One of the few things Fischer did post 1972 that I could really support.
Karpov - Fischer
Sort:
Apr 14, 2013
0
#43
conejiux wrote:
I dont't know if he feared Karpov, the only sure thing is that he ran. The title was too precious for him to lose it, like the ring to Gollum...
Karpov wont take my prescious!!!!!!!!
Apr 14, 2013
0
#44
conejiux wrote:
Fischer didn't want to lose his crown playing, he chose to lose his title by the better way to mantain his legend intact.
But then he spent the next 40 years insisting to everybody that would listen that he was still World Champion.
Dignity kinda got thrown out, there.
Apr 14, 2013
0
#45
PIRATCH wrote:
We all don't know what would had happened in 1975 ...
BTW the thread shoud be wrote: Fischer - Karpov (because the reigning Champ is always mentioned first)!
We also don't know what would had happened to Karpov if he'd have lost in 1975. All opponents who lost in a match against Fischer were not as strong as before!
The only quote I have in mind was by Peter Leko: "Fischer had the most knowledge of chess I ever met!" (Fischer was Leko's coach for some years. There Leko came back from a trainings session with Topalov where the two analyzed several lines in the Sicilian. He showed these lines to Fischer. Fischer nodded and sayed: "Yes, there are a lot more lines!") *amazing*
It is customary to list the challenger first. In this matter, chess follows a well-established practice of law: plaintiff -- defendant. Note also that an em-dash is used.
Eseles wrote:
cesurpawn wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
cesurpawn wrote:
fisher was a COWARD everybody knows it.no need to discuss even
i bet he had 100 times more courage than you.
he was a COWARD like you.understand ...this forum to express our toughts about chess ,fisher denied to face karpov cuz he is a coward everyone knows it read history ,if you too offense then do not come to FORUMS go play in kindergarden
lol
unfortunately you are wrong too;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer
In 1975, Fischer declined to defend his title when he could not reach agreement with FIDE over the conditions for the match. He became more reclusive and did not play competitive chess again until 1992, when he won an unofficial rematch against Spassky. The competition was held inYugoslavia, which was then under a United Nations embargo.[1][2][3] This led to a conflict with the U.S. government
fisher declined to defend his title because of his own choice that video is referring 17 years later of fisher's declines
Ziryab wrote:
It is customary to list the challenger first. In this matter, chess follows a well-established practice of law: plaintiff -- defendant. Note also that an em-dash is used.
Not at all! FIDE always writes: Champ vs Challenger! 
You can also look in many books. You'll mostly find Year, Place(s), World Champion vs Challenger, Numbers of Games, Won, Lost, Draw, etc. 
cesurpawn wrote:
Eseles wrote:
cesurpawn wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
cesurpawn wrote:
fisher was a COWARD everybody knows it.no need to discuss even
i bet he had 100 times more courage than you.
he was a COWARD like you.understand ...this forum to express our toughts about chess ,fisher denied to face karpov cuz he is a coward everyone knows it read history ,if you too offense then do not come to FORUMS go play in kindergarden
lol
unfortunately you are wrong too;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer
In 1975, Fischer declined to defend his title when he could not reach agreement with FIDE over the conditions for the match. He became more reclusive and did not play competitive chess again until 1992, when he won an unofficial rematch against Spassky. The competition was held inYugoslavia, which was then under a United Nations embargo.[1][2][3] This led to a conflict with the U.S. government
fisher declined to defend his title because of his own choice that video is referring 17 years later of fisher's declines
see he was still world champion, he never said he declines to defend his title as you see in the video. No KArpov and Kasparov just didnt accept his demand, so its clear Fischer has more guts then you and more then Karpov and Kasparov.
cesurpawn wrote:
Eseles wrote:
cesurpawn wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
cesurpawn wrote:
fisher was a COWARD everybody knows it.no need to discuss even
i bet he had 100 times more courage than you.
he was a COWARD like you.understand ...this forum to express our toughts about chess ,fisher denied to face karpov cuz he is a coward everyone knows it read history ,if you too offense then do not come to FORUMS go play in kindergarden
lol
unfortunately you are wrong too;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer
In 1975, Fischer declined to defend his title when he could not reach agreement with FIDE over the conditions for the match. He became more reclusive and did not play competitive chess again until 1992, when he won an unofficial rematch against Spassky. The competition was held inYugoslavia, which was then under a United Nations embargo.[1][2][3] This led to a conflict with the U.S. government
fisher declined to defend his title because of his own choice that video is referring 17 years later of fisher's declines
i would be wrong if i actually said something wrong, did i say this video was about 1975 maybe? i would be nuts if i said so, it's clear from where and when this video is
this video is a piece of historical reality, and it simply shows very clearly a man which imho cannot be called a "coward" (spitting on an order from the US government) whether you agree or disagree with his action
FIDE accepted almost all claims of Fischer for the 1975 match except the fact that at the score of 9-9 Fischer will remain champ. This would mean Karpov had to win 10-8! First to 10 without counting draws would have even been accepted.
