Let me give you a hellagood example of what I'm talking about. Here is a composition by Leonid Kubbel (1891-1942)....one of the most creative "practical" composers chess has ever seen:
Absolutely beautiful....
....
....Bobby Fischer Lacked Creativity ?....How Dare I !
Sort:
Jun 22, 2015
0
#723
Mathematics and computer science are far more interesting sources of puzzles than the arbitrary moves of chess. Because they actually mean something.
But I still like that puzzle, like an elegant melody.
When the Op use the term "dare me", she saying she has facts to prove her points. She has brought no evidences to prove that Fischer is not creative, it is base on her opinions only.
When I look at this picture of Fischer, it sadden me; here is the young Fischer studying and inventing, and researching and innovating. Fischer had no team of grandmasters, all his work he did on his own. It was a drive to be the best player and he accomplish this on his own; his games were a marvel of beauty and there was so much depth in his games: there must be a reason why he is so popular. Fischer's games was so exciting, he choose dynamic opening and that accuracy was require, they were very sharp and tactical, come on the Najdorf, one inaccuracy and you are lost. GM Nick De Firmian said of Najdorf variation, it should be call the Fischer variation because he played it often. Fischer depth in the endgame is incredible, he was a virtuoso in the endgame like Capablance. There is a reason why Kasparov study Fischer's game, they are exciting and there is a quality in his play,no unsound sacrifice and always striving to win; his planning in the middlegame and endgame were creative; his games had that aesthetic quality that was a work of art. Fischer will be remember as a great grandmaster and love by many players.
Fischer was a boy playing in man's world, to be so young and determine takes a special quality in human being that is so rare in a mere boy. He fought in chess board against men who were more experience and had available information; Fischer had to find his information through periodicals, magazines and books. At fifteen Fischer was the youngest grandmaster and one the top elite GMs, and I was chasing after girls at fifteen. There will never be another Fischer, he was truly a great player and suffer so much to get to the top. His games is art and timeless,we marvel at his great depth and accuracy and creativity and beauty.
Here is Fischer a mere teenager beating a group of men in a simul.
Here is GM Fischer playing GM Tal, Bobby was only fifteen when he played against the more experience GM Tal at 22, Their first game Tal played very caution and they drew.
Look at the spectators they show great interest in Fischer and Tal game. If Fischer was just a patzer there will be no spectators.
Fischer played Fischer-Sozin most of his chess career, a lot of his innovation came from Fischer. The Najdorf variation should be name after Fischer (Fischer-Najdorf),Bobby played this variation more than Najdorf.
Jun 22, 2015
0
#730
For anyone not too familiar with Bobby's life, the following is a biography that I just came across. He lived a very bitter-sweet life. I wouldn't have wanted it. But he was the king of chess...for awhile.
I've always known that there were two men, either one of whom could have been his father. I think it becomes clear in this video clip, from the striking resemblance and persoanl idiosyncrasies, which one it was.
The tragedy to the chess world is that after Bobby won the world chess crown, he disappeared for the next twenty years. I recall those twenty years, and they seemed more like forty years. Imagine all the great chess games that Bobby never played. That is truly sad.
But I don't judge Bobby for what he did or didn't do from 1972 on. That was his own choice. He did say some deplorable things, but I don't recall him ever harming anyone...except himself.
This, I think, is a tribute to the late, great Bobby Fischer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwLM9bgE3tY
Only those who know about chess know who Bobby's opponent is.
Jun 22, 2015
0
#732
You, above, are stupid about Bobby.
But you are right about the photo:
http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/06/analysing-by-the-riverside-with-bobby-fischer/
Stavros_34 wrote:
Well X , you didn't made any point here! You gave us two diagrams...the first one : you are asking us how fool we are? Thank you...some day I will answer on that and the second diagram where Lola plays against the higher rated player ever faced in this site and because she didn't f@cked up! the game with nonsenses and won, now we call her a lier?! Well...I don't care how Lola plays in all of her games and how she deals with her " important " ones and I don't want to know...We are not here to make conclusions about how Lola plays but to understand what she is talking about! Obviously you are not satisfied with that...
