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

Boris Spassky said Bobby won the championship because he was a better player. BF showed tremendous creativity, opening knowledge, depth of seeing moves ahead, end game theory.  Chess experts around the world, even the Russians admired his play and creativity. It turned out he has serious mental disorders later in his life, but he and Morphy were both brief shining stars that were the best in the world!  Anyone that becomes world champion need to be strategic, tactical and positional. BF knew it all. 

Careful with the mental disorder thing, if people said that about me all the time without having a single proof I would sue everybody and enjoy all of your dollars on a remote island.

Lola, like always I embarrass you have no come back. Garry play like patzer against Karpov and the winning move is point out by Fischer because it is Karpov who lack imagination and technique to win a won game. So you red in the face with shame. 

Out to .ipg:

I've never one time said BF was not a good player.

I have contended that BF was computer-like in his chess play....and like a computer, did not possess meaningful creativity. In fact, quite the opposite.

OTB (not to be commingled w/ the OffTB BF), he is in the annals as a winning chessplayer who was good at quick tactical jabs & traps, and his endgame technique. A technique he much needed because of his lack of creativity. He is not known as a creative player. And really ?....won't ever be. He's not even mentioned once in the hearthstone 1000 Theoretical Novelties ! because that wasn't his forte'. Not contributing to TN's is one of the important telltales, wouldn't you agree ?

And like a computer, BF wasn't gonna overwhelm you (in the least) with creative play.

Pleez....don't get caught up in the myth....stay within the bounds of reality. Am I asking too much of you ?

Yuri,

I've heard there was a study just done where all of BF's moves in his all of his games were put up against other top player's moves in all of their games. The intent was to find out who was better if they would have played. When there was a move diversion, each game was stopped and analyzed by Stockfish & Houdini & others. It shows these players holding a winning position over BF in every game played and there were way over 100 games. Alotta people don't even wanna look at the results. It's a revealing embarrassment !

The best indicator is Victor Korchnoi (VK & BF actually played) and AK because they played around the time of BF.

As a sidenote, I heard it shows that GK would have lit him up like the Rockefeller X-Mas Tree.

Yuri, if I can say ?....your kind of like a candle in the wind right now.

and the wind is from his own butt.

Barbie, I think it's your eyes and your airplane cap (?). I feel somewhat terrified yet about to burst n2 laffter !

Thanks alot for confuzing my emotions........

   Lala, these kinds of threads never end well. But we had a few laughs.

Hey, check out my new thread. Live a little.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/global-warming-for-dummies-not

It is a real hoax ... without a link

Jamie Delarosa... The study you've heard of... really... why not let the rest of us read it? I'll judge RJF by what Spassky and Kasparov have said about him. They are qualified and what about his total domination of Taminov, Larsen and Petrosian? Korchnoi couldn't take down Petrosian so WTF does he know about RJF? Yes, Korchnoi was a worthy GM but he never acheived any thing close to Fischer's domination. You must be a younger generation chess player. Us older guys beg to differ with you. His brilliancies set the tone for the kind of games you see today. And with computer software as well. It's all a process of learning better lines and mastering openings, middle game and end game play. We're still learning and will be for some time even with the aid of computers. 10 years from now you'll see that as plain as the nose on your face. Computer software will so outstrip the human games it will be pathetic. I think that's pretty much the way it is already... but it's going to get totally laughable in the future.

Lola darling! I think the problem is the water in U.S Virgin Islands. You should stop drink from faucet, try some import mineral water and you will recover soon.

If there is something that symbols Bobby's game is he's accuracy in quiet positional moves. From 1957 until 1972 there was no other player who played more accurate moves than Fischer. His accuracy touches 80% at least average.

His Imortal game number 6 in the final match of 1972 which has been characterized as the positional masterpiece of the century after move 10 every move BF make its Stockfish first preference in 30 moves deep analysis.

My Gosthess BF was cheating! He invented software technology before everyone else. It's impossible to lack accuracy.

I can accept that he didn't care so much about creative mambo jumbo! He liked to win games with different style, more control approach. Irrational positions with pieces hanging in both sides was not his forte and it's not about how creative is someone to like or dislike those positions. It's stylish preference and natural talent.

Those who understand quite a bit from positional chess have the ability to recognize that with out creativity it can't be successful.

BF was lacking the ability to show compensation for a piece sacrifice in Irrational position but creativity in chess it's not only that.

Creativity in chess is also the ability to build a slight initiative to a winning position and BF possessed a lot of this.

If it's not the water , then you should limit sugar. I heard that in many occasions affect anticipation.

I have heard of no study like the one described.  I doubt such a study exists.   Looked for one.

In other words - unsubstatiated hearsay.

For the record, in serious play, Fischer lost just 63 games from 1956 to 1992.

BF memorized chess....and you know it. 

   Absolutely false, Lala. Bobby was truly gifted at chess and he studied and practiced virtually 24/7. He ate, drank and slept chess. He truly was a chess genius. You sound bitter...and for no good reason.

   As an aside, Bobby claimed to be an all around genius who specialized in chess. I see no evidence, however, that he was competent at anything other than chess. You sorry, sorry person...you ought to give him credit. He truly earned it, and it was not by pure memorization. Pathetic of you.

   I will add that it could be possible that Bobby may have been great at something else, had he pursued it as he had with chess. But this is pure speculation. He took far too much leeway in claiming he was a well-rounded genius who just specialized in chess.

It sounds as if you see memorization as a degrading thing. I never meant it that way.

I'm only saying that he relied upon memory....'cuz he lacked the ability to think spontaneously OTB. You say he had a high IQ ?....I've never seen any diagnostics that prove this. But, much of the time, people w/ high IQ's are creatively derelict. So, it would stand to reason.

And a photographic memory is their strength. It's especially helpful - to say the least - in the opening and endgame of chess. 

Have you ever realized how far memorization can take you ?

And you hafta admit Harvey, in the 1960's he couldn't win the crown when he was up against other top players in their prime. He had to wait his turn - which he was forced to do.

IOW's, he won his short-lived crown primarily from hasbins.

I mean the guy even hawked on the Stars and Stripes, man!!

   No, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said memorization was a bad thing. What I did say is that you attribute Bobby's abilities due to memorization but refuse to see that he could calculate.

   Saying that, I will add that far too many people...you included...believe that chess is mostly just a game of pattern recognition and memorization. Speed chess players, you included, are especially inclined to that belief. Play from the hip, Zen intuition...that sort of thing.

   I certainly can appreciate pattern recognition. The thing is, there are billions and billions of possible positional permutations and combinations. Often...frequently...it is necessary to calculate a multiple-move combination.

   Sometimes, it might take a minute or more (sometimes several minutes) on a complex situation to do the calculations. If you can't appreciate this (and obviously you can't) then limit yourself to only that which you can memorize.

   This is all a bold-faced lie. I am calling you out as a malcontent and a liar, Lala.