Could Spassky have beaten Fischer? - Chess Forums - Page 7

chamillionaire

Jul 18, 2013

0

#121

noleryer wrote:

TetsuoShima wrote:

i think you just invent random stuff to contradict what i say. i think people just trolling me for the sake of trolling

Yes i believe thats what theyre doing, people from countries who hate america cant stand that an American was the best ever.

You don't even have the common sense to check where the person is from before making idiotic accusations. For the record, I'M FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and I DON'T believe Fischer was the greatest player ever. TetuoShima IS FROM JAPAN and thinks Fischer WAS the greatest player ever. DUH

chamillionaire

Jul 18, 2013

0

#122

KnowYourRole1 wrote:

NO. Here's why: Spaskey only "won" one game. When I say "won" I mean thorugh his brillency.

In total, he won 3 games: first, second and fifth - think.

In the first game, Fischer made a rookie mistake, so it's more like Fischer lost as opposed to Spaskey won. Then Fischer didn't show up lol, so Spaskey won again. There victories were helped by Fischer, but necesary earned by Spaskey.

BUT I give Spaskey credit for not making stupid mistakes himself in the first round.

Dude, you can't even spell 'Spassky'.

schlechter55

Jul 18, 2013

0

#123

noleryer wrote:

TetsuoShima wrote:

i think you just invent random stuff to contradict what i say. i think people just trolling me for the sake of trolling

Yes i believe thats what theyre doing, people from countries who hate america cant stand that an American was the best ever.

You are a victim of propaganda: WHOLE countries that hate 'America' ? (I think you meant USA, never mind). Such countries do not exist.

About best 'ever': Fischer was the best of his time. He deserved the title.

Capablanca, Aliekhine , Kasparov were the best of their times.

I think Kramnik never had the strength of Kasparov at his peak. Same as Anand.

I think it is REALLY controversial which one of the two , Fischer or Kasparov would have won in a match.

Looking at the best games of both, their revolutionary ideas, their strength in calculation, there is just no way to decide this question with ease.

bigpoison

Jul 18, 2013

0

#124

What's this us shit? I'm pretty sure there isn't a country that hates me. Except, maybe, Belgium.

Senator-Blutarsky

Jul 18, 2013

0

#125

It's a pity he never got to try chessboxing.

NM Pacifique

Jul 18, 2013

0

#126

In fact Fischer won that match due to psychology. His ridiculous behaviour before the match and up to 3rd game was the reason why Spassky was obviously psyched out and played worse than he could.

Bobby Fischer Goes to War by David Edmonds and John Eidinow is one of the best books written about that match.

Polar_Bear

Jul 18, 2013

0

#127

Spassky could have beaten Fischer, but under opposite conditions: as challenger motivated to become champion.

In the 1972 match, Spassky played under two disadvantages. First, he lost motivation to maintain his status as no.1 world player. Second, he was under extreme pressure from the Soviet chess machinery and couldn't have concentrated properly.

But Fischer was really good in 1972, maybe even better than Botvinnik in his prime, so it would have been tough task even for Spassky.

Senator-Blutarsky

Jul 18, 2013

0

#128

Fischer could psyche out entire planets.

thoughtson64

Jul 18, 2013

0

#129

Pacifique wrote:

In fact Fischer won that match due to psychology. His ridiculous behaviour before the match and up to 3rd game was the reason why Spassky was obviously psyched out and played worse than he could.

Bobby Fischer Goes to War by David Edmonds and John Eidinow is one of the best books written about that match.

I have it! Fascinating read.

fabelhaft

Jul 18, 2013

0

#130

Regardless if Spassky could have won or not, the 1972 match must be one of the very few cases where the World Champion winning a title match would have been something of a sensation. Maybe Euwe vs Alekhine in 1937 and Anand vs Carlsen later this year are the only other examples of that.

TetsuoShima

Jul 18, 2013

0

#131

Pacifique wrote:

In fact Fischer won that match due to psychology. His ridiculous behaviour before the match and up to 3rd game was the reason why Spassky was obviously psyched out and played worse than he could.

Bobby Fischer Goes to War by David Edmonds and John Eidinow is one of the best books written about that match.

they write that stuff in many books, to take away Fischers achievment i believe.

