Bxh2?!? The first match game against Spassky in 1972 wasn't
the only time that Fischer tried to win a drawn position
and lost. He refused a draw against Florian Gheorghiu
at the 1966 Chess Olympiad in Havana, which cost
Bobby the gold medal on board one. (Parrthenon)

Help Bot is a chess ignoramus who keeps shifting ground
when his arguments are refued.

He claimed that Fischer wasn't playing for a win in a completely
drawn position with Bxh2 and then he falsely added that Spassky
stood better before Bxh2.

See NEVER ON SUNDAY

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/print.php?sid=684

Interesting. But it doesn't mention the game with
Gheorghiu. And in fact, the reason Fischer did not
get the gold medal is not that his winning percentage
was clobbered by refusing to draw a game, it was
because the Russians pulled Petrosian and this
"protected" his amazing winning percentage from
any threat, such as, say, one Bobby Fischer! Why
anyone would consider him a threat, is beyond me.

Both players had an amazing winning percentage,
separated by less than one percent. I noticed that
Evans derides the Russians' tactics as though this
sort of thing were, let's say, sleasy. Yet when the
Americans "stacked the ladder" by playing Larsen
against Spassky (who Fischer had trouble against),
it seems completely acceptable to Evans, who made
no similar complaints. There is no standard quite
like the DOUBLE standard. (Help Bot)

Once again this chess ignoramus mixes apples and oranges.
The Larsen issue did not involve double standards in any way.

Help Bot is all mixed up. America had nothing to do with the
USSR vs. World match in Belgrade 1970.

Fischer had been inactive for almost two years and Larsen
demanded to play first board against world champion Spassky
or he would drop out. Fischer reluctantly consented to play
second board against Petrosian in order to placate Larsen.

Finally, as it turns out, had Fischer taken that draw against
Gheorghiu, he would have won the gold medal ahead of Petrosian
even if the Russians didn't substitute Spassky for him on first board
in the 1966 Olympiad.

Setting the record straight against Help Bot's steady stream
of falsehoods and cockeyed opinions is a hopeless task.

P.S. It's sleazy not sleasy.

help bot wrote:
wrote:
Bxh2?!?

The first match game against Spassky in 1972 wasn't
the only time that Fischer tried to win a drawn position
and lost. He refused a draw against Florian Gheorghiu
at the 1966 Chess Olympiad in Havana, which cost
Bobby the gold medal on board one.

See NEVER ON SUNDAY

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/print.php?sid=684


Interesting. But it doesn't mention the game with
Gheorghiu. And in fact, the reason Fischer did not
get the gold medal is not that his winning percentage
was clobbered by refusing to draw a game, it was
because the Russians pulled Petrosian and this
"protected" his amazing winning percentage from
any threat, such as, say, one Bobby Fischer! Why
anyone would consider him a threat, is beyond me.

Both players had an amazing winning percentage,
separated by less than one percent. I noticed that
Evans derides the Russians' tactics as though this
sort of thing were, let's say, sleasy. Yet when the
Americans "stacked the ladder" by playing Larsen
against Spassky (who Fischer had trouble against),
it seems completely acceptable to Evans, who made
no similar complaints. There is no standard quite
like the DOUBLE standard.


-- help bot

jr wrote:

P.S. It's sleazy not sleasy.

Finally, jr gets something right. Mea culpa.

-- help bot

P.S.: It's the Oxford Companion *to* Chess, not "of" Chess.

jr wrote:

Bxh2?!? The first match game against Spassky in 1972 wasn't
the only time that Fischer tried to win a drawn position
and lost. He refused a draw against Florian Gheorghiu
at the 1966 Chess Olympiad in Havana, which cost
Bobby the gold medal on board one. (Parrthenon)

Help Bot is a chess ignoramus who keeps shifting ground
when his arguments are refued.