Well I inform you that Tal made a lot of sacrifices that didn't worked on his games but that didn't took him away anything from his legend : No one remembers Tal as a world champion, no one remembers Tal as the holder of the biggest winning streak in the history! We all remember him for the unique way to approach the game...
If you don't like it X, no problem....enjoy your Karpov's style and happy winnings! but it's a shame to personalize that against Tal or Lola for something you don't want to understand.
In response to text in green.
My first diagram aboved showed Lola's definition of the term Bohemian chess. I made that diagram to show the error in her logic. It showed a unsound queen sacrifice which she didn't say was creative yet she agrues playing unsoundly and attacking is real Bohemian chess.
In response to text in red.
In the above diagram I attacked Lola's credibility with that diagram. She says she resigns when the game is boring and not real Bohemian piece attacking chess. In the above game she never resigned. She played it out positionally. It is a diagram that shows her contradiction between her talk and her actions.
In response to text in blue.
You simply do not understand do you? Hell yeah it matters.
She has been going around telling people to play attacking chess and trys to belittle Fischer for not playing Bohemian style chess.
She called it a lack of creativity by Fischer.
She has been saying all of that through out this forum. Telling that to everyone.
Yet behind our backs she has been playing positionally. It makes her a hyprocrite and a liar.
Why should we try to understand a person who is being dishonest with us?
You are trying to defend Lola but Lola is an adult who can defend herself. Furthermore, Your defense of Lola is not objective.
Her game actions contradict her talk.
Which means if she is contradicting herself it is because she doesn't truly believe what she is saying to be true.
If Lola truly believed in her heart that is how chess should be played there would be no contradictions between her talk and her actions.
The fact of the matter is she doesn't truly believe that.
In response to text in orange.
I understand very well. She likes people doing attacking chess. The problem is she doesn't truly believe that. She has also played positionally before. I showed 1 game as a sample. She has alot of others as well.
The problem is not with me. It is with Lola and you.
Lola lacks the knowledge to understand Bobby Fischers moves so she dismisses them as being uncreative.
You are bias in your defense of Lola because she is your friend. When you should be objective.
A real friend would not allow their friend to make a fool of themselves. Which shows you are a terrible friend.
In the beginning intro Lola said Fischer lacked creativity because he only has 1 and a half lines named after him. I except Lola not to understand because her ranking is low.
Yet you are 2200 in online chess. You should understand. What she is saying is wrong. He created more lines than 1 and a half lines.
The lines created by Fischer were:
The Fischer-Sozin Attack
Fischer contributed more theory in this line than what Sozin did.
The Fischer-Sozin Attack is still regarded as very good for white against the Najdorf even today in 2015.
In fact I play it reguarly. It is a good line highly respectible. It is played against 1 of the strongest and most sound defenses in all of chess(The Najdorf Sicilian).
and
The Fischer Defense
The Fischer Defense was not a line it was what Fischer called a Refutation to the Kings Gambit.
A refutation is not 1 line. It is a serious of lines.
When you refute a line in chess you must have a response to everything your opponent can do. Fischer created this line in response to all whites possible beginning moves.
This line was created against the Kings Gambit it is played with the black side. There are dozens of lines in the Kings Gambit. Fischer used this line to refute all of them. From my understanding those lines are still refuted I believe.
However; I believe Simmon Williams found 1 line that can lead to a draw for white with best play. Other lines still seem to lose I believe.
The Fischer Defense still regarded as a very strong defense against the Kings Gambit.
Here is how it plays out.
3...d6 is considered the key move by Bobby. It is a high class waiting move as he called it.
The reason why this is such a powerful move is because it forces white to commit to something. Giving black the chance to respond with the best possible defensive moves.
Up until this point in chess alot of players playing black would play other 3rd moves which allowed white the chance to respond with the best move given them good game. Yet the 3...d6 move put the shoe on the other foot so to speak. Given black the chance to find the best response.
The idea is to defend the f4 pawn. Black's plan is to wait to see how white will move than defend it accordingly.
I will show you an example.
