Forums

bobby fischer never really studied theory??

Sort:
Irontiger
Irontiger
Jul 5, 2013
0
#41
Alec847 wrote:
returnofxpchesser wrote:

I honestly think thats why fischer left the game of chess cause he knew he was gonna get beat by upcomming players like karpov and kasparov

No his life dream was to be world champion and beat the Russians soundly when he won the title and beat their top players he had nothing left to prove Fischer wasn't scared of anyone.

You sound very much like Tetsuoshima.

May I ask you how you decided to just join the site today and jump into this forum ?

TetsuoShima
TetsuoShima
Jul 5, 2013
0
#42
Irontiger wrote:
Alec847 wrote:
returnofxpchesser wrote:

I honestly think thats why fischer left the game of chess cause he knew he was gonna get beat by upcomming players like karpov and kasparov

No his life dream was to be world champion and beat the Russians soundly when he won the title and beat their top players he had nothing left to prove Fischer wasn't scared of anyone.

You sound very much like Tetsuoshima.

May I ask you how you decided to just join the site today and jump into this forum ?


i mean ofc its better to just accuse a random guy of being me than to aceppt the fact that Fischer was the best

AngeloPardi
AngeloPardi
Jul 5, 2013
0
#43
TetsuoShima wrote:
paulgottlieb wrote:

Fischer, deeply immersed in studying theory as he rides the subway

 

 


thats what i dont understand, why did Fischer need a chess board?? why didnt he just visualise?

It's far easier to work with a board.
Playing blindfold is a performance every intermediate player can do with some training (I can, and I am rated around 1500-1600). However, playing well is much more difficult blindfold. Even for GM it's easy to forget a piece, a fork. So it's easier and safer to play your moves on a board.

Fischer would probably set a position, visualise some variation, and then play them on his board to be sure he didn't forget anything.

TetsuoShima
TetsuoShima
Jul 5, 2013
0
#44
Estragon wrote:

To clear up some misconceptions:

Opening "theory" was being "studied" centuries ago, which is why many of the oldest European texts deal with specific opening analysis.  The total mass of OT has grown over time, of course! Fischer studied the opening very deeply in the lines he was interested in.  But he did it like most GMs, by studying the games of his opponents and others who played these lines and were innovating in them, not by reading the myriad books and videos being produced to relieve suckers of their money. Fischer knew enough Russian to get through chess books, I know enough German to get through chess books, neither of us could speak two lines of non-chess in the language.  Why is this so surprising to some people? Fischer got his Russian-language material mostly through Ken Smith, SM and founder/publisher of Chess Digest, who was the only American source importing Russian chess literature in those days.  Hanon Russell translated much of the material for Smith's publications.  Since there has never been another dealer to claim to have supplied Fischer with Russian-language chess materials (why wouldn't they come forward?  Think of the business it would draw to them!), it is reasonable to assume he got them all through Smith (who was also a close friend of Larry Evans).

just to get that right, you got so strong without chess books or are you talking about opening books?

maDawson
maDawson
Jul 5, 2013
0
#45
Irontiger wrote:
maDawson wrote:
Moyuba wrote:
maDawson wrote:
(stuff)

you seem to be deeply confused about what theory means within the context of chess.  

You seem to need to shutup... deeply

What a compelling argument.

I was captain of my debate team in highschool...

but then my alarm clock went off and I had to go to class.

maDawson
maDawson
Jul 5, 2013
0
#46
Estragon wrote:
 Fischer studied the opening very deeply in the lines he was interested in.  But he did it like most GMs, by studying the games of his opponents and others who played these lines and were innovating in them, not by reading the myriad books and videos being produced to relieve suckers of their money. Fischer knew enough Russian to get through chess books, I know enough German to get through chess books, neither of us could speak two lines of non-chess in the language.  Why is this so surprising to some people?

