I hardly think he 'blundered' the piece as such. He'd have been well aware
that the bishop would be lost, but I think it was a deliberate winning
attempt.


Bwaahahahahaaa! LOL!

Bobby hung his Bishop for TWO (count 'em, two) pawns, and this was all part
of his master-plan to play for a win? You really are way out there, when it
comes to objectively assessing things relating to your idol.

Bobby simply blundered. That little dot at the end was a period, BTW.
Even
a lowly patzer like me knows that a Bishop is worth 3.1415927 pawns, or a
smidgeon more. It's a geometrical fact.

Not exactly, and like the two-point conversion chart, that value only comes
into play at the very end of the game.


What Fischer's fanatical fans refuse to grasp is that Boris DELIBERATELY
left
that h-pawn en prise, KNOWING it was uncapturable, due to his ACCURATE
calculations. Fischer botched one.

So odd, then, that Fischer blew that game, FORFEITED the second game, then came
back to win the match by five points.

That people are still debating if it was a blunder or a sacrifice 31 years
after it happened says something.

Fischer botched one.


So odd, then, that Fischer blew that game, FORFEITED the second game, then
came back to win the match by five points.


Well, Fischer's FIDE rating superiority predicted a victory by an *even
greater* margin, but Bobby's record against Boris had been miserable until
1972. The "problem opponent" syndrome, perhaps.






That people are still debating if it was a blunder or a sacrifice 31 years
after it happened says something.


It says a lot about Fischer's fans, at any rate. They cannot accept any
criticism of Bobby's moves, even in those rare games where he lost!

A true "debate" as to whether or not Fischer's blunder was a misjudgement of
position, or a rare (for him) tactical error, might center around actual
analysis of specific positions from the game.

What has been happenning in this thread is something quite different. A
ludicrous claim was made that Fischer could not have possibly blundered, as he
was not a beginner. This line of (un)reasoning assumes that only beginners can
blunder, which just ain't so.


It is hard for Americans to accept, even today, that there remained EVEN ONE
Russian player who had little trouble with our super-hero, until after this
game, that is. Bobby was faster than a speeding bullet, he could leap tall
buildings in a single bound, he could fly, but he could NOT see through lead!
:-)

(LeModernCaveman) wrote in message ...
I hardly think he 'blundered' the piece as such. He'd have been well aware
that the bishop would be lost, but I think it was a deliberate winning
attempt.


Bwaahahahahaaa! LOL!

Bobby hung his Bishop for TWO (count 'em, two) pawns, and this was all part
of his master-plan to play for a win? You really are way out there, when it
comes to objectively assessing things relating to your idol.

Bobby simply blundered. That little dot at the end was a period, BTW.
Even
a lowly patzer like me knows that a Bishop is worth 3.1415927 pawns, or a
smidgeon more. It's a geometrical fact.

Not exactly, and like the two-point conversion chart, that value only comes
into play at the very end of the game.


What Fischer's fanatical fans refuse to grasp is that Boris DELIBERATELY
left
that h-pawn en prise, KNOWING it was uncapturable, due to his ACCURATE
calculations. Fischer botched one.

So odd, then, that Fischer blew that game, FORFEITED the second game, then came
back to win the match by five points.

That people are still debating if it was a blunder or a sacrifice 31 years
after it happened says something.

That is absolutely true. It says: "People should get out more...".