Cowardly Fischer - Chess Forums - Page 2

Alec289

Dec 29, 2014

0

#21

ClavierCavalier wrote:

I often see people say Fischer was scared of losing his title to Karpov. From what facts do such accusitions come?

Fischer could be a very demanding and difficult person but at the chess board a coward he was not.

I suppose the people calling him that are the same 16 year old's who call Karpov a weakie (see that other thread) when he happened to be one of the most deadly positional players seen since Capablanca.

Where's the respect?!

leiph18

Dec 29, 2014

0

#22

trotters64 wrote:

fabelhaft wrote:

"I often see people say Fischer was scared of losing his title to Karpov. From what facts do such accusitions come?"

From the fact that he refused to play the title match against Karpov.

The idea that Fischer was afraid of anybody over the chess board is a preposterous idea. Was he scared to play Larsen or Taimanov when he beat them both 6-0 ? no he was not. Was he scared to play Petrosian when he beat him 5-1 with 3 draws in the candidates final in 1971 ? no he was not . Was he scared to play Spassky when he beat him 12.5 to 8.5 to win the world title in 1972 ? no he was not.

Garry Kasparov said upon news of Fischer's death that Fischer was the most dominant player that the chess world has ever seen. He also said that Fischer was a revolutionary and an innovator who made chess the sport it is today. Nobody had ever seen the sort of chess that Fischer played ..fighting to win with the black pieces.

He left the sport at the top on his own terms..for anyone to suggest that Fischer was afraid of Karpov knows nothing about Bobby Fischer and the idea that he didn't play Karpov so he must have been scared of him is frankly a non-sequitur.

He was terrified to play Spassky. During negotiations he sh*t himself... twice... that's why he was missing for the opening ceremony and forfeited game 2 with a no-show. But luckily he pulled himself together after lots of encouragement and the prize fund being doubled.

No such babying was available for the Karpov match. But fans should remember they were lucky to get even 1.

trotters64

Dec 29, 2014

0

#23

Fischer forfeited game 2 because he was playing with Spassky's mind and it worked .. he was in effect saying to Spassky that he could afford to forfeit a game and still beat him. This was a devasting psychological blow that Spassky never recovered from . The Soviets were considering whether to forfeit game 3 in order to wrest back some psychological momentum but Spassky decided he couldn't afford to do that ..

So you see it was not Bobby who was afraid of Boris rather if anyone was afraid it was Boris. Fischer probably crushed Spassky mentally the moment he decided to forfeit game 2. This analysis of what was going on in game 2 was set out by none other than Garry Kasparov.

leiph18

Dec 29, 2014

0

#24

That or Fischer was emotionally unstable. Whichever history supports

BMeck

Dec 29, 2014

0

#25

charles_butternucker wrote:

Dodger111 wrote:

Fischer was not afraid of Karpov.

"Fischer was scheduled to defend his title in 1975 against Anatoly Karpov, who emerged as his challenger.[417] Fischer, who had played no competitive games since his World Championship match with Spassky, laid out a proposal for the match in September 1973, in consultation with FIDE official Fred Cramer. He made three principal (non-negotiable) demands:"

The match continues until one player wins 10 games, draws not counting. No limit to the total number of games played. In case of a 9–9 score, the champion (Fischer) retains the title, and the prize fund is split equally

These were pretty standard terms from previous championships. FIDE refused, so he said fine, keep your silly Championship title, I quit.

Never saw his conditions laid out like this ... why the heck did they decline them again? It all sounds fair and straightforward to me.

The 9-9 rule is insanely unfair. That means the challenger would need to win by two games.

batgirl

Dec 29, 2014

0

#26

BMeck wrote:

charles_butternucker wrote:

Dodger111 wrote:

Fischer was not afraid of Karpov.

"Fischer was scheduled to defend his title in 1975 against Anatoly Karpov, who emerged as his challenger.[417] Fischer, who had played no competitive games since his World Championship match with Spassky, laid out a proposal for the match in September 1973, in consultation with FIDE official Fred Cramer. He made three principal (non-negotiable) demands:"

The match continues until one player wins 10 games, draws not counting. No limit to the total number of games played. In case of a 9–9 score, the champion (Fischer) retains the title, and the prize fund is split equally

These were pretty standard terms from previous championships. FIDE refused, so he said fine, keep your silly Championship title, I quit.

