quote:
"Actually idea that Fischer of 70ties wouldn`t have such a good
results today is generally accepted by strongest modern players."
unquote:
They usually say this when they have a book to sell.
Of course they are not going to say that Fischer was the greatest player.
If they did then potential buyers would not bother buying their book.
They have to make these unfounded claims to sell us mugs their
books, DVD's....
I do wish Kasparov would make up his mind.
One day Fischer is the greatest player history - next day he's not.
I have read different opinions in different sources.
All depends on whay book he is selling I guess.
So please no more quotes from Kasparov books.
Great games, great player - lousy author.
Writes as he plays by trying to impress his will on the reader.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Have to disagree with you on almost this entire post Greenpawn!
quote:
"Actually idea that Fischer of 70ties wouldn`t have such a good
results today is generally accepted by strongest modern players."
unquote:
They usually say this when they have a book to sell.
Of course they are not going to say that Fischer was the greatest player.
If they did then potential buyers would not bother buying their boo ...[text shortened]... eat player - lousy author.
Writes as he plays by trying to impress his will on the reader.
Transport Fischer directly into modern-day chess and he would definitely struggle.
However, give him the same talent for the game he had coupled with a modern-day chess upbringing (lots of strong tournaments/computers as the norm to help with analysis/ etc) and he would almost certainly be at or near the very top.
As far as writing goes, Great games, great player - lousy author. This statement should be laid at Fischer's door! One massively over-hyped and over-stated book? It's one of the few books I own which I rarely return to. ( I fully expect to be ripped apart for this statement : )
Kasparov's 'My Great Predecessors' series is a phenomenal body of work!! (The only problem is, to get the most out of it as an instructional tool, 'WORK' is the appropriate word-and often a dirty word for most amateur players). It does, though, stand alone as an extremely impressive history of the world's best chess players and their games.
However, the important thing to take from these books is how MASSIVELY different the chess world is at the very top nowadays compared to 30/40/50 years ago. Not the fault of those who came before of course - they laid out the path that today's players take for granted, but I would say that chess is an entirely different game nowadays at the very top.
Also : ) (Kasparov) Writes as he plays by trying to impress his will on the reader This is probably caused by a combination of a very strong character allied with a genius chess mind! He is welcome to impress his will on my mind when it comes to chess, just as Fischer has done for you Greenpawn! It's only natural I would think?!
Originally posted by streetfighterWelcome to "obvious idiots" with "bizarre way of "thinking"" club 😉
Have to disagree with you on almost this entire post Greenpawn!
Transport Fischer directly into modern-day chess and he would definitely struggle.
However, give him the same talent for the game he had coupled with a modern-day chess upbringing (lots of strong tournaments/computers as the norm to help with analysis/ etc) and he would almost certa ...[text shortened]... o chess, just as Fischer has done for you Greenpawn! It's only natural I would think?!
Originally posted by streetfighterCool! A new Fischer/Kasparov debate. Not the tired one about who was the better player, but who was the better book author. I like it! 🙂
As far as writing goes, Great games, great player - lousy author. This statement should be laid at Fischer's door! One massively over-hyped and over-stated book? It's one of the few books I own which I rarely return to. ( I fully expect to be ripped apart for this statement : )
Hi SF
Don't know if you have read whole thread.
Fischer's games have been brought forward to this era via computer
anlysis and it tranpsires he matches up better than anyone else.
This was taken AFTER 70 opening theory. So where has the modern
game changed so much? The pieces still move the same.
Of course all this really actually means nothing but it was an
interesting debate.
Things then got a bit sqiffy with GM blunders from the 60's & 70's
being compared with modern GM's blunders.
I think I started that by showing Anand's 6 move loss 😏
Then the insults started flying (I always keep away from that bit).
Suddenly Kasparov entered the frame. And here we are.
My 60 is an excellent collection of very good games. That is all.
Only one game I know moved me up a few notches (game 58) in the
notes, Fischer v Dely.
But that is all RJK really left us - so we worship it. 50% of the people
who have it do not understand the games, nor could they reproduce them.
I include me in that.
But I did not bring up Fischer as an author. He left us his games
and better writers have noted up his games.
Bobby Fischer Rediscovered by Soltis is an excellent book.
Totally agree about players buying books and never studying them.
100% guilty. I think it's 12-15 in 30 years.
(I bet Ray Keene has written more chess books than he has read).
Wrong choice of words from me about Kasparov but he does waffle on and on.
Did I not once see him give 11 pages of analysis to one move.
Who played that lot out. Who?
I bought the entire set of 'My Great Predecessors' for £20 at my
favourite 2nd hand book shop.
I had played over most/all of the games before and now I'm expected
to play them over again this time with Fritz analysis...?
Sold them on for £25.00 a month later and they have since been
sold on for £40.00.
I'd rather have my players history written by writers who knew and
played these guys. Reti, William Winter, Ed Lasker, Chernev....
And I'll analyse the game and decide what would have happened
if such a move had been played or what the idea behind a move is.
Not a cold box.
(Why were you not at the The Hailes last weekend and when is
Street Fighting Chess II coming out?).
Originally posted by greenpawn34To be fair, I'd have to do a modern analysis of another, more recent WC as comparison using the exact same setup.
...Fischer's games have been brought forward to this era via computer
anlysis and it tranpsires he matches up better than anyone else...
e.g
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=55223
But I don't have the time for this right now.
I may be a bit thick. But the very idea that Fisher would not dominate today seems laughable.
How can one say that Fisher would not dominate today based on the trail of logic.
1- most would agree that a computer is a extremely strong play (GM level)
2- Fisher played when there were no (or very few) computers
3- Fisher has an extremely high match-up to a computer
Based on the above it seems obvious that Fisher would have been a chess stud today, yesterday, 500 years ago, 500 years from now. He was good plan and simple.
I also find it absurd that people who can only dream of getting to a 2000 rating have the balls to critique Fisher. It is a truly insane concept.
He was extremely good. The best ever??????Well I think that very concept is tough because there could have been some goat herder in the mountains who destroyed anyone he played. But I would say that to date of the know player he would definitely be a top 5.
I'd rather have my players history written by writers who knew and
played these guys. Reti, William Winter, Ed Lasker, Chernev....
I understand this, and agree to a certain extent, but what appeals to me about Kasparov's book is how he ties together the development of the game through the history of these players. I know what you mean about the sheer volume of analysis, and how it was done (using engines) b ut again that is part of Kasparov's character; he was always searching for the BEST move, unlike Karpov for example (who could play 40 very, very good moves and be happy with the win this way).
(Why were you not at the The Hailes last weekend and when is
Street Fighting Chess II coming out?).
Couldn't make it as I'm off this weekend for my 4NCL debut, and hoping to play Perth the following weekend, then it's the National League the weekend after, then TAFCA a week later, ....you get the idea!
As for Streetfighting Chess II, to be honest it might never happen now. I have lots of material and a head full of interesting (some good!) ideas, but the amount of time and energy I would have to spend feels like too much for the reward.
The first book got great reviews and I've had a fair bit of positive feedback, but watching opening books fly off the shelves while mine is struggling to reach anything approaching a profit is a bit demoralising!
As an example, the New in Chess top 10 best-sellers had Streetfighting Chess in at #10 for one week, then it disappeared. Play 1.b3! was on the list, at or near the top, for months! It may very well be an excellently written book, but it will improve a players results and understanding of the game by very little, if at all. (as per most openings books).
I don't fancy working my butt off in a crappy job for 2 years again just to finance a book which relatively few people can be bothered buying. But hey, maybe it's just the winter blues speaking and I'll get a burst of energy come spring and treat you all to a sequel : )
Originally posted by 8DYou are making the same mistake as others who use "engine matchup argument". Fischer`s ascendancy in 70ties to compare his contemporaries was much more superior than World Champion has today. As I already have pointed out numerous times - against weaker opponents its easier to play better (to say nothing about obvious fact that higher engine matchup not always means better play - look at matchup of 1st game in Fischer-Spassky match for example).
I may be a bit thick. But the very idea that Fisher would not dominate today seems laughable.
How can one say that Fisher would not dominate today based on the trail of logic.
