From: rgp@mpd.tandem.com (Ramon Pantin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Fischer being put to rest
Date: 13 Oct 92 04:37:45 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers, Micro-Products Division

In article <1992Oct10.192127.16257@husc3.harvard.edu> fry@tara.harvard.edu (David Fry) writes:
>In article <2611@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> rgp@mpd.tandem.com (Ramon Pantin) writes:
>>There have been LOTS of chess players with more interesting 
>>chess production than Fischer's, quite a few of them never became
>>world champions.  Players are remembered by their games, the number
>>of tournaments that they completely dominated, the years where they
>>had complete domination of the chess scene. 

>I'd be interested to see your list of "quite a few" non-champions
>who did this at all, let alone more than Fischer.  Please also include
>the tournaments they dominated and the years in which they had
>domination of the chess world.

Read carefully!  There are two separate ideas in the original paragraph:
	1.- There have been LOTS of chess players with more interesting 
	    chess production than Fischer's, quite a few of them never became
	    world champions. *** PERIOD ***
	2.- Players are remembered by their games, the number
	    of tournaments that they completely dominated, the years where they
	    had complete domination of the chess scene.

What is it that makes you think that I said that the "quite a few players
with more interesting chess production than Fischer's" also had to have
"domination of the chess world" ?  Please don't put words in my mouth !

Point 1 is a fact.  Point 2 are the characteristics that a player's life would
have to have for the specialized chess public to remember him/her (not any
Joe who happened to remember the publicity in the 70s and who might have seen
Fischer in the "Now it Can be Told" TV program).  Certainly, if they had an
incredible amount of publicity not related to chess, (like Fischer had),
people will also remember them (yes the average Joe remembers Fischer,
so what the everage Joe doesn't even know the rules for the game).

Well, down to the question of players more interesting than Fischer,
lets see Fischer's "important results" as REPORTED BY HIMSELF in:
	"Los Encuentros del Siglo"
	Robert Fischer, Dimitrije Bjelica
	Editorial Aguilera
	Madrid, 1974
	(Spanish version)
Original title:
	"Chess meets of the Century"
	Published by: Zavod za Izdavanje Udzbenika,
	Sarajevo, Yugoslavia, 1971

The "important results" are:
	Portoroz, 1958, Interzonal			5---6
	Bled-Zagreb-Belgrado, 1959, Candidates		5---6
	Zurich, 1959					3---4
	Mar del Plata, 1960				1---2
	Bled, 1961					2
	Estocolmo, 1962, Interzonal			1
	Curacao, 1962, Candidates			4
	La Habana, 1965					2---4
	Santa Monica, 1967				2
	Montecarlo, 1967				1
	Skopje, 1967					1
	Natanija, 1968					1
	Vinkovci, 1968					1
	Zagreb, 1970					1
	Palma de Mallorca, 1970, Interzonal,		1

The road to the championship was:
	Fischer - Taimanov, Vancouver, (6-0)
	Fischer - Larsen, Denver, (6-0)
	Fischer - Petrosian, Buenos Aires (6-2)
	Fischer - Spassky, Reykjawik (12.5 - 8.5)

That's all!  The road to the championship shows domination.
U.S. Championships are not mentioned in the orignal text
and I also don't consider them "important results" because
the level was below the level found in international chess
(or in the U.S.S.R. championship).  Things are different
know since the export of Sovit talent has started to revitalize
the field in the U.S.A.

So, fischer won 6 important tournaments in 4 years (67-70), do you
think that he "dominated" during that period?  Larsen won 7, Stein won 6,
Korchnoi won 6, Portisch won 7, all of them during the same (67-70)
period!  During that same period Spassky only won 3 tournaments
because he was on his way to the championship.  Fischer did not
dominate between 67 and 70.  Fischer ran out of Sousse (Tunez)
after having won over the players that finished in places:
7, 8 and 17-20.  Larsen won that tournament, by winning over
the players that finished in: 6-9, 11-13, 16, 18-22.
Because Fischer ran out of Sousse some books misinform the
reader by saying that Fischer was on "his way to the victory"
when he left.  Fischer beat these known players:
	Reshewsky, Stein, Barczay, Byrne, Cuellar,
	Mjagmarsuren and Sarapu
Not precisely elite players.

>As far as I can tell, there are only a handful of players who ever had
>"complete domination", all champions: Morphy, Capablanca, Alehkine, 
>Tal (very briefly), Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov.  I suppose Lasker 
>might be added to this list, but I don't personally think so.

Again, not necesarily talking about domination, talking about
players with more interesting chess productions than Fischer's:
	Nimzovistch, Tarrasch, Tchigorin, Rubinstein, Keres,
	Bronstein, Korchnoi.

Sure Lasker didn't dominate, ha!  Botvinnik and Smyslov are
not fashionable anymore! anyhow they held the championship
several times.  Petrosian has been forgotten also, he at least
was able to successfully defend his championship.  Fischer
ran from Karpov because nobody was being affected by his
bitching that time and he was going to get smashed (so he
just chickened out), the same thing that he did when Fischer
volunteered to play against Korchnoi (around 1978) and later
simply chickened out.

