PDA

View Full Version : who is world champion? (POLL ADDED)



cafman
25-09-2005, 05:08 PM
The tournament that FIDE are running in Argentina will legitimately decide who the world champion will be. It is not neccerssary for the world champion to be the strongest player in the world so Kramnik's absence is irrelevant and any claim he has to be world champion is irrelevant as his "title" is not descended from those of Capablanca, Lasker,Alekhine, Tal, Spassky, Karpov etc. Fischer started all this confusion when after claiming the title more through psychology and politics than chess he was afraid to defend his title against Karpov.

bergil
25-09-2005, 05:22 PM
The tournament that FIDE are running in Argentina will legitimately decide who the world champion will be. It is not neccerssary for the world champion to be the strongest player in the world so Kramnik's absence is irrelevant and any claim he has to be world champion is irrelevant as his "title" is not descended from those of Capablanca, Lasker,Alekhine, Tal, Spassky, Karpov etc. Fischer started all this confusion when after claiming the title more through psychology and politics than chess he was afraid to defend his title against Karpov.
Well said :clap:

Bill Gletsos
25-09-2005, 05:43 PM
The tournament that FIDE are running in Argentina will legitimately decide who the world champion will be. It is not neccerssary for the world champion to be the strongest player in the world so Kramnik's absence is irrelevant and any claim he has to be world champion is irrelevant as his "title" is not descended from those of Capablanca, Lasker,Alekhine, Tal, Spassky, Karpov etc.Actually you could argue that it is. Kasparov was the champion who could trace his title linage back to Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine etc and Krammnik defeated him in a match. That is something that no other player has been able to claim.

Fischer started all this confusion when after claiming the title more through psychology and politics than chessThis statement just simply denies the fact of how strong Fischer was in 1970-1972.

he was afraid to defend his title against Karpov.There is no real evidence of this statement just speculation.
In fact given Fischer's personality he was always unlikely to compromise his position on match conditions. The Russians were certainly against meeting his conditions. If they believed that Karpov could have beaten him then surely they would not have opposed Fischer's match conditions as a win on mmerit was certainly better than a win on forfeit.

bergil
25-09-2005, 06:18 PM
This statement just simply denies the fact of how strong Fischer was in 1970-1972.
No it doesn't



There is no real evidence of this statement just speculation.
In fact given Fischer's personality he was always unlikely to compromise his position on match conditions. The Russians were certainly against meeting his conditions. If they believed that Karpov could have beaten him then surely they would not have opposed Fischer's match conditions as a win on merit was certainly better than a win on forfeit.
So you let the inmates run the assylum,Fischer demanded that the match be won by the first player to win ten games, with no limit to the number of games. The champion would retain the title in the event of a 9-9 score. This meant, of course, that the challenger would need to win the match by a score of 10-8.

FIDE's rules were that the reigning champion retained the title in the event of a 12-12 tie after 24 games. The same rules governing World Championship matches had been in place since the 1949 FIDE Congress in Paris. They were confirmed at the 1974 Congress in Nice.

Fischer claimed that his proposal was fairer to the challenger than FIDE's limit of 24 games. Regardless he was again offered big money to play Karpov and again didn't!

Rincewind
25-09-2005, 06:39 PM
Fischer claimed that his proposal was fairer to the challenger than FIDE's limit of 24 games. Regardless he was again offered big money to play Karpov and again didn't!

I believe your thesis relies on the assumption that Fischer made decisions on rational grounds. However, I sure he didn't. Also the Russian sports officials were severely embarassed after what happened in Iceland and the general opinion of the hierarchy was that Spassky and his team made too many concessions to the American. Basically I think there was no way Fischer was ever going to defend his title against a soviet challenger.

Garvinator
25-09-2005, 06:40 PM
Can we just enjoy this tournament for what it is and debate any succession paths in another thread as I am sure we have other threads for this topic? :eek:

Bill Gletsos
25-09-2005, 07:09 PM
No it doesn'tOf course it did. Fischer was the strongest player in the world over that period. He was totally dominant in the Interzonal and the candidate matches.

So you let the inmates run the assylum,Fischer demanded that the match be won by the first player to win ten games, with no limit to the number of games. The champion would retain the title in the event of a 9-9 score. This meant, of course, that the challenger would need to win the match by a score of 10-8.

FIDE's rules were that the reigning champion retained the title in the event of a 12-12 tie after 24 games. The same rules governing World Championship matches had been in place since the 1949 FIDE Congress in Paris. They were confirmed at the 1974 Congress in Nice.

Fischer claimed that his proposal was fairer to the challenger than FIDE's limit of 24 games. Regardless he was again offered big money to play Karpov and again didn't!As I said, to Fischer it wasnt about money. He believed his proposal was far better than FIDE's and that his was fairer because the champion could not just get a lead in the competition and draw the remaining games as was possible with a 24 game FIDE match.

bergil
25-09-2005, 07:28 PM
As I said, to Fischer it wasnt about money. He believed his proposal was far better than FIDE's and that his was fairer because the champion could not just get a lead in the competition and draw the remaining games as was possible with a 24 game FIDE match.
It wasn't up to that mentally ill baby to decide the conditions of the match, if you recall at one stage he wouldn't play on Saturdays. His dummy spit started the undermining of the world championship but why didn't he play in other chess tourmaments after 75?

Bill Gletsos
25-09-2005, 07:49 PM
It wasn't up to that mentally ill baby to decide the conditions of the match, if you recall at one stage he wouldn't play on Saturdays.True but if I recall correctly that was due to religious grounds.

His dummy spit started the undermining of the world championshipActually I dont think it did. After being declared champion Karpov's tournament record showed just how deserving he was to be champion. Also with Fischer an inactive recluse Karpov was undoubtedly the strongest player at that time.
If anything undermined the world championship it was the Kasparov-Short split from FIDE in the early 90's.
FIDE held their own championship and Karpov was declared the champ when he beat Timman. However virtually everyone would acknowledge that Kasparov was clearly the worlds strongest player.
FIDE eventual introduction of the world championship knockout system further eroded FIDE's world championship credibility.

but why didn't he play in other chess tourmaments after 75?I dont think you can rationalise Fischers overall thinking.
I'm just saying that Fischer could be particularly stubborn when it came to issues that he flet strongly about.