As far as I know, none of my arguments have yet been
"refued", certainly not by ignorants who babble on about
Fischer trying to win when in fact he has admitted that
he simply blundered. For example, Bobby Fischer Goes
to War quotes Fischer with regard to this game: "I played
like a fish." Ruebin Fine has Fischer flatly admitting that
he *overlooked* that Kg4 traps his Bishop.

IMO, these myriad attempts to twist a simple miscalculation
into something else, reflects that there are a lot of people who
cannot accept the truth that Fischer was not infallible, that he
sometimes blundered just like everyone else. Such people
search desperately for another explanation, rejecting the
obvious one and concocting all sorts of explanations in order to
protect their misguided delusions. I pity such people.


He claimed that Fischer wasn't playing for a win in a completely
drawn position with Bxh2 and then he falsely added that Spassky
stood better before Bxh2.


A CHESS LESSON FOR JR AND LARRY PARR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the position where Fischer blundered with Bxh2, the
White King is nearer the center, his pawn on b5 restricts
the Black King, and not one of his pawns is *fixed* on
the wrong color square, where it might be attacked and
won by Black's Bishop. Note that even though many of
White's pawns *are* on dark squares, they are not fixed;
this is important.

Now then, let us compare Black's situation; Black's
King is still on the back rank, so he is behind in tempi*.
His pawns are safe enough for now, and he is not down
any material. His Bishop is the equal of White's, and
because there is so little to work with, the odds of
Black being able to hold a draw are good. But not quite
so good that the two players readily agree to save time
and swap colors for their next game -- White can try to
make something of his advantages here, however small
they may be. The single threat of trading down to a
K & p ending is White's trump card, for Black's inferior
King position could lose such a game perforce. Hence,
if a diagonal is challenged, Black may well have to yield
in order to avoid a losing trade. Or not -- it depends.

* tempi, plural of tempo; a unit of time equal to one move
in chess. Generally speaking, having the move is good,
gaining tempi is good; and yes, this applies even in the
endgame. (Make that *especially* in the endgame.)

Next week: why "all" Rook and pawn endings are drawn.


-- help bot

wrote:

Bxh2?!?

The first match game against Spassky in 1972 wasn't
the only time that Fischer tried to win a drawn position
and lost. He refused a draw against Florian Gheorghiu
at the 1966 Chess Olympiad in Havana, which cost
Bobby the gold medal on board one.


A mixed up jumble of verbiage from Mr. Parr; it would have
been far more *rational* to write that Fischer turned down a
draw offer and went on to lose. The suggestion that the game
with Gheorghiu was "a drawn position" is absurd -- even by
Larry Parr's standards. In fact, from the get-go, both players
(not just Fischer) played for the win, and although Fischer
gave it the old college try, his plans backfired on the board.

There was, however, one striking similarity between this
game and the one with Spassky; in both cases, Fischer
fought hard in an inferior ending, but still lost in the end.

Another similarity with the Spassky match is Fischer's
tendency to all too often play his Knight to the rim of the
board, for tactical reasons. In the game with Gheorghiu
(that's a bitch to spell, ain't it?), Fischer's Knight was soon
seen to be out of position, his intended attack having failed.
But in the match with Spassky, an inferior Knight-to-the-rim
led to a decisive victory in one game for our hero.

Ignorant speculations aside, the real reason Fischer lost
the Gheorghiu game was that he was outplayed. The real
reason he lost the game to Spassky was that he overlooked
a move; he miscalculated. In the first game White appeared
to be playing passively, and this Fischer attempted to "refute"
with sharp play. In the Spassky game, Fischer simply played
the "correct" move, Bxh2, correct that is, if it weren't for his
miscalculation. Had Fischer's calculations been correct,
White would have been inflicted with a slight pawn weakness
after Bxh2, and thus, any decent player would have done
precisely the same thing. IMO, had this worked, the idea
that the inferior side can easily hold would not have occurred
to Fischer fanatics; on the contrary, they would have found
some "winning line" to explain away the draw. It is very,
very hard for some people to accept that Spassky made no
mistake in the opening, created no weakness for our hero
to pounce upon. They simply can't accept that no matter
how good Fischer may have been, he can't win by force of
willpower alone!

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...

jr wrote:

Bxh2?!? The first match game against Spassky in 1972 wasn't
the only time that Fischer tried to win a drawn position
and lost. He refused a draw against Florian Gheorghiu
at the 1966 Chess Olympiad in Havana, which cost
Bobby the gold medal on board one. (Parrthenon)

Help Bot is a chess ignoramus who keeps shifting ground
when his arguments are refued.


As far as I know, none of my arguments have yet been
"refued", [ SIC] certainly not by ignorants who babble on about

The typical m.o. of parr (and lately jr.) is to ignore arguments that cannot
be refuted and instead a) focus on minutia and/or b) insult the person who
is winning the intellectual side of the argument. . Would be a whole lot
easier to just concede the point and move on .... but no, some people
cannot admit that they were wrong. Sad, sad, sad, as parr would say.

"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...

A CHESS LESSON FOR JR AND LARRY PARR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the position where Fischer blundered with Bxh2, the
White King is nearer the center, his pawn on b5 restricts
the Black King, and not one of his pawns is *fixed* on
the wrong color square, where it might be attacked and
won by Black's Bishop. Note that even though many of
White's pawns *are* on dark squares, they are not fixed;
this is important.

Now then, let us compare Black's situation; Black's
King is still on the back rank, so he is behind in tempi*.
His pawns are safe enough for now, and he is not down
any material. His Bishop is the equal of White's, and
because there is so little to work with, the odds of
Black being able to hold a draw are good. But not quite
so good that the two players readily agree to save time
and swap colors for their next game -- White can try to
make something of his advantages here, however small
they may be. The single threat of trading down to a
K & p ending is White's trump card, for Black's inferior
King position could lose such a game perforce. Hence,
if a diagonal is challenged, Black may well have to yield
in order to avoid a losing trade. Or not -- it depends.


To make your case you have to provide evidence
that players of Fischer's calibre would have had
trouble drawing the position. At the very least,
why not give us some of your White wins from the
position vs. strong computers, or even against some
strong human opposition, say within 500 rating points
of the combatants in the match?

Perhaps some stronger players can describe
Black's drawing method in the position, and
whether there are any pitfalls to worry about.

DK

David Kane wrote:

To make your case you have to provide evidence
that players of Fischer's calibre would have had
trouble drawing the position.


David Kane is sooooo lost here. In fact, my point was
not that Black cannot hold -- that is a "strawman". Building
men of straw and then knocking them down is generally
a waste of time, unless one gets his jollies in the process
itself (as Mr. Kane apparently does).

Obviously, to anyone who has paid attention that is, my
correction to the Evans quote was simply to point out the
lie where Evans tried very hard to pretend that White had
no advantage whatsoever. Clearly, weak players have trouble
even recognising the significance of such things as gained
tempi, centralisation, and so forth, which is why I focused my
criticisms on GM Evans himself, not his ratpackers. OTOH,
it was Larry Parr (a decent but far from great chess player)
who fumbled by tossing out the phrase "dead drawn",
where a more honest writer would have chosen "drawish"
to fairly describe reality. Yet both of these turkeys have
attempted to dismiss Spassky's earned win via absurdities.




At the very least,
why not give us some of your White wins from the
position vs. strong computers,


No problemo. I simply remove Black's Bishop, and
it is only a matter of technique.

As can be easily seen at GetClub.com, computers
and I are not on good terms. One or the other of us
will invariably "play like a fish", as Fischer described
his own efforts in this game (i.e.: admitting his blunder).


or even against some strong human opposition, say


Humans are few and far between where I play. I downed
two so far, though in the second of these games it looked
a bit drawish before I made inroads much the same way
as Gheorghiu did in his win over Fischer, a tactical blow
deciding the issue.


within 500 rating points of the combatants in the match?


