Bobby Fischer Lacked Creativity ?....How Dare I !

Player X ?....your above comments are unfair and uncalled for. And you're lucky I slept good last nite....really good. Otherwise, you'd be getting hellatold off right now - just 'cuz you're trying to make me mad.

....and it's not that I don't care Stavros. It's just that I place it behind creativity & comraderie. And I know you get that........

So...

   Wouldn't you say, Lala, that Bobby was very creative when he created Fischer Random Chess (aka 960) so that chess would no longer be as boring with memorized opening lines and allow for 960 different creative, unique, starting positions?

   Uncle?

btw...I've been intending "someday" to get around to playing Bobby's wonderfully creative creation. Somehow, I have just been too busy. Yes, I am retired. So, no...I should have no excuse. Why I don' "jump on it"...I do not know. I'll bet Stavros plays it a lot. Well, at least...I suppose...twice could be considered "a lot". It's certainly a lot more than me.

   Uncle? Uncle? Uncle?

   Well, of course, I respect that you have an opinion about 960. I'm not really attracted to it either, nor to any of the other strange chess formats. Yet, it is an example of Bobby's creativity.

   He developed it to void the standard, memorized opening lines. I play more than a few traditional openings, but I can play them in my sleep and sometimes it does get b-o-r-i-n-g.

   You could argue that Bobby was interested in making money with his clock. But for his version of random chess, I don't recall any marketing plan.

   Anyway, no. I did not lose my drachma. I still have them. Soon they will come in very handy.

Playing chess is about winning and to win a game is fun; it sad a few players take chess sssssoooo seriously when they don't have the position they like they resign, I call them losers. The so call bohemian chess players (maybe it is their big ego), they are like babies, crying for their milk and not getting their way, I don't like this position and they exchanging everything and going to resign. I don't care what is your rating but real players play to win and winning is fun. Let say a player is 1250 elo and lose four games but he win the fifth game, he is so happy he forget the other loses. Real chess players play to win and they play to their best to their abilities.

I share one my game I had to play against a very strong German FIDE master, he beat GM Browne briliantly,and unfortunately I had to played this FIDE master and I had black, I normally played the Sicilian but I decided to play the good old Caro Kann .  The German Fide master completely outplay me in the opening and early middlegame and we went to the endgame and he had the winning advantage but he started to play very weak and I outplay him in the endgame and did a petite combination to win a pawn. My team captain saw the position order me to ask for a draw and I ask for draw and the master accept it quickly. Going to lunch I saw the German master and he made a comment about our game, he said " It was a very boring game."  He crush GM Walter Browne and drew against a mere expert, the moral is this, it is all about attitude, if you have a bad attitude about certain position you will play bad and below your strength. If this strong master had a better attitude he would of won our game. 

Stavros wrote:

Picking through the last several posts...

#1. Chess is mano e mano. I'm talking about real, face-to-face chess not this sissy internet chess. There is only one objective. Winning! Or, as Bobby would say, to crush the opponent's ego. (I personally think that's a bit extreme...but I'm not going to dispute the world champ. Maybe, I would say, to press the opponent's nose into dog doodoo.)

#2. There is only one reason that I don't play Fischer Random Chess. I am humble enough to say that although I could probably beat 90% of the world's chess players in a sit down game, I am far, far lacking in mastery of the game. Very, very far. But when that day comes where, like Bobby, I know everything there is to know...and I am bored to tears...on that day, I will start playing F.R.C.. I suspect that this won't happen in my lifetime. I'm getting close to running out that clock. (But, maybe in the afterlife?...I can only hope so. )

#3. I forgot what I was going to say. As Stav suggested, perhaps my brain cells are becoming feeble.

p.s.: I certainly hope that Bobby didn't go to Hell. I would rather not have to play against him there.

You believe I am trying to insult Lola when all I am doing is telling her the truth.

GM Tal sacrifices would of never been seen as creative if he had lost those games. They would of melted into all the other games lost by players not to be heard of again.

The reason he gets remembered was because of his success and very complex attacking style. Which often worked in very complex positions were his opponent could not find the best move. Mainly due to all the threats Tal gave them.

As for the below comment:

Lola don't deserves such a behavior from you all, but this is the human kind....anything we don't understand and its against our beliefs we burn it to the ground....Congratulations!

Your assumption on me is wrong. I understand her very well. You nor her has answered my diagram from my previous post.

Do you believe that attack is creative?

My comment was truthful and to the point.

I am not trying to make you mad. I am showing you the error in your logic and you are taking offense.

I believe the reason you are taking it offensive is becuase You truly do not believe your own claims in this situation.

I do not believe you play chess only to lose. I believe you are lieing.

I do not believe you just go around randomly sacrificing pieces either.

You want people on this forum to believe you are some kind of chess hippie going around saying peace, love, happiness, and fun.

When all the while your actions in games contradict your talk.

This is your game against that 2200+ online player. You didn't do no sacrifices. You played positionally better than tactically in that game.

However, A true Bohemian such as yourself should of resigned when the game got boring and positional. Strange you kept playing on there?

A Contradiction and A Lie.

You may have Stavros_34 convinced of this charade;however, you are not fooling me.

Your games can be publicly viewed by anyone on chess.com. All your nonsense talk goes to the birds when you play chess.

For I have seen your games.

That and Lala is really a 47-year old, bald-pated, mustachioed circus midget. 

p.s.: I am starting to think that Stavros is, too.

Uh...oh...!

Here is your real avatar:

creepy

WHO WOULD TAKE THAT PICTURE I HAVE NIGHTMARES!!!

Well, I think it may be a matter of taste (bad taste, mostly). If you enjoy creepy clowns, I suggest that this one is more creepy:

                                       Lala? Is that you?

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Stop!!!!!!!

fine, harvey and power2thepeople, I will try to outcreep you two with this image...

Very good win by Lola, win in live chess, difficult opening but she control e4 and play well, people analyse live game silly, maybe jealous, few guys behave like snotty little boys and one say he do no wrong when he do more wrong, maybe he no can see.

uarefunny is totally correct, the seems more like 1400 level than a 2279, Lola miss 14.c4+ and wins a piece.

 Gouryella but you are wrong, not a good game at all. Unless you believe blunders are okay. 

I liked it and examined it in detail, so it was a good game to me. If anyone didn't like it and say I'm wrong, they say so because they didn't put their heart into it, because of trying to prove Lola wrong. right, wrong, right, wrong, petty!