Kevin Bonham
25-09-2005, 08:24 PM
It is not neccerssary for the world champion to be the strongest player in the world so Kramnik's absence is irrelevant

I don't quite follow your logic here since Kramnik is not necessarily (indeed Anand fans would say probably not) the strongest player in the world anyway. Usually this argument is used to defend Kramnik being the titleholder.


and any claim he has to be world champion is irrelevant as his "title" is not descended from those of Capablanca, Lasker,Alekhine, Tal, Spassky, Karpov etc.

Actually Capablanca, Lasker, Alekhine all held the title in the same way Kramnik does - as their own personal property defended against selected strong challengers. FIDE appointed themselves guardians of that title after Alekhine died, but forfeited the right to run it when they (a) stripped Kasparov of it over non-chess (financial) issues (b) ran replacement "world championships" that were not credible.


Fischer started all this confusion when after claiming the title more through psychology and politics than chess he was afraid to defend his title against Karpov.

The confusion had been resolved by the time of FIDE's disputes with Kasparov.

pax
25-09-2005, 09:19 PM
I don't quite follow your logic here since Kramnik is not necessarily (indeed Anand fans would say probably not) the strongest player in the world anyway. Usually this argument is used to defend Kramnik being the titleholder.

Actually I think you would struggle to find anybody to claim Kramnik is the strongest player at the moment. His recent tournament record is pretty woeful. He struggles to make my top eight.

That said, it is difficult to see a lasting resolution to the Championship chaos without him. I think Kramnik will have to play the winner in order to retain any credibility as World Champion, and he will almost certainly lose.

cafman
25-09-2005, 10:59 PM
Fischer had never beaten Spassky before Rejklavik. Also it was rumoured at the time( and later confirmed) that Karpov beat Spassky in a training match before Spassky played Fischer.I think karpov was 19 at the time!
Karpov subsequently proved himself to be a great champion but never got the credit he deserved because of Fischers ghost lurking in the background. Probably what caused Karpov's downfall (apart from Kasparov being the greatest player of all time) was that he didn't really have a serious challenger for most of his career.
I think when Kasparov was playing there was no problem accepting him as champion no matter what criteria was used. Now that there is no one head and shoulders above the rest I think that we should all accept the winner in Argentina as champion.

Bill Gletsos
25-09-2005, 11:29 PM
Actually I think you would struggle to find anybody to claim Kramnik is the strongest player at the moment.I thought KB was saying that the argument that you dont need to be the top rated player to be champion has been used to justify Kramnnik being the champ and not Kasparov.

His recent tournament record is pretty woeful. He struggles to make my top eight.Agreed his recent form has been bad for his usual standards.

That said, it is difficult to see a lasting resolution to the Championship chaos without him. I think Kramnik will have to play the winner in order to retain any credibility as World Champion, and he will almost certainly lose.Not necessarily if he can overcome his recent form slump and especially if he plays as well as he has done in the past.

Bill Gletsos
25-09-2005, 11:57 PM
Fischer had never beaten Spassky before Rejklavik. Also it was rumoured at the time( and later confirmed) that Karpov beat Spassky in a training match before Spassky played Fischer.I think karpov was 19 at the time!Can you provide an actual reference to back this claim up.

Karpov subsequently proved himself to be a great champion but never got the credit he deserved because of Fischers ghost lurking in the background. Probably what caused Karpov's downfall (apart from Kasparov being the greatest player of all time) was that he didn't really have a serious challenger for most of his career.
I think when Kasparov was playing there was no problem accepting him as champion no matter what criteria was used.Of course although he may have been stronger he was no longer champion when Kramnnik beat him.
Now that there is no one head and shoulders above the rest I think that we should all accept the winner in Argentina as champion.Why should we. Krammnik can trace his 'title" back via Kasparov. The winner of the Argentinian Competition cannot. As such they are nothing more than just the winner of a double round robin.

bergil
26-09-2005, 12:40 AM
Can you provide an actual reference to back this claim up.
Spassky vs Fischer 1-0 29 1960 Mar del Plata C39 King's Gambit Accepted
2. Fischer vs Spassky 1/2-1/2 35 1966 Santa Monica (1) C89 Ruy Lopez, Marshall
3. Spassky vs Fischer 1-0 50 1966 Santa Monica (1) D86 Grunfeld, Exchange
4. Fischer vs Spassky 1/2-1/2 57 1966 Ol C93 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Smyslov Defense
5. Spassky vs Fischer 1-0 39 1970 Siegen ol final D86 Grunfeld, Exchange
these are all the games I could find before 72, for the record Fischer won 17 Spassky 10 and 28 draws

Bill Gletsos
26-09-2005, 12:53 AM
Spassky vs Fischer 1-0 29 1960 Mar del Plata C39 King's Gambit Accepted
2. Fischer vs Spassky 1/2-1/2 35 1966 Santa Monica (1) C89 Ruy Lopez, Marshall
3. Spassky vs Fischer 1-0 50 1966 Santa Monica (1) D86 Grunfeld, Exchange
4. Fischer vs Spassky 1/2-1/2 57 1966 Ol C93 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Smyslov Defense
5. Spassky vs Fischer 1-0 39 1970 Siegen ol final D86 Grunfeld, Exchange
these are all the games I could find before 72, for the record Fischer won 17 Spassky 10 and 28 drawsI should have been clearer as I am well aware of Fischer's results against Spassky prior to their 1972 championship match.
I was referring to his claim regarding the training match between Spassky and Karpov.

