LOL !!
Thanks Reb !....you made my morning....you know I love this guy !!....
You'll feel it on your cheek in about an hour....coming from the heart of the Caribbean....
....
Bobby Fischer Lacked Creativity ?....How Dare I !
Sort:
May 26, 2015
0
#22
I have only very limited knowledge about Fischer, Chess History or how openings get their names. But I would assume that it is usually because someone/some group of people played a certain opening A LOT (and was succesfull with it).
So going by that logic I would say that he probably was very creative. But I have only seen a handfull of Fischer games so what do I know.
Fischer was the Rambo of chess. The Feds came down hard on Rambo too. It's not easy being an American superhero unless you live in a comic book and do everything your scriptwriter decides.
May 26, 2015
0
#26
When I think of creativity I think of Aron Nimzovich. But then, maybe it was just his timing. So okay.
When I think of creativity I think of Mikhail Tal. Now then, Tal was only 7 years older than Fischer. So, not much of an excuse there.
When I think of creativity I think of Duncan Suttles. Duncan was 2 years younger than Fischer. I don't have many male chess heroes. I can count them if I take off one shoe. But, IMO, this is the most creative, imaginative, and most underrated chess player of all-time.
....and Duncan ?....thank you for your brilliancies. I understand you had other interests.
bb_gum234 wrote:
power_2_the_people wrote:
it really doesn't matter for me who BF was, time is not worthless as a practical matter and the scarcity of it is maybe the most important thing to reckon with if you want to achieve anything in life.
In 500 years not only will you and everyone currently on earth be long dead, but all our "achievements" will be long forgotten and inconsequential. Even big events like a world war will only be barely remembered and only then by some historians.
Just imagine (well, we can't, but just to make a point) 100 million years.
Life isn't about "achievement."
I think you're right to tell him that life isn't about "achievements".
I think you're wrong to use the evidence that it wouldn't be remembered. Who cares what's remembered? That doesn't matter either.
If you do something good in the world it could have knock-on effects forever. If you pollute and harm the world it could damage your children and create a momentum that will damage life forever.
Something can do the world good and not be "remembered". Our ancestors did a lot of things to give us freedoms that we don't "remember", but they fought for them.
May 26, 2015
0
#28
I feel life is about finding yourself in a place of relative happiness. I'm trying to keep it real here and say we don't hafta be bouncy happy, just relatively happy compared to earlier times. Yet, that seems a little elusive given that we tend to remember all the happy stuff of our past and turn away from the yucky stuff that's happened.
May 26, 2015
0
#29
(#35) I think superficial purpose is added later as a product of our psyche.
Are you saying the search for purpose is pretty much futile ?....and illusory ? And why would you think it's a product we would create ?
(#336) Just imagine (well, we can't, but just to make a point) 100 million years.
The problem is there isn't any good records of what happened back then, otherwise, who knows ?....I mean, sadly, we could barely keep any records of the Dark Ages.
the psyche projects there is a purpose and not finding it, decides our minds aren't good at finding it.
Illogical people aren't very good at using logic is all.
May 26, 2015
0
#32
Stavros....meaning that Bobby Fischer didn't contribute much to theory - that's all I'm saying. He pushed for Chess960, which I like, and he has a clock invention named after him, but this isn't any breakthru to "game theory" itself.
Mikhail Tal proved that winning over-the-board chess (40 moves/120 minutes) could be played on feel at a World Class level. Meaning, his contribution was legitimizing creative, wildly complicated, unsound play ! He took opponents out to the aether and promply cut off their oxygen supply. IOW's, he took them way out over their heads until they got lost in space.
This was beyond chess....this was creative art !
Duncan Suttles, a WC OTB GM and WC Correspondence GM (the only person to ever have both titles) delved n2 creative play w/ mesmerizing deep space nine calculations. We'll probably never fully come to understand his volumes of work in our chess lives. I hope that one day he will reveal those far-reaching obscure lines....lines which I'm sure he still holds near and dear to his heart....and somewhere hidden away in a hope chest.
He too took us outta chess and into an artform !
