OK so the provocative subject line got you reading. What I mean is I've read
in a few places that Bobby Fischer didn't have a particular style - he just
played the strongest move.

For example Tal and Bronstein, both romantic attacking players would seek
beautiful moves or chase interesting ideas.
Petrosian (not that I know much about him) would steer the game into calmer
positional waters.

However Bobby's play was like a search for truth - just to find the best
move, the right move in a given position.

Is this an adequate description of Bobby Fischer's style, and surely this is
what chess should be - a search for truth?

Sounds like you are trying to stereotype players. I also doubt whether
any true Grandmaster purposefully plays a second rate move in a game.
Fischer played very well but he isn't chess perfection personified,
some players had plus scores against him, like Geller.

"Neil Coward" wrote in message ...
OK so the provocative subject line got you reading. What I mean is I've read
in a few places that Bobby Fischer didn't have a particular style - he just
played the strongest move.

For example Tal and Bronstein, both romantic attacking players would seek
beautiful moves or chase interesting ideas.
Petrosian (not that I know much about him) would steer the game into calmer
positional waters.

However Bobby's play was like a search for truth - just to find the best
move, the right move in a given position.

Is this an adequate description of Bobby Fischer's style, and surely this is
what chess should be - a search for truth?

The public Soviet opinion at the time leading up to the Spassky '72
match was that Fischer's play was classical, and that it was easy to
see through his aim in the game. Added to this was an intense opening
preparation.

I think your description of a search "to find the best move in the
position" is apt and is equivalent to a "classical" style. That he was
nevertheless so difficult to hold off was accorded to his ability to
calculate.

The public Soviet opinion at the time leading up to the Spassky '72
match was that Fischer's play was classical, and that it was easy to
see through his aim in the game.

As one chess writer put it "Opening wise knowing I have a .45 on the table and
doing something about it are two different things."

On 26 Jul 2004 15:57:10 -0700, (TommyBoy) wrote:


I think your description of a search "to find the best move in the
position" is apt and is equivalent to a "classical" style.

This seems as good as description as any.People often compare
Fischer's play to Capablanca,and there are similarities,but I always
thought he played a bit more like Tarrasch.Tarrasch was dogmatic in
his writing,but less so in his play.This is,of course,just a gross
generalization.

Fischer indeed played in a classical style, but extremely well, like no one
else in the history of chess. A guess is that he might have had trouble
adjusting to a more dynamical kind of play like Kasparov's. At his best
Fischer would have no trouble defeating Karpov whose style is similar to
his, but less energetic.
Hans J.

..
At his best Fischer would have no trouble defeating Karpov
whose style is similar to his, but less energetic.


Why do you assume that Fischer must be "at his best," while not giving the
same courtesy to Karpov? This looks like simple bias, to me.



In 1975 -- the appointed time for Fischer to defend the title -- Bobby had
joined the Worldwide Church of God, was expecting *Jesus Christ to return to
Earth* that very year, and most likely placed chess on the back-burner, since
finding an improvement in the 21.e5?!! line in the Polugaevsy variation just
doesn't stack-up against that kind of competition.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Karpov had soundly defeated a rejuvenated Boris
Spassky, who had recently won the strongest USSR championship ever.

In another thread, it was pointed out that when it comes to match play, where
each game's result is not fully independent, but rather dependent upon the need
to accomplish something in relation to the outcome of the match, the ratings
system simply is unreliable. The obvious example is Larsen's 0-6 loss, where
he tossed games in order to take a shot at coming from behind. As a result of
winning several matches in a row, Bobby managed to work his rating skyward, and
even the five point *loss* to Spassky can be considered another "victory" for
Fischer, since Boris should have taken far more, had he not allowed match
psychology to weaken his game.

In sum, Fischer's sky-high rating simply cannot be relied upon as a true
indicator of his expected result against, say, Kortchnoi or Karpov, in 1975.
And if there is no reliable, objective way to accurately predict the outcome,
then we are merely expressing (biased) opinions, in effect, blowing hot air.
With that in mind, I would like to say that Kasparov would simply *thwomp*
Fischer now! :-)

What I meant was simply that in 1975 Fischer had not played serious chess
for three years, so inevitably he would be somewhat rusty and not at his
best.

I agree with you on the Larsen loss 0-6. Larsen could easily have obtained a
number of draws, if he wanted to, so 6-0 does not reflect the true
difference in strength. But Taimanov really was much weaker than Fischer (I
know it, I defeated Taimanov once, 1967, ok, in a simul, I must admit).

Have you played over some of Fischer's games lately? I can recommend that.
Its a pleasure to study his games from, say 1970 to 1972.

Best wishes,
Hans J


"NoMoreChess" skrev i en meddelelse
...
.
At his best Fischer would have no trouble defeating Karpov
whose style is similar to his, but less energetic.


Why do you assume that Fischer must be "at his best," while not giving
the
same courtesy to Karpov? This looks like simple bias, to me.



In 1975 -- the appointed time for Fischer to defend the title -- Bobby
had
joined the Worldwide Church of God, was expecting *Jesus Christ to return
to
Earth* that very year, and most likely placed chess on the back-burner,
since
finding an improvement in the 21.e5?!! line in the Polugaevsy variation
just
doesn't stack-up against that kind of competition.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Karpov had soundly defeated a rejuvenated
Boris
Spassky, who had recently won the strongest USSR championship ever.

In another thread, it was pointed out that when it comes to match play,
where
each game's result is not fully independent, but rather dependent upon the
need
to accomplish something in relation to the outcome of the match, the
ratings
system simply is unreliable. The obvious example is Larsen's 0-6 loss,
where
he tossed games in order to take a shot at coming from behind. As a
result of
winning several matches in a row, Bobby managed to work his rating
skyward, and
even the five point *loss* to Spassky can be considered another "victory"
for
Fischer, since Boris should have taken far more, had he not allowed match
psychology to weaken his game.

In sum, Fischer's sky-high rating simply cannot be relied upon as a true
indicator of his expected result against, say, Kortchnoi or Karpov, in
1975.
And if there is no reliable, objective way to accurately predict the
outcome,
then we are merely expressing (biased) opinions, in effect, blowing hot
air.
With that in mind, I would like to say that Kasparov would simply
*thwomp*
Fischer now! :-)

..
Have you played over some of Fischer's games lately? I can recommend that.
Its a pleasure to study his games from, say 1970 to 1972.


No, I haven't re-re-replayed over Fischer's games, lately! Bobby's games are
just about the most frequently re-re-hashed games around, here in the USA.
Gatta Kamsky is basically ignored due to his Russian heritage, and so it goes
that until Fischer is long dead, or until another American-born player comes
along to challenge for the title, the Fischer legend will live on, and on, and
on, along with the Cold War propaganda of his era.

I would be more intersted in replaying games I have never seen -- and there
are plenty of them.




(I know it, I defeated Taimanov once, 1967, ok, in a simul, I must admit).


Since Fischer is now 61, my plan is to wait until he is ninty -- roughly
thirty years from now -- and then play him in a simul, and (just barely) beat
him. :-)