Ok, there's a lot of gray space between your comment and mine:)
hehehe - nice try anyway!
I m not being too hard on Fischer, he was a great player in his day, but it was a very short day.
Somebody posted above that Fischer never played a single game as World Champion - for me, that pretty much sums up why he was stingy and selfish in equal measure.
Surprised you haven't responded to the post...
Don't you agree that the person complaining that someone stopped providing something of value for free - after he'd provided it for free for decades - is the one's selfish?
Surprised you haven't responded to the post...
Don't you agree that the person complaining that someone stopped providing something of value for free - after he'd provided it for free for decades - is the one's selfish?
Yes, and no.
Somebody posted above that Fischer never played a single game as World Champion - for me, that pretty much sums up why he was stingy and selfish in equal measure.
That it's not possible for someone who provided something of value for free to "rob" the person or group which had the benefit of receiving it?
It's like a vendor who gives out free doughnuts every morning to an office worker, and, after 20 years, the vendor decides to retire. So the office worker bashes him and says the vendor robbed him. Totally ridiculous:)
I guess you and I just have different opinions. Peace out
I guess you and I just have different opinions. Peace out
You are sort of right in the example of the office worker giving out free doughnuts.
However, with Fischer it's not that he retired it's more that he put all the doughnuts in a cardboard box, and then with a mighty hoof, kicked the box right out into the stratosphere, falling into the sea.
It's as if you had an incredible guitair player, the best ever seen, he does nothing but play guitair. One year he wins a special prize, subsequently he refuses to play in public for the next 30 years.
Exactly. Fischer didn't gracefully bow out of the scene, and opt for early retirement. He left in huff, like a 3 year-old throwing a tantrum. Then he pouted in the corner for the next 35 years, insisting he was still champion.
And over what? I think he was mad about the color of the tablecloths, wasn't it? Something super-important like that.
Exactly. Fischer didn't gracefully bow out of the scene, and opt for early retirement. He left in huff, like a 3 year-old throwing a tantrum. Then he pouted in the corner for the next 35 years, insisting he was still champion.
And over what? I think he was mad about the color of the tablecloths, wasn't it? Something super-important like that.
Yeah, lol, or maybe it was the tournament director's biscuit recipe
Actually, yes I can. FIDE accepted Kasparov was the champion, Short was the qualified contender. And unlike Fischer, Kasparov actually showed up for that match.
Unlike Fischer in 75, who simply abdicated, rather than face the fury of Karpov.
And that is the difference, to me at least. FIDE said a match between Kasparov and Short would determine the world champion. and that match did happen. Although just not under FIDE's auspices.
Further, the PCA continued to find more challengers on a regular basis, and hold more Championship Matches.
Not to say Kasparov's and Short's decicion to split was a good one. I still do not understand why they did it. Nothing good came from that split, as far as I can see.
But, Kasparov still had at least half a claim to the Championship, as he did play his challenger.
Fischer did not play Karpov. Or anybody else. (Until 20 years later, to market a new clock. But both he and Spassky were pale shadows of their former selves by that stage. And how did Spassky get that shot?)
Kasparov said in an interview that this split from FIDE was a mistake.
I don't think so. FIDE always takes a part of the prize money. What does FIDE do for that? Then the match 1993 should have a prize money of 1 million Swiss Francs. Kasparov and Short found a sponsor who doubled this prize money (The Times - 2 million Swiss Francs without any part for FIDE)!
They are professionals earning money from playing chess. Why not earning more money? By the way it was GMA (PCA was later the name)!
On the other hand I really don't understand FIDE why it does not say: "Ok. We had an organizer for 1 million Swiss Francs. We simply pay him the fine. And we accept The Times as the new organizator!"? 
Instead of this FIDE organized an other WCC. Timman as participant was undisputed (because he lost the Candidates final to Short). But then there were Karpov and Jussupow. (I still think Jussupow didn't want to participate!)
When you look back at this not only Kasparov and Short were responsible for this split but also FIDE especially Campomanes (who always supported Karpov)!
It's also wrong that Karpov did not participate in the new k.o. WCC! He even won the first of those events. But he had only to play the final!
Exactly. Fischer didn't gracefully bow out of the scene, and opt for early retirement. He left in huff, like a 3 year-old throwing a tantrum. Then he pouted in the corner for the next 35 years, insisting he was still champion.