....and Bobby Fischer didn't come close to having this talent.
creativity is pure awesomness.
Tal was genius, too much booze and fags but still genius.
May 26, 2015
0
#35
Stavros....I'm trying to get you to stop worshipping Bobby Fischer and check n2 reality here. Think about it. Bobby Fischer cannot and never has been everything to everybody all the time. Noone has that talent.
Think Stavros....Think !....you're smarter than this hon.
I'm okay w/ you listing his areas of talent....in fact I'll start it.
Here goes:
Kept up on latest & greatest book theory ?....yes.
Endgame specialist ?....yes.
Wonderful memory ?....yes.
Creative ?....no.
May 26, 2015
0
#36
Ramona ?....you kill me !....anyone wanna see artistic creativity ?....
SEE RAMONA'S AVATAR EVERYONE !!
May 26, 2015
0
#37
I have read that Bobby Fischer once attempted to dissect the King's Gambit like a biology toad. What happened ?....he concluded that it was "busted". His creative thinking (or lack thereof....) led him to believe this. He even went so far as to write it all down for everyone to see.
What happened then ?....well, it's still being played in WC Chess circles today....IOW's, the toad jumped outta the frying pan !
....
May 26, 2015
0
#39
Here is his dissertation....and boy did he go wrong w/ 3....d6! This is the so-called Fischer Defense....and silly him, he gave himself an exclamation after d6.
Conclude what you will....
A BUST TO THE KING'S GAMBIT by U.S. Champion Bobby Fischer International Grandmaster
The King's Gambit has lost popularity, but not sympathy. Analysts treat it with kid gloves and seem reluctant to demonstrate an outright refutation. "The Chessplayers Manual" by Gossip and Lipschutz, published in 1874, devotes 237 pages to this gambit without arriving at a conclusion. To this day the opening has been analyzed romantically – not scientifically. Moderns seem to share the same unconscious attitude that caused the oldtimers to curse stubborn Steinitz: "He took the beauty out of chess." To the public, the player of the King's Gambit exhibits courage and derring-do. The gambit has been making a comeback with the younger Soviet masters, notably Spassky (who defeated Bronstein, Averbach and myself with it). His victories rarely reflected the merits of the opening since his opponents went wrong in the mid-game. It is often the case, also, as with Santasiere and Bronstein, that the King's Gambit is played with a view to a favorable endgame. Spassky told me himself the gambit doesn't give White much, but he plays it because neither does the Ruy Lopez nor the Giuoco Piano. The refutation of any gambit begins with accepting it. In my opinion the King's Gambit is busted. It loses by force.
1. e4 e5, 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6!
This is the key to a troublesome position, a high-class "waiting move." At Mar Del Plata, 1959, I played 3...g5 against Spassky, but this is inexact because it gives White drawing chances in the ensuing ending: e.g., 4. h4 g4, 5. Ne5 Nf6, 6. d4 d6, 7. Nd3 Nxe4, 8. Bxf4 Bg7, and now 9. c3! (replacing Spassky's 9. Nc3) 9...Qe7, 10. Qe2 Bf5, 11. Nd2 leads to an ending where Black's extra Pawn is neutralized by White's stranglehold on the dark squares, especially f4. Another good try, but also inexact, is the Berlin Defense: 3...h6, 4. d4 g5, 5. h4 Bg7, 6. g3 g4, (also playable is 6...d6, 7. gxf4 g4) 7. Nh2 fxg3, 8. Nxg4 (8. Qxg4 loses to 8...gxh2, 9. Qxg7 Qxh4+, 10. Kd1 Qf6) 8...d5, 9. e5 Bf5, 10. Bf4, where Black cannot demonstrate any advantage. Of course 3...d5 equalizes easily, but that's all.
4. Bc4
4. d4 transposes, the only difference if White tries to force matters after 4...g5, 5. h4 g4, 6. Ng5 (White also gets no compensation after 6. Bxf4 gxf3, 7. Qxf3 Nc6 or 6. Ng1 Bh6) 6...f6!, 7. Nh3 gxh3, 8. Qh5+ Kd7, 9. Bxf4 Qe8!, 10. Qf3 Kd8 and with his King and Queen reversed, Black wins easily.
