....but I'm a good soul.
Bobby Fischer Lacked Creativity ?....How Dare I !
Sort:
Yes Lola, you are nice person but you wrong about Fischer. Now be a nice bohemian and say uncle. We call it even. 
Jun 18, 2015
0
#625
Lala: "Harvey....are we sure he invented Chess960."
Yep.
"Chess960 (or Fischer Random Chess) is a variant of chess invented and advocated by former World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960
"Fischer Random Chess (also called Chess960, Chess 960, Fischerandom chess, FR chess, or FullChess) is a chess variant created by Grandmaster Bobby Fischer (the World Champion of chess from 1972 until 1975). It was originally announced on June 19, 1996, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Fischer's goal was to create a chess variant in which chess creativity and talent would be more important than memorization and analysis of opening moves. His approach was to create a randomized initial chess position, which would thus make memorizing chess opening move sequences far less helpful."
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/Fischer_Random_Chess.html
Although it was an "invention", per se.
Jun 18, 2015
0
#627
You are one sorry, sour grapes nincompoop. You should also say: Uncle!!!
Well, that's sad.
And stupid I'd say.
I precisely have two kids aged 9 and 7. It's on me and my wife if they see Bart as a "role model" or simply what he is, an extremely funny character, no more, nor less.
Please notice I'm critizicing Groening's sudden enlightement, not your comments.
@Pulpofeira, Shirov's first wife Veronica Alvarez. She from Argentina not from Spain. She is very beautiful . Shirov's second wife Victoria Cmilyte is from lithuania and cannot be compare to the true beauty of Veronica. I hope this helps.
Nice couple indeed.
That's her, she is gorgeous!! Love Latinas. 
The second wife, not a pretty woman, she is a GM.
Someone should do a forum which GM has the most beautiful wife, Shirov's first wife will a good contender.
Fire on the board, fire in the bedroom, fire everywhere... probably he got burned.
Jun 18, 2015
0
#637
Lala: "Do you know why I know this ?....'cuz when I play unrated games against players 1700 and up ?....many try to dissipate my attack w/ a forced Q trade, ruin the beauty & complexity of the game by trading down, and so on & so on."
I can understand this feeling. Once, I felt the same. Back in the 60ies, I had to play someone who was obnoxious. He was really a poor chess player, too. I would devise elegant combinations and... Well, all he would do is swap pieces down, for no good reason, so that we would get into a pawn endgame.
I had difficulty in winning against him. No style, no art, just chisel down the board so that we might as well be playing checkers. Plus he was personally very obnoxious.
I came to realize that there are many styles of play and that included his right to play any way he chose. Annoying, yes. But the problem was not in him. It was in me.
I learned that I must somehow play against his annoying method and win. So, I adapted. I didn't let his style drive me nuts. For, when I would get annoyed, it interfered with my thinking. When I got past his bullsheet and didn't let it affect me...he was "toast".
That's how you must look at it. Stop blaming your opponent because you don't like their style. Just stop it, please. For both our sake. 
Jun 19, 2015
0
#638
Harvey....it's just that I wanna spirited game. The more complicated & sharper the better. Like, to the point where everything becomes really confusing. That's when the pieces goes to a new place. And I luv that !
As far as others ?....I've always felt they are free to play anyway they wish. But, if you play that way w/ me ?....then I just resign and move on to another player. I have that right too you know. IOW's, to win a boring endgame means nothing to me....'cuz winning means very little to me anywayz.
I'm not so sure why you kept playing against this person. If you didn't like it, then you shoulda just moved on. That is, unless your pride motivated you. Did it ?....if so then you were playing for all the wrong reasons.
Mindless critter. I doubt there are many who would play a "spirited" line that led to a losing but "new" position instead of one that led to a winning but boring position (source of the term "endgame technique", maybe?). Try writing "dime" novels where your non-winning motivation might find a better audience.
Jun 19, 2015
0
#640
Hey DonJose22 ....Are you "twighead" ? The butfaise who keeps leaving me messages on my home page calling me a critter ?....If so ? then knock it off !....if not ?....then stop calling me critter....
....
And if my motivation for playing is for interesting chess over winning chess ?....well, then that's exactly how I like it. Even if it means entering n2 a disadvantaged line ?....ask me if I care ?
YKW ? If you wanna win me ?....then just start brainlessly trading down pieces and I'll resign & hope to never play such a spineless slug again.
There....I said it....now you know my deep dark chess secret.
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Do you have articles or quotes from BS ? I would like to read them.
And creative chess isn't crap Reb ! That is, unless you're one of them too.
It's real & it's important & it has its place in this game - I believe that. If its only place is in blitz and non-titled long games ?....then fine. I'll take that (altho' I'm kinda forced 'cuz our top players seem to play so scared these days....and that would include BF....)
Oh Oh Oh !....I can't test out my opponent. He might counterstrike my sacrifice & then win & then bruise my ego....oh no !....can't do that....I'm too afraid....(....wow, I never knew a touche could hurt so much....)
Do you know why I know this ?....'cuz when I play unrated games against players 1700 and up ?....many try to dissipate my attack w/ a forced Q trade, ruin the beauty & complexity of the game by trading down, and so on & so on.
So, noone's gonna tell me that this type of play happens only at the top level. Skardeekats are right here in unrated games on chess.com !
It's disgusting....
Lola, that is patzer chess. Experts, Masters, IMs and GMs their moves are accordingly to the demands of a position and some positions give you more leeway to be creative and others you need to play the best move, that is real chess not some fantasy chess (bohemian chess that made-believe by Lola definition what chess should be like). Alekhine, Tal, Morphy, Anderssen, Topalov, Shirov and Kasparov played according to the position, if they needed to exchange queens they exchange queens, if they had better chances in the endgame they go into an endgame; they played master or GM level chess and they understand the demands of the position. There is no such term as bohemian chess, that is your definition of what chess should be like. Fischer played at much higher level than you, his ideas and creativity is beyond your understanding. Every grandmaster would disagree with your definition what is creative chess and especially pertaining to Fischer. I would ask you to say uncle but I know you are a stubborn soul.