>Other players have had great tournaments, but that's not enough.
>
>>                                          Fischer only reached that
>>level in the candidates matches and in the world championship match.
>
>Not true at all. Fischer sparkled occasionally throughout the early
>60s, having the odd poor result due to immaturity, and then really
>dominated virtually everything he participated in after 1966.

Now lets see how he "really dominated virtually everything he
participated in after 1966", those 6 tournaments:

	Montecarlo, 1967
		Fischer		7
		Smyslov		6.5
		Geller		6
		Larsen		6
	Fischer lost to Geller, but was able to collect more
	points from the lesser players.  The points earned by
	the first 4 players against each other:
		Fischer		1.5
		Smyslov		1.5
		Geller		1.5
		Larsen		1.5

	Skopje, 1967
		Fischer		13.5
		Geller		13
		Matulovic	13
	Again Fischer lost to Geller.
	The points earned by the first 3 players against each other:
		Fischer		1
		Geller		2
		Matulovic	0

	Natanija, 1968
	Fischer won by 3.5 points.  No elite players in this tournament.
	The M. Geller that finished 12th WAS NOT "the" Geller.

	Vinkovci, 1968
	Fischer won by 2 points.  No elite players in this tournament
	either.

	Zagreb, 1970
		Fischer		13
		Gligoric	11
		Smyslov		11
		Hort		11
		Korchnoi	11
		Petrosian	10.5
	Points earned among these players:
		Fischer		3
		Gligoric	3
		Smyslov		2
		Hort		2.5
		Korchnoi	2.5
		Petrosian	2
	Fischer won over Gligoric.

	Palma de Mallorca, 1970, Interzonal
		Fischer		18.5
		Larsen		15
		Geller		15
		Huebner		15
	Fischer won by 3.5 points, Fischer lost to Larsen.
	Points earned among these players:
		Fischer		1.5
		Larsen		2
		Geller		1.5
		Huebner		1
	Again Fischer was better against the players that finished
	outside of the first places.  Again average results against
	the top players, no domination.

Fischer had 8 first places in "important tournaments" during his
lifetime, Keres had 20, Korchnoi had 17 before 1973, all of them
before reaching his peak, just to mention two who never made it to
the championship and had better results and had lots of more interesting
games than Fischer.

Do you still think that Fischer dominated during the 67-70 period ?

Just in case, here you have more history from that period.
When the U.S.S.R. against the rest of the world match of 1970
was planned, Fischer accepted to play behind Larsen, Larsen played
in the first table and Fischer in the second.  Fischer simply
accepted this because he knew that Larsen had had better results
during that 67-70 period.  As Larsen indicated when it was hinted
that Fischer might wish to play in the first table (my translation):

	"In these last years, I have won more important international
	tournaments than Fischer in his whole life, and seven of
	them in front of Soviet Grand Masters of first rank."

Even Fischer agreed with this, Fischer knew that Larsen was the
better player during that period, so Fischer quietly accepted the
second table, remember that Fischer is not the type that simply
accepts stuff, he certainly agreed with this.

Please, ignore all the publicity of the 70s.  Haven't you ever wondered
why most of Fischer's games seem so dull?  Why is it that most of his
"smashing" wins where over unknown oponents?  Fischer happened to win
the title because he was able to affect the other players with his
bitching and was even able to affect Spassky.  Fischer caught the
U.S.S.R. chess player production machine in a generational gap
and was able to make it that time.  Everybody knew that Spassky was
lazy, even Korchnoi had predicted that Spassky would only keep
the title for 3 years.  Geller who had a positive record against
Fischer was Spassky's "second", maybe Geller had his own plans for
his future against Fischer and might have been more convenient
for him if Fischer won over Spassky, maybe Geller didn't really
helped Spassky as much as was expected from him.

Fischer helped Chess because he brought publicity and money to the
game (none of which makes Fischer's games any more interesting).
He also became very popular in the U.S.A. because he was able to
win the championship.

By the way, did you know that Fischer *** NEVER *** won a single
game against a world champion until his match with Spassky?
He won against "ex-champions" he never won over a "current" champion,
how could he dominate the chess elite if he could not even manage
to win over _the_ champion?

Fischer might have had a bright history ahead of him.  He simply
did not have the character to continue after 1972, he seemed to
be lazier than Spassky, he probably observed Karpov evolve during
those 3 years between the 72 and 75 matches, he probably could not
figure out how to play against him (he always had trouble against
Petrosian style players) and without having played a single game
in that period he decide to bitch and impose conditions instead
of playing chess, at which point he simply destroyed himself, the
rumor was that Fischer wanted to play to 10 wins so that he could
play himself into shape.  A champion should be prepared to defend
his title, Fischer obviously was not so he lost it.

Do you still place Fischer in the same league as Capablanca, Alehkine,
Karpov or Kasparov?

>David Fry                                  fry@math.harvard.edu
>Division of Applied Sciences               fry@huma1.bitnet
>Harvard University                      ...!harvard!huma1!fry
>Cambridge, MA  02138            

Ramon Pantin