Never saw his conditions laid out like this ... why the heck did they decline them again? It all sounds fair and straightforward to me.

The 9-9 rule is insanely unfair. That means the challenger would need to win by two games.

As in Lasker-Schlecter?

leiph18

Dec 29, 2014

0

#27

I didn't know this (korchnoi interview) start at 2:57

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3k8o4B-tJI

batgirl

Dec 29, 2014

0

#28

Some time ago, Dana MacKenzie wrote about Fischer and Karpov in his blog. What he wrote is enlightening and less speculative than what I've been reading here.

charles_butternucker

Dec 29, 2014

0

#29

BMeck wrote:

charles_butternucker wrote:

Dodger111 wrote:

Fischer was not afraid of Karpov.

"Fischer was scheduled to defend his title in 1975 against Anatoly Karpov, who emerged as his challenger.[417] Fischer, who had played no competitive games since his World Championship match with Spassky, laid out a proposal for the match in September 1973, in consultation with FIDE official Fred Cramer. He made three principal (non-negotiable) demands:"

The match continues until one player wins 10 games, draws not counting. No limit to the total number of games played. In case of a 9–9 score, the champion (Fischer) retains the title, and the prize fund is split equally

These were pretty standard terms from previous championships. FIDE refused, so he said fine, keep your silly Championship title, I quit.

Never saw his conditions laid out like this ... why the heck did they decline them again? It all sounds fair and straightforward to me.

The 9-9 rule is insanely unfair. That means the challenger would need to win by two games.

It's unfair, but not insanely unfair. And believe it or not, but I'm arguing for it, because the WC should have some privileges reserved for him. It's like keeping the front seat of a car open for the most venerable person. And it makes the challenger fight extra hard to show that he's even better than the incumbent champ.

leiph18

Dec 29, 2014

0

#30

charles_butternucker wrote:

BMeck wrote:

charles_butternucker wrote:

Dodger111 wrote:

Fischer was not afraid of Karpov.

"Fischer was scheduled to defend his title in 1975 against Anatoly Karpov, who emerged as his challenger.[417] Fischer, who had played no competitive games since his World Championship match with Spassky, laid out a proposal for the match in September 1973, in consultation with FIDE official Fred Cramer. He made three principal (non-negotiable) demands:"

The match continues until one player wins 10 games, draws not counting. No limit to the total number of games played. In case of a 9–9 score, the champion (Fischer) retains the title, and the prize fund is split equally

These were pretty standard terms from previous championships. FIDE refused, so he said fine, keep your silly Championship title, I quit.

Never saw his conditions laid out like this ... why the heck did they decline them again? It all sounds fair and straightforward to me.

The 9-9 rule is insanely unfair. That means the challenger would need to win by two games.

It's unfair, but not insanely unfair. And believe it or not, but I'm arguing for it, because the WC should have some privileges reserved for him. It's like keeping the front seat of a car open for the most venerable person. And it makes the challenger fight extra hard to show that he's even better than the incumbent champ.

And better isn't winning by a whole game?

leiph18

Dec 29, 2014

0

#31

batgirl wrote:

Some time ago, Dana MacKenzie wrote about Fischer and Karpov in his blog. What he wrote is enlightening and less speculative than what I've been reading here.

Thanks.

charles_butternucker

Dec 29, 2014

0

#32

leiph18 wrote:

charles_butternucker wrote:

BMeck wrote:

charles_butternucker wrote:

Dodger111 wrote:

Fischer was not afraid of Karpov.

"Fischer was scheduled to defend his title in 1975 against Anatoly Karpov, who emerged as his challenger.[417] Fischer, who had played no competitive games since his World Championship match with Spassky, laid out a proposal for the match in September 1973, in consultation with FIDE official Fred Cramer. He made three principal (non-negotiable) demands:"

The match continues until one player wins 10 games, draws not counting. No limit to the total number of games played. In case of a 9–9 score, the champion (Fischer) retains the title, and the prize fund is split equally

These were pretty standard terms from previous championships. FIDE refused, so he said fine, keep your silly Championship title, I quit.

