From: steven@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk (Steven Rix)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: This has gone far enough! Stop avoiding
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:28:26 GMT
Reply-To: steven@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk
Organization: Edinburgh University Chemical Engineering Department.
Originator: steven@gour

In article 459@uoft02.utoledo.edu, dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu () writes:
>
>I am mad as hell that because they find
>a flawed game(s), it necessarily means bobby is a "has been" and a
>pretender to the throne. they (the GM/IM crowd) feel that bobby is a
>"Myth that should be exploded".
>
>they take the BAD MOVES OUT OF CONTEXT OF THE MATCH CONDITIONS. this
>was a match where the players would play
>
>a) nine hours a day
>b) four days a week
>c) without an adjournment where they could sleep while an army of
>   "santa's little helpers" would find the best moves for when the
>   game resumed
>d) and borris spassky was playing with a severe urinary track infection
>   (which is the same thing that cost Tal the world championship in the
>   early 60's)
>
>obviously, under the above conditions, the games ain't gonna be no gems.
>they're gonna be Hard fought, dirty, bloody street brawls where the last
>guy standing wins.

Well, the time limit Fischer-Spassky II (FS-II) was played to was, I believe, 
one hour and 51 minutes plus a minute per move played until move 40 (ie 40 
moves in just over 2.5 hours), then a 40 minute bonus and a minute a move until
move 60 (ie an extra hour for moves 41-60), then a 30 minute bonus and a 
minute a move until move 80 (50 minutes for moves 61-80), etc. 

Standard FIDE practice is 40 moves in two hours, then an hour for each
successive 20 moves. Kasparov-Karpov matches have been played at the older
rate of 40 moves in 2.5 hours, then 20 moves/hour. THIS IS THE SAME RATE AS
FISCHER-SPASSKY II, up to move 80, give or take 10 minutes or so.

FS-II was not blitz chess. It was at a very similar rate of play to the K-K 
matches. How many games in FS-II went beyond move 80? One or two at most, if
I am not mistaken. At what stages did the blunders occur? Very often before
move 20, eg Game 1 (19...cxb3 en passant), Game 9 (the Lopez Exchange) and Game 12
(Fischer's horrid ...a5 and ...c5, resulting in no counterplay).

>when kasparov and karpov played, it was like two guys boxing in a ring,
>with a referee, and 3 minute rounds, etc. obviously, the technique of
>the players would be superior under the circumstances. 

Now that you mention the technique of the players, do you recall that Karpov-
Kasparov game from a recent tournament, where Kasparov held out for a draw with 
rook v three minor pieces? I forget the exact details, but I do remember seeing
an article in the French magazine Europe Echecs, where Kevin O'Connell database-
analysed the endgame the K's reached ... and found NO errors/inaccuracies by
either player! Admittedly in a mere Closed tournament, there isn't the same
pressure as in a "World Championship" match (cough), but this example shows
FLAWLESS technique by the K's.


>to comment on a move is fine, to comment on the ABILITY of the players
>under the circumstances is mean, dirty, and unfair.
>
>
>but what i am saying is obvious to even a non chess playing person...
>and i can't see anybody disputing it. (anybody care to????)

How else are we to judge how good Fischer is? FS-II is all the data available.
Spassky is very much an unknown quantity; he is rated 2560, hasn't been
trying too hard of late (he could be 2600+ if motivated, who knows?) and was
ill during the match (so maybe he was down to 2400 at some stage, who knows?).
If we are to guesstimate a strength for Fischer, I think the quality of the
moves played need to be taken into account. For example, were there more
blunders than 
(a) the last Karpov-Kasparov match?
(b) the recent Karpov-Short match?
etc.


>> The main reason to be given is that the other GM's are jealous.
>
>NO, i never *ACCUSED* anybody of jealousy. i simply asked if that was
>the reason. since they are not stupid, they must have known that the
>conditions of the match would affect play...yet they still *IGNORE*
>these facts.
>
>bitterness and jealousy were the only things i could think of. if
>there was A DIFFERENT reason that they would ignore facts before
>bashing bobby....i'm all ears. let me know. 

As far as the Benjamin article goes (that is all I have seen), I would like
to know a bit more about JB. This is not intended anti-Semitically, but is
JB Jewish? If he is, can you blame him for taking offence at Fischer's remarks?
Is anyone denying that the venues for the match were in the UN sanctions region,
that blood is being shed within a hundred miles of the match site, and that
Fischer's contemptuous treatment of his mother country is ... contemptible? 
That said, I would have been more impressed if JB had "declared an interest"
at the start of his article, to indicate the factors by which his opinion might 
have been influenced.

I take it no-one is arguing with JB's analysis; whether his choice of games to
cite was influenced by his knowledge of major flaws in Fischer's wins in Games 1
and 8, plus bad play in Game 12, is another matter. Incidentally, the English
book by IMs Davies, Pein and Levitt seems to imply that Fischer's position was
defensible until he blundered his knight on g6; they suggested Black play ...Qd7
to gang up on g4 a move earlier than he did, with unclear play. Has anyone else
bothered to analyse this? 

Don sums up his point of view by:
>
>      1) You are unfairly criticizing the chess playing ability of bobby
>         fischer (and borris spassky too...but i don't really care about
>         that). is it because you are jealous and bitter at his 
>         accomplishments???
>
>      2)  How do i know they are unfairly criticizing bobby???? because
>          they are taking his moves out of context of the match
>          conditions.
>
>  
>> Let's have clear logical arguments here instead of messages with lots
>> of !!!^&^%#&^%&!!!!  characters.
>
>hey, my posts ARE logical and don't use any foul language and are 
>generally civil....almost.
> 

Could anyone in the proverbial know answer Don's point?

Personally, I don't think Fischer is as good as Kasparov. But I would be 
delighted to be proved wrong if Fischer plays any further matches. If he 
doesn't, then who can disprove the claim that he only came back for the money?

Steven