So it took you 45 years to come up with that accusations?
Fischer had no gamesmanship
Sort:
Just when I was starting to think the OP intelligent...
fuzzbug wrote:
Just when I was starting to think the OP intelligent...
Don't act so arrogant, do you have a rebuttal?
2O1C wrote:
You don't become a world champion candidate by psychology or luck.
You don't win a 24 game match with psychology or luck.
The 1972 World Championship is an example of how you do...
Jenium wrote:
So it took you 45 years to come up with that accusations?
As I said, I just began studying the game. I'm surprised nobody has been observant enough to actually discuss this.
That's the opposite. That's supreme gamesmanship.
Yes he won 20 games in a row. He beat Petrosian to get to the match with Spassky. He was nuts but still one of the greatest chess players of all time.
Psychology plays a role in every sport/game. It's often reflected in confidence, body language, tone, engagement, etc. Being able to break someone down mentally is not easy and requires experience and skill. To say that Fischer was a coward for this is ignorant, and even more to go as far as saying as that Spassky would've beaten him is even more ignorant. You were not there. What you're reading is a recorded event and coming to assumptions. Learn from the best, don't criticize. Just take the good and move on.
Fischer and Spassky got on famously by all accounts. After Fischers no-show the Soviet team wanted Spassky to withdraw from the match and claim a win by default which he may have been entitled to do. Spassky insisted the match continued. Everything I have seen or read about Spassky suggests he was a first class guy with a great sense of humour.
TheRevenant wrote:
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
Jenium wrote:
So it took you 45 years to come up with that accusations?
As I said, I just began studying the game. I'm surprised nobody has been observant enough to actually discuss this.
__________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the world of chess. Just because you're just now waking up to certain events in the history of chess, doesn't mean it's news for the rest of us. This subject has been discussed to death, here and literally everywhere else.
But then you already knew that, didn't you? You're just another member of Trolls-R-Us, who's only reason for writing in the forum is to get a rise out of people.
I'm sorry that you feel that way.
No way! I think Fischer thought that World Championship does not accept non-Russians.
radish11 wrote:
Bobby Fischer was rated nearly 100 points higher than Spassky when their match started. Fischer had just won 20 games in a row against the strongest grandmasters in the world. He wiped the board with Taimanov, Bent Larsen, Tigran Petrosian, and then finally Spassky. With all due respect to Boris Spassky, Fischer didn't win because of his antics, he won because in 1972 he was by far the superior player
_________________________________________________________________________________
Correct. In fact, Fischer's rating was 125 points higher than Spassky's in 1972. To this day, that's the largest ever difference in rating between the #1 and #2 in the world.
Spassky himself came to Fischer's defense after the match, saying that the reason Fischer won the match was not because of his behavior but because he was the better player.
I think Spassky settled the issue once and for all.
Wuehler wrote:
radish11 wrote:
Bobby Fischer was rated nearly 100 points higher than Spassky when their match started. Fischer had just won 20 games in a row against the strongest grandmasters in the world. He wiped the board with Taimanov, Bent Larsen, Tigran Petrosian, and then finally Spassky. With all due respect to Boris Spassky, Fischer didn't win because of his antics, he won because in 1972 he was by far the superior player
_________________________________________________________________________________
Correct. In fact, Fischer's rating was 125 points higher than Spassky's in 1972. To this day, that's the largest ever difference in rating between the #1 and #2 in the world.
Spassky himself came to Fischer's defense after the match, saying that the reason Fischer won the match was not because of his behavior but because he was the better player.
I think Spassky settled the issue once and for all.
But Karpov said that it threw off Spassky's "equanimity"
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
Wuehler wrote:
radish11 wrote:
Bobby Fischer was rated nearly 100 points higher than Spassky when their match started. Fischer had just won 20 games in a row against the strongest grandmasters in the world. He wiped the board with Taimanov, Bent Larsen, Tigran Petrosian, and then finally Spassky. With all due respect to Boris Spassky, Fischer didn't win because of his antics, he won because in 1972 he was by far the superior player
_________________________________________________________________________________
Correct. In fact, Fischer's rating was 125 points higher than Spassky's in 1972. To this day, that's the largest ever difference in rating between the #1 and #2 in the world.