PHAT
26-09-2005, 08:27 AM
As an aside. Postulate:

What kind of sport/organisation allows the competitors to choose the when, where, and how of a world championship? Posibly we could say that every "champion" since the Russians lost there grip on actually running the event, was not legitamate, but the bastard child of chess anarchy. As such, the legit current champ is the FIDE champ - reguardless of rating or entertainment mis-matches or ego driven prize fights.

cafman
26-09-2005, 11:55 AM
Unless one player stands head and shoulders above his generation like Kasparov did it is very difficult to determine who is the best player in the world. Some players perform better in matches than tournaments and vice versa. Some maintain a magnificent level of play for a lifetime(Korchnoy and Reshevsky for example). Some are amazingly creative and capable of perfection yet scorn the mundane task of grinding down opponents for the sake of rating points( Bronstein comes to mind). Others,like Spassky, have more to their lives than chess so perhaps never apply themselves with the same intensity as someone whose 'raison d'etre' depends on chess(Fischer). Certain players have opponents that they just can't perform against like Spassky against Karpov , Fischer V Geller,,,Tal V Spassky etc for whatever reason. A double round all play all is as fair a way as any to decide the champion and as I said before the holder of the title doesn't have to be the strongest player. Liverpool won the champions league in soccer last season yet even a scouser would never claim them to be the best team in Europe, there is as much merit in overcoming the best to win a title as there is in being the best!! Chess will end up like boxing where everyone has a world title of one sort or another if we, the rank and file, don't stop bickering among ourselves and just accept what FIDE says, after all we all play under FIDE's control and they are the governing body and many of us are FIDE rated.

cafman
26-09-2005, 12:05 PM
In reply to Bill Gletsos,,,,,Karpov has often been asked about such a match taking place and for years he never denied it. More recently(I forget exactly when but I think NiC reported it) he admitted that there had been a match and although he wouldn't disclose the result he did say that he didn't lose. It would be wrong however to read too much into it,,,,it was after all,only a training match and the result probably meant more to Karpov than Spassky at the time. Also, I think karpov was always a bogey player as far as Spassky was concerned. We will never know who would have won between Fischer and Karpov but it would have been natural for the younger man to eventually triumph. In my opinion the word "Champion" implies more than just a winner, Fischer was undoubtedly a brilliant chessplayer but he was no champion.

four four two
26-09-2005, 01:23 PM
Wait a second Cafman, you have to at least acknowledge that Fischer was the WORLD CHAMPION between 1972-75. ;)

As for the boxing analogy,this isnt the first time chess has been down that path. From Steinitz to Alekhine they all picked their opponets and the match conditions. The chess public wants to see a unified title,but FIDE isnt keen on the San Luis winner playing Kramnik. If Kramnik cant find a strong contender to play from the San Luis field then he might just end up playing Kasparov a few years down the track. Once Kasparovs political ambitions pan out dont be surprised if he comes out of retirement. :whistle: There is also the possibility that the San Luis winner will play Kramnik in a match if the money is good enough,and say screw you FIDE! Then where will FIDE be? :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
26-09-2005, 01:29 PM
Chess will end up like boxing where everyone has a world title of one sort or another if we, the rank and file, don't stop bickering among ourselves and just accept what FIDE says, after all we all play under FIDE's control and they are the governing body and many of us are FIDE rated.

I actually reckon that having no clear titleholder or having many claimants as in boxing would be better than accepting what FIDE says just for the sake of having one champion - at least given the complete lack of credibility of FIDE's running of the title over the past ten years.

four four two
26-09-2005, 01:34 PM
Khalifman- world champion! 1999 Now thats credibility! :lol: :lol: :lol:

cafman
26-09-2005, 01:55 PM
As things stand both "titles" have been devalued purely because Kasparov wanted to make as much money as possible with his PCA or whatever it was called. FIDE is still the umbrella under which we all play so I think they are most deserving of our support, despite their shortcomings. I like the idea of a match to decide who the world champion so I'd like to see Kramnik play the winner from Argentina in a reunification decider and then in the future a double round round robin could be held every 3years in which the worlds ten top rated players ,including the reighning champion,compete with the winner and runner up playing a match to decide the champion!! Seems simple enough to me.................anyone wishing to elect me as next FIDE president may contact fide through their website or add their name to the mile long petition currently doing the rounds (there is still plenty of room for names as I and my cat are the only ones who have signed it so far!) :doh:

bergil
26-09-2005, 02:07 PM
Wait a second Cafman, you have to at least acknowledge that Fischer was the WORLD CHAMPION between 1972-75. ;)

He won the world championship in 72 and didn't play in any tournament in 73, 74, or 75. Not much of a world champ but he did win the title :doh:

Fischer on the left :buttkick:

Kevin Bonham
26-09-2005, 02:13 PM
I like the idea of a match to decide who the world champion so I'd like to see Kramnik play the winner from Argentina in a reunification decider and then in the future a double round round robin could be held every 3years in which the worlds ten top rated players ,including the reighning champion,compete with the winner and runner up playing a match to decide the champion!!

That would be OK except that in a round robin if there are several players from the same country they can collude by arranging easy draws against each other as required. This is why the WC was run as a series of knockout matches for a while in the Fischer-vs-Russians days.

bergil
26-09-2005, 02:17 PM
That would be OK except that in a round robin if there are several players from the same country they can collude by arranging easy draws against each other as required. This is why the WC was run as a series of knockout matches for a while in the Fischer-vs-Russians days.
Do you think that's what would happen now?

cafman
26-09-2005, 02:31 PM
Good point Bergil! I'm not sure that this collusion thing is such a big deal anyway(more like Fischer paranoia). In any round robin I've evr played in all the games were hard fought and anyone preparing for such a tournament should expect to have to fight in every game. If other competitors are agreeing quick draws they are denying themselves the chance to win games regardless of how much extra rest they might get. I still think the strongest players would emerge victorious unless competitors actually started throwing games and I can't imagine that happening.

PHAT
26-09-2005, 02:37 PM
There is also the possibility that the San Luis winner will play Kramnik in a match if the money is good enough,and say screw you FIDE! Then where will FIDE be? :hmm:

The FIDE would still be awarding the legit championship to the winner of the FIDE championships.

