On Dec 5, 2:58 pm, wrote:

The top post in this thread says you will post a "new"
article and game every Monday. Does this mean that
all the commentary will be snatched from the Cold War
era?

"New" meaning a new blog posting with an old NY Times article from the
day in 1992 of each of the games from the match (along with a PGN of
the actual game).

I am a big Spassky fan and even have a book from the 1992 re-match
that is signed by him. If any of the 1992 articles that I post from
the NY Times reflect any bias, I hope that you will comment on the
blog site (http://www.rookhouse.com). I will do the same.

That Cold War rubbish just makes me want to go
to, say, chessgames.com and replay the games
as is, sans lunacy. An entire book could be written
to debunk such biased trash, but it is hardly possible
for anyone to keep up with all the hacks.

By 1992, the main reason for broad interest in a
GMs Fischer/Spassky match was to see what had
happened to the former's level of play, and compare
that to the endless hype in the media. Unfortunately,
Gary Kasparov had already surpassed him. In truth,
the original match was more interesting, for both
players were simply at a higher level then.


-- help bot

THE BOBBY FISCHER THAT WE LOVED by GM Larry Evans (in Britain's
"Chess" magazine, December 2007)

Bobby's most important strength as a competitor was his fierce killer
instinct. "Each day I go in like an unknown to prove myself," he said.
And he did. He was uncompromising, he hated draws and fought most of
his games to the bitter end. His greatest weakness probably was using
the same openings over and over.

I'm often asked whether Fischer or Kasparov was the better player.
That's a tough one, but I must pick Kasparov because he has a greater
body of work over a longer span of time. Bobby, however, did it on his
own without coaches or subsidies. "If I win a tournament, I win it by
myself. I do the playing. Nobody helps me," he proclaimed.

Kasparov was rated number one for nearly 20 years, an incredible feat
in any sport. Most champions have a period when they are virtually
invincible and Fischer's reign was brief, almost meteoric. He burned
out when he reached his peak, whereas Kasparov kept improving. I think
all we can say with certainty is that the gap between Fischer and his
rivals in 1972 was greater than the gap that exists now between the
world champion and his rivals.

Chess is different today. Now players have vast databases at their
fingertips and openings have been analyzed so extensively that master
games often begin in earnest after a dozen moves instead of move one.
Over 30 years ago Bobby saw the writing on the wall. "Someday
computers will make us all obsolete," he told me....

In one of his radio rants, Bobby boasted: "I object to being called a
chess genius, because I consider myself to be an all around genius who
just happens to play chess, which is rather different. A piece of
garbage like Kasparov might be called a chess genius, but he is like
an idiot savant. Outside of chess he knows nothing. He and Karpov are
criminals who have been ruining chess with immoral, unethical, pre-
arranged games. They are the lowest dogs around."

That nonsense speaks for itself. Part of the problem is that Bobby
surrounded himself with lackeys and bootlickers who stroked his ego by
egging him on in all those damaging radio interviews that elicited the
wrath of the American government.

I agree with what Kasparov wrote several years ago in The Wall Street
Journal: "Fischer demolished the Soviet chess machine but could build
nothing in its place. He was an ideal challenger - but a disastrous
champion."




David Richerby wrote:
wrote:
"New" meaning a new blog posting with an old NY Times article from
the day in 1992 of each of the games from the match (along with a
PGN of the actual game).

Have you obtained permission from the New York Times to reprint their
material?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Solar-Powered Dictator (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a totalitarian leader but it doesn't
work in the dark!

.Have you obtained permission from the New York Times to reprint their
material?

Dave.

No. I credited them with the article and I am not making money off of
the article. That is sufficient.


By 1992, the main reason for broad interest in a
GMs Fischer/Spassky match was to see what had
happened to the former's level of play, and compare
that to the endless hype in the media. Unfortunately,
Gary Kasparov had already surpassed him. In truth,
the original match was more interesting, for both
players were simply at a higher level then.

-- help bot

Agreed.

On Dec 6, 10:42 am, " wrote:

Bobby's most important strength as a competitor was his fierce killer
instinct. "Each day I go in like an unknown to prove myself," he said.
And he did. He was uncompromising, he hated draws and fought most of
his games to the bitter end. His greatest weakness probably was using
the same openings over and over.

I'm often asked whether Fischer or Kasparov was the better player.

At the time this comment was made, GK was still
playing chess, so it's not exactly clear why the past
tense was chosen here.


That's a tough one, but I must pick Kasparov because he has a greater
body of work over a longer span of time. Bobby, however, did it on his
own without coaches or subsidies. "If I win a tournament, I win it by
myself. I do the playing. Nobody helps me," he proclaimed.

Kasparov was rated number one for nearly 20 years, an incredible feat
in any sport. Most champions have a period when they are virtually
invincible and Fischer's reign was brief, almost meteoric. He burned
out when he reached his peak, whereas Kasparov kept improving. I think
all we can say with certainty is that the gap between Fischer and his
rivals in 1972 was greater than the gap that exists now between the
world champion and his rivals.