4...h6!
This in conjunction with Black's previous move I would like to call the Berlin Defense Deferred. By this subtle transposition Black knocks out the possibility open to White in the last note (to move 3).
5. d4 g5, 6. 0-0 Bg7, 7. c3
Necessary to protect the QP. 7. g3 is always met by 7…g4
7...Nc6
Here there is disagreement as to Black's best move. Puc and Rabar, Euwe, Keres, and most analysts give the text as the main line and mention 7...Ne7! in passing. I think 7...Ne7 is best because there is no reason why Black should not strive to castle Kingside: e.g., 8. g3 d5!, 9. exd5 fxg3, 10. hxg3 (if 10. Ne5 gxh2+!, 11. Kh1 0-0, 12. d6 Qxd6 wins) 10...0-0, 11. Qb3 Qd6, 12. Kg2 Nf5 wins. There is little practical experience with this sub-variation.
8. Qb3
If 8. g3 g4, 9. Nh4 f3, 10. Nd2, Euwe and other analysts betray their soft-mindedness toward this opening by giving the inferior 10...Bf6?, 11. Ndxf3 gxf3, 12. Qxf3 - "unclear"!! This is yet another example of sentimental evaluation - after 12...Qe7 followed by Bh3 and 0- 0-0 Black wins easily. The Pawn on f3 is a bone in White's throat so why force him to sacrifice when he must anyway? 10...Qe7 is the strongest move. In this last variation (instead of 10. Nd2) White can vary with 10. Qb3 but then comes Nimzovitch's beautiful winning line: 10...Qe7, 11. Nf5 Bxf5, 12. exf5 (if 12. Qxb7 Rb8, 13. Qxc6+ Qd7, 14. Qxd7+ Bxd7 and Black has a winning endgame) 12...0-0-0, 13. Bxf7 Qe2, 14. Qe6+ (if 14. Rf2 Nxd4!, 15. Rxe2 fxe2 wins) 14...Rd7!, 15. Rf2 Qd1+, 16. Rf1 Qc2, 17. Nd2 Nf6, (threatening Nd8) 18. Bg6 (if 18. Qb3 Qxb3, 19. Bxb3 d5 with a winning endgame) 18...d5 followed by Ne7 with a winning game for Black.
8...Qe7, 9. h4 Nf6
Again theoretical disagreement. Perfectly good is 9...g4!, 10. Bxf4 (forced, not 10. Nfd2 Nxd4!, 11. cxd4 Bxd4+ etc.) 10...gxf3, 11. Rxf3 - given by analysts again as "unclear," but after 11…Nf6 followed by 0-0, White has nothing for the piece.
10. hxg5 hxg5, 11. Nxg5 Nxe4
A wild position, but Black is still master.
12. Bxf7+
The game is rife with possibilities. If 12. Nxe4 Qxe4, 13. Rxf4 Qe1+, 14. Rf1 Qh4, 15. Bxf7+ Kd8, 16. Qd5 Ne5!, 17. dxe5 Bxe5 (threatening Bh2+ and mate), 18. Rd1 Qg3 wins, owing to the threat of Rh1+.
12...Kd8, 13. Nxe4
Not 13. Ne6+ Bxe6, 14. Qxe6 Qxe6, 15. Bxe6 Nxd4!
13...Qxe4, 14. Bxf4
14. Rxf4 also loses to 14...Qe1+, 15. Rf1 Rh1+, 16. Kxh1 Qxf1+, 17. Kh2 Qxc1 etc.
14...Nxd4
And Black wins... Of course White can always play differently, in which case he merely loses differently.
I just feel that Bobby Fischer....now I hafta be careful here 'cuz I don't know his story, so I'm kinda speculating....didn't know which way to turn after he won the WC. What happened ?....he got himself in way-way over his head and didn't know what to do. The first word that comes to mind is lost.
I think Bobby Fischer needed a good manager !
Did he reject one ?