jr wrote:

This is the quotation that Parr cited.

BOBBY'S MOST FAMOUS MOVE

In CHESS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP 1972 GM Evans has this to
say about 29...Bxh2 in game one, which is probably Bobby's most
famous move.

A miscalculation which is not fatal in itself, although most players
attributed Fischer's loss to this capture of the "poisoned" pawn. Black
is not content to settle for a draw and he wants to keep winning
chances alive. Having demonstrated that the champion could not
achieve the vestige of an advantage with White, Fischer now seems
to be saying "you can't draw with me that easily!"

After 30 g3 GM Evans noted:

Spassky bolted upright in his chair. His first reaction must have
been that he overlooked something. "Fischer must see something
we don't," whispered a reverential fan. In the rear of the hall
Spassky's second, Soviet Grandmaster Ewfim Geller, was
smiling broadly from ear to ear.

Obviously, I was talking about Larry Parr's earlier quote;
the one where he said x, not y. (Help Bot)

What quote was that?

Where did Evans ever say that Bxh2 was anything but a miscalculation?


Thank you for *not* dishonestly snipping the quote I replied to,
the way spin-meister Larry Parr recently did.

Obviously, the part I was refering to was where GM Evans
stated flatly that Fischer was "not content to settle for a
draw" and "wants to keep winning chances alive". This,
simply translated, means that Evans is claiming Fischer
deliberately played the blunder Bxh2 as a means to his
desired end of "keeping winning chances alive". It is a
psychological "denial" of Fischer having blundered, as is
the commentary just above it, wherein GM Evans tried to
pretend that such a blunder is "not fatal". He reaffirms
this by placing the word poisoned in quotation marks, to
accentuate the (wrongheaded) idea that this move was
perfectly playable. He went on further to pretend that not
only did White have zero advantage, but that Black in fact
was not content to settle for a mere draw in such a
position! It just doesn't get any better than this.

In sum, a big slab of baloney is laid out before us, on a
plate. Pass the mustard, please.

Again, I don't blame Mr. Parr (or other cronies for that
matter) forcommiting such an error, as they simply aren't
strong enough chess players to realise what's going on in
that position. But GM Evans had no excuse. He knew
better, but still lied through his teeth when he claimed
that White was not better, that he had not achieved
even the "vestige of an advantage". It is one thing to
claim that Black can hold a draw with perfect defense,
but it is quite another to simply lie in such a baldfaced
manner, the way Evans did. This kind of bias has no
place in chess analysis, even if it might prove useful
for political propaganda.


-- help bot

BEFORE KENNEDY WENT ANONYMOUS

In words even Greg Kennedy can understand - I am not
interested in your personal attentions... -- Phil Innes

Dear Phil,

Greg Kennedy (our help bog) spent the 60s reading
Spider-whatever comic books. He missed out. Today,
he blames the state of Indiana for his lack of education.

For a couple of years, he promised that he would
find a spellchecker that would elevate his messages.
Never did.

Several years back, I ate breakfast with a monkey
at the Singapore Zoo -- a special program. The monkey
moves down a notch. The monkey's name was G. Kennedy.
Yes, that. I have no memory of what the "G" stood
for. Perhaps it was "George."

There was quite a correspondence about monkeys
and apes and whether this writer and Larry Evans
brainwashed America. Perhaps the time has come to
reprise it. It was all loads of fun before Greg went
anonymous as help bot.

By the way the position BEFORE Fischer played
....Bxh2 was a dead draw as Spassky himself conceded
and as any computer program will verify.



help bot wrote:
jr wrote:

This is the quotation that Parr cited.

BOBBY'S MOST FAMOUS MOVE

In CHESS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP 1972 GM Evans has this to
say about 29...Bxh2 in game one, which is probably Bobby's most
famous move.

A miscalculation which is not fatal in itself, although most players
attributed Fischer's loss to this capture of the "poisoned" pawn. Black
is not content to settle for a draw and he wants to keep winning
chances alive. Having demonstrated that the champion could not
achieve the vestige of an advantage with White, Fischer now seems
to be saying "you can't draw with me that easily!"

After 30 g3 GM Evans noted:

Spassky bolted upright in his chair. His first reaction must have
been that he overlooked something. "Fischer must see something
we don't," whispered a reverential fan. In the rear of the hall
Spassky's second, Soviet Grandmaster Ewfim Geller, was
smiling broadly from ear to ear.

Obviously, I was talking about Larry Parr's earlier quote;
the one where he said x, not y. (Help Bot)

What quote was that?

