Bobby Fischer Lacked Creativity ?....How Dare I !
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
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.
In Tal's own words.
"It is difficult to play against Einstein’s theory." - (on his first loss to Fischer)
"Fischer is the greatest genius to descend from the chess heavens."
guys do you think that i have chance againts players like Fischer and other masters of the game? I am very creative also?
May 27, 2015
0
#44
Stavros....I'm not arguing w/ you. I want someone to convince me with evidence that Bobby Fischer was creative. Yes, he had novelties up his sleeve. But, so do all other WC GM's. I'm not trying to take anything away from him. Others know this of him....past & present. He wasn't revolutionary on the chessboard ! Would he have been if he did more correspondence ?...well, we will never know.
Three credits:
* BF was known to be extraordinarily well-prepared for any game he entered.
* BF was an endgame surgeon. IOW's, as the game went on, he gained strength.
* If a photograph is worth 1000 words and an example is worth 1000 photographs, then BF had an example memory.
Did Bobby Fischer lack creativity ? IMO, absolutely yes. Was he born with creative genes ? IMO, absolutely not.
Bobby Fischer had weaknesses & limits in his chessplaying ability.
Fischer's biggest contribution to the game is that he brough more $ into it for the top players . When Spassky became WC in 69 by defeating Petrosian he only made about $5, 000. for his efforts ... compare that to what they play for today ... thanks to Fischer .
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Stavros....I'm not arguing w/ you. I want someone to convince me with evidence that Bobby Fischer was creative. Yes, he had novelties up his sleeve. But, so do all other WC GM's. I'm not trying to take anything away from him. Others know this of him....past & present. He wasn't revolutionary on the chessboard ! Would he have been if he did more correspondence ?...well, we will never know.
Three credits:
* BF was known to be extraordinarily well-prepared for any game he entered.
* BF was an endgame surgeon. IOW's, as the game went on, he gained strength.
* If a photograph is worth 1000 words and an example is worth 1000 photographs, then BF had an example memory.
Did Bobby Fischer lack creativity ? IMO, absolutely yes. Was he born with creative genes ? IMO, absolutely not.
Bobby Fischer had weaknesses & limits in his chessplaying ability.
Tal held a much higher opinion of Fischer than you do and he actually played him. I like this comment which sums up Bobby Fischer.
"Fischer's accomplishment cannot be overstated. A brash twenty-nine-year-old high school dropout, armed with little more than a pocket chess set and a dog-eared book documenting Spassky's important games, had single-handedly defeated the Soviet chess juggernaut. Spassky had a wealth of resources at his disposal to help him plot moves, including thirty-five grand masters back in the Soviet Union. Fischer, on the other hand, had two administrative seconds who served essentially as companions, and Bill Lombardy, a grand master, whose role was to help analyze games. However, Fischer did almost all the analysis himself—when he bothered to do anything. "After the games were adjourned, all the Soviets would go back to Spassky's hotel room to plan for the next position," recalls Don Schultz, one of the seconds. "Lombardy said to Fischer, 'That's a difficult position. Let's go back to the hotel and analyze it.' Fischer said, 'What do you mean, analyze? That guy's a fish. Let's go bowling.'"
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/12/bobby-fischer-s-pathetic-endgame/302634/
May 27, 2015
0
#47
From chessgames.com:
They played 13 games. They were 4-4-5/13. That's a draw !
Fischer beat Tal with Black....once !
Tal sent him away w/ his tail between his legs....yelping....for their first (7) games up to 1961.
Basically, Tal controlled him....so long as Tal was healthy.
BF couldn't study Tal's games. There....was....nothing....to....study. There was no pattern.
Tal represented the epitome of creativity. So, plz don't enter the name Tal here. You'll only embarrass yourself.
As far as Duncan Suttles goes, plz read No Regrets. It's the 1992 book on the sequel Spassky vs Fischer match. Along w/ Yasser Seirawan, Duncan brings unbelievably creative, non-biased, unmatched analysis. Just otherworldly winning variations after winning variations ! And all organic-based. No silicon implants....
....
So Tal could beat Bobby the teenager. Fischer won 19 games in a row, in the world championship stages without a single draw. Many don't like the man for what he became including me but as far as his chess abilities are concerned you have no idea what you are talking about.
Ghost ... all of Tal's wins against Fischer came when Fischer was only 15 years old and Tal was never able to beat Fischer again .
May 27, 2015
0
#50
And BTW, from the BF study (quote #63), he mentions Anthony Santasiere. I luv Santasiere's Folly ! And, if you integrate this Folly you get the to The Orangutan....which I luv too........
