..
This George Orwell clown is a riot.

It is quite obvious that any of the top computer programs today, running on
top-rate hardware, are superior at blitz to any human -- and broadly speaking,
that would include Fischer.

Where Fischer would have a chance against the best machines is in the slow
games -- that is, if he were as good today as he was in his prime, some thirty
years ago. Unfortunately, that is most unlikely. Old man Fischer is not in
training to make a comeback, as he already has all the money he will ever need.

Here are some facts, which the Fischer fanatics have deliberately ignored and
chosen to simply "leave out" of their rants he

1. Fischer himself has denied ever playing the games in question. While this
is not proof, it must be considered as evidence, especially given the fact that
Short was very flattering in his description of how he lost.

2. The original source of these theories was Nigel Short, who it seems to me
was not being rational in assumming that because he lost badly, it must
"therefore" have been none other than Fischer. The evidence is nonexistent for
Short only being able to lose badly at blitz to Bobby Fischer. In fact,
Short's age gives him an edge at blitz over the old man who no doubt used to be
the better blitz player, and might still be, though we'll never know.

3. Imbecile Fischer fans seem to have conveniently "forgotten" that Fischer
refuses to play conventional chess anymore. If in fact, he does play
(anonymously) conventional chess and did happen to be the one who bashed Short
but then later lied about it, he is therefore a lowdown, dirty liar, who has a
nasty habit of habitual lying. This doesn't seem to square with the man they
portray as being the real Bobby Fischer, does it?

4. Fischer is no longer the best chessplayer in the world, nor is he, at his
advanced age, any longer the best blitz player in the world. On top of this,
there are any number of other chessplayers who could have crushed Nigel Short,
in addition to the possiblity of computer-aided (cyborg) play. Blitz aside,
Kasparov completely outclasses Short. And if we want to talk about speed
chess, Anand is far better as well. Or maybe Short was just having a
"bad-hair" day.




One does not have to love the man to love his chess.


Good point. But try to be a bit more realistic in determining Fischer's own
chess from the chess of obviously strong, yet unknown, annonymous players (and
leave that poor strawman, the Canadian Network Engineer, alone).


"When Bobby was the challenger, he believed the champion should have no
advantage. Apparently, he has changed his mind."
-- GM Larry Evans

4. Fischer is no longer the best chessplayer in the world, nor is he, at
his
advanced age, any longer the best blitz player in the world.

Tal won the inaugural world blitz championship at the age of 51.

Since no one strong wants to take on Bobby at fischerandom, despite his
repeated challenges to all comers (in three separate radio interviews with
Radio Bomba), Bobby has taken the battle to them. Playing as he does,
shuffling K and Q on the backrank (and I have games where more pieces are
shuffled too - one in which at the end of the opening, all White's pieces
are back on the first rank but not in their original positions, and only
minimal enabling pawn moves), Bobby is compelling his opponent to play
fischerandom whether he wants to or not.

If Bobby Fischer showed up on any online chess server using his real
name in such a way that we knew it wasn't another fake, strong players
would fall over themselves to play him. No deception needed.

..
4. Fischer is no longer the best chessplayer in the world, nor is he, at
his
advanced age, any longer the best blitz player in the world.


Tal won the inaugural world blitz championship at the age of 51.


True, but he didn't have to face Fischer, did he? :-)




FYI, Tal remained active in chess right to the end, whereas Bobby retired
from 1972-1992 (twenty years), and again after a single match in 1992. He is
also well past 51 years of age by now.
Compare this to Tal, a man who took on all comers at blitz chess on a regular
basis, and whose OTB style was little different at blitz than at slow chess.
One more thing: an imbecile who called himself George Orwell/Max claimed here
that Bobby's performance-rating at blitz was in the range of 3200! Old or
young, in his prime or on the decline, no human (including Fischer) has done
what that imbecile claimed -- sorry.

..
I don't really care whether it's Fischer or
not, but I would really like to see ANYBODY win a game
against a strong opponent after moving his king out in the
first few moves.


I think Phil Innes missed the part where it was claimed that these games were
contested at 2-0 or 3-0, so the flag was the dominating factor -- not
soundness, or the ability to "outplay" (on the board, that is) strong
opposition.

Also, references to walking the King out to the center of the board early-on
most likely refer to instances where the opponent deliberately left pieces
hanging there, believing they could conjure-up a successful mating-attack.
Obviously, the flag can intervene, or a strong player may simply fail in
fighting unsound play and time-pressure, both at the same time (the two-front
war).


Another interesting point is that a player who is well-practiced at a given
time-control (say, 2-0) has a distinct advantage against those who play a
variety, or mostly another time-control (say, 5-0).