But to me, the more significant issue is one of quality.
The "workmanship", as Bond put it.

Be that as it may, I am anxiously awaiting the response
of nearly--insane-IM Innes; I want to see how he handles
an opponent whose dic-tionary weighs 140 pounds. Will
he duck, snip, ad hominize (a given), or invent a dic-tionary
of even greater weight? Perhaps an inter-stellar one,
created by Martians whose superior intelligence cannot
be defined by any set number of pages, volumes, or weight.

-- help bot

On Mar 8, 11:17 am, "Chess One" wrote:

[Ad hominem snipped.]


Hmm. There doesn't seem to be much left, does there?

-- help bot

On Mar 8, 11:22 am, "Chess One" wrote:

I'm sorry for this verbal entanglement, but your offer constitutes a
tautology, or circular reference;

No it does not. [...]

My dictionary, it seems, is thicker than yours, to which you no
longer refer!

Um. My dictionary is the online version of the OED. The paper
version runs to twenty volumes and weighs nearly 140lbs.

I got one too! But how come you don't rate the whole post Dave - and gotta
cut stuff out?


It looks like IM Innes has decided to "no longer refer" to
the size of his, um, dic-tionary, now that it is seen to come
up short on relative size.

Well, at least he didn't stoop to "revising" his earlier figure,
the one which said his organ was "two feet think". Perhaps
this is progress.

-- help bot