The world peak body may be a joke, but it is the only thing standing between us and the greater joke of a boxingesque panoply of pretenders.

four four two
26-09-2005, 03:27 PM
No,they would then have to award their title to the runner up ,as the original San Luis winner would have done an Elvis and left the building! ;)

What people have to remember is that one of the key reasons the break away happened was that the money offered by FIDE in the Kasparov/Short match was alot less than what they offered in 1990 to Kasparov/Karpov. No one expected Short to make the final,consequently there was less money on offer. Its not then surprising that Kasparov chose to breakaway. :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
26-09-2005, 06:06 PM
Good point Bergil! I'm not sure that this collusion thing is such a big deal anyway(more like Fischer paranoia).

Or maybe sour grapes. There were a lot of short draws between the Soviets at Curacao but Fischer's main problem was that he wasn't playing well enough to beat them.

Probably it is less of a risk these days with no country dominating chess in that fashion.

four four two
26-09-2005, 06:28 PM
Rigging tournaments is a big deal. :hand:
Curacao was one of many times collusion occurred,in fact many of the old soviet players are on public record that this was a common practise when they were playing strong non soviet players. :whistle:

Today collusion between "soviet" players isnt common,unless youre playing a weekender in Australia. :eek:

bergil
26-09-2005, 06:41 PM
Rigging tournaments is a big deal. :hand:
Curacao was one of many times collusion occurred,in fact many of the old soviet players are on public record that this was a common practise when they were playing strong non soviet players. :whistle:

Today collusion between "soviet" players isnt common,unless youre playing a weekender in Australia. :eek:
Da comrade! :wall:

Bill Gletsos
26-09-2005, 08:14 PM
In reply to Bill Gletsos,,,,,Karpov has often been asked about such a match taking place and for years he never denied it. More recently(I forget exactly when but I think NiC reported it) he admitted that there had been a match and although he wouldn't disclose the result he did say that he didn't lose. It would be wrong however to read too much into it,,,,it was after all,only a training match and the result probably meant more to Karpov than Spassky at the time.Actually this is contradicted by Karpov in both his autobiography Karpov on Kaprov and in the book Russians Versus Fischer.

Karpov page 287 Russians Versus Fischer
Then suddenly - imagine - I received an invitation to attend the Spassky training session... This was an honour. True, my star too was rising swiftly, my name already carried considerable weight, and I had received my share of support. But all this was new to me, and the backstage preparations for a world title match seemed to me something like a secret altar. To be there, to peer into this holy of holies was something I could not have imagined a mere year earlier... And so I went to the Spassky session.

Of course I was not allowed anywhere near the holy of holies. I was considered a chance person and potentially dangerous. Therefore I was only occasionally invited to take part in some trite and non-essential analysis of one of Fischer's games.

I was amazed to see Spassky doing nothing.


Usually the morning would begin with him enthusiastically recounting, over breakfast, another episeode from the Greek myths, which he loved dearly and read before going to bed. Then there would be tennis. Then something else. Anything except chess. At the time he was expounding the 'theory' of a clear head. With a clear head and refreshed, he would, with his talent, outplay anyone. This theory had been invented by his coach Bondarevsky so as somehow to justify the World Champion's pathological laziness. Although I too consider myself lazy, Spassky's laziness astonished me. I was certainly not impressed by the fact that he had been able to win his match with Petrosian after such 'preparation.' With all due credit to Petrosian, I felt even then that the experience of the match with him could not be simply extrapolated to the coming match with Fischer. These were not just different people; Fischer symbolized the coming of an entirely new type of chess. Was this not obvious?...

Toward the end of the training session, Spassky - wishing to test his form - decided to play a few games with me. In the first he asked me to open with the Ruy Lopez. I had the white pieces and soon obtained a won position, but - overplayed my hand and lost. Spassky liked the game. He decided that he was in excellent form and that there was no point in continuing the test. My participation in that last training session before the match was practically confined to that one game.

Also, I think karpov was always a bogey player as far as Spassky was concerned.Not sure about this. Prior to his match with Fischer, Spassky had only played one serious game with Karpov at the 1971 Alekhine Memorial which was drawn.
After the 1972 match with Fischer, Spassky played Karpov 3 times in 1973 for 2 draws and a loss.

By the time they played in 1974 in the Candidates semifinal (Karpov +4-1=6) Karpov was a better player than Spassky.

We will never know who would have won between Fischer and Karpov but it would have been natural for the younger man to eventually triumph.It isnt natural at all. In fact based on your logic then Kasparov should have been losing events/games for years to all the younger players.

In my opinion the word "Champion" implies more than just a winner, Fischer was undoubtedly a brilliant chessplayer but he was no champion.Wrong, he was the champion in 1972. What may have transpired after that does not detract from his accomplishments during 1970-72.

Fischer won the interzonal in 1970 by 3.5 points ahead of Larsen & Geller.
In fact he had a massive 20 game winning steak with wins in the last 7 rounds of the interzonal, 6-0 smash of Taimanov in the Candidates Quarterfinal, 6-0 demolition of Larsen in the Candidates Semifinal and the first game against Petrosian in the Candidates final which he eventually won 6.5-2.5 (+5-1=3).

bergil
27-09-2005, 06:22 AM
He is without doubt the greatest champion ever for dummy spitting, paranoia and racist bile! :oops: His :drool:ing ravings make anything MS or AC say, seem like wisdom. (ok or bergil) If he wasn't an american, nobody would have given a rats sphinctar about him or his claims! :boohoo:

Dozy
27-09-2005, 09:27 AM
He is without doubt the greatest champion ever for dummy spitting, paranoia and racist bile! :oops: His :drool:ing ravings make anything MS or AC say, seem like wisdom. (ok or bergil) If he wasn't an american, nobody would have given a rats sphinctar about him or his claims! :boohoo:
You had to be there!

Fischer may not be much of a human being but he was a helluva chess player. In the early 70s he set the world on fire -- and not just the chess world. His play was exciting, his combinations brilliant and everybody knew who he was. In this country, and probably across the western world, he was literally a household name. (How many non chess players have heard of any of the players contesting the current world championship tournament? How many have even heard of Kasparov?)

And although it's now trite to say so, he challenged the USSR in the same manner Alan Bond challenged for the America's Cup. Like Bondy he proved to have clay feet but that doesn't detract from what he achieved in chess.

