() wrote in message ...
[...]
Sure... but also keep in mind how strong he still
was in '92 after *20* years away. He wasn't in '72
form, but his "rusty" performance rating
from the '92 match was still 2720 or so... good enough
to still be top 10 after *20* years! so I think
it's VERY reasonable to assume he would have won in '75.

Don't get overly excited. Spassky had thrown away the
last game of the match under the pressure from the
gangsters who sponsored the match. After all, who
needs an accident? So Spassky, in boxing parlance,
took a dive, played a coffee house, "entertaining" chess.

Wlod

Sure... but also keep in mind how strong he still
was in '92 after *20* years away. He wasn't in '72
form, but his "rusty" performance rating from the '92 match
was still 2720 or so... good enough to still be top 10 after
*20* years! so I think it's VERY reasonable to
assume he would have won in '75.


Well, you can *assume* whatever you like, based upon pipedreams and
self-delusion.


But the fact remains that Fischer's *actual* performance rating from 1992 was
well below 2700 FIDE -- not because he was rusty, but because his opponent had
dropped low enough to be easily confused for an ordinary GM. Most former
world champs declined *much* more slowly than Spassky did.

But this purely mathematical sort of approach may well not do Fischer justice
in 1992. Given Spassky's actual (not imaginary) rating in 1992, he is the last
person anybody would choose to play, in order to boost their rating.



I also think it is "reasonable" to merely assume Fischer would have won
against (anybody) in 1975, based upon his FIDE rating alone.
Unfortunately, this purely mathematical approach may well not do Karpov
justice in 1975.
Offhand, we know that Fischer boosted his rating skyward by 6-0'ing Taimanov
and Larsen in short, winner-take-all matches. But Karpov's rating was not
based upon 6-0'ing anybody (though Sam Sloan, for one, was ready and willing),
nor upon winner-take-all slugfests wherein his opponents decided to lose *every
game,* for no particular reason.



Don't get overly excited. Spassky had thrown away the
last game of the match under the pressure from the
gangsters who sponsored the match. After all, who
needs an accident? So Spassky, in boxing parlance,
took a dive, played a coffee house, "entertaining" chess.


But...this is the very same style he had used to defeat Fischer with, prior
to 1972! Hmm...play the King's Gambit...sac' a pawn for no reason...win
brilliantly -- now, what's all this nonsense about some unbeatable American
named Bobby somethingorother?


I must admit, I have never heard of this claim before, but certainly a single
"thrown" game where the opponent is vastly higher rated, and which Spassky was
thus likely to lose or draw anyway, would not be sufficient to calm the
fanatical excitement of a deluded fan, who earnestly believes that Fischer's
performance rating is properly calculated by starting at 2700 for no particular
reason, and adding points for every won game while never subtracting for any
reason!




In any case, there can be no doubt that in 1975, the best chessplayer in the
world was not Bobby Fischer, for the very simple reason that he didn't actually
play chess.

tomic wrote:

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
...
Here is part of how Reuben Fine reasoned:

"... It seems more likely that the capture of the title [by
Fischer in 1972] led to an emotional upset of serious
proportions. ... There is the grave danger that he may
never play again. It would be tragic for the world of
chess to lose such a great mind. It can only be hoped
that the FIDE or the U. S. Chess Federation will take
some steps to help him out of his turmoil." - Fine (1976)

Starting in 1972, Fischer spent about two decades away
from serious chess.


I think that Reuben Fine was very naive man in ordinary life, and in
prognosis and evaluation chess events. He was similar Emanuel Lasker who
made some great oversights in ordinary life (By the way, all his life he try
to get more money and all the money he lost cause political bad appraisal,
so at the end of his life he come to poverty).
Mr. Reuben Fine obviously didn't understand well situation in chess politic
in 30's and 40's. It's interesting that he didn't understand nor Lasker's
psychology (see what Lasker said about Fred Reinfeld and Reuben Fine Fine
book: Dr Lasker's Chess Career).
So, I don't believe in any Fischer emotional upset and Fine's prognosis
"that he may never play again". I think that other people were more upset
than Fischer when he became WCC. The obvious prove that Fine was mistaken
was Fischer playing in Yugoslavia 1992. Some people like to underestimate
Fischer strength in 1992. But, I can recall that he was still splutter for
ordinary or stronger GM. "Upset" or veneration regards Fisher playing was so
much that interesting case happened in rematch Fischer-Spassky, in
Yugoslavia. In one game Spassky resigned, in situation when he could
sacrifice a queen and the situation would be unclear. GM Seirawan who
commented that game for the Yugoslav newspaper "Politika" didn't perceive
that sacrifice. Next day, Mr Seirawan sent an apology to the readers because
he missed that line in which Fischer would have little better game, but
still unclear.
So, my conclusion is that there were many mistaken evaluation in psychology
and character of genius Bobby Fischer.