Notice move 4 white plays there bishop to c4. Which means there is no pressure on the f4 pawn. Which gives black the chance to respond with a very solid move h6!. With idea of g5 given the pawn 100% support.
Notice move 4 white plays d4. Which means white is attacking the f4 pawn with his dark bishop. Which gives black the chance to respond with the best move g5!. Idea with g5 is again to give the pawn 100% support.
Black is up 1 pawn if the pieces come all off that 1 pawn may cost white the game. Which is how the gambit became refuted by the Great Bobby Fischer.
As far as this thread goes I believe I am going to untrack. I saw Lola's stance. I saw her claims on why she believes Bobby Fischer is uncreative. I simply disagree. There is nothing I will ever be able to do to convince her otherwise. She has her mind made up.
I came to this thread with an open mind. I thought Bobby Fischer was creative;however, I saw the thread and came because I figured maybe I was wrong in my thinking. I looked at her evidence. She give reasons why she believed Fischer lacked creativity. In the end her examples didn't have alot of proof. She didn't show examples of how Bobby Fischer was uncreative. I would of listened and taken them into consideration if she had. She simply has not done that.
- From all of the post I have gathered so far. She believes he lacked creativity because he didn't play like Tal all the time.
- He didn't do flashy unsound sacrifices.
- He didn't have alot of lines named after him.
I simply do not see how those few things would prove Fischer lacked creativity.
A lot of Grand Masters don't do those things either?
I personally don't consider it a lack of creativity. I believe it is examples of his true genius.
How many Grand Masters in history ever refuted a line. Not many yet Bobby Fischer published an article/book on how to do it. He published how to do it vs a line that is one of the most romantic lines in all of chess (The Kings Gambit).
Its not like he tryed to refute some trashy side line no one used. The Kings Gambit is like hugely popular and seen as romantic. He had the guts/balls to try and refute it. He than succeeded and people stopped playing it in high level for a long time because of him.
In my book I believe the fact he was so bold in trying to refute it. Shows how creative he really was. Refuting a line loved by so many.
It's ok to disagree.
It's a bully that tries to change her mind.
It's rude to attack her the way you did.
I've been following this thread for a while without chiming in because I have seen too many Fischer threads on this site, and they are normally "Fischer is the greatest" or "Fischer is a bust." This thread has the unique characteristic of being a critique on Fischer's creativity, saying he had little if any of it, and that he was just a super-technician (compared to Tal). OK, let's look at that. By the OP's definition of creativity (unclear sacrifices that may/may not be sound), the only one who measures up is Nezhmetdinov--no problem with that; the OP's definition is met here. But that means Petrosian, Reshevsky, Smyslov, Karpov, all of them were not creative--something I simply cannot accept. These players showed tremendous creativity in their careers, but a much deeper creativity than just in an attack--they creativily took advantage of their opponents play. Being able to exploit the weakness of the other guys play is the definition of creative play, and those I mentioned, plus Bobby, were outstanding in this field. You simply cannot become the world's number one without it. Creativity is not confined to flashy attacks and unsound sacs (what Alekhine called "trinkets and baubles"), there is a deeper meaning to creativity that strong players understand: the ability to overcome a strong player's ideas. Tal had that, to be sure; but so did Bobby, Spassky, Petrosian, Karpov, Anand, and--without doubt--Carlsen. Though Karpov and Carlsen may seen "dry" or "boring" the ability to dominate their opponents cannot be done merely through technique, it requires the ability understand all the features in a given position and to expand on them creativily--and Magnus (though I am not really a fan of his) is the best ever at doing this. Magnus is the heir apparent to Bobby here, and the deceptive dryness of his play shows little creativity to the untrained eye, but ask the players he faces and they'll tell you a different story--he can create winning chances out of thin air. To create something out of nothing is the essance of creativity, and Bobby had that in spades. As far as Bobby not having any lines named after him--well, one of the most creative players of the last 20 years is Ivanchuk, and he has no variations named after him. That doesn't matter, he is still a creative genius. And as for Bohemian chess, the greatest (in my opinion) Bohemian player was Steinitz, and I quote--"An unsound sacrifice fills me with artistic horror." Is there any Fischer game that that can be said about? Sorry, but I cannot agree with the OP here, on any level--if you just define trinkets and baubles as the essance of creativity, then I feel sorry for you, as you are missing so much creative play in this game by so many creative players--but if that is your definition of creativity, then , of course, you are right. But I feel that my defintion is a bit more precise, and as such I cannot agree with you--you are extremely limited in your definition of creativity. And, as a muscian and a writer, I can tell you first-hand, limits are not for artists.