I believe it would be really weird if you have the will to become world champion and then are not able to handle that stuff.

you ofc know more about chess than i do, but i personally believe FIscher just outclassed Spassky and that was all there was to it.

chamillionaire

Jul 18, 2013

0

#132

TetsuoShima wrote:

chamillionaire wrote:

TetsuoShima wrote:

are you kidding me?? in Fischers first international appearance ever, Fischer said he will draw with the strongest and win against the weaker GMs, people laughed at first and all were shocked when he did exactly that.

In his first game with Tal, Tal himself admited Fischer would have won the game but he tricked the poor kid with a cheap psychological trick. Tal himself said Fischer already wanted to play the winning move, but Fischer was young and inexperienced thats why it worked.

I have to check the other results one day, Spassky 1 win with the kings gambit was a cheapo, a really cheap win.

I have to check the tournament results again i dont have such a good memory

But remember already in his first international appearances FIscher drew former world champions.

It was clear to everybody that Fischer was a truely great player long before 1969.

My memory fails me but im sure many Soviets even said that.

Funny how you never give, events, dates, or locations; you just make a bunch of statements without providing evidence of anything. If you are refering to Fischer's first international tournament, wouldn't that be the 1958 interzonal where he tied 5th/6th with Olafsson behind Tal, Gligoric, Benko, and Petrosian? In Mar Del Plata 1959 he was tied with Ivkov for 3rd/4th behind Najdorf and Packman. Santiago, Chile 1959 he was tied 4th/5th/6th with Sanuinetti and Sanchez, but behind Ivkov, Pachman< Pilnik. 1959 Candidates in Belgrad he tied 5th/6th with Gligoric, but behind Tal, Keres, Petrosian, Smyslov. 1959 International in Zurich, he tied 3rd/4th with Keres, behind Tal and Gligoric. 1960 Reykjavic Fischer won! against a relatively weak field of 5 (including himself). Mar Del Plata 1960 he won against a much better field with more players (15) this is his first real international success IMO. Remember, I never claimed he didn't have international success, I said his results were inconsistant at this point in his professional career. The next tournament, Buenos Aires International 1960 he tied 13th/14th/15th!!! Bled 61' he was 2nd behind Tal. Interzonal, Stockhom, 1962 he won. Candidates 1962 4th place behind Petrosian, Keres, Geller (all 3 had at least 17, while Fischer's score was 14). His next two international tournaments he was 2nd behind Spassky, then 2nd behind Smyslov. From 1967 to 1972 (not 69' for lack of participation) he had consistently good international results, especially his run from 1970 to 1972 (remember he didn't participate in any international events in 66', 2 in 67', 2 in 68', 0 in 69 and then 3 tournaments and 5 one on one matches from 1970-1972) These are hardly the results of the chess god that you make him out to be. Are gods supposed to peak for 3 years? Not, 5 or 10, let alone a normal career of 15, 20 or more. THREE years! Greatest of all time? Definately a top 10, but also definately NOT "THE greatest".

Alas, I feel no amound of evidence will convince you that Fischer was a great champion and is one of the best players of all time, much like perhaps a dozen other players. You bought into the hype that 'Fischer is the greatest' the way many have bought into the hype that 'Kasparov is the greatest'.

The original post was, "could Spassky have beaten Fischer". If the original poster meant, "could Spassky have beaten Fischer in 1972" there is reason to believe he could have under different circumstanses as some of us sane people on the forum have already explained. If the poster meant, "could Spassky have beaten Fischer when both were at their peak", again the answer is absolutely reasonable to believe so.

First of all i havent checked your data yet. Second quality goes over quantity hence the saying the star that shines brighter, shines shorter. Chamillionaire says, "You call me a liar and you haven't checked my data? What does this say about you? Secondly, I believe it's quantity and quality and opposition and to a lesser degree circumstanses not just brief quality".

Second you can call me insane, but at least im not dishonest and use straw man tactics, what does the Fischer consistency have to do with the question of weather Spassky had a chance? Chamillionaire says, "you've called me dishonest twice. You say I used 'straw man tactics'. A straw man arguement is when you falsely build something up so you can then tear or blow it down. Exactly how have I done this? I built up Spassky deservedly so. He was Fischer's aproximate equal and a great champion. I certainly didn't then tear Spassky down. Are you hallucinating? Also, I didn't question your sanity until AFTER you called me a liar and accused me of making up facts, when I've given you the books, pages, websites, statistics, done the math where needed, and named the times, locations, and results many times. All of this is easly found. You did this without first bothering to confirm what I said. This means you're either a bold faced liar or insane. I stand by my statement.

yes i might be insane and you might be sane, but that doesnt mean that you are you more than mediocre or that your point is right. There is a logical fallacy i believe. Chamillionaire says, "it is true that an insane person can be correct and a sane one might be incorrect; however, it is more likely that a sane person would be correct and an insane person incorrect. That has to do with the very definition of an insane person." "What's the logical fallacy here, please explain."