Not even Bobby Pfuscher has a rating within that range,
so what you ask is ridiculous. And be careful when tossing
numbers about -- subtracting 500 from Fischer's rating comes
dangerously close to eliminating GM Evans himself!


Perhaps some stronger players can describe
Black's drawing method in the position, and
whether there are any pitfalls to worry about.


1. tactics first: don't hang any pawns (or the Bishop)

2. don't trade Bishops unless the K&p ending is tenable

3. keep pawns on the color opposite of White's B, if possible

4. keep White's King out -- no pawn infiltration on either wing

5. avoid zugzwang

6. use the threat of 3-fold repetition to gradually make White
give up his ground advantage

7. psychology: make White pay for trying to win this by dragging
it out to 200 moves

8. always seal an unexpected move so you will have the
analytical edge upon the next resumption

9. see (1) above

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:

To make your case you have to provide evidence
that players of Fischer's calibre would have had
trouble drawing the position.


David Kane is sooooo lost here. In fact, my point was
not that Black cannot hold -- that is a "strawman". Building
men of straw and then knocking them down is generally
a waste of time, unless one gets his jollies in the process
itself (as Mr. Kane apparently does).

Obviously, to anyone who has paid attention that is, my
correction to the Evans quote was simply to point out the
lie where Evans tried very hard to pretend that White had
no advantage whatsoever.

What do you mean by "advantage"?

Many K+P vs. K games are theoretically drawn.
Not only that, they are practically drawn between
players of a certain skill level. Do you still say in that case
that the side with the pawn has an advantage?

I'll concede that if you give the same KP vs. P
position to a class of 6 year olds, the side
with the pawn will score a lot of wins. So
it might be reasonable to claim an "advantage"
in that group.

But for Evans to be wrong in this case, you have to
credibly argue that *Fischer* or other strong GMs
were likely to lose it. But of course you can't. Or are
you saying that Evans should have included a "scholastic
chess perspective" when discussing a game between
the world's top 2 players?

FWIW, computers that annihilate me from all kinds
of equal and inferior positions can only draw
against me from that one.

David Kane wrote:

What do you mean by "advantage"?


See my point? The man doesn't even know what an
advantage is!


Many K+P vs. K games are theoretically drawn.


Right. Are you looking at the same position as the
one in their actual game?


Not only that, they are practically drawn between
players of a certain skill level. Do you still say in that case
that the side with the pawn has an advantage?


In the game I am discussing, both sides had a number
of pawns, plus a Bishop each. You seem to be refering
to an imaginary position which exists only in your own
mind. Do you have a problem discussing the *actual*
game?


I'll concede that if you give the same KP vs. P
position to a class of 6 year olds, the side
with the pawn will score a lot of wins.


Um, no. In fact there will be "wins" for both sides,
as any experienced TD can verify. Plus many draws.
Do you imagine Fischer to be similar to a six year old
on account of his babblings regarding things other than
chess? Back to your imaginary game: the side with
the pawn will likely win more games overall because
even such "creative" kids have trouble imagining being
checkmated by a bare King (there will always be
exceptions!).


So it might be reasonable to claim an "advantage"
in that group.


Okay.


But for Evans to be wrong in this case, you have to


Hold on a sec there, junior! I don't have to argue
anything. Evans' analysis *has already been refuted*
by others. More to the point, his comments require
nothing more than an understanding of chess concepts,
and of course, logic, to properly assess. Ideas like
"backpeddling", "shifting ground" and the like require
no special chess analysis skills to recognise, just
being observant. Take for example, the known fact
that both players refused to shake hands, but instead
played on. Had this been completely "dead drawn", as
one ratpacker had it, somebody would have been forced
to extend his hand out of embarassment, if nothing else.
Or maybe they could have gone until stalemate, ignoring
the cameras and spectators.