Everybody was excited and the newspapers carried reports and feature articles on the preliminary matches and the championship match itself. (There was so much interest that Cecil Purdy contrived to publish his book on the match within a couple of weeks of Fischer winning the title.)

Tal once described Bobby (in his teens) as a "large child" and Kasparov said he was an "intellectual hippie" and they were probably both right. It's tragic that the man who should have been one of chess's brightest stars was emotionally unstable.

bergil
27-09-2005, 09:50 AM
You had to be there!
In the early 70s he set the world on fire.
Yeah very early, right up to winning in 72 and then? No and then!


-- and not just the chess world. His play was exciting, his combinations brilliant and everybody knew who he was. In this country, and probably across the western world, he was literally a household name. (How many non chess players have heard of any of the players contesting the current world championship tournament? How many have even heard of Kasparov?).
I never said he was not great at chess but he was that famous because he was American!


And although it's now trite to say so, he challenged the USSR in the same manner Alan Bond challenged for the America's Cup. Like Bondy he proved to have clay feet but that doesn't detract from what he achieved in chess..
No I disagree, I think it does


Everybody was excited and the newspapers carried reports and feature articles on the preliminary matches and the championship match itself. (There was so much interest that Cecil Purdy contrived to publish his book on the match within a couple of weeks of Fischer winning the title.).

Tal once described Bobby (in his teens) as a "large child" and Kasparov said he was an "intellectual hippie" and they were probably both right. It's tragic that the man who should have been one of chess's brightest stars was emotionally unstable.
Or maybe he had an ego to big for any human?

cafman
27-09-2005, 09:53 AM
Well burn me at the stake for getting my facts wrong then. I originally read about the spassky- Karpov match in a reputable magazine so I believed it,possibly wrongly IF karpovs biography is to be believed. And just for the record I've met Spassky and he is a very warm charming well rounded stable individual with a great love of many of the finer things in life. Sadly , to be an all time chess great (im sure bill will find a few ex champs to contradict this in his inimitable pedantic way) it seems one has to be an egotistical monster like Fischer or Kasparov or mentally unbalanced like Morphy, Fischer, Alekhine or Torre( and there is one young I.M going around europe at the moment accompanied by his mother (ala Fischer and Kasparov) throwing clocks at controllers and punching them when he gets beaten but I wont mention his name in case I get sued or punched lol)) to name a few.Many(certainly not all) of the most successful Gms Ive met are very one sided individuals who have sacrificed every other area of their life for chess and whose very self esteem seems to depend on them winning chess games. Spassky will always remain my favourite player both because of the beauty of his games and because he is an ordinary guy with human failings just like most of us(Bill Getlost obviously excepted)

Rincewind
27-09-2005, 10:23 AM
Well burn me at the stake for getting my facts wrong then. I originally read about the spassky- Karpov match in a reputable magazine so I believed it,possibly wrongly IF karpovs biography is to be believed. And just for the record I've met Spassky and he is a very warm charming well rounded stable individual with a great love of many of the finer things in life. Sadly , to be an all time chess great (im sure bill will find a few ex champs to contradict this in his inimitable pedantic way) it seems one has to be an egotistical monster like Fischer or Kasparov or mentally unbalanced like Morphy, Fischer, Alekhine or Torre( and there is one young I.M going around europe at the moment accompanied by his mother (ala Fischer and Kasparov) throwing clocks at controllers and punching them when he gets beaten but I wont mention his name in case I get sued or punched lol)) to name a few.Many(certainly not all) of the most successful Gms Ive met are very one sided individuals who have sacrificed every other area of their life for chess and whose very self esteem seems to depend on them winning chess games. Spassky will always remain my favourite player both because of the beauty of his games and because he is an ordinary guy with human failings just like most of us(Bill Getlost obviously excepted)

Seems you have a real problem handling criticism, Peter. No problem admitting when you are wrong provided you can heap vast quantities of bile upon anyone who dares to simply point out flaws in what you say.

For the record, can you specify the year you met Spassky as it is well know his chess deteriorated significantly after losing in 1972 and probably this was because he was distracted by his personal life and non-chess interests. Therefore it seems unfair to me to compare the "well-rounded" Spassky, after x years as a non-WCh contender to Gary Kasparov (for example) the single-minded chess professional (as he was in the 80 in particular when the Karpov rivalry was at its zenith). I'm not a huge fan of Kasparov the person just looking to balance the comparison.

cafman
27-09-2005, 10:45 AM
Seems you have a real problem handling criticism, Peter. No problem admitting when you are wrong provided you can heap vast quantities of bile upon anyone who dares to simply point out flaws in what you say.

For the record, can you specify the year you met Spassky as it is well know his chess deteriorated significantly after losing in 1972 and probably this was because he was distracted by his personal life and non-chess interests. Therefore it seems unfair to me to compare the "well-rounded" Spassky, after x years as a non-WCh contender to Gary Kasparov (for example) the single-minded chess professional (as he was in the 80 in particular when the Karpov rivalry was at its zenith). I'm not a huge fan of Kasparov the person just looking to balance the comparison.
Oh no,,not YOU again,,,,,,are you and Bill twins or do you just live together in pedanticville................I met Spassky in Kilkenny Ireland in Nov of 2000(i think it was)forgive me if I dont have the exact date or hour to mind. He is the honourary President of kilkenny chess club so he came over for their anniversary and watched the tournament(he didnt participate). Happy now? not that I see what this has got to do with anything. As for criticism...I don't mind accepting criticism or contradiction or having an argument refuted ,,,,,,,what cheeses me off if pedantic small minded people who have nothing better to do than search endlessly for little omissions or inaccuracies in what others say so they can nitpick and act all righteously and smug while at the same time having nothing whatsoever to offer to the debate themselves. It's people like you and Bill that turn the general public off chess and make them think that we are all a pack of weird highbrow bookworm type recluses. ##