As a Fischer fan I have to accept this fact.
Fischer even stopped playing tournaments after he became WC in 1972. That's an other fact.
Even in 1992 there was a Challenge by Judit Polgar. Fischer didn't accept it. Spassky played instead and lost!
Apr 14, 2013
0
#51
PIRATCH wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
It is customary to list the challenger first. In this matter, chess follows a well-established practice of law: plaintiff -- defendant. Note also that an em-dash is used.
Not at all! FIDE always writes: Champ vs Challenger!
You can also look in many books. You'll mostly find Year, Place(s), World Champion vs Challenger, Numbers of Games, Won, Lost, Draw, etc.
It is easy to get confused with FIDE practice, as they listed it Topalov -- Kramnik. Clearly, in any real sense, Topalov was the challenger. But, FIDE, being utterly corrupt, may have viewed matters differently.
There is no reason to adopt FIDE practice over common sense and established conventions in this matter, nor in any other where they deviate from what is right.
Why you make fun of FIDE....just because the president flies around in UFO's while assassinating people?
Ziryab wrote:
It is easy to get confused with FIDE practice, as they listed it Topalov -- Kramnik. Clearly, in any real sense, Topalov was the challenger. But, FIDE, being utterly corrupt, may have viewed matters differently.
There is no reason to adopt FIDE practice over common sense and established conventions in this matter, nor in any other where they deviate from what is right.
Even here you are wrong. Topalov won the World Championship (Tournament) one year before. Therefore for FIDE Topalov was Champ and Kramnik Challenger (even if it was a re-unification match) ...
Edit: And don't forget: different countries = different customs!
Why do people (including Kasparov) assume that Fischer wouldn't have continued to get stronger if he chose to keep playing after winning the championship?
Pretty poor assumption if you ask me.
Apr 14, 2013
0
#57
PIRATCH wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
It is easy to get confused with FIDE practice, as they listed it Topalov -- Kramnik. Clearly, in any real sense, Topalov was the challenger. But, FIDE, being utterly corrupt, may have viewed matters differently.
There is no reason to adopt FIDE practice over common sense and established conventions in this matter, nor in any other where they deviate from what is right.
Even here you are wrong. Topalov won the World Championship (Tournament) one year before. Therefore for FIDE Topalov was Champ and Kramnik Challenger (even if it was a re-unification match) ...
Edit: And don't forget: different countries = different customs!
Nope. I'm right. Kramnik was the legitimate champion. Topalov was crowned by a deficient exercise. When Kasparov left FIDE, the WCC left with him. It was tragic, but FIDE's puppet substitute was a joke.
Name one country that lists the plaintiff second in a legal dispute. Some English, German, and French customs have become universal. Anti-colonialists may object, of course.
Show the practice of listing the challenger second in anything other than recent FIDE practice, or admit that your point is moot.
We are not at a court!
And you wrote yourself - even if it was as you said a joke - Topalov was FIDE World Champion. That's all what counted.
In sport also in snooker (very British) you'll have first (left) the better rated player and second (right) the lower rated player.
In chess you have first World Champion and second Challenger.
That's all I stated!
Apr 14, 2013
0
#59
PIRATCH wrote:
We are not at a court!
And you wrote yourself - even if it was as you said a joke - Topalov was FIDE World Champion. That's all what counted.
In sport also in snooker (very British) you'll have first (left) the better rated player and second (right) the lower rated player.
In chess you have first World Champion and second Challenger.
That's all I stated!
Those are better examples than FIDE. Thanks.
fisher was a COWARD everybody knows it.no need to discuss even
i bet he had 100 times more courage than you.
he was a COWARD like you.understand ...this forum to express our toughts about chess ,fisher denied to face karpov cuz he is a coward everyone knows it read history ,if you too offense then do not come to FORUMS go play in kindergarden
lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjbaSVXUq5c