Where did Evans ever say that Bxh2 was anything but a miscalculation?


Thank you for *not* dishonestly snipping the quote I replied to,
the way spin-meister Larry Parr recently did.

Obviously, the part I was refering to was where GM Evans
stated flatly that Fischer was "not content to settle for a
draw" and "wants to keep winning chances alive". This,
simply translated, means that Evans is claiming Fischer
deliberately played the blunder Bxh2 as a means to his
desired end of "keeping winning chances alive". It is a
psychological "denial" of Fischer having blundered, as is
the commentary just above it, wherein GM Evans tried to
pretend that such a blunder is "not fatal". He reaffirms
this by placing the word poisoned in quotation marks, to
accentuate the (wrongheaded) idea that this move was
perfectly playable. He went on further to pretend that not
only did White have zero advantage, but that Black in fact
was not content to settle for a mere draw in such a
position! It just doesn't get any better than this.

In sum, a big slab of baloney is laid out before us, on a
plate. Pass the mustard, please.

Again, I don't blame Mr. Parr (or other cronies for that
matter) forcommiting such an error, as they simply aren't
strong enough chess players to realise what's going on in
that position. But GM Evans had no excuse. He knew
better, but still lied through his teeth when he claimed
that White was not better, that he had not achieved
even the "vestige of an advantage". It is one thing to
claim that Black can hold a draw with perfect defense,
but it is quite another to simply lie in such a baldfaced
manner, the way Evans did. This kind of bias has no
place in chess analysis, even if it might prove useful
for political propaganda.


-- help bot

*But GM Evans had no excuse. He knew
better, but still lied through his teeth when he claimed
that White was not better, that he had not achieved
even the "vestige of an advantage". It is one thing to
claim that Black can hold a draw with perfect defense,
but it is quite another to simply lie in such a baldfaced
manner, the way Evans did. This kind of bias has no
place in chess analysis, even if it might prove useful
for political propaganda.* (Help Bot)

This guy poses as an authority but is truly a chess ignoramus.
EVERY BOOK that I have on this match says that the position
was drawish before 29...Bxh2.

Reshevsky, then, must also be lying when he
referred to Fischer's desire to play for a win.

THE FISCHER-SPASSKY GAMES by Samuel Reshevsky (Arco 1972)

Reshevsky wrote 29...Bxh2??

An incredible blunder. As we shall see soon, Fischer overlooked one
move at the disposal of Spassky, which he really should have seen.
IN HIS DESIRE TO PLAY FOR A WIN FISCHER BECAME CARELESS.
THE POSITION WAS EVEN (my emphasis)

FISCHER VS. SPASSKY by Svetozar Gligoric (The Chess Player 1972)

29...Bxh21 is a hardly believable oversight in an entirely drawish
position,
adding drama to a tranquil and rather monotonous beginning to the
match.

THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORT (Quadrangle Books 1972)

And then came Fischer's electrifying 29...Bxh2. Many chess analysts
-- most, in fact -- saw this move as only one thing: an incredible
blunder (??).
But a more balanced analysis would make that symbol "?!" -- indicating
that
the element of risk is high but that perhaps the move really is one
with strong possibilities.


help bot wrote:
jr wrote:

This is the quotation that Parr cited.

BOBBY'S MOST FAMOUS MOVE

In CHESS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP 1972 GM Evans has this to
say about 29...Bxh2 in game one, which is probably Bobby's most
famous move.

A miscalculation which is not fatal in itself, although most players
attributed Fischer's loss to this capture of the "poisoned" pawn. Black
is not content to settle for a draw and he wants to keep winning
chances alive. Having demonstrated that the champion could not
achieve the vestige of an advantage with White, Fischer now seems
to be saying "you can't draw with me that easily!"

After 30 g3 GM Evans noted:

Spassky bolted upright in his chair. His first reaction must have
been that he overlooked something. "Fischer must see something
we don't," whispered a reverential fan. In the rear of the hall
Spassky's second, Soviet Grandmaster Ewfim Geller, was
smiling broadly from ear to ear.

Obviously, I was talking about Larry Parr's earlier quote;
the one where he said x, not y. (Help Bot)

What quote was that?

Where did Evans ever say that Bxh2 was anything but a miscalculation?


Thank you for *not* dishonestly snipping the quote I replied to,
the way spin-meister Larry Parr recently did.

