From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM'S AT CHESS CHOW/LIFE, round II
Date: 14 Dec 92 09:42:15 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Dec14.013935.18785@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
> In article <1992Dec13.154655.465@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Dec13.180811.15558@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
>>> In article <1992Dec12.193455.462@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec12.055515.4606@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
>>>>> In article <1992Dec11.165710.448@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>>>>>>>[attribution line stupidly deleted :(]
>>> 
>>> I thought you meant the current World Champion title.  That he has
>>> proven his right to the 1972 title is, in my mind, unquestionable.
>>> The fact remains that the current World Champion title is
>>> surrounded by certain rules to protect its integrity.  Whether
>>> those rules are justified, I do not know, but I _do_ know they
>>> are necessary to come up with the needed generalization:
>>> "Joe Chessplayer is World Champion."  And, whether the "second-
>>> rate players-association" that awards the title is indeed
>>> second-rate, I do not know.  I am a fourth-rate player myself.
>>> On the other hand, the system in place has produced some terrific
>>> chess, so I don't see anything wrong with it.  If Fischer is really
>>> as great as you say (he may be, I guess everyone else could be wrong),
>>> then he has the right to play within the rules and stomp everyone
>>> else into the ground.  And that, I am sure, would produce some
>>> GREAT chess, so I am all for him trying his hardest.
>>
>>And if he plays outside of the rules, an still stomps them into the ground, as
>>he has been doing? Does the fact he did not abide by the laws of civilized
>>English gentleman make him less talented? Or more?
>>
> 
> Sure, that's great if he can do that.  But the only person he's played
> in 20 years is Boris Spassky, and (from what I've heard) not at his
> best.  To repeat myself, I don't know whether the "laws" you mention
> are justified, but they are _necessary_ in order to hand out a
> World Champ title.
> And let me clarify: I don't care whether Fischer plays within the rules
> or not.  Couldn't care less, really.  But I can see no reason why he
> shouldn't play within the rules and pick up a neat title to go along
> with his huge prize checks and then he could _really_ snub his nose
> at the rest of the world.  Assuming, of course, that he can.  Which
> might be possible.  As I said in a deleted section below, there is
> no way to predict the outcome of a certain match or even a certain
> game, with absolute accuracy, ever.

That's true. But the reason (I think) why Fischer does not want the title
is because of the treatment he received trying to earn the title,
and all the shit they were going to put him through while defending
it. The Eastern Bloc used their political clout to try and make the
game unfair against him, and the sponsoring chess agency did little
more than lick their boots.
 
Fischer has always taken great delight in acting outside of the norm. He ENJOYS
pissing people off. (A trait I find most enjoyable.) He likes to take their
rules, urinate on them, and walk away with what he wants while leaving them
nothing. For him to garner that much attention, win that HUGE an amount,
in Yugoslavia, AGAINST the wishes of ye olde chess federation AND the U.S.
Governemnt, is his way of not just proving to the masses he is the
best player (I realize 'experts' may beg to differ) but as a way
of showing how powerless the rule-makers are to affect a single thing he does.

In short, he shows how unimportant the rule-makers are if you are good and
can stomp them into the ground whether or not it is on the board or off.


> 
>>
>>Then the title best college basketball team has no meaning as well?
>>
>>
> 
> Yep.  You got it.  We have a College Basketball Champion _title_,
> but even if they are undefeated, they still have not played every
> College Basketball team in the world.  Trust me.  They haven't.
> This is why there are rules set up for tournaments, regions,
> conferences and such.  Very similar to chess.

So there is no basketball, football, hockey, lacross, or lawn
darts 'best person or team' out there? Just because someone has
not played everybody that does, has, or will exist, and beaten them all every
single time, they can not be the best at something?
 
Well then, nothing can ever be the best anything.

In which case the word 'best' should be removed from the English language, and
words with similar meanings as well from ALL languages.

Because in your definitional book, nothing can ever be 'best' anything.

And we might as well remove the word 'champion' and its synonyms.

In fact, as these damned tournaments mean nothing, since they do not 
include everyone playing everyone, we might as well chuck them too.
 
And, as...
 
You can exclude the words winner and champion and best from your 
vocabulary. But they have meaning in mine. And in the minds of
those people who write dictionaries and speak to one another 
every day.


> 
>>
>>Who was the last person to beat Fischer?
>>
> 
> Boris Spassky.  Only a few games, admittedly, but they were there.
> And Fischer has only played 30 games in the last 20 years, ALL of them
> with Spassky.  No wonder no other GM has beaten him!  This is why
> I hope Fischer DOES start playing against other GMs in tournament
> settings so he can work his way up to take a shot at the "real"

Work his way up? You left out a qualifier-- 'their'. It should read, "So he can
work his way up in their system. He, right now, sits at the pinnacle of the
chess world. How many GMs, or serious players would decline playing him
based solely upon the fact that he is not world-ranked. Sure, they might balk
for fear of him kicking their butts in six moves, or because of his political
views, but those do not address the ssnactity of the system.
 
Fischer is more powerful a force in Chess right now than ALL of the GMs
combined. (When was the last time Banjamin had six full pages, five photos, in
Esquire magazine?) If they want to beat him, they have got to play by his
rules, as they lack the authority or power to affect him, or the Wold view on
him, in the least.



> (I use the term loosely, see above) title.  Like I said before,
> good chess.
>>
>>Now, let me state it clearly, as Mr. Wedding has been repeatedly calling for
>>others to do:
>>
>>"What basis are the GMs using for saying that Fischer is not as good as he
>>was?"
> 
> Can't really say, myself.  I think I'll go up and change the subject
> line here so I won't get accused of changing the subject anymore.

You forgot. Else I would not have responded.

> 
> I don't think its possible to judge anyone's playing ability on the
> basis of only 30 games.  But of course, that cuts both ways-- we
> can't say he's awful, but we can't say he's great either.

Fair enough. 

> 
> 	Jason
> 	Worst Chessplayer in Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha