tal's lifetime score agst Fischer is skewed by the fact that the majority of Tal's wins agst Fischer were before 1962. Tal himself said, of his early wins against Fischer, "Tal was already Tal but Fischer was not yet Fischer". Tal knew that Fischer was still a kid when he lost, but Tal understood Fischer's strength.
Could Spassky have beaten Fischer?
Sort:
a healthy Tal against a full-strength Fischer...now that would have been a clash of the gods. Anything... blitz, long time controls, anything.
I belive that Spasky showed his great sportsmanship at that event. I also think that he understood/know Fischer and his "weirding way" and therefore he did not felt upset by all the things that happened there. He played like a gentleman.
He is the oldest living world chess champion while Bobby remained on Iceland.
Spassky was a gentleman. Great mind.
They definetly should have Gives him a better grave, with view to ocean and not close to awall
Fischers Way wasnt weirding, havent candidates matches Been a much more quiet area with privacy for Players.
Didnt all the Things came to Chess that he so naturally demanded.
Better lightning for someone who was health conscious and drank juices and avoided coffein. That is not too crazy, considering how Many chessplayers Wear glasses, it was very reasonable.
Fischer wasnt weird.
Spassky wasn't the gentleman,
The true Gentleman was Fischer
In the forward of Don quijote, someone wrote fool or hero.
Fischer was a hero and thats why everyone hates him.
Like al Paciono said i fear he doesnt live long, because Good people dont live long.
Fischer was Good thats why he had so many enemies
TetsuoShima wrote:
Fischers Way wasnt weirding, havent candidates matches Been a much more quiet area with privacy for Players.
Didnt all the Things came to Chess that he so naturally demanded.
Better lightning for someone who was health conscious and drank juices and avoided coffein. That is not too crazy, considering how Many chessplayers Wear glasses, it was very reasonable.
Fischer wasnt weird.
That post gave me cancer. In chess world (and outside of it), he was rather "strange".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=px2PoGr0AkE#t=100
Oct 5, 2013
0
#271
TetsuoShima wrote:
They definetly should have Gives him a better grave, with view to ocean and not close to awall
Fischer died alone, friendless and loved by nobody.
He is lucky his grave is even marked.
Oct 5, 2013
0
#272
I believe chamillionaire's analyses is essentially correct. When both were at their prime, taking into account the computer analysis of various grandmaster's accuracy (Capablanca, Karpov, etc.), it seems reasonable to conclude that one would have to give Fischer the nod. That being said, although the differential between Spassky's and Fischer's greatness is
clear and measurable, their number of draws indicates the differential was not substantial.
Catlover123456
TetsuoShima is such a jack@ss, can someone be any more obsessed with Fischer? WOW....
Jeremy Sharp Looks and Talks like Phony slimy rat in My Opinion, because the apple doesnt fall far from the tree im Pretty sure Fischer was correct.
yes with the us was a bit harsh, but he definetly had a right to be angry... Also as americans have testified you hear worse stuff in american traffic
Fixing_A_Hole wrote:
TetsuoShima is such a jack@ss, can someone be any more obsessed with Fischer? WOW....
That's because Fischer was weird... 
varelse1 wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
They definetly should have Gives him a better grave, with view to ocean and not close to awall
Fischer died alone, friendless and loved by nobody.
He is lucky his grave is even marked.
Come again? Why is he lucky for having a tombstone? He doesn't care. Grave markers are for the living, not the dead.
bigpoison wrote:
varelse1 wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
They definetly should have Gives him a better grave, with view to ocean and not close to awall
Fischer died alone, friendless and loved by nobody.
He is lucky his grave is even marked.
Come again? Why is he lucky for having a tombstone? He doesn't care. Grave markers are for the living, not the dead.
True.
Hilarious3 wrote:
There is a comment somewhere regarding Bobby Fischer, maybe in Kramnik's interview, that the style of any great champion gradually moves from being personal and distinctive to more universal and non-descript. I find that an interesting thought. It seems as if the Fischer Spassky had prepared for no longer existed!
Botvinnik once asked Spassky which chess player he considered the perfect product of the Soviet chess school. Spassky with his great sense of humour answered Bobby Fischer, and Botvinnik was very cross!
Great story about Spassky and Botvinnik! And great thought about the Fischer Spassky prepared for. Nice.
Spassky should've won the 1972 match rather than Fischer, whose rude behavior about the cameras and conditions was quite ridiculous. I like how Spassky was a good sport about it, but it still befuddles me why he would succumb to Fischer's laughable demands.
He could have beaten Fischer by default if he stuck to his guns and didn't accept Fischer's terms for game 3. He won the first game, and won the second by forfeit. Also, up until that match he had beaten Fischer 3 times and had not lost to him yet. Therefore he would have earned his right to retain the title in my opinion.
Man i Really wish i were just trolling, but im just dumb