From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM's/IM's FROM DON
Date: 20 Dec 92 10:15:09 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1h18d1INN188@agate.berkeley.edu>, goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) writes:
> In article <1992Dec17.184754.542@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> )...what do I have to do? Argue Fischer played well before asking the GMs
> )to say why they believe he played poorly?
> 
> 	Yes. Joel Benjamin, in his article, produced several examples
> of Fischer's play that he felt were bad. If you want to claim that
> Benjamin was wrong and Fischer actually played well, you must either
> a) produce examples of good play by Fischer that Benjamin unjustly
> neglected, or 

Well, this can be addressed in very simple terms, which someone devoted to the
escoteric as yourself may not agree with, as it is not 'ivory-tower' or
'academic' in nature. Simply stated, Fischer played well because he won.
NOTHING else matters. Whther it 'looked' sloppy to someone as revered as
Benjamin or not siply does not matter, as neither you, nor I, nor Benjamin, nor
any of the others out there, Mr. Wedding included, can ever, ever know what
went on inside of Fischer's mind and what his strategy was. Isn't ot a widely
held belief that in the match decades ago Mr. Fischer took the initial rounds
lightly as a way of creating a protracted environment to physically wear down
his opponent? Isn't there a belief out there Fischer was inentionally playing
for draws?

Gee, his not going for the 'well-structured-and-planned-plays' back then did
make people claim his winning was a fluke. That he was second-rate. No, the
press loved him as he was an American winning the crown at the time when the
Cold War was blazing. He deified.

Now, after the Cold War is a term slipping from memory, Fischer plays his
game the way he wants, and it is a showing of 'poor-play' to those who
admittedly are biased against him. (Not that Benjamin is without justification
in feeling snubbed. Fischer would probably not bless Banjamin by spitting on
him, as Banjamin's political views are diametrically opposed to Fischer,
Benjamin is part of the 'respected chess society' which Fischer considers to be
worthless than a pile of shit AND screwed him way back when.)



		b) argue with Benjamin's analysis, showing that what he
> thought was bad play was actually good. It would be better still if you
> did both.

Gee, Bejamin picks out a few plays which weeks of study have led him to claim 
that Fischer could have played 'better' moves. You buy this??? You look to
whther or not the play was made with 'grand design' as to whther or not
it was good???

I not only disagree with Benjamin's views, but I disagree with what he is doing
the same way I disagree with an 'art critic' who is a second-rate artist
themselves (compared to who they are slamming) and points out all the flaws in
a painting. ("Well, sure the Last Supper is a nice painting, but if Da Vinci had
used more of a mottled tone here, and perhaps had thrown in some more detail
into the walls, THEN it would have shown that he was still up to his prior
achievements.")

All you, or I, or Benjamin, or Wedding, or Fischer himself can ever do, when
looking over another peron's game is say, "At this point I would have played
this move for this reason in the hopes of achieving this." When we say,
"Therefore, I am better than..." or "Therefore (that person's) strength in the
game is gone." we are going beyond the scope of what we can EVER say.

Hindsight is 20/20, and provided Fischer won, examining whther or not he did it
well, or poorly, is just so much mental masturbation.


> 
> 	In weeks of arguing, you have done neither. If you really want
> to claim that Fischer is the best in the world, you must address
> Benjamin's arguments that he is not -- or you must resign yourself
> to not being taken seriously. 

David, IF you had read the post, you would have noticed that I never claimed
he was the Best in the world. That's right, go back and re-read the posts...
Nope, not in that one. Nope, not in that one...hmmm.... Where David, did you
get the idea I claimed Fischer was the best in the world?

Oh, right--you were reading OTHER people's posts about what they THOUGHT
I was claiming. Shame you weren't a careful reader who actually read
before leaping in...

But, let's suppose I do believe Fischer is the best in the world. So? Why do
you think I feel compelled to defend said view? Just because YOU and OTHERS
here feel compelled to defend their views?

Mighty thin skin folks got around here. You'd think a light rain might make them
bleed...

My beliefs on Fischer's abilities can be summed up as follows...do I believe he
is World Champion? Yes. Because:

1. He was screwed when they were doing their best to remove the title from him.
2. The masses and the media consider him to be World Champion.
3. He screwed the establishment and STOLE from them the authority, in the
   eyes of the media and masses, to claim anyone else was World Champion.

If you wish to argue with those views, feel free to, but as they are OPINION,
much like Benjamin's 'review' they can never be proved, and should not be
a subject for debate. (Provided they are not passed off as facts!)

Might as well argue whether or not strawberry is the BEST flavor...

Christ....



DMC