Obviously, the part I was refering to was where GM Evans
stated flatly that Fischer was "not content to settle for a
draw" and "wants to keep winning chances alive". This,
simply translated, means that Evans is claiming Fischer
deliberately played the blunder Bxh2 as a means to his
desired end of "keeping winning chances alive". It is a
psychological "denial" of Fischer having blundered, as is
the commentary just above it, wherein GM Evans tried to
pretend that such a blunder is "not fatal". He reaffirms
this by placing the word poisoned in quotation marks, to
accentuate the (wrongheaded) idea that this move was
perfectly playable. He went on further to pretend that not
only did White have zero advantage, but that Black in fact
was not content to settle for a mere draw in such a
position! It just doesn't get any better than this.

In sum, a big slab of baloney is laid out before us, on a
plate. Pass the mustard, please.

Again, I don't blame Mr. Parr (or other cronies for that
matter) forcommiting such an error, as they simply aren't
strong enough chess players to realise what's going on in
that position. But GM Evans had no excuse. He knew
better, but still lied through his teeth when he claimed
that White was not better, that he had not achieved
even the "vestige of an advantage". It is one thing to
claim that Black can hold a draw with perfect defense,
but it is quite another to simply lie in such a baldfaced
manner, the way Evans did. This kind of bias has no
place in chess analysis, even if it might prove useful
for political propaganda.


-- help bot

wrote:

By the way the position BEFORE Fischer played
...Bxh2 was a dead draw as Spassky himself conceded
and as any computer program will verify.


Apparently, Mr. Parr, in attempting to prop up something
Evans never should have written, is willing to settle for the
stated "opinion" of a 2500 player over extensive analysis by
his betters.

On the other hand, the introduction of computer analysis
is quite interesting, for we all know that as ignorant as they
may be, computers have zero bias. Speaking of zero, that
is the precise quantity which GM Evans stated represented
the advantage obtained by Spassky, just before Fischer
went bonkers with the blunder, Bxh2. Now in view of this,
I think it would be interesting to punch this exact position
into the strongest programs available, to see what they
"think". Near-Innes, a famous IM, recently acquired a
killer program called Rybka, circa 2900+ FIDE. Unfortunately,
he is controlled by the minions of evil, so such objective
analysis will "somehow never happen", much like a certain
rematch. I have handy a program called Arena, but it is
undoubtedly a patzer in comparison to others.

----------

Thought for the day: if in fact the position before/after/during
/around Bxh2 was so very "dead", then why would any sane
man play on, and not offer a draw? Also, the question
remains as to why Fischer played on. (Zap!)


-- help bot

jr wrote:

*But GM Evans had no excuse. He knew
better, but still lied through his teeth when he claimed
that White was not better, that he had not achieved
even the "vestige of an advantage". It is one thing to
claim that Black can hold a draw with perfect defense,
but it is quite another to simply lie in such a baldfaced
manner, the way Evans did. This kind of bias has no
place in chess analysis, even if it might prove useful
for political propaganda.* (Help Bot)

This guy poses as an authority but is truly a chess ignoramus.


Are you trying to "change the subject" for some
reason? The issue related to the Spassky/Fischer
game, not to who is or is not an authority, etc.

That really deserves a thread of its own, and quite
a thread it might be.


EVERY BOOK that I have on this match says that the
position was drawish before 29...Bxh2.


Ish? What the heck happenned to Larry Parr's
version, where it was "dead drawn"? And why won't
you support the version given by Evans, which never
once used the word draw"ish"? It is becomming
next to impossible to tell where any of the ratpackers
stand, because their feet keep dancing all over the
place! One thing these ratpackers cannot be accused
of is lethargy. LOL!


Reshevsky, then, must also be lying when he
referred to Fischer's desire to play for a win.


A lie requires a deliberate attempt to deceive. Now
what exactly was Reshevsky attempting to do? Keep
in mind that baseless speculation is not the same
thing as lying.


THE FISCHER-SPASSKY GAMES by Samuel Reshevsky (Arco 1972)

Reshevsky wrote 29...Bxh2??


Thank God! I was beginning to wonder if some
bizzarre virus had infected all the strong players.

A double query means that Fischer blundered.


An incredible blunder. As we shall see soon, Fischer overlooked one
move at the disposal of Spassky, which he really should have seen.
IN HIS DESIRE TO PLAY FOR A WIN FISCHER BECAME CARELESS.


That last comment was wrongheaded. There are two
possibilities he

1. Fischer miscalculated, missing that his Bishop would
in fact be trapped, which Spassky obviously saw a half-
move earlier.

2. Fischer saw that he loses his Bishop, but believed
the tempi gained while Spassky rounded it up was
plenty of compensation, when added to the pawns.