I believe you just want to troll, was there a need for personal attack? are we still in Kindergarten? no i dont think we are, are you bored and really want to talk?? probably but that is no excuse for insulting me. Chamillionaire says, "Again, you made the first personal attack by calling me a liar." "Everyone is welcome to look at all the topics I've posted in. Far from trolling, I'm usually one of the few posters who gets 'thank you's and 'well said's from people, particularly by the original poster."

Senator-Blutarsky

Jul 18, 2013

0

#133

When you see the long posts, mostly redundant, you know the fight's on.

batgirl

Jul 18, 2013

0

#134

Pacifique wrote:

In fact Fischer won that match due to psychology. His ridiculous behaviour before the match and up to 3rd game was the reason why Spassky was obviously psyched out and played worse than he could.

Bobby Fischer Goes to War by David Edmonds and John Eidinow is one of the best books written about that match.

That conclusion is ridiculous. All matches, probably all games of importance, involve psychological aspects and the 1972 WC match was no different. Fischer's behavior was quite reasonable considering his well-deserved mistrust of the Soviet chess machine and his quest for proper respect and playing conditions for chess masters. Fischer won simply by playing better, even at the disadvantage of two games. Averbakh, who at that time was president of the Soviet Chess Federation, was convinced that Fischer would outplay Spassky as he had already devastated Taimanov and Pertosian, not to mention Larsen. The Soviet's charged Spassky and his team with sloppy preparation and careless attitides. Fischer won because he cared. Spassky earned more money losing that match (most of which he kept) than in all his wins put together and also lost the onus that being champion placed upon him, so even in losing, he won.

"Bobby Fischer Goes to War" never claimed Fischer won primarily, or even partially, though psychology.

TetsuoShima

Jul 18, 2013

0

#135

Senator-Blutarsky wrote:

When you see the long posts, mostly redundant, you know the fight's on.

you are one cool guy

TetsuoShima

Jul 18, 2013

0

#136

chamillionaire wrote:

TetsuoShima wrote:

chamillionaire wrote:

TetsuoShima wrote:

are you kidding me?? in Fischers first international appearance ever, Fischer said he will draw with the strongest and win against the weaker GMs, people laughed at first and all were shocked when he did exactly that.

In his first game with Tal, Tal himself admited Fischer would have won the game but he tricked the poor kid with a cheap psychological trick. Tal himself said Fischer already wanted to play the winning move, but Fischer was young and inexperienced thats why it worked.

I have to check the other results one day, Spassky 1 win with the kings gambit was a cheapo, a really cheap win.

I have to check the tournament results again i dont have such a good memory

But remember already in his first international appearances FIscher drew former world champions.

It was clear to everybody that Fischer was a truely great player long before 1969.

My memory fails me but im sure many Soviets even said that.

Funny how you never give, events, dates, or locations; you just make a bunch of statements without providing evidence of anything. If you are refering to Fischer's first international tournament, wouldn't that be the 1958 interzonal where he tied 5th/6th with Olafsson behind Tal, Gligoric, Benko, and Petrosian? In Mar Del Plata 1959 he was tied with Ivkov for 3rd/4th behind Najdorf and Packman. Santiago, Chile 1959 he was tied 4th/5th/6th with Sanuinetti and Sanchez, but behind Ivkov, Pachman< Pilnik. 1959 Candidates in Belgrad he tied 5th/6th with Gligoric, but behind Tal, Keres, Petrosian, Smyslov. 1959 International in Zurich, he tied 3rd/4th with Keres, behind Tal and Gligoric. 1960 Reykjavic Fischer won! against a relatively weak field of 5 (including himself). Mar Del Plata 1960 he won against a much better field with more players (15) this is his first real international success IMO. Remember, I never claimed he didn't have international success, I said his results were inconsistant at this point in his professional career. The next tournament, Buenos Aires International 1960 he tied 13th/14th/15th!!! Bled 61' he was 2nd behind Tal. Interzonal, Stockhom, 1962 he won. Candidates 1962 4th place behind Petrosian, Keres, Geller (all 3 had at least 17, while Fischer's score was 14). His next two international tournaments he was 2nd behind Spassky, then 2nd behind Smyslov. From 1967 to 1972 (not 69' for lack of participation) he had consistently good international results, especially his run from 1970 to 1972 (remember he didn't participate in any international events in 66', 2 in 67', 2 in 68', 0 in 69 and then 3 tournaments and 5 one on one matches from 1970-1972) These are hardly the results of the chess god that you make him out to be. Are gods supposed to peak for 3 years? Not, 5 or 10, let alone a normal career of 15, 20 or more. THREE years! Greatest of all time? Definately a top 10, but also definately NOT "THE greatest".

