Geller and Tal had positive records against Fischer. Why? Explain.

Maybe at the beginning Fischer had difficulties with Geller but Bobby had to go against the whole Soviet system when he played against any Soviet player: Bobby was more a threat than any western player and the Russian always was preparing against him. In early 1970s was different, Fischer would of dominated Tal and Geller or any Soviet players: Karpov had to thank his lucky stars he NEVER had to play against Fischer because Fischer would of crush Anatoly.

Tal

------

Fischer

Because they are part of the illuminati and used mind control to win their games.

I've thought about this a lot and I've come to the conclusion that it must be because Fischer didn't beat Geller or Tal as much as he lost to them. If you have any further doubts, we could ask a statistician for an opinion.

Okay chessmicky. I've had about enufa u.

I say I after me except b4 we....and WE are about to have it out. I'm warning you, you start in on GPE and you just as well have started in on me !

And learn how to spell....b4 I cast a spell on you. For since you feel so compelled to correct me ?....it's Viktors Pupols, not the way you misspelled it.

Now, I'll see you over at the Creativity thread a little bit later. There you'll get a earful about you being a Fischer Fan Boy. 

As noted, Tal was a much better player around 1960, maybe in his prime. Later as Fischer moved toward his prime, Tal didn't play as well or as much. Probably a lot to do with health issues.

Geller was far more interesting. Fischer wasn't the most comfortable in unclear and unbalanced positions, especially defending. Geller, an excellent opening theory specialist, shrewdly aimed for these positions. What might've given Geller an edge over other opponents who tried to do the same was that he portrayed a lot of confidence when he thought he had a better position. This also threw Fischer off as in those days most players weren't very confident when playing Fischer. For any particular game, the combo was enough to often give Geller an edge.

But as confident as Geller was when he thought he was better, he deflated big time when he had doubts. Had they had a longish match or had Fischer beat him three or so times in a row over time, I'm not sure Geller's winning ways over Fischer would've lasted. But Geller was quite a player anyway.

Would you ever say "How dare them!" of course not. You would say "How dare they." Well, it's just the same for "me" (objective) and "I" (subjective). Whenever you're confused, just reverse the the noun and verb and you will immediately see which is correct.

Yes, you're right. 

My apologies to Viktor, I was wondering about the spelling, but I was too lazy to look it up.

Viktors Micky....Viktors....w/ an 'ess'.

Or maybe he would have been worse. Maybe the heavy drinking is part of what made him. I mean people are who they are, and it's the combination of traits, both good and bad, that make them who they are. alter any one of these traits and the result is uncertain. Some folks become better at a given thing, some become worse.

Geller did have Fischer's number as he excelled in positions that Bobby didnt : chaotic/unclear  positions .  However , if they had played a match I believe Fischer would have crushed him too . Tournament play and match play are very different . 

BF couldn't beat the top Russian players when they were in their prime....now could he.

Spassky wasnt a top Russian player in his prime when Fischer beat him ?  Petrosian either ?  

Petrosian was 43 !....Petrofied by common standards NM Reb.

Spassky was the best player in the world from 1964 to 1970....when he was in his prime !

BF couldn't beat him. All he could do was cry out "cheater".

An even older Petrosian has an even record against both super Ks !  As for Spassky after losing to Fischer in 72 he won the USSR championship in 73 and Karpov was in the field !  It seems Lola that your Bobby hatred blinds you completely .  Sad 

I would "like" this post if I could.

Maybe Petrosian wasn't in his prime but he was still a tough player to beat 1970 to 1974, maybe Fischer's prime. From chessgames.com, in that period Petrosian only lost 23 games (vs. 89 wins) but Fischer accounted for 9 of those losses. So, generally speaking, say Petrosian's better to somewhere 1962 to 1966, equal from 66 to 70, but Fischer clearly dominates 1970 on.

Spassky's a little tougher to say. I'm not sure the 72WC was a reliable indication that Fischer was that much better. Spassky might've more imploded than been busted by Fischer. Hard to say. More interesting is that, though probably highly debatable, in looking at the games in 1992, IMO, Spassky clearly was better regardless how the match score turned out. So maybe Spassky's better to 1972, Fischer's better in 1972, and Spassky's better from then on. Who knows?

One thing's for sure. The Russians/Soviets were much much better at putting their reputations on the line vs. their contemporaries than Fischer and that probably has to count for something.

NckChris, there are alotta ppl who have grown to despise me. All I'm trying to do is objectively analyse BF....and I get called a hater and a troll and cyberspit on.

It's not fair at all. And I'm dis<3'nd by it all. And especially disappointed in some of the Baby Boomers and their radical myopic defence of BF.

Your input is refreshing....TY NckChris.

Dear Lola ... I dont despise you !  Shheeeesh !  I wouldnt be playing tourney chess for more than 40 years now if not for the Fischer/Spassky match 1972 so they are my 2 biggest chess idols .  It is only natural that I defend Fischer ( the chess player ) .