1- most would agree that a computer is a extremely strong play (GM level)
2- Fisher played when there were no (or very few) computers
3- Fisher has an extremely high match-up to ...[text shortened]... nyone he played. But I would say that to date of the know player he would definitely be a top 5.
I`m still awaiting for someone who will be able to refute this argument.
Originally posted by KorchI'd hardly call Spassky weak.
...As I already have pointed out numerous times - [b]against weaker opponents its easier to play better (to say nothing about obvious fact that higher engine matchup not always means better play)...
Wasn't he World Champion & who did he beat to get the title in '69?
Do you class Geller, Korchnoi, Larsen & Petrosian as "weak" GM's?
Originally posted by SquelchbelchThey all (including Fischer) did not have knowledge of modern top GMs which is the main reason why their level was not so high from modern top GM`s point of view. Or do you think that knowledge in chess is not important?
I'd hardly call Spassky weak.
Wasn't he World Champion & who did he beat to get the title in '69?
Do you class Geller, Korchnoi, Larsen & Petrosian as "weak" GM's?
Dont you know that many opening schemes (Hedgehog and Sveshnikov are the best known examples) which modern GMs play today were considered as bad then?
Originally posted by KorchThat's not an argument. It's an assertion with no evidence to support it.
You are making the same mistake as others who use "engine matchup argument". Fischer`s ascendancy in 70ties to compare his contemporaries was much more superior than World Champion has today. As I already have pointed out numerous times - [b]against weaker opponents its easier to play better (to say nothing about obvious fact that higher engine matchup not a ...[text shortened]... better play).
I`m still awaiting for someone who will be able to refute this argument.[/b]
You've failed to show that Spassky was a "weaker" opponent. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary.
Moreover, there's no evidence to support the assertion that differences between top grade GMs would lead to a higher match up. While the statement you tend to get higher match ups against weaker opponents is true when you are playing 1200 or 1400's at RHP, it would take some actual data to show that their is a significant statistical difference between match up of top GMs when they play 2600's rather than 2700s.
Over a significant statistical sample, even commercially available engines play better than top GMs using classical time controls. That is an undisputed fact.
So you've made a number of claims but haven't submitted a shred of evidence to support them. It's up to you to establish your "argument" (such as it is) since it runs counter to what evidence there is.
EDIT: If you want to make arguments based on "higher authority", you should post in Spirituality.
Originally posted by no1marauderI already know that modern top GMs (including Kasparov) are "idiots" with "bizzare way of "thinking"" and that you understand chess better than they does 😉
That's not an argument. It's an assertion with no evidence to support it.
You've failed to show that Spassky was a "weaker" opponent. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary.
Moreover, there's no evidence to support the assertion that differences between top grade GMs would lead to a higher match up. While the statemen t to make arguments based on "higher authority", you should post in Spirituality.
Feel free to explain why many of opening schemes played today were considered as bad in 70ties? Why so many positions are evaluated different today? Or maybe you agree with evaluations of 70ties?
Do you really believe that stronger players can`t lose to weaker ones if you think that one Kasparov-Spassky game (in which Spassky got bad opening positions and only lack of Kasparov`s experience helped him to win) proves that he wasn`t worse?
Originally posted by KorchModern GMs are biased in their own favor.
I already know that modern top GMs (including Kasparov0 are "idiots" with "bizzare way of "thinking"" and that you understand chess better than they does 😉
Feel free to explain why many of opening schemes played today were considered as bad in 70ties? Why so many positions are evaluated different today? Or maybe you agree with evaluations of 70ties?
Do ...[text shortened]... nd only lack of Kasparov`s experience helped him to win) game proves that he wasn`t worse?
No one is talking about openings. Engine match ups have nothing to do with openings. This is a complete non sequitur.
What evidence do you have that Spassky is a "weaker" player than the top 100 present GMs has you seem to be claiming? Did you think that you saying it makes it so?
I assume you have seen the data comparing blunder percentage of World Champions. How do you account for the fact that a player who reached his zenith almost 100 years ago (Raul Capablanca) had a lower percentage of blunders than any WC since? He must have been a "weaker" player after all.
We're still waiting for some actual data that support your assertions. "X says so" is not evidence, but a logical fallacy. I certainly hope someone who is a lawyer is aware of that.