Rincewind
27-09-2005, 10:48 AM
Oh no,,not YOU again,,,,,,are you and Bill twins or do you just live together in pedanticville................I met Spassky in Kilkenny Ireland in Nov of 2000(i think it was)forgive me if I dont have the exact date or hour to mind. He is the honourary President of kilkenny chess club so he came over for their anniversary and watched the tournament(he didnt participate). Happy now? not that I see what this has got to do with anything. As for criticism...I don't mind accepting criticism or contradiction or having an argument refuted ,,,,,,,what cheeses me off if pedantic small minded people who have nothing better to do than search endlessly for little omissions or inaccuracies in what others say so they can nitpick and act all righteously and smug while at the same time having nothing whatsoever to offer to the debate themselves. It's people like you and Bill that turn the general public off chess and make them think that we are all a pack of weird highbrow bookworm type recluses. ##

:lol:

What IS this problem you have? I mean I wasn't even criticising you this time. In fact I agree. Spassky in 2000 no doubt whould have had other interests than chess. He had been (in any practical sense) retired for over 25 years.

cafman
27-09-2005, 11:11 AM
I am quite happy to call a truce, all this squabbling is getting tiresome and we have strayed from the original subject,,,whatever that was. :owned:

Rincewind
27-09-2005, 11:35 AM
I am quite happy to call a truce, all this squabbling is getting tiresome and we have strayed from the original subject,,,whatever that was. :owned:

From my point of view, hostilities had never commenced. (But I do think you need to take criticism a bit more gracefully. If you're wrong admit it and move on. If you're right then stick it to the other guy. Mostly with niggly comments a the end of your posts, maybe in parentheses. (To be really narky, nest the parentheses.)) ;)

four four two
27-09-2005, 12:52 PM
Hostilities had never commenced RW? Could have fooled me. :lol:

Rincewind
27-09-2005, 12:57 PM
Hostilities had never commenced RW? Could have fooled me. :lol:

True, but now tell me something I don't know. ;)

PHAT
27-09-2005, 01:19 PM
Well burn me at the stake for getting my facts wrong then. I originally read about the spassky- Karpov match in a reputable magazine so I believed it, possibly wrongly IF karpovs biography is to be believed. ... Spassky will always remain my favourite player both because of the beauty of his games and because he is an ordinary guy with human failings just like most of us(Bill Getlost obviously excepted)

:D

cafman, you have my vote. I have been reading your posts and you are one of the few normal people here.

PHAT
27-09-2005, 01:21 PM
...what cheeses me off if pedantic small minded people who have nothing better to do than search endlessly for little omissions or inaccuracies in what others say so they can nitpick and act all righteously and smug while at the same time having nothing whatsoever to offer to the debate themselves...

Mate, I fully agree. The longest members here will attest to the difficulty in discussing anything here with the usual pedants.

cafman
27-09-2005, 02:21 PM
:D

cafman, you have my vote. I have been reading your posts and you are one of the few normal people here.
Thank you muchly,so nice to find a kindred spirit. Actually, looking at that pic youve posted we could be related!!

Rincewind
27-09-2005, 02:36 PM
Never has the kiss of death been received so enthusiastically. ;)

cafman
27-09-2005, 02:45 PM
Never has the kiss of death been received so enthusiastically. ;)
Hey,Rinsey,check out the "whats your favourite opening thread" :owned:

Rincewind
27-09-2005, 02:53 PM
Hey,Rinsey,check out the "whats your favourite opening thread" :owned:

Banal name-calling is not my style. Still when your arguments fail you (as often they do) they seem to be your next line of defence.

Dozy
27-09-2005, 03:49 PM
Never has the kiss of death been received so enthusiastically. ;)
Back in the days of Morse code there was an unofficial sigal that would automatically have followed a comment like that: it's " ---. " :D
In emails or chatrooms the best we can do is "lol" but it just ain't strong enough! :lol:
I have a Canadian friend who used "lmao" and that's closer :owned:
Maybe all three apply.
Rincewind, you are inded a wizard...

cafman
27-09-2005, 03:53 PM
Rincewind, you are inded a wizard...[/QUOTE]
Shouldn't that W be an L ?

four four two
27-09-2005, 03:56 PM
I have heard a rumour that the current RW is Gandalf,and the real RW is on holidays? Can anyone confirm this? :hmm:

Rincewind
27-09-2005, 03:56 PM
Shouldn't that W be an L ?

Keep it up cafman and one day you too may be able to successfully quote without stuffing it up. ;)

Dozy
27-09-2005, 04:13 PM
Yeah very early, right up to winning in 72 and then? No and then!

I never said he was not great at chess but he was that famous because he was American!

No I disagree, I think it does

Or maybe he had an ego to big for any human?
His behaviour since '72 was both tragic and deplorable and I'd be the last to defend it, but while his star shone it was exceedingly bright.

Here's a gem (from the Fischer-Larsen match) that appeared on the front cover of Chess in Australia in July 1971. Fischer had the white bits and the caption simply read, "White to Play and Win".

8/p5pp/2Q1r1k1/5p2/P1p5/B1P1qB2/2Pr2PP/R4K2 w - - 0 35

Yes, I will put up the game when you've had a chance to think about it.

bergil
27-09-2005, 04:33 PM
His behaviour since '72 was both tragic and deplorable and I'd be the last to defend it, but while his star shone it was exceedingly bright.

Here's a gem (from the Fischer-Larsen match) that appeared on the front cover of Chess in Australia in July 1971. Fischer had the white bits and the caption simply read, "White to Play and Win".

8/p5pp/2Q1r1k1/5p2/P1p5/B1P1qB2/2Pr2PP/R4K2 w - - 0 35

Yes, I will put up the game when you've had a chance to think about it.
Bc5 0r Qc5 :hmm:

Rincewind
27-09-2005, 04:53 PM
Bc5 0r Qc5 :hmm:

Yes, but which one?

This is quite justifiably one of the best known games of the 20th century. Fischer-Larsen, Denver game 1. Or how to play the white side of the Winawer. I recommended it to someone to look at just the other day. They were looking for game where Fischer played the white side of the French. How could you not love this game?

