But, you have other reasons to underestimated that
match and it's achievement.


A five million dollar purse was the "acheivement," presumably. Bobby
transmuted into very rich Bobby.



many nonsense calculation about
Fischer's strength by Timothy Henke. They are not relevant at all. The only
truth is - Fischer has (had) 2785 ELO rating!


Attempts have been made to use Spassky's then-current FIDE rating as the
*objective* starting point, and from it and the *actual results*, calculate
where Fischer landed on the charts, in terms of performance against Spassky in
that single match.

The results were very disappointing to fans who had hoped for a
Kasparov-crushing 2900 or so performance rating to back their claims that Bobby
could, if he so desired, crush Kasparov or Karpov.
More reasonable fans were not surprised to see a visible decline, as this is
quite normal for humans, which species Fischer belongs to (not god or demi-god,
FYI).


Fischer's peak FIDE rating was 2785; but his last was 2780, off five points
for not crushing Spassky like a bug.



That's not nor scientific, nor
chess, nor history's approach on the event. That's old wives' tales.


Well, "old wives' tales" is what Mr. Hanke was responding to, but trying to
pinpoint Fischer's precise strength in 1975 is silly, since he played not, so
we are left guessing.


BTW, your clear attribution of the game annotations you posted to Ftacnik,
puts you one-up on Garry Kasparov, who just steals whatever he likes and then
publishes it as his own work.
Unfortunately, these newsgroups have problems with formatting, which made
Ftacnik's detailed notes rather hard to follow without a board. Or maybe it's
just because I suck.

I'm always amazed when some people who are not GMs or IM, at least, try to
define Fischer's (or Kasparov's or Kramnik's) strength. The point is that
they try to deal with something what surpassed their abilities. So, it's
better that they don't expose their opinion but they would cite some of the
famous GM who could make the evaluation. In that trap hollowed Hanke. Who
could believe in his chess evaluations? I think that is more relevant the
opinion of the chess player who played against Bobby in the "Match of the
century", 1972, and in rematch 1992. So, what said Boris Spassky about that
"non-played match" Fischer - Karpov in Khariton's interview:
------------
Boris Spassky: And, certainly, it can only be regretted that in 1975 there
was no match between Fischer and Karpov. This is one of the so-called
unplayed matches for the chess crown.

Lev Khariton: As Lasker-Rubinstein, Alekhine-Botvinnik... And what would
have been the outcome of such a match?

Boris Spasky: Probably, Bobby would have won by a narrow margin.Karpov was
already very strong. The openings would have been of great importance in
that match; Fischer would undoubtedly have seeked for complicated game and
avoided, say, the Exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez.
-----------------

I have to admit that I don't like these sort of prognosis about non-played
events. Because, nobody could check them. So, everybody and nobody could be
right. But, in many of these "comments" about Fischer on this newsgroup, you
can feel more dirty politic but chess. It's sad, but I feel that they want
to attack Bobby on all fields, so they tried, to attack him on chess field.
Maybe Tim and his back scratchers would be afraid to play against Bobby yet
in simul exhibition?! Their attacks are fakes, like a children with wooden
sword who are flailing through the air, imagining that he is fighting
against (non existing) dragon. I think that for these people their threshing
with words (instead of the wooden swords) is compensation for some child
plays which were not finished.

I cite famous Russian writer: Man is frivolous, a specious creature and,
like a chess player, cares more for the process of attaining his goal than
the goal itself. - Fyodor Dostoevsky

Goran Tomic

"NoMoreChess" wrote in message
...

BTW, your clear attribution of the game annotations you posted to
Ftacnik,
puts you one-up on Garry Kasparov, who just steals whatever he likes and
then
publishes it as his own work.
Unfortunately, these newsgroups have problems with formatting, which
made
Ftacnik's detailed notes rather hard to follow without a board. Or maybe
it's
just because I suck.

Interesting. Can you give the link to the Ftacnik`s notes ?

Regards,

Jerzy

..
-- Well-written, but still mere ad hominem snipped --


I'm always amazed when some people who are not GMs or IM, at least, try to
define Fischer's (or Kasparov's or Kramnik's) strength.


I'm always amazed at how many imbeciles there are who can quote "statistics"
which have no relation whatever to the actual numbers, based upon the actual
results!

Do they not teach basic math anymore?




So, it's
better that they don't expose their opinion but they would cite some of the
famous GM who could make the evaluation.


Hmm. Let's see: Kortchnoi probably thought *he* was the best in 1975.
Karpov thought Fischer was the best in 1975. Rueben Fine thought *he* was the
uncrowned world champion. Spassky is alleged to have said that Fischer would
have beaten Karpov by a narrow margin -- which contrasts sharply to the
position FORMERLY taken by Mr. Knowitall here.





"I was stronger, but he was more clever."

- Boris Spassky, commenting on his world championship loss to Petrosian

..
The link you want would simply be a link to the posting to which I replied.


I still don't see why not instead: 34.K-h1! ...Q-a8+? 35.K-g1!! Q-a7+
36.K-f1 B-h3+ 37.R-g2!! R-f8+ 28.K-e1! Bxg2 29.h7!!!, and Black is in
zugzwang. Maybe I need to get out a chessboard.... ;-)

"NoMoreChess" wrote in message
...

"I was stronger, but he was more clever."

- Boris Spassky, commenting on his world championship loss to Petrosian

That's better. You started to cite people who are more clever than you. They
are (were) also stronger than you. So, you cited more clever and stronger
people than you. But, you jumped into your mouth. Did Spassky authorize you
to cite him? Or could I paraphrase poor Jerzy (in this thread): "Of course
it`s an example of plagiarism without giving the source (I mean
the link to the page where the game has been published over the net).??

I must admit that you and poor Jerzy are very ridiculous persons who thresh
"void stew" all the time. But, this time Jerzy threshed you...


Regards,
Goran Tomic

"PJDBAD" wrote in message
...
Of course it`s an example of plagiarism without giving the source (I mean
the link to the page where the game has been published over the net).


Actually it is only plagiarism if you claim it as your own work. Not
giving
credit where credit is due is a little short of that mark.

You are right PJ. Thank you for correcting me


Regards,

Jerzy

"NoMoreChess" wrote in message
...

Nay, he _gave the source_ as "Ftacnik," and if you cannot find the
(many?)
places where it has been published, then you can simply *ask*.
This is not plagiarism at all, but failure to do your research for you.
If
it really is a link, you already must know where to go: Google, of course!


You are right if he gave the real name of author.
Thank you for correcting me


Regards,

Jerzy

"NoMoreChess" wrote in message
...

Nay, he _gave the source_ as "Ftacnik," and if you cannot find the
(many?)
places where it has been published, then you can simply *ask*.
This is not plagiarism at all, but failure to do your research for you.
If
it really is a link, you already must know where to go: Google, of course!


You are right if he gave the real name of the author.
Thank you for correcting me


Regards,

Jerzy