Spassky himself came to Fischer's defense after the match, saying that the reason Fischer won the match was not because of his behavior but because he was the better player.
I think Spassky settled the issue once and for all.
But Karpov said that it threw off Spassky's "equanimity"
_______________________________________________________________
Everyone has an opinion, Karpov is no different. However, who would know better about Spassky's mental state during the match, Karpov or Spassky?
Wuehler wrote:
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
Wuehler wrote:
radish11 wrote:
Bobby Fischer was rated nearly 100 points higher than Spassky when their match started. Fischer had just won 20 games in a row against the strongest grandmasters in the world. He wiped the board with Taimanov, Bent Larsen, Tigran Petrosian, and then finally Spassky. With all due respect to Boris Spassky, Fischer didn't win because of his antics, he won because in 1972 he was by far the superior player
_________________________________________________________________________________
Correct. In fact, Fischer's rating was 125 points higher than Spassky's in 1972. To this day, that's the largest ever difference in rating between the #1 and #2 in the world.
Spassky himself came to Fischer's defense after the match, saying that the reason Fischer won the match was not because of his behavior but because he was the better player.
I think Spassky settled the issue once and for all.
But Karpov said that it threw off Spassky's "equanimity"
_______________________________________________________________
Everyone has an opinion, Karpov is no different. However, who would know better about Spassky's mental state during the match, Karpov or Spassky?
Spassky was probably just being a good sport. He wasn't going to blame it on that. But Karpov knows better.
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
Wuehler wrote:
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
Wuehler wrote:
radish11 wrote:
Bobby Fischer was rated nearly 100 points higher than Spassky when their match started. Fischer had just won 20 games in a row against the strongest grandmasters in the world. He wiped the board with Taimanov, Bent Larsen, Tigran Petrosian, and then finally Spassky. With all due respect to Boris Spassky, Fischer didn't win because of his antics, he won because in 1972 he was by far the superior player
_________________________________________________________________________________
Correct. In fact, Fischer's rating was 125 points higher than Spassky's in 1972. To this day, that's the largest ever difference in rating between the #1 and #2 in the world.
Spassky himself came to Fischer's defense after the match, saying that the reason Fischer won the match was not because of his behavior but because he was the better player.
I think Spassky settled the issue once and for all.
But Karpov said that it threw off Spassky's "equanimity"
_______________________________________________________________
Everyone has an opinion, Karpov is no different. However, who would know better about Spassky's mental state during the match, Karpov or Spassky?
Spassky was probably just being a good sport. He wasn't going to blame it on that. But Karpov knows better.
______________________________________________________________________________
The fact that you had to include the word probably in your statement should be an indication to you that you're not making an argument. You just like to make statements that are designed to be contrarian and inflammatory and rarely help to further the discussion.
@Wuehler Yeah I'm getting tired of this too to be honest. Plus I'm out of ideas.
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
@Wuehler Yeah I'm getting tired of this too to be honest. Plus I'm out of ideas.
_____________________________________________________________________________
...and then you say something completely normal. You, Sir, are a conundrum to me.
I have recently began studying the 1972 World Championship in order to improve my chess.
I found something shocking that happened during the event. Fischer forfeited game 2, giving Spassky a 2-0 edge. After forfeiting, Fischer turned the match around and ended up winning. Fischer used unethical manipulation to beat Spassky. He broke him down psychologically. Fischer wasn't a more skilled chess player, but a more skilled manipulator. His forfeit in the second game affected Spassky's game, who was used to playing with gentlemen, not cowards who rely on psychological warfare to win. If psychology wasn't a factor in the match, Spassky would have wiped the floor clean with him. Fischer's legacy is one of psychological manipulation, not of chess brilliancy.