Larry Parr neglected to note the date referred to
above as "now", but a bit of research would no doubt
debunk the claim in any case.

At his very peak, BF was FIDE rated 2785, about
85 points or so ahead of rivals like Boris Spassky
and Mikhail Tal. By comparison, Gary Kasparov
at his peak was about that same distance ahead
of his closest rivals.

That's the trouble with being objective: you have to
live with the facts instead of always tweaking them
to suit one's every whim.


Chess is different today. Now players have vast databases at their
fingertips and openings have been analyzed so extensively that master
games often begin in earnest after a dozen moves instead of move one.

One description of how certain GMs used to
prepare in the old days had a remarkably similar
scenario; the key difference was in the use of
computers, which are more efficient at this type
of work and which afford a much larger database
of games.


Over 30 years ago Bobby saw the writing on the wall. "Someday
computers will make us all obsolete," he told me....

In one of his radio rants, Bobby boasted: "I object to being called a
chess genius, because I consider myself to be an all around genius who
just happens to play chess, which is rather different. A piece of
garbage like Kasparov might be called a chess genius, but he is like
an idiot savant. Outside of chess he knows nothing. He and Karpov are
criminals who have been ruining chess with immoral, unethical, pre-
arranged games. They are the lowest dogs around."

That nonsense speaks for itself. Part of the problem is that Bobby
surrounded himself with lackeys and bootlickers who stroked his ego by

A practice later adopted by a close associate of
BF, as we have seen.


egging him on in all those damaging radio interviews that elicited the
wrath of the American government.

Let's not forget about the spitting incident from
1992; the arrest may not have occurred until years
later, but the indictment was already handed down.


I agree with what Kasparov wrote several years ago in The Wall Street
Journal: "Fischer demolished the Soviet chess machine but could build
nothing in its place. He was an ideal challenger - but a disastrous
champion."

The Soviet chess machine is still chugging
along, thank you. What will finally "demolish"
it is Fritzrybka, in an attack of blinding speed
and [CPU] power!


-- help bot

Bobby's most important strength as a competitor was his fierce killer
instinct. "Each day I go in like an unknown to prove myself," he said.
And he did. He was uncompromising, he hated draws and fought most of
his games to the bitter end. His greatest weakness probably was using
the same openings over and over.

I'm often asked whether Fischer or Kasparov was the better player.
That's a tough one, but I must pick Kasparov because he has a greater
body of work over a longer span of time. Bobby, however, did it on his
own without coaches or subsidies. "If I win a tournament, I win it by
myself. I do the playing. Nobody helps me," he proclaimed.

Kasparov was rated number one for nearly 20 years, an incredible feat
in any sport. Most champions have a period when they are virtually
invincible and Fischer's reign was brief, almost meteoric. He burned
out when he reached his peak, whereas Kasparov kept improving. I think
all we can say with certainty is that the gap between Fischer and his
rivals in 1972 was greater than the gap that exists now between the
world champion and his rivals.

Chess is different today. Now players have vast databases at their
fingertips and openings have been analyzed so extensively that master
games often begin in earnest after a dozen moves instead of move one.
Over 30 years ago Bobby saw the writing on the wall. "Someday
computers will make us all obsolete," he told me....

In one of his radio rants, Bobby boasted: "I object to being called a
chess genius, because I consider myself to be an all around genius who
just happens to play chess, which is rather different. A piece of
garbage like Kasparov might be called a chess genius, but he is like
an idiot savant. Outside of chess he knows nothing. He and Karpov are
criminals who have been ruining chess with immoral, unethical, pre-
arranged games. They are the lowest dogs around."

That nonsense speaks for itself. Part of the problem is that Bobby
surrounded himself with lackeys and bootlickers who stroked his ego by
egging him on in all those damaging radio interviews that elicited the
wrath of the American government.

I agree with what Kasparov wrote several years ago in The Wall Street
Journal: "Fischer demolished the Soviet chess machine but could build
nothing in its place. He was an ideal challenger - but a disastrous
champion."

I thoroughly agree with your take on all of this. It is often
difficult to state an unbiased opinion on Fischer because of all of
his complexitites:

You have to like him for all of the following:
The amazing impact he had on chess at the time (clubs, sales,
interest, etc.).
Bringing the world championship to the U.S. (if you're an American).
His all out desire to win and not settle for a draw.
The fact that he basically did things on his own; while the Soviets
had multiple seconds, therapists, etc.
The fact that he is mostly responsible for the Candidates format being
changed for the better (in my opinion).
His introduction of the Fischer clock and time controls widely used
today.
The novelties he introduced to the game through his brilliant play.

You can also easily dislike him for:
His anti-semitism remarks and beliefs.
His ridiculous difficulties when it came to game/tournament conditions
(lighting, board squares, cameras, money, chairs, spectators, etc.)
His arrogance that everyone else was always wrong and/or stupid.
Walking away from the game of chess when it (and he) was at it's
highest and robbing us many more brilliant matches.