Bill Gletsos
27-09-2005, 06:11 PM
Well burn me at the stake for getting my facts wrong then. I originally read about the spassky- Karpov match in a reputable magazine so I believed it,possibly wrongly IF karpovs biography is to be believed.Now perhaps you see no harm in propogating false information but that generally only leads to others believing as fact something that is untrue.
I was merely trying to enlighten you and others on the BB.
All you have demonstrated so far is that you have a real problem with people pointing out when you make factual errors.

And just for the record I've met Spassky[/quote\Good for you. So have I.
[QUOTE=cafman]and he is a very warm charming well rounded stable individual with a great love of many of the finer things in life. Sadly , to be an all time chess great (im sure bill will find a few ex champs to contradict this in his inimitable pedantic way) it seems one has to be an egotistical monster like Fischer or Kasparov or mentally unbalanced like Morphy, Fischer, Alekhine or TorreI'm surprised my little pinoy mate hasnt jumped all over you for this one. He must be too busy blogging.

( and there is one young I.M going around europe at the moment accompanied by his mother (ala Fischer and Kasparov) throwing clocks at controllers and punching them when he gets beaten but I wont mention his name in case I get sued or punched lol)) to name a few.Many(certainly not all) of the most successful Gms Ive met are very one sided individuals who have sacrificed every other area of their life for chess and whose very self esteem seems to depend on them winning chess games. Spassky will always remain my favourite player both because of the beauty of his games and because he is an ordinary guy with human failings just like most of us(Bill Getlost obviously excepted)It would appear looking at a number of threads you have posted in that you dont take to having your errors pointed out to you.
So far I have simply responded to your erroneous statements rather than you personally. Dont expect that situation to last.

Bill Gletsos
27-09-2005, 06:17 PM
Never has the kiss of death been received so enthusiastically. ;)Your thoughts matched mine exactly.

Vlad
27-09-2005, 06:19 PM
Yes, but which one?

This is quite justifiably one of the best known games of the 20th century. Fischer-Larsen, Denver game 1. Or how to play the white side of the Winawer. I recommended it to someone to look at just the other day. They were looking for game where Fischer played the white side of the French. How could you not love this game?

Isn't it just Bc5 and black is a bishop down?:)

Dozy
27-09-2005, 06:46 PM
Isn't it just Bc5 and black is a bishop down?:)
Here's the game.
The diagrammed position occured after move 27.

Event: Candidats sf1
Site: Denver
Date: 1971.07.06
Round: 1
White: Fischer, Robert James
Black: Larsen, Bent
Result: 1-0
ECO: C19
WhiteElo: 2760
BlackElo: 2660
PlyCount: 81
EventDate: 1971.07.06
Source: ChessBase

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 Ne7 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 c5 7. a4 Nbc6 8. Nf3
Bd7 9. Bd3 Qc7 10. O-O c4 11. Be2 f6 12. Re1 Ng6 13. Ba3 fxe5 14. dxe5 Ncxe5
15. Nxe5 Nxe5 16. Qd4 Ng6 17. Bh5 Kf7 18. f4 Rhe8 19. f5 exf5 20. Qxd5+ Kf6 21.
Bf3 Ne5 22. Qd4 Kg6 23. Rxe5 Qxe5 24. Qxd7 Rad8 25. Qxb7 Qe3+ 26. Kf1 Rd2 27.
Qc6+ Re6 28. Bc5 Rf2+ 29. Kg1 Rxg2+ 30. Kxg2 Qd2+ 31. Kh1 Rxc6 32. Bxc6 Qxc3
33. Rg1+ Kf6 34. Bxa7 g5 35. Bb6 Qxc2 36. a5 Qb2 37. Bd8+ Ke6 38. a6 Qa3 39.
Bb7 Qc5 40. Rb1 c3 41. Bb6 1-0

Rincewind
27-09-2005, 07:17 PM
Isn't it just Bc5 and black is a bishop down?:)

Now tell me you haven't seen the game before. I don;t think it it that hard to see from the board after move 27, but it is highly asthetic. One of many examples of Fischer the artist. :)

Bergil, It's worth pointing out that if 28.Qc5 was the correct move it would not have made it to the cover of Chess in Australia. Coincindentally, it fails to 28.Qc5 Rf2+ 29.Kg1 Rxf3+. ;)

Kevin Bonham
28-09-2005, 02:10 AM
what cheeses me off if pedantic small minded people who have nothing better to do than search endlessly for little omissions or inaccuracies in what others say so they can nitpick and act all righteously and smug while at the same time having nothing whatsoever to offer to the debate themselves.

What would cheese me off if I could be bothered caring about it would be people who stereotype others as pedants without admitting that the supposedly pedantic points made against them have often demolished the original argument. Calling people who out-debate you "smallminded" would run a close second. Quit the cliches.

cafman
28-09-2005, 10:30 AM
What would cheese me off if I could be bothered caring about it would be people who stereotype others as pedants without admitting that the supposedly pedantic points made against them have often demolished the original argument. Calling people who out-debate you "smallminded" would run a close second. Quit the cliches.
You are indeed a masterdebater!!!!

Rincewind
28-09-2005, 10:35 AM
You are indeed a masterdebater!!!!

The puerility of your attempted put-downs is quite amusing. However it makes me wonder, do they embarass those around you? And as a coach of juniors, aren't you concerned that you should be setting a better example to your students and their parents?

cafman
28-09-2005, 11:00 AM
[QUOTE=Rincewind]The puerility of your attempted put-downs is quite amusing. However it makes me wonder, do they embarass those around you? And as a coach of juniors, aren't you concerned that you should be setting a better example to your students and their parents?[/QUOTE
Did you somehow glean some unintended meaning from my comment? I was merely admitting that Kevin had out debated me. You worry me at times Rincewind :eek:

Rincewind
28-09-2005, 11:03 AM
Did you somehow glean some unintended meaning from my comment? I was merely admitting that Kevin had out debated me. You worry me at times Rincewind :eek:

I'll ask Alex if that is what she read into it as well.

cafman
28-09-2005, 11:07 AM
I'll ask Alex if that is what she read into it as well.
Who the hell is Alex?