In neither of these scenarios does Fischer have any
decent chances of winning, only drawing, due to a lack of
material to work with. In fact it is White who comes out
ahead in these exchanges, so it was Spassky whose
winning chances were enhanced, not Fischer.

The opening play by Spassky nixed any notions
Fischer may or may not have had about trying to
win the first game. However, there is always a
White in game two.


THE POSITION WAS EVEN (my emphasis)


Wrong. White had a slight edge, as any *strong*
player can plainly see. Patzers aside, the question
is "can Black hold"? Here most GMs agreed that he
can, but then, "most GMs" have been proved wrong
before. One such example is where the endgame
tablebases overturned what was long accepted by
"most GMs" as the correct result in several types of
endgames. Another example would be the chess
books wherein early analysis -- just like your list of
work done in 1972 -- is refuted outright, after more
careful examination by others.



FISCHER VS. SPASSKY by Svetozar Gligoric (The Chess Player 1972)

29...Bxh21 is a hardly believable oversight in an entirely drawish
position,


Again, nowhere to be found is the word "dead", as in
the "story" told wherein the position was allegedly "dead
drawn", according to one ratpack leader.


adding drama to a tranquil and rather monotonous beginning to the
match.

THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORT (Quadrangle Books 1972)


Robert Byrne? The NY Times does not write anything;
they hire real people to do this for them.


And then came Fischer's electrifying 29...Bxh2. Many chess analysts
-- most, in fact -- saw this move as only one thing: an incredible
blunder (??).
But a more balanced analysis would make that symbol "?!" -- indicating
that
the element of risk is high but that perhaps the move really is one
with strong possibilities.

I agree.

The strongest possibility was that Spassky would now
win the game, which otherwise might possibly have been
held through stubborn and resourceful defense.

Speaking of a "balanced" analysis, I hear that Timman
and pals analysed that Bxh2 lost perforce, BUT Spassky
then erred, allowing a narrow escape, BUT then Fischer
erred, falling back to a lost postion, which Spassky won.
Note the "balance" here. Nobody tries to pretend their
hero is infallible, or that he never slipped up when in fact
he did. Now that's balance, my friend. And hardly the
first time Timman has "busted" careless analysis by other
GMs. Aside from hard work, the main thing is to remain
objective, and not jump to conclusions prematurely.

-- help bot

jr wrote (28 Aug 2006 23:21:01 -0700):

7 ... THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORT
7 (Quadrangle Books 1972)
7
7 And then came Fischer's electrifying 29...Bxh2. Many
7 chess analysts -- most, in fact -- saw this move as only
7 one thing: an incredible blunder (??). But a more
7 balanced analysis would make that symbol "?!" --
7 indicating that the element of risk is high but that perhaps
7 the move really is one with strong possibilities.

_
"... I believe the final verdict is that objectively,
29...Bxh2? was a bad move, one that turned a
theoretical draw into a loss. Extensive analysis
by Olafsson and Timman, on pages 38-40 of
"Fischer World Champion" (New In Chess, 2002)
demonstrates this. That Spassky later erred,
playing 36.a4 instead of 36.Kg4, does not change
29...Bxh2? from a bad move to good. ..." - Taylor
Kingston (28 Aug 2006 13:52:03 -0700)

On 28 Aug 2006 23:38:59 -0700, "help bot"
wrote:

Thought for the day: if in fact the position before/after/during
/around Bxh2 was so very "dead", then why would any sane
man play on, and not offer a draw? Also, the question
remains as to why Fischer played on. (Zap!)

The person to ask is Taimanov.

ASK TAIMANOV

The person to ask is Taimanov. -- Mike Murray

This is, of course, a reference to their sixth match game
in 1971 which was adjourned in a level position. Upon
resumption Taimanov's incredible blunder 46 Rxf6??
cost him a rook.

Bobby was notorious for trying to win positions
where lesser mortals agreed to a draw. This
fighting spirit endeared him to chess fans.


Mike Murray wrote:
On 28 Aug 2006 23:38:59 -0700, "help bot"
wrote:

Thought for the day: if in fact the position before/after/during
/around Bxh2 was so very "dead", then why would any sane
man play on, and not offer a draw? Also, the question
remains as to why Fischer played on. (Zap!)

The person to ask is Taimanov.

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








Mike Murray wrote:
On 28 Aug 2006 23:38:59 -0700, "help bot"
wrote:

Thought for the day: if in fact the position before/after/during
/around Bxh2 was so very "dead", then why would any sane
man play on, and not offer a draw? Also, the question
remains as to why Fischer played on. (Zap!)

The person to ask is Taimanov.

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