The man is definitely a double-edged sword ..... you can love him and
hate him all at the same time.

wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Have you obtained permission from the New York Times to reprint
their material?

No. I credited them with the article and I am not making money off
of the article. That is sufficient.

It's certainly not sufficient under English law. Does US law really
allow unlimited not-for-profit redistribution of copyrighted material
in its entirety if the copyright owner is credited?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Carnivorous Whisky (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ single-malt whisky but it eats flesh!

On Dec 6, 12:04 pm, David Richerby
wrote:
wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Have you obtained permission from the New York Times to reprint
their material?

No. I credited them with the article and I am not making money off
of the article. That is sufficient.

It's certainly not sufficient under English law. Does US law really
allow unlimited not-for-profit redistribution of copyrighted material
in its entirety if the copyright owner is credited?

Dave.


I see it done on blogs and forums on a regular basis. It's a 15year-
old newspaper article about chess that I am not passing off as my
own. If they wanted to "come after" me and every other person out
there that has done that, then they have waaaaayyyy too much time on
their hands.

On Dec 6, 9:42 am, " wrote:
THE BOBBY FISCHER THAT WE LOVED by GM Larry Evans (in Britain's
"Chess" magazine, December 2007)

Bobby's most important strength as a competitor was his fierce killer
instinct. "Each day I go in like an unknown to prove myself," he said.
And he did. He was uncompromising, he hated draws and fought most of
his games to the bitter end. His greatest weakness probably was using
the same openings over and over.

I'm often asked whether Fischer or Kasparov was the better player.
That's a tough one, but I must pick Kasparov because he has a greater
body of work over a longer span of time. Bobby, however, did it on his
own without coaches or subsidies. "If I win a tournament, I win it by
myself. I do the playing. Nobody helps me," he proclaimed.

Kasparov was rated number one for nearly 20 years, an incredible feat
in any sport. Most champions have a period when they are virtually
invincible and Fischer's reign was brief, almost meteoric. He burned
out when he reached his peak, whereas Kasparov kept improving. I think
all we can say with certainty is that the gap between Fischer and his
rivals in 1972 was greater than the gap that exists now between the
world champion and his rivals.

Chess is different today. Now players have vast databases at their
fingertips and openings have been analyzed so extensively that master
games often begin in earnest after a dozen moves instead of move one.
Over 30 years ago Bobby saw the writing on the wall. "Someday
computers will make us all obsolete," he told me....

In one of his radio rants, Bobby boasted: "I object to being called a
chess genius, because I consider myself to be an all around genius who
just happens to play chess, which is rather different. A piece of
garbage like Kasparov might be called a chess genius, but he is like
an idiot savant. Outside of chess he knows nothing. He and Karpov are
criminals who have been ruining chess with immoral, unethical, pre-
arranged games. They are the lowest dogs around."

That nonsense speaks for itself. Part of the problem is that Bobby
surrounded himself with lackeys and bootlickers who stroked his ego by
egging him on in all those damaging radio interviews that elicited the
wrath of the American government.

I agree with what Kasparov wrote several years ago in The Wall Street
Journal: "Fischer demolished the Soviet chess machine but could build
nothing in its place. He was an ideal challenger - but a disastrous
champion."



David Richerby wrote:
wrote:
"New" meaning a new blog posting with an old NY Times article from
the day in 1992 of each of the games from the match (along with a
PGN of the actual game).

Have you obtained permission from the New York Times to reprint their
material?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Solar-Powered Dictator (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a totalitarian leader but it doesn't
work in the dark!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fischer reflects a need in a game that is dying. Chess is dying in
front of us.
With computers, and Ilyumzhinov, there will never be another Bobby
Fischer, absent
genetic engineering. Even if chess is randomized as Fischer suggestes,
it will
just improve the odds of a computer. All that is left is a discussion
on is Chess NP complete,
amoung computer scientists.

Fischer is important to chess due to the lack of hero's. We have none.
The last hero
is a jew hater being committed in an insane aslyum in Iceland. How
fitting!

The game is dying.

Marcus Roberts

wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Does US law really allow unlimited not-for-profit redistribution of
copyrighted material in its entirety if the copyright owner is
credited?

I see it done on blogs and forums on a regular basis.

``But he was doing it too!'' is not a legitimate defence, in most
circumstances.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Surprise Tool (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ handy household tool but not like
you'd expect!

On Dec 6, 7:12 pm, David Richerby
wrote:
wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Does US law really allow unlimited not-for-profit redistribution of
copyrighted material in its entirety if the copyright owner is
credited?

I see it done on blogs and forums on a regular basis.

``But he was doing it too!'' is not a legitimate defence, in most
circumstances.

Dave.

OK ...... I get it Dave. You disapprove. Can we talk about chess
now?