And over what? I think he was mad about the color of the tablecloths, wasn't it? Something super-important like that.
Yeah, lol, or maybe it was the tournament director's biscuit recipe
Biscuits?
Well, I guess I cannot blame him there.
PIRATCH wrote:
varelse1 wrote:
Actually, yes I can. FIDE accepted Kasparov was the champion, Short was the qualified contender. And unlike Fischer, Kasparov actually showed up for that match.
Unlike Fischer in 75, who simply abdicated, rather than face the fury of Karpov.
And that is the difference, to me at least. FIDE said a match between Kasparov and Short would determine the world champion. and that match did happen. Although just not under FIDE's auspices.
Further, the PCA continued to find more challengers on a regular basis, and hold more Championship Matches.
Not to say Kasparov's and Short's decicion to split was a good one. I still do not understand why they did it. Nothing good came from that split, as far as I can see.
But, Kasparov still had at least half a claim to the Championship, as he did play his challenger.
Fischer did not play Karpov. Or anybody else. (Until 20 years later, to market a new clock. But both he and Spassky were pale shadows of their former selves by that stage. And how did Spassky get that shot?)
Kasparov said in an interview that this split from FIDE was a mistake.
I don't think so. FIDE always takes a part of the prize money. What does FIDE do for that? Then the match 1993 should have a prize money of 1 million Swiss Francs. Kasparov and Short found a sponsor who doubled this prize money (The Times - 2 million Swiss Francs without any part for FIDE)!
They are professionals earning money from playing chess. Why not earning more money? By the way it was GMA (PCA was later the name)!
On the other hand I really don't understand FIDE why it does not say: "Ok. We had an organizer for 1 million Swiss Francs. We simply pay him the fine. And we accept The Times as the new organizator!"?
Instead of this FIDE organized an other WCC. Timman as participant was undisputed (because he lost the Candidates final to Short). But then there were Karpov and Jussupow. (I still think Jussupow didn't want to participate!)
When you look back at this not only Kasparov and Short were responsible for this split but also FIDE especially Campomanes (who always supported Karpov)!
It's also wrong that Karpov did not participate in the new k.o. WCC! He even won the first of those events. But he had only to play the final!
--------
GMA had nothing to do with the split. It was just a group to represent the interests of GMs (like a union)It was still within FIDE jurisdiction. The PCA was a different thing all together.
Have you met Tetsuo. I think you two would get on quite well.
Many people tend to favor Fischer when the talk is about the best all time player. However, I think he was basically a one-hit-wonder and we should not even consider him. Now that we know he stood no chance against Karpov in 1975, it is clear that he chickened out.
OP is a troll and I'd advise folks to simply not respond.
Yes I have met tetsou. I toss these psots out there, just because I KNOW it will annoy him so much. It is my one joy in life.
varelse1 wrote:
Yes I have met tetsou. I toss these psots out there, just because I KNOW it will annoy him so much. It is my one joy in life.
-------
Lol, I share that joy. My post was aimed at Piratch
But how does not playing make him stingy and selfish? That's all I was objecting to - the reckless and unwarranted use of disparaging adjectives just because people are so blinded by their hatred for Fischer that they'll accuse him of anything
OP is a troll and I'd advise folks to simply not respond.
That's what all fools prefer to say when they don't like something but cannot debate on the topic. Back to the pokemon now.
But how does not playing make him stingy and selfish? That's all I was objecting to - the reckless and unwarranted use of disparaging adjectives just because people are so blinded by their hatred for Fischer that they'll accuse him of anything
Fischer lost all rights to objectivity Sept 11th, 2001.
I'll bash him til the day I die, with a clear conscience. Fischer's trash.
Saying Fischer is a one-hit wonder discounts too much of his career. Might as well call Tal a one-hit wonder since he held the WCC title for less time than Fischer did
Psalm25 wrote:
But how does not playing make him stingy and selfish? That's all I was objecting to - the reckless and unwarranted use of disparaging adjectives just because people are so blinded by their hatred for Fischer that they'll accuse him of anything
----------
'Stingy' is probably the wrong word to use. 'Childish' fits though. He didn't get his own way so he took his ball home so nobody else could play with it.
Ok, there's a lot of gray space between your comment and mine:)