Robert J Fischer (peace be upon him) chastised Karpov and Kasparov and claimed that he himself played 'honest' chess. Now one can argue over the validity of Fischers statement but the idea struck me and I was wondering how important it is to refrain from giving ones opponent as little information as possible by playing the least commital moves as possible.
Boring chess, but that is how I 'Try' to play. Fischer is/was crazy and his claims on Karpov and Kasparov was just as silly. He would have beaten Karpov 1975, but if you don't play we will 'REALLY' never know. Play your style, whatever that is, and try to get your opponent to play 'your' game.
How important Herbie do you think it is to conceal your intent? Would you for example play 1.d4 and then 2.Nf3 instead of 2.c4 to conceal what you will do with the c pawn?
I would think the greater the uncertainty, the greater the confusion for the opponent. Captain Liddell Hart, in his great book Strategy mentions a great many generals of the past who won because they never went for the war of attrition. These greats confused the psychological balance of the opposing generals buy having more than one targets. This would force the defender to make decisions whether to distribute their forces or leave one side a bit weaker. It also ties the opponent into calculating more than would have been required in the case of outright committal. Gringo
The Soviets were notorious cheats. They rigged games to try to force Fischer to play tougher opponents in candidates tournament just so an American couldn't get a shot, unfair arbiters bribed by the Soviets and such dirty tricks, but he won anyway. That might be what he meant.
yeah very interesting Gringo, thanks for the idea.
No. I would not conceal much in the opening, but in the middle game it maybe a little different. Besides, I have no idea on how to conceal moves.
There's also the possibility that Fischer simply didn't like not knowing what was going to be played against him far fetched though it may be. There is one grand master who had a winning record (only a few games mind you) against Bobby and the positions in their games seemed unlike many of the mainstream positions of the day. Perhaps if Bobby had a weakness it was that he was always in the main lines because that was all he knew? This is probably too simplistic a suggestion on it's face, but just a thought.
What made you interpret his statement in that way, I can think of various ways it might be interpreted that might make more sense. For example, we know he disliked opening theory perhaps he though he played "honest" chess because he was playing what he deemed 'real' chess, in comparison to GMs like Kasparov and Karpov, whom he saw as simply playing according to opening theory, maybe termed "dishonest chess" as it does not represent their true strength.Just speculation of an alternate interpretation.Interpreting 'Honest' as meaning that he doesn't try to conceal moves is a bit strange imo.