Goran Tomic

Well, I couldn't agree more your conclusion here dear Tomic, but just
consider pls. if you like to be Queen down in Spassky position. Spassky
is great chess player & gentleman, he choose honourably. He resign. ..

On 24 Jul 2003 15:59:59 -0700, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
wrote:

() wrote in message
...

[...]
Sure... but also keep in mind how strong he still
was in '92 after *20* years away. He wasn't in '72
form, but his "rusty" performance rating
from the '92 match was still 2720 or so... good enough
to still be top 10 after *20* years! so I think
it's VERY reasonable to assume he would have won in '75.

Don't get overly excited. Spassky had thrown away the
last game of the match under the pressure from the
gangsters who sponsored the match. After all, who
needs an accident? So Spassky, in boxing parlance,
took a dive, played a coffee house, "entertaining" chess.

Wlod

Crack on dude.

wrote ...

Elo is Elo, and Fischer's performance rating in '92 was 2720. I'm using
this *fact* to illustrate how strong Fischer still was *twenty years*
away from the game, and to conclude within all bounds of reason that in
1975 Fischer was still in top form despite being away for a mere three
years, good enough to beat Kaprov.

There are a number of questionable statements in the paragraph above. Let's
start at the beginning.

1. "Fischer's performance rating in '92 was 2720."

In 1992, Spassky was rated 2560, 100 points lower than in 1972. In 1992
Fischer won by the same five-point as in 1972 (discounting the forfeit
loss), but the match was 10 games longer (not including the forfeit loss in
1972). Therefore Fischer's performance rating in 1992 was much lower than in
1972. The figure I have seen quoted for Fischer's 1992 performance rating is
2627.

2. "I'm using this *fact* to illustrate how strong Fischer still was *twenty
years* away from the game ..."

We have shown, I think, that the "fact" relied on in this argument is not a
fact.

3. "... and to conclude within all bounds of reason that in 1975 Fischer was
still in top form ..."

Highly unlikely that Fischer was in anything like top form after three years
away from the game. It's certainly not "within all bounds of reason" to make
this questionable argument. From what little we know of Fischer's life
between 1972 and 1975, it appears he wasn't doing much serious chess work.
Meanwhile Karpov was beating all comers on the way to qualifying for the
title match.

4. "... good enough to beat Kaprov [sic]."

Hmm, after so many doubtful earlier statements in this argument, we have to
examine this conclusion very carefully. We know Spassky was in relatively
poor form when he lost to Fischer in 1972. We know this because he had been
playing poorly in events leading up to the match, and we have the statements
of Spassky and many other strong players that Spassky was in poor form, as
demonstrated by the fact that he made uncharacteristic mistakes several
times during the match.

We know the match loss galvanized Spassky, and he returned to form by
winning the very strong 1973 USSR Championship. Then he played a
quarterfinal match against Karpov. Karpov crushed Spassky more easily than
Fischer had in 1972, though Spassky was not in good form in 1972 and
supposedly was in top form against Karpov.

Based on Karpov's stunning result against Spassky, and Fischer's lack of
practice or serious study between 1972 and 1975, it is hard for me to
conclude that Fischer would have defeated Karpov easily--if at all--in 1975.

Tim Hanke

From a 1995/08/10 rec.games.chess note by Michael A. Mathis:

"One way to judge [the level of chess] is to calculate the
performance ratings, where Fischer performed at 2625
vs Spassky's current 2550."