In your personal opinion, do you think that chess players, especially dedicated students, would benefit from making a bit of departure from these "resources"? I'm a book worm but I get the feeling that sometimes things are to much step by step text in learning, and that players should focus more and watching games/playing and learning from their in-play annotations and understanding the analysis.

bean_Fischer
bean_Fischer
Jul 5, 2013
0
#47

It's just my imagination that if FIDE hadn't had intervened, then we would have seen Fischer vs Karpov. And Ficher would have won 8-0. Well, like I say it's my imagination.

DrFrank124c
DrFrank124c
Show your flair!
Jul 5, 2013
0
#48
bean_Fischer wrote:

It's just my imagination that if FIDE hadn't had intervened, then we would have seen Fischer vs Karpov. And Ficher would have won 8-0. Well, like I say it's my imagination.

The problems Fischer was having with the FIDE was because the FIDE was owned by the Russians. The demands Fischer made for a rematch were for the very same concessions that the Russian world champions had gotten in the past. Reuben Fine retired from chess because he felt the Russians had too much influence on the FIDE and Kasparov complained about the very same problems. 

Irontiger
Irontiger
Jul 8, 2013
0
#49
orangeishblue wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
orangeishblue wrote:

All Fischer had to do was know the notation in Russian and learn some symbols used in analysis if different from the West, he was no more reading Russian Chess literature than a poodle. He just replayed and analyzed games published in Soviet periodicals and that is something someonewith 5 minutes time can learn.

If you want to read something else than the Informant, you will meet some long comments like "This move looks good, but actually isn't. Though White just violated the opening principles, it is of no use to black because he lacks central control...(etc)".

If you only know a couple of key words, that sentence reads "move good no. Transgress opening, no black center.". A bit hard to decipher.


What a joke Fischer one of the best analysts ever, would hardly need to read what a lesser mind thought about a chess position and I don't think he would have trusted it either if he had.

So, Fischer never read any chess books for its contents ?

I suppose he walked on water too ?

TetsuoShima
TetsuoShima
Jul 8, 2013
0
#50
DrFrank124c wrote:
bean_Fischer wrote:

It's just my imagination that if FIDE hadn't had intervened, then we would have seen Fischer vs Karpov. And Ficher would have won 8-0. Well, like I say it's my imagination.

The problems Fischer was having with the FIDE was because the FIDE was owned by the Russians. The demands Fischer made for a rematch were for the very same concessions that the Russian world champions had gotten in the past. Reuben Fine retired from chess because he felt the Russians had too much influence on the FIDE and Kasparov complained about the very same problems. 

I think Kasparov even said :Karpov even actually got twice the amount of what FIscher demanded.


 

TetsuoShima
TetsuoShima
Jul 8, 2013
0
#51
[COMMENT DELETED]
PhoenixTTD
PhoenixTTD
Sep 26, 2013
0
#52

In the interview Fischer never says he did not study theory.

Krestez
Krestez
Sep 26, 2013
0
#53

This rumour about Fischer never studying theory is total BS. You can't reach the top without knowing theory. Also, people who say Carlsen is "weak" in openings are simply pathetic. A player like Anand might be better booked up, but that doesn't mean Carlsen doesn't also know (and master) thousands of opening variations.

manalgcor
manalgcor
Sep 28, 2013
0
#54
Krestez escribió:

This rumour about Fischer never studying theory is total BS.

Of course. He studied everything that was published, analyzed it thoroughly, and followed his own judgement -he always followed his own judgement.

GMScuzzBall
GMScuzzBall
May 28, 2015
0
#55

Spassky was a better human being then Fischer. In the end that's more important.

alec295
alec295
May 28, 2015
0
#56
 I honestly think thats why fischer left the game of chess cause he knew he was gonna get beat by upcomming players like karpov and kasparov or the fact he just got tired of the sport.
 

His one and only dream was to become world champion and when he achieved the impossible beat the Soviet Union's best players of his era he was done mission acomplished the rest that occured after that is irrelivant.

Like Morphy he acomplished all his goals in Chess and walked away.