Rincewind
28-09-2005, 11:09 AM
Who the hell is Alex?

Oh, you don't know her? She seems to know you.

Kevin Bonham
28-09-2005, 06:28 PM
I was merely admitting that Kevin had out debated me.

Firstly that's rubbish - you were showing your imprisoned maturity by employing a joke only found funny by the dimmer half of the average class of grade seven boys on discovering that some of their betters do a thing called "debating".

Secondly I wasn't referring to me having out-debated you, but rather to virtually everyone who has debated with you on this board having done so.

Thirdly by comparison with you I would have to be at least an IM, if not a GM or SGM. :D

DoroPhil
28-09-2005, 07:58 PM
Firstly that's rubbish - you were showing your imprisoned maturity by employing a joke only found funny by the dimmer half of the average class of grade seven boys on discovering that some of their betters do a thing called "debating".

Secondly I wasn't referring to me having out-debated you, but rather to virtually everyone who has debated with you on this board having done so.

Thirdly by comparison with you I would have to be at least an IM, if not a GM or SGM. :D

Well said, old chap.

arosar
28-09-2005, 09:45 PM
OK...here's a famous Fischer position. No cheating. Black to move and win.

r2qr1k1/pb3pbp/1p4p1/8/3N4/BPN3P1/P2Q3P/R2R1K2 b - - 0 21

AR

DoroPhil
28-09-2005, 10:04 PM
Are you sure that there is only one move that wins?

Obviously, queen needs to get to the light squares and fast. Therefore, it's either Qc8 or Qd7. From what I can see they both win.

If qd7 - kg1 then bxd4 is quite cute, while qc8 - kg1 - qh3 and I can't see anything white can do to stop bd4...

Bill Gletsos
28-09-2005, 10:10 PM
Yes that position is well known. It is the one where the GM's commentating on the game stated that White had a won position.

Rincewind
28-09-2005, 10:12 PM
Yes that position is well known. It is the one where the GM's commentating on the game stated that White had a won position.

Fischer had the last laugh, winning the 1963/64 US Championship with 11/11.

four four two
14-10-2005, 11:29 AM
Im surprised no one has posted this earlier...Topalov is the FIDE WORLD CHAMPION. ;) :owned: :lol: :whistle:

Dozy
14-10-2005, 05:02 PM
Wait a second Cafman, you have to at least acknowledge that Fischer was the WORLD CHAMPION between 1972-75. ;)
Just ran across this on Chess Cafe. Gabriel Velasco reports a chance conversation with Spassky, including the following snippet:

When asked if he still kept in touch with Bobby Fischer, Spassky said that he had lost track of the American grandmaster, and didnít even know his whereabouts. Boris insisted that Robert Fischer had been a great champion who had not been thoroughly understood by people; and he said that
Fischer has always been a man of principles who strove in vain in an attempt to raise chess above the petty corruption of FIDE and the Russian Federation. He added that in his opinion Fischer was the ideal world champion, whereas Kasparov had done much harm to chess with his selfish attitude.Perhaps Spassky had an axe of his own to grind but it's an interesting read. You can find the whole article at http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles142.pdf

Kevin Bonham
30-10-2005, 05:42 PM
I've added this thread because I want to poll who the BB thinks is now world champion in light of the recent event. May be interesting material for other discussions about rightful champions.

Rincewind
30-10-2005, 05:55 PM
I've added this thread because I want to poll who the BB thinks is now world champion in light of the recent event. May be interesting material for other discussions about rightful champions.

How do options #5 and #9 differ?

four four two
30-10-2005, 06:12 PM
Well considering the official website for the San Luis tournament has the FIDE logo emblazoned on it that makes Topalov the FIDE world champion.

Now if your proposing that Kramnik,who won his title from Kasparov who had a falling out with FIDE over the arrangements with the 1993 FIDE world title[as did Short] isnt a world champion because he didnt win the FIDE title then you will only end up running around in circles.

Lets not forget that the FIDE title that was arranged when Kasparov/Short couldnt come to an agreement about prizemoney/venue with FIDE was between Karpov and Timman,both of whom lost qualifying matches to Short.

If FIDE had offered the same prize money to Kasparov/Short as they did to Kasparov/Karpov in 1990 and had consulted the players about host venues/countries as they had previously done in past world championships then none of this sorry mess would have occured. It was FIDE who stuffed up,they should have been prepared for both Short and Timman to make the final,alas they could only conceive of Karpov making the final. :whistle:

Alan Shore
30-10-2005, 07:30 PM
How do options #5 and #9 differ?

Someone may say Fischer? Or Lasker's ghost? Or Cordover? ;)

Anyway, I voted Kramnik, even though Topalov has a big claim it is just one tournament, wheras Kramnik did best the previous WC (Kaspy) and has not lost the title. A Kramnik-Topalov match would resolve things once and for all for my liking though.

Garvinator
30-10-2005, 07:37 PM
A Kramnik-Topalov match would resolve things once and for all for my liking though.
this is the key point in my opinion. No matter whether you think that Kramnik is the rightful champion or you believe that Topalov is, a classical world championship match between these two will end ALL debate. The only question is about draw odds ;)

pballard
31-10-2005, 11:08 AM
IMHO Kramnik and Topalov both have claims but Kramnik's claim is stronger. (A mix of options 2 and 3?)


this is the key point in my opinion. No matter whether you think that Kramnik is the rightful champion or you believe that Topalov is, a classical world championship match between these two will end ALL debate. The only question is about draw odds ;)

Agreed, I can see that becoming a major sticking point... unfortunately.

pballard
15-11-2005, 09:42 PM
Topalov has turned down a proposed match with Kramnik:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2738

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2005, 11:21 PM
It would be interesting to see comments on that from FIDE because as it stands it is extremely damning towards them.

pballard
19-11-2005, 08:57 PM
Topalov has turned down a proposed match with Kramnik:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2738

Chessbase.com now has replies both from FIDE and from Topalov's manager, and a reply in turn from Kramnik's manager.

Garvinator
19-11-2005, 10:31 PM
we had been blabbering on about this as well here: http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=3286