That's right chessmicky!!!!
The only reason Fischer became world champ
Sort:
May 30, 2015
0
#63
At that level of play, I'm pretty sure there's a fair amount of luck that plays n2 all of it. Do you too ?
I think he did after game 6!!
Fischer gave Spassky the first 2 games of the match. Spassky played weaker alright, MUCH weaker than Fischer.
Because he was good.
it's nice too to see most people agree the sky should really be yellow instead of blue.
May 31, 2015
0
#68
premio53 wrote:
Many people don't realize that if Pal Benko had not graciously given his spot to Fischer for the interzonal in 1969 Fischer would have never played for the title.
I believe Fischer was already showing signs of being off mentally and there is a question as to whether he would have kept his sanity long enough for the next cycle three years later. Spassky would have probably still been champion in 1975.
Yes,. That was a maganimous gesture on the part of Mr. Benko, to give away his shot at the title to help Fischer.
I often use that information as a trivia question, to test my friends.
May 31, 2015
0
#69
DENVERHIGH wrote:
He also beat the four Russian single handedly.
Technically, 3 Russians. And one Dane.
There is a difference.
"Technically, 3 Russians. And one Dane"
Wasn't Petrosian Armenian and Taimanov Ukrainian? :-)
Taimanov is a Jew from Ukraine but maybe more Russian than Ukrainian, Petrosian was far from Russian, but Larsen even more so. Spassky is quite Russian though.
May 31, 2015
0
#73
Something I found....
****
One theory that was not often heard was that Fischer might have been more than a little nervous about his challenger, the twenty-three-year-old leader of the new generation, Anatoly Karpov. In fact, when I proposed this possibility in my 2004 book on Fischer,My Great Predecessors Part IV, the hostile response was overwhelming. These were not merely the protestations of Fischer fans saying I was maligning their hero. There is a great deal of evidence to build Fischer’s case as the overwhelming favorite had the match taken place. This includes testimony by Karpov himself, who said Fischer was the favorite and later put his own chances of victory at 40 percent.
Nor am I arguing that Karpov would have been the favorite, or that he was a better player than Fischer in 1975. But I do think there is a strong circumstantial case for Fischer having good reasons not to like what he saw in his challenger. Remember that Fischer had not played a serious game of chess in three years. This explains why he insisted on a match of unlimited length, played until one player reached ten wins. With draws being so prevalent at the top level, such a match would likely have lasted many months, giving Fischer time to shake off the rust and get a feel for Karpov, whom he had never faced.
Karpov was the leading product of the new generation Fischer had created. They had a different approach than all the leading players Fischer had defeated on his march to the title and he had very little experience facing this new breed. In the candidates matches Karpov had crushed Spassky and then defeated another bastion of the older generation, Viktor Korchnoi. I can imagine Fischer going over the games from those matches, especially Karpov’s meticulous play and steady hand against Spassky, and beginning to feel some doubt.
- Garry Kasparov
May 31, 2015
0
#74
(Stavros_34 #90)....the game three was the perfect chess robbery in all history. The Art of creativity Lola is looking for...
****
Not quite my luv....To me ?....that would be registered under BF's "Ability to Prepare"....which he always was....fabulously prepared. IMO, he needed to be 'cuz he...did...not...have...the...creative bones...and therefore the comfortable confidence to play ad lib OTB chess. IOW's, if he sensed loss of control ?....he wigged out ! He was a reducing simplifier who chased trade-downs.
May 31, 2015
0
#75
Bobby-J-Fischer wrote:
The only reason Fischer became world champion was because he was very good at Chess.
+1
May 31, 2015
0
#76
GreedyPawnEater wrote:
power_2_the_people wrote:
Anyway, to be blunt, why BF won in 1972 as a never been a such an intriguing question. The enigma rather, has always been why he didn't play Karpov in 1975.
the enigme has been solved already. he Bobby was afraid of Tolya and didnt have the b.a.l.l.s
Evidence please !
May 31, 2015
0
#77
....and they say he lost Game 1 'cuz he bonehead captured at h2.
For arguments sake lets say Fischer had NO creativity . This simply makes his feat , of defeating the soviets at their own game , even MORE AMAZING !! I mean noone denies that the former USSR had many creative players and they worked together to try and find a way to stop Bobby from wresting the WC away from them ..... even to the point of cheating ! Still , they failed ! Imagine how much easier it would have been if Bobby had a little creativity !? He could have given an exhibition against them all and destroyed them ! LOL 
May 31, 2015
0
#79
Cannot agree more with NM Reb.....so true.
But, to his defense, I give him a C- for creativity (fits). So he wasn't devoid.
As for your pet Tal the top engines now point out that many of his " brilliancies " were , in fact , unsound and only worked due to his opponents' poor play in many cases . Engines have looked at all the great world champions and concluded that Capablanca and Fischer played the best ( most mistake free ) chess .
OMG....there he is again !!!
You know Reb, I kinda feel sorry for him....thank gawd he's a cartoon character....
....and I hope you're having a better evening than he is.