From: edd@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (ed.knowles)
Subject: Re: Fischer - Polgar/Kasparov update
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:02:28 GMT
Summary: Chess at the top has changed considerably

In article <1992Nov20.194553.13686@news.uiowa.edu>, olesen@math.uiowa.edu (Martin Olesen) writes:
> 
> 
> |> [1] What changes in chess 'perspective' have occurred in the past 20 years
> |>     which Fischer may not be aware of?  I've seen nothing on the
> |>     scale of 'hypermodernism' vs. 'classicism'.  (Or have I missed something?)
> |>     Any ideas?
> 
> |> --Larry %)
> 
> 
> 
>           Try to read Suba's book "Dynamic Chess". His thesis
>           is that chess has undergone a transformation in the last
>           20 years in the view towards hidden dynamics and potential
>            energy of a position. His main example is the Hedgehog type
>           positions, that was thought of as being very bad 20 years ago,
>            but has been showed to be excellent.
> 
> 
>                                 Martin Olesen

As far a theoretical changes in chess theory, I would be surprised if Fischer
didn't keep up with them. Despite his wretched play in the KID in FS II,
Fischer did show some opening sophistication, particularly in the Ruy Lopez
games. I also suspect that some of Fischer's mediocre opening play was due
to him wanting to conceal "opening secrets" he may have found. I think that 
this may have been why he chose Spassky as an opponent (Karpov would have been
a more justfiable choice, since it was he and not Spassky who had earned the
right to play Fischer in 1975), since Spassky's laziness in the opening is
well known.

I think the changes in chess 'perspective' that Kasparov is talking about 
are as follows:

1) Few grandmasters in the 1960s to 1970s (Fischer's prime) analyzed the
opening as thoroughly as Fischer did. Fischer won many games right out of the
opening precisely because of this. Nowadays, most grandmasters at the top
relentlessly research the opening and even use computers to aid them. Players
like Kasparov and Karpov can even assemble teams of top grandmasters to help
them. 

2) Time limits have speeded up. Chess has embraced the idea that it's more 
important to attract and interest the public than create pure chess over the
board. (I don't think the Fischer clock will catch on).

3) Adjournments have become especially important -- also, again computers
and grandmaster teams play an important part. It's doubtful that the profes-
sional chessplayers of today will embrace Fischer's idea of no adjournments.
(Again, this could be another reason why Spassky was chosen by Fischer --
Spassky has decried the transformation of chess into a "team sport").

4) Tournaments are stronger. One can claim rating inflation all they want, the
fact of the matter is that there weren't that many tournaments in Fischer's
day that gathered most of the best players together. There were few tournaments
in the 1960s-1970s where EVERYONE could be considered a threat to win 1st
prize. Rating inflation or no, it's easy to list at least 10 tournaments since
1972 that are arguably stronger than any tournament Fischer ever played in. An
offshot of this is that active grandmasters today are probably "stronger from
a practical" standpoint because their skills are continuously honed against the
best competition (players of equal strength). 

5) The chessplayers today are better educated -- there's more literature, 
databases, computer networks etc...

6) There are more strong chessplayers. The soviet "wall" has been torn down
and a bunch of talented players noone had heard of have emerged -- Shirov,
Salov, Kramnik , Bareev, Gelfand, Ivanchuk etc... Fischer had better take
advantage of his reputation now and play in world class tournaments while
there is still room for him and before his rating drops too much...

7) For a long time an older generation ruled chess (Petrosian, Larsen, Geller,
Korchnoi, Portisch, Keres, Tal, Spassky etc...). When Fischer won the world
championship in 1972, all through the candidates he played an older opponent
(Taimanov, Larsen, Petrosian). It could be argued that Taimanov was not really
world class and Petrosian was past his prime. Nevertheless, Fischer did
convincingly trounce Larsen and Spassky. Alas, Petrosian, Keres, Geller and
Tal (the greatest chess genius of all, in my opinion) are dead, Spassky is
sick and old beyond his years, and Larsen is no longer playing world class
chess. Only Korchnoi and Portisch remain forces to be reckoned with, and
Portisch seems to be fading. The road to the world championship no longer
has any smooth spots, the probable candidates (Anand, Gelfand, Ivanchuk,
Kamsky(?), Kramnik, Short, Timman, Shirov, etc...) are strong, young and 
healthy.

8) The current world champion is active and dominant. Botvinnik, Petrosian,
and Spassky were never as active and never so dominant. Karpov and Kasparov
have been a different breed of world champion, playing constantly against
the best in the world in tournaments and matches, winning almost all the
time. Whoever challenges the world champion nowadays, will not be facing
a complacent champion , rusty from sitting on his laurels for three years,
but a confident supergrandmaster who has used his reign to prove his superiorityy.

9) Reputation will not help you. Young grandmasters aren't as cowed by the
big names as much as they used to be. Legends are harder to create. You have
to play. Everybody knows about the psychological bull. Kamsky is using it,
but it probably won't help him win the world championship...

AH, the good ol days , where have they gone --when fish were fish , computers
were weak, and grandmasters were gods?

                            -Ed Knowles
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess