BOT BLOVIATES

Greg Kennedy as bot bloviates once again.

Concerning the issue of Bobby's fitness for
combat, when he played via radio in the Havana 1965
international, he endured terrific strain even though
away from the game competitively for some 20 months.
Fischer's playing sessions lasted over 10 hours at a
stretch in nearly EVERY GAME. His individual opponent
during a given round had to put up with the same de
facto time limit, but Bobby had to grind it out in
every single round. Still, he finished tied for
second, only a half point behind Smyslov. In that
tournament Bobby played under a terrific handicap.

Karpov came unglued twice against Korchnoi in
1974 and 1978 after building up leads. Although the
1978 match is the better known for exposing Karpov's
difficulty in putting away a tenacious opponent, the
1974 match, which went 24 games, is perhaps the more
instructive in suggesting whose physical constitution
would have withstood the pressure longer -- Fischer's
or Karpov's.

Greg Kennedy hates Bobby Fischer because Greg
once had dreams about being a contendah. In old
postings here, Greg spoke about how he might have
reached the top except that while Bobby had the
benefit of a broken, unhappy, poverty-ridden childhood
in Brooklyn, Greg had to endure the living heck of Indiana.

What strikes one is Greg's attempts to belittle
when placed against the accolades of Bobby's great
COMPETITORS.

One might have expected Mikhail Tal, who after
all owned a plus-score against Bobby because of the
1959 Candidates' event, to spew Greg's junk. But no.
The wizard from Riga, as he was known, just said it
all straight out: Fischer was the greatest genius to
have descended from the Caissic sky.

One might have expected Miguel Najdorf, who some
ill-tempered dustups with brash and baleful Bobby, to
hone angles that gashed into his reputation. But no.
Don Miguel enthused about Bobby tossing pieces into the
air that somehow landed on the right squares.

One might have expected Mark Taimanov, whom Bobby
humiliated beyond bearing in their 1971 match, to discover
some argument to boost himself and lambast Bobby. But
no. Taimanov's discussion of his draw with Bobby at
Buenos Aires 1960 is filled with admiration for
Bobby's colossal memory and erudition, not to mention
endgame insight.

Or what about Robert Byrne? He was among the highly
talented American GMs in those U.S. Championships,
whom our Greg attempts to deprecate as a "rabbit"
whom Bobby eclipsed. Bobby made Byrne historically
irrelevant, yet Byrne unhesitatingly pronounced that
Karpov had no chance against Fischer in 1975.

Or, for hat matter, what about even Yuri Averbakh? In
a long interview that Evans and I had with him in 1990
he praised the postwar generation of American masters
very highly, telling Evans that he could have been a world
title aspirant except for lack of professional application.

When Evans, a bit embarrassed, dissented, Averbakh
would not hear of it and insisted that the American masters
had played very fine chess. The obvious point here is that Greg's
putdown of those who played in the U.S. Championships
of the Fischer era was not a view shared by an official enemy
whose job it was to work toward Soviet chess supremacy.

Tal, Najdorf, Taimanov, R. Byrne and Averbakh
all had reasons for disliking Bobby personally and for
denigrating his chess in subtle or not so subtles. But
these people and many others like them were and are
far bigger personalities than our Greg, a chess nobody
who splatters these forums with his envy..

These GMs had to play Bobby or, in some instances,
act as analytical aides to those facing Bobby.
As Tal put the matter in a secret memorandum, it
paid even to study Bobby's five-minute games!

How tall Tall and how snipped off our Greg.

Yours, Larry Parr




help bot wrote:
On Jan 23, 1:42 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

The real question, which rating formulae can't
answer, is whether Fischer's phenomenal 70-72
results, which were extraordinary even for Fischer,
and based on relatively few games, are something that
he could have sustained, or would he have fallen back
to "normal" super-GM (Karpovish) status.

No one will ever know, but I think the fact that
Fischer chose not to play at all is the best evidence.
I think Fischer knew that even if he had beat Karpov,
he would have underperformed his 70-72 results.
In that sense, he had nothing to gain by playing.

You seem to forget that BF needed the money,
so obviously he would have had plenty to gain.

In addition, there was the small matter of
keeping the title out of Russian hands. Heck,
they beat us into space, so why roll over and
play dead when you can hang onto the chess
title? As far as I could tell, BF detested the
Russians, and seemed to wallow in the Cold
War rhetoric like a happy-go-lucky pig.

But aside from those oversights, I think you
have pinpointed the issue: risk perceived as
outweighing the potential gains. It is sad to
see a man live in relative poverty, when he so
easily could have made millions, just by
overcoming his irrational fears.


-- help bot

wrote in message
...

.

Or, for hat matter, what about even Yuri Averbakh? In
a long interview that Evans and I had with him in 1990
he praised the postwar generation of American masters
very highly, telling Evans that he could have been a world
title aspirant except for lack of professional application.

When Evans, a bit embarrassed, dissented, Averbakh
would not hear of it and insisted that the American masters
had played very fine chess. The obvious point here is that Greg's
putdown of those who played in the U.S. Championships
of the Fischer era was not a view shared by an official enemy
whose job it was to work toward Soviet chess supremacy.

.

Although in a more recent interview with Taimanov the question of Western
Challengers arose, and Taimanov said in effect, that it was only Fischer who
was perceived as a threat, and specifically said, 'not even Larsen'.

What is sad is that during the period when I was interviewing Taimanov, and
also when he annotated the 3rd game against RJF, we then struck into a
conversation about 'the longest pause' Taimanov ever made in a game, 70
minutes. "Is he invincible, or is he bewitched?" asked MT.

So I asked Fischer [then living in Hungary] what he had seen in those 70
minutes. For sure, not even Kasparov cracked the position, nor even Deep
Blue - and it remained a 30 year enigma.

In terms of respect for Western players in the post war era, I think, based
on some 2,000 exchanges with Russian chess people, opinion was not static,
so that in the immediate post-war period there was more care and
apprehension about the West, but by the late 60's then there was, as above,
only Fischer to fear.

Of course, chess in the West remained much the same, as a semi-professional
activity. But in the SU it had become formally [if not admittedly!] entirely
professional, though players may have had a nominal job or carear, Soviet
players were able to live in Moscow or Petersburg, have chess students
assigned, seconds assigned for research, and were for all intents and
purposes, the products of a state supported industry.

That is probably the basis for the changed opinion since 1930, when as a
team US won 4 golds in 4 successive tries against other amatuer teams. So,
while the West slept, the Soviet School collectively made advancements.

Yours, Larry Parr

One more comment below.

...


No one will ever know, but I think the fact that
Fischer chose not to play at all is the best evidence.
I think Fischer knew that even if he had beat Karpov,
he would have underperformed his 70-72 results.
In that sense, he had nothing to gain by playing.

O no! I very much think Fischer needed a Russian menace, and an impossible
mountain to assault, and he wanted to solo it.

This was his spur, his animus, and indeed, not any unusual one. When very
strong players talk about each other they often make such comments about
what stimulates incredible effort, and what leaves them flat and uninspired.

Karpov in fact wrote just this in his 91 title. Against Kasparov he said he
was not much inspired [!] But Korchnoi got to him and stimulated his play,
and of Fischer, he estimated that he would be in the highest bracket of
stimulation of all, 'the 90th percentile'.

Phil Innes