Alas, I feel no amound of evidence will convince you that Fischer was a great champion and is one of the best players of all time, much like perhaps a dozen other players. You bought into the hype that 'Fischer is the greatest' the way many have bought into the hype that 'Kasparov is the greatest'.

The original post was, "could Spassky have beaten Fischer". If the original poster meant, "could Spassky have beaten Fischer in 1972" there is reason to believe he could have under different circumstanses as some of us sane people on the forum have already explained. If the poster meant, "could Spassky have beaten Fischer when both were at their peak", again the answer is absolutely reasonable to believe so.

First of all i havent checked your data yet. Second quality goes over quantity hence the saying the star that shines brighter, shines shorter. Chamillionaire says, "You call me a liar and you haven't checked my data? What does this say about you? Secondly, I believe it's quantity and quality and opposition and to a lesser degree circumstanses not just brief quality".

Second you can call me insane, but at least im not dishonest and use straw man tactics, what does the Fischer consistency have to do with the question of weather Spassky had a chance? Chamillionaire says, "you've called me dishonest twice. You say I used 'straw man tactics'. A straw man arguement is when you falsely build something up so you can then tear or blow it down. Exactly how have I done this? I built up Spassky deservedly so. He was Fischer's aproximate equal and a great champion. I certainly didn't then tear Spassky down. Are you hallucinating? Also, I didn't question your sanity until AFTER you called me a liar and accused me of making up facts, when I've given you the books, pages, websites, statistics, done the math where needed, and named the times, locations, and results many times. All of this is easly found. You did this without first bothering to confirm what I said. This means you're either a bold faced liar or insane. I stand by my statement.

yes i might be insane and you might be sane, but that doesnt mean that you are you more than mediocre or that your point is right. There is a logical fallacy i believe. Chamillionaire says, "it is true that an insane person can be correct and a sane one might be incorrect; however, it is more likely that a sane person would be correct and an insane person incorrect. That has to do with the very definition of an insane person." "What's the logical fallacy here, please explain."

I believe you just want to troll, was there a need for personal attack? are we still in Kindergarten? no i dont think we are, are you bored and really want to talk?? probably but that is no excuse for insulting me. Chamillionaire says, "Again, you made the first personal attack by calling me a liar." "Everyone is welcome to look at all the topics I've posted in. Far from trolling, I'm usually one of the few posters who gets 'thank you's and 'well said's from people, particularly by the original poster."

you know just lets for a second assume im insane and my arguments are all wrong.

what does it say about you when you write all that stuff??

anyway i might made a mistake earlier in my wording and i might be seriously insane because i assumed you were a troll. i was obviously incorrect and that was not nice.

TetsuoShima

Jul 18, 2013

0

#137

i thought straw man tactic is when you for example compare the maximum speed of 2 cars and than say one is worse because it has a less pretty color.

chamillionaire

Jul 18, 2013

0

#138

TetsuoShima wrote:

i thought straw man tactic is when you for example compare the maximum speed of 2 cars and than say one is worse because it has a less pretty color.

It's when you tell a straw man, "look out! fire!!" and then you kick him in the straw nuts. Lawyers use this tactic all the time in court.

chamillionaire

Jul 18, 2013

0

#139

"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

schlechter55

Jul 18, 2013

0

#140

Tetsuishima is obviously from Germany, and not from Japan (or US).

Why ?

He wrote 'Kindergarten' , and not 'kindergarden'.