Jun 22, 2015
0
#736
One ought to realize that the OP has simply created a tongue-in-cheek snafu.
Jun 22, 2015
0
#737
(#998) The tragedy to the chess world is that after Bobby won the world chess crown, he disappeared for the next twenty years.
....which I feel is as cool bohemia as it comes ! You see ?....for the first time in his life he showed he had it in him (which we all possess....even if it's an inmeasureable dash - discover it !). They say he didn't seem to care....and that's what made his disappearance so awespectacular !
Okay. Now I'm gonna set the record straight once and for all.
I never once said BF did not possess creativity. I said he possessed an average amount....at best. When I compare him w/ his peers in that period, I am just not impressed with his originality. He showed splashes, yes, but he certainly was far from known for this. He was known for a winning record....not creativity. Big-Big difference. And for the record ?....the greatest winning streak far and away is MK's. That was simply Mikhail on Mars.....off this Rock !
BF learned how to win using "gamey" techniques with a very narrow & limited opening repertoire....and that woulda been exploited to its fullest after the 1972 match.
Jun 23, 2015
0
#738
dashkee94 (#1105)....TY for your input hon. Filled with thought........
****
....it requires the ability understand all the features in a given position and to expand on them creativily--and Magnus (though I am not really a fan of his) is the best ever at doing this. Magnus is the heir apparent to Bobby here, and the deceptive dryness of his play shows little creativity to the untrained eye, but ask the players he faces and they'll tell you a different story--he can create winning chances out of thin air. To create something out of nothing is the essance of creativity, and Bobby had that in spades.
Magnus probably is BF thru metempsychosis !....MC took the world title from VA in a similar blase fashion like BF did against BS. And I'm sure world chess woulda regrouped after his win 1972 win....and BF would have been worked....worked good. Just like MC is being worked right now in the 2015 Norway spectacle....as we speak ! [2.5/7] The other players are successfully adjusting. It's happening right before your very eyeballs. Think dashkee....Think !
****
....And as for Bohemian chess, the greatest (in my opinion) Bohemian player was Steinitz, and I quote--"An unsound sacrifice fills me with artistic horror." Is there any Fischer game that that can be said about?
Brute force, purely sound sacrifices aren't really sacrifices at all ! Can you not see that brute force chess is really not creative ? You said it yourself....it's a technician's play.
Okay. Here's another way....is a computer capable of bohemian chess play ?
****
"Rocksolid water-impenetrable chess may not a Bohemian player make."
You're glitching the same way so many others have....you are mistakedly parallelling past world title holders w/ creativity. It's just not true ! They are not dependent entities !
Jun 23, 2015
0
#739
****
Somewhere there's a composer
who longs to take me where I've not gone
Somewhere there's an analyst
whose hand I'll hold to move this pawn
Somewhere there's a teacher
saying, "be that someone you've dreamt to be"
Somewhere there's a player
who patiently awaits at the depth of me
Sacred is the Bohemian
for they beg to take me on a quest
....in the search for the soul of Chess.
****
Jun 23, 2015
0
#740
Lala, why don't you just call your "Bohemian chess" "wacky chess"?
You could start a new organization to compete against FIDE, crown yourself "Wacky Chess Grandmistress #1, collect fees and set up tournaments. Have a monthly magazine, too. Even quit your day job at the pizzeria.
I see money and power in this. Do it! Be creative!! Set up a whole new set of chess rules!!! Then there are books, such as: "Wacky Chess for Dummies"!!!! Even create...yes, be creative...a new wacky board and pieces!!!!!
Beatnik poet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVOXxDV5BdI