In particular, the single biggest problem with Evans' many
comments regarding everything Fischer is his inconsistency,
his persistent ground shifting. At one time, Evans correctly
used a thing called logic to cut through the cr*p and tell us
that Fischer himself was responsible for his own premature
retirement from active play. Not long afterward, GM Evans
began to shuffle and dance, telling everyone who would
listen that the evil Russians (who controlled FIDE) were the
real culprits. Had he simply renounced his earlier position,
this would be called having a change of heart. But holding
dearly to every word he has ever written, our man Evans
has created quake after quake, a new dance style, and a
whole lot of contortion and twisting about.


credibly argue that *Fischer* or other strong GMs
were likely to lose it.


Perhaps you need a refresher course in logical thinking.
This strawman of yours may well be fun, but it has no
bearing on the case. Not one poster here has argued
that Fischer "was likely to lose" w/o Bxh2 -- that is, until
you showed up! LOL


But of course you can't. Or are
you saying that Evans should have included a "scholastic
chess perspective" when discussing a game between
the world's top 2 players?


Good one. Two straw men are better than one.
Build them up, then knock them down. What fun!

How about this one: Evans said Fischer was up a whole
Rook after Bxh2!, Kc2 Bg1, Kb1 Bxf2, Ka1 Bxe3 _+



FWIW,

gasp

computers that annihilate me from all kinds
of equal and inferior positions can only draw
against me from that one.


1. suggest giving the computer *White*

2. try one of the strong programs, with access during
play (sorry, Innes!) to endgame tablebases.

3. set contempt factor so it is not willing to draw except
when not given any choice

4. allow sufficient time per move for computer to see in
advance any forced repetitions which may force a draw

5. hashtables, speed, time -- these are all necessary,
since computers suck at long-term strategy

In particular, I recommend one of the top-rated programs,
as these are guaranteed to be good endgame players --
unlike some of the weaker programs.

--------------------------------------

Type "Fischer Spassky Bxh2" into a Web search box and
the game appears, like magic. Chessgames.com?

It is interesting to see the skill it required for White to win
against Fischer's stubborn defense. Themes like zugzwang
and manuever show that no simplistic computer is going to
jump out and show you an obvious win here, the way they
do with tactics in the middlegame.

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Kane wrote:


But for Evans to be wrong in this case, you have to


Hold on a sec there, junior! I don't have to argue
anything. Evans' analysis *has already been refuted*
by others. More to the point, his comments require
nothing more than an understanding of chess concepts,
and of course, logic, to properly assess. Ideas like
"backpeddling", "shifting ground" and the like require
no special chess analysis skills to recognise, just
being observant. Take for example, the known fact
that both players refused to shake hands, but instead
played on. Had this been completely "dead drawn", as
one ratpacker had it, somebody would have been forced
to extend his hand out of embarassment, if nothing else.
Or maybe they could have gone until stalemate, ignoring
the cameras and spectators.

In particular, the single biggest problem with Evans' many
comments regarding everything Fischer is his inconsistency,
his persistent ground shifting. At one time, Evans correctly
used a thing called logic to cut through the cr*p and tell us
that Fischer himself was responsible for his own premature
retirement from active play. Not long afterward, GM Evans
began to shuffle and dance, telling everyone who would
listen that the evil Russians (who controlled FIDE) were the
real culprits. Had he simply renounced his earlier position,
this would be called having a change of heart. But holding
dearly to every word he has ever written, our man Evans
has created quake after quake, a new dance style, and a
whole lot of contortion and twisting about.


credibly argue that *Fischer* or other strong GMs
were likely to lose it.


Perhaps you need a refresher course in logical thinking.
This strawman of yours may well be fun, but it has no
bearing on the case. Not one poster here has argued
that Fischer "was likely to lose" w/o Bxh2 -- that is, until
you showed up! LOL

Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.
If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead) drawn.

You want to insist upon the existence of a mysterious
"advantage" that doesn't help you win, be my guest.

You want to make an obviously false claim "Evans
lied in his description of the position", be my guest.

But be aware that making stupid and false arguments
in one case undercuts your credibility in all of your
anti-Evans/Parr arguments.