Never saw his conditions laid out like this ... why the heck did they decline them again? It all sounds fair and straightforward to me.

The 9-9 rule is insanely unfair. That means the challenger would need to win by two games.

It's unfair, but not insanely unfair. And believe it or not, but I'm arguing for it, because the WC should have some privileges reserved for him. It's like keeping the front seat of a car open for the most venerable person. And it makes the challenger fight extra hard to show that he's even better than the incumbent champ.

And better isn't winning by a whole game?

Let's say after numerous games the score is set at 9 - 8.5 for Fischer (or any other WC), giving the challenger the chance to win the whole match by just winning one more game. If he can't succeed and draws (making the score 9.5 - 9) the match would still continue, wouldn't it? (Seriously, I'm asking ... only an exact 9 - 9 tie automatically ends the match, or am I missing something?)

My argument is that a person has to arise which has to have the potential to convincingly show the whole world: 'I'm simply stronger than my predecessor, and that match was all the evidence I need to prove it'. Like, how there was no shadow of a doubt between Carlsen vs. Anand in 2013 of who the better player between them was.

leiph18

Dec 29, 2014

0

#33

But you have to remember one of the conditions was that draws don't count, so a score of 9.5 - 9 is impossible.

Once Fischer reaches 9, he wins. So only 10-8 (or better) would win for Karpov.

Also the match can't continue after Fischer reaches 9.

Yes it says first to 10 wins, but imagine the score is 8 (Karpov) to 9 (Fischer) what has to happen before Karpov can get to 10... he has to get to 9, and at 9-9 Fischer wins.

leiph18

Dec 29, 2014

0

#34

Also 9 - 9.5 is impossible anyway :p

In matches you're always ahead or behind in whole points. Draws keep it equal while wins make a gap of 1.

charles_butternucker

Dec 29, 2014

0

#35

leiph18 wrote:

But you have to remember one of the conditions was that draws don't count, so a score of 9.5 - 9 is impossible.

Once Fischer reaches 9, he wins. So only 10-8 (or better) would win for Karpov.

Hm, okay I see. I stand corrected, that does strike me as a overly big handicap for the competitor, I mean if we count draws it would be still tolerable but this crosses the line ... yeah well, I take back what I said earlier. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

leiph18

Dec 29, 2014

0

#36

Yeah, draw goes to champ isn't bad by itself, I agree with you there.

In any case I think the present day blitz playoffs are stupid.

charles_butternucker

Dec 29, 2014

0

#37

Boooo Fischer, Booooo!!! You used to be my childhood hero, but after hearing what leiph18 had to tell me, I finally realized how cheap you are! I even ... I even bought that overpriced BobbyFischer™ electric can opener and it stopped working after two weeks of usage. I feel so ashamed of me now!

BMeck

Dec 29, 2014

0

#38

batgirl wrote:

BMeck wrote:

charles_butternucker wrote:

Dodger111 wrote:

Fischer was not afraid of Karpov.

"Fischer was scheduled to defend his title in 1975 against Anatoly Karpov, who emerged as his challenger.[417] Fischer, who had played no competitive games since his World Championship match with Spassky, laid out a proposal for the match in September 1973, in consultation with FIDE official Fred Cramer. He made three principal (non-negotiable) demands:"

The match continues until one player wins 10 games, draws not counting. No limit to the total number of games played. In case of a 9–9 score, the champion (Fischer) retains the title, and the prize fund is split equally

These were pretty standard terms from previous championships. FIDE refused, so he said fine, keep your silly Championship title, I quit.

Never saw his conditions laid out like this ... why the heck did they decline them again? It all sounds fair and straightforward to me.

The 9-9 rule is insanely unfair. That means the challenger would need to win by two games.

As in Lasker-Schlecter?

Just because something was implemented in the past doesnt make it fair... You are more intelligent than that. Also, it seems the Lasker - Capablanca match the following year didnt happen because of this +2 rule... so I dont see your point.

batgirl

Dec 29, 2014

0

#39

Whatever is agreed upon is fair.

leiph18

Dec 29, 2014

0

#40

Well, maybe not fair, but definitely not against the rules.