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
And BTW, from the BF study (quote #63), he mentions Anthony Santasiere. I luv Santasiere's Folly ! And, if you integrate this Folly you get the to The Orangutan....which I luv too........
All you can do is smear the man.
May 27, 2015
0
#52
They say Mikhail Tal was a Latvian. Did he secretly hate the Soviet team premio53 ? And wanna see them get checkmated ?
May 27, 2015
0
#53
Chess.com is for trolling and Fischer threads are one of the main lines.
May 27, 2015
0
#54
All I'm saying is that BF didn't seem to have a creative bone in his body. But, he made it up with his memory and preparation....borrr....rrreeeng.
You see....I'm a romanticist. It's just my makeup. It's not good. It's not bad. So, I only look up to chessplayers who play with creative & imaginative intent. There rest of them can climb a palm tree.
Some of the ppl here reading this thread don't have any creativity either. Fine....Whatever....rely on your memory and preparation too. It's all you have....'cuz you don't know howta create. And I'm okay with that ! Just recognize that everyone has their weaknesses....and BTW, don't give credit where credit isn't due !
May 27, 2015
0
#55
Okay....do yourself a favor for me.
Have you ever looked at a painting or sculpture and intentionally blocked out all your feelings and emotions for it ? Try it sometime. It may help you to figure out what place I'm in.
Look at BF's games as you go thru them w/out any feeling for him or his games. Almost all of them lack creativity. They just aren't beautiful.
I cannot do that w/ most of Tal's games. I can't help myself. I get trapped in their beauty and I can't escape no matter how hard I try.
To me ?....Tal was vile. He polluted himself, they say he was icky wild, he usually looked unkempt, etc. Does that take from his creative and beautiful chess ? No....it's all beside the point ! Doncha see ?
May 27, 2015
0
#56
Yeah, Bobby Fischer lacked creativity....that's why they named one of his games..." Game of the Century "
Okay, next Troll please !!
bb_gum234 wrote:
Ramona-Carbona wrote:
the psyche projects there is a purpose and not finding it, decides our minds aren't good at finding it.
I don't mean not good at finding purpose. I mean not good at using logic.
We're smarter than dogs, but what can we do with it? Use a long stick to knock an apple out of a tree. Wow, not impressive.
Language accidentally lets us manipulate and communicate all these thoughts, building from generation to generation, but from my POV people are still cripplingly stupid. Barely better than other animals.
We are not "better than other animals".
More intelligent people are not "better" than less intelligent people.
As you state, all intelligence lets you do is manipulate things in your head. It has nothing to do with the worthiness or grandeur many people associate with it.
It's more like the very intelligent tend to use their ability to manipulate around figures and language to give themselves wealth and power while leaving people with poor intelligence to do all the real and difficult work. It's all a disgusting process. Then they sit in their grand mansions and look at low IQed people and they say: "look how they turn to criminality and violence, have a bad lifestyle and bad habits, low IQed people are terrible!".... when it's they themselves that caused it on those poor individuals and are doing absolutely no real work themselves. Highly intelligent people are able to worm their way out of all kinds of situations, able to get vastly better jobs and so on.
It's similar to how humans took the world from other animals, considering them "unworthy" or undeserving, of them having no right to property while humans had a right to it all. It's all actually a farce.
May 27, 2015
0
#58
Spagetti's so right here !....Thanx 4ur Nput....
Like BF and MT and Duncan....we all have our strengths and....Oh ! heaven set aside our ego !....we all have our weaknesses (did she hafta go there ?).
The human species has weaknesses when compared to other animals in our kingdom. Okay. Think of it this way. It's pretty safe that nearly all animals can do (5) things better....yes, five things better !....than any of us humans can. It's not often an animal (outside the homo sapien) ruins the very planet that brings them life for them & their children. e.g., look at all the needed regulatory rules of the EPA.
And Bobby Fischer relied upon his strengths to carry him to the top of the chess world. Good for him !....and creativity wasn't one of them.
Sorry to pop your worship balloon.
May 27, 2015
0
#59
I hafta laff here.
I just thought of the many stories told where the man jumps into the river trying to save his dog. As he's drowning, the dog happily climbs ashore and shakes off. The man ?...well, he a goner. Did the dog jump in after him ?....he!! no ! The dog isn't that stoopit.
Funny that I've never heard of a woman jumping in after a dog like that. Must be a guy thing. Now, if it was a diamond........
So. Americu and chessmicky and sotimely. You want me to go trolling ? Okay. We'll go trolling for you (3) fools who jumped in to this thread and got all wet.
I'm not trolling here when I say BF lacked creativity. You're just gonna hafta come to that stark reality....w/out my help. And BTW, I'd be happy to administer a slap across your face with a cold wet hand.