11 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's not fischers age that is the issue (though just for the record, how many 50 year old WC's have we had compared to 20 year old WC's??). If Fischer was an active player, we would be able to gage his chances but the fact of the matter is he hasn't played for 30 years! Would you be a 2000 rated player with a 30 year lay off?? I don't think so!
Also for the history buffs, Karpov beat Topalov twice in 2002 and drew against him in their last game in 2003. Karpov was born in 1951, so he had wins against the Bulgarian when he was past 50. Food for thought for those who keep insisting it's only a "young man's game".
11 Nov 05
Originally posted by marinakatombYou might be surprised considering who you're talking to.
It's not fischers age that is the issue (though just for the record, how many 50 year old WC's have we had compared to 20 year old WC's??). If Fischer was an active player, we would be able to gage his chances but the fact of the matter is he hasn't played for 30 years! Would you be a 2000 rated player with a 30 year lay off?? I don't think so!
11 Nov 05
Originally posted by marinakatombActually, before joining this site, I doubt if I had played as many games in the last 20 years as Fischer did against Spassky. I remember a few other high rated players here mentioning they had similar layoffs, Gatecrasher being one I believe and prn being another.
It's not fischers age that is the issue (though just for the record, how many 50 year old WC's have we had compared to 20 year old WC's??). If Fischer was an active player, we would be able to gage his chances but the fact of the matter is he hasn't played for 30 years! Would you be a 2000 rated player with a 30 year lay off?? I don't think so!
Anyway, Fisher's Fischer; not too may other players were US Champion and a Grandmaster at 14. I fail to see why the fact that Karpov, when he was over 50, beat Topalov isn't relevant to the discussion. Like I said, Topalov would be heavily favored for the reasons you give, but people who think Bobby would get crushed are speculating based on little evidence. We know Fischer is 62 years old and we know he hasn't played a match since 1992 (Query: How many long matches has Topalov EVER played?). We also know he was the greatest match player in history and has a chess intellect that was (is?) unmatched. I say a match would be interesting and possibly surprising, bit I doubt if it would ever happen - Topalov seems unwilling to play Kramnik, the legitimate champion, why would he play Fischer?
11 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderIf I have an opinion, I'm not talking out of my a**. Topalov - Fischer is not going to happen so all we're talking about are opinions. I won't comment on the anal qualities of yours but I hardly think that anyone can come out of reclusive retirement after 30 years and be a contender. And, I'm a big fan of Fischer's games.
Spassky at the age of 51 drew both his games against Kasparov in 1988; so he must have become a total "has been" very quickly. Fischer makes his own rules; can we be sure that even at 62 he couldn't beat Topalov? Those people here who smugly assert otherwise are talking out of their a**. Topalov would be a heavy favorite, but Bobby was the greatest ma ...[text shortened]... esting.
EDIT: Botvinnik was still a champion at 52 in the 1960's. So who's to say for sure?
12 Nov 05
Originally posted by buffalobillAn opinion based on little evidence and ignoring relevant facts is talking out of your a**. Deal with it.
If I have an opinion, I'm not talking out of my a**. Topalov - Fischer is not going to happen so all we're talking about are opinions. I won't comment on the anal qualities of yours but I hardly think that anyone can come out of reclusive retirement after 30 years and be a contender. And, I'm a big fan of Fischer's games.
13 Nov 05
5 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderi am just wondering what your evidence for your claims that "he was the greatest match player ever" ... and that "his chess intellect was unmatched" ... are ?
.... We also know he was the greatest match player in history and has a chess intellect that was (is?) unmatched. ....
and also posted by no1marauder
An opinion based on little evidence and ignoring relevant facts is talking out of your a**.
did he defeat ... alekhine ... karpov, kasparov, kramnik or many others?
(just remember that spassky was probably the weakest world champion of modern times, nowhere near karpov's class.)
there have been many prodigies and freaks across the chess world, mostly bizare and unique ... fischer is one of many.
13 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by flyUnityif it helps any then : i think (time for me to talk out of my @$$)
... Its a big dissapointment to me that Fischer choose the way of life he did.
he did not choose to retire ... the choice was made for him ...
fischer was caught in the cold war : USA v USSR.
fischer was alone and valiant and rose like a star, but the soviet chess machine would have ground him down, with or without their new rising star karpov ... fischer was just one, when he came in as the freak he could surprise the established soviet players and their style ... but if he tried to maintain it then the dozens of very strong soviet players would have grouped up on him and analysed and communicated every weakness of his they could find ... fischer was likely to eventually be ground down ... i doubt that the USA would have wanted this to happen ... i suspect they preferred him to resign imediately after taking the title.
anyone caught in such an international spotlight and having their ability idolised and questioned and whatever else was bound to become a total lunatic and headcase ... fischer was already a little loopy, but such a scenario was bound to send him way over the edge.
13 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by flexmoreI wouldn't say he was the best champion. In his day, he was the best. People don't become champion by sucking. And champion he did become. And if memory serve's me, Spassky has beaten Fischer, Petrosian, Korchnoi, Tal, Geller, Larsen, just to name a few. All great players in that time. Whether or not he is near Karpov's class, Spassky was at very least the best of his time if only for a short while.
just remember that spassky was probably the weakest world champion of modern times, nowhere near karpov's class.
13 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by flexmorePeople's ignorance of chess history always amazes me. Fischer's claim to be the greatest match player ever rests on his record; look it up. Bent Larsen had played no1 board in the famous Rest of the World v. USSR match in the 1960's and was considered the strongest non-Russian player in the 60's other than Fischer. In 1970, Fischer defeated him 6-0 in their Candidates match. That was following Fischer's 6-0 victory over Taimanov in a Candidates Match (heard of the Taimanov line in the Sicilian?). That's 12 straight victories over two of the best players in the world something never before acheived! And than Fischer easily beat Tigran Petrosian (ever heard of him?) who had wrested the title from the great Botvinnik and than lost to Spassky. Spassky, "one of the weakest world champions"????? Where do you get this s**t? He was beating Kasparov when he was in his forties and had two draws against the "greatest player ever" when Spassky was 51 years old!!! Geez, read a book!
i am just wondering what your evidence for your claims that "he was the greatest match player ever" ... and that "his chess intellect was unmatched" ... are ?
did he defeat ... alekhine ... karpov, kasparov, kramnik or many others?
(just remember that spassky was probably the weakest world champion of modern times, nowhere near karpov's class.)
th ...[text shortened]... rodigies and freaks across the chess world, mostly bizare and unique ... fischer is one of many.
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by flexmore🙄🙄
if it helps any then : [b]i think (time for me to talk out of my @$$)
he did not choose to retire ... the choice was made for him ...
fischer was caught in the cold war : USA v USSR.
fischer was alone and valiant and rose like a star, but the soviet chess machine would have ground him down, with or without their new rising star karpov ... fischer ...[text shortened]... fischer was already a little loopy, but such a scenario was bound to send him way over the edge.[/b]
13 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderif fischer had never been born ... then how long do you think spassky would have dominated the rest of the chess world??? indeed - did he ever dominate? - NO!
People's ignorance of chess history always amazes me. Fischer's claim to be the greatest match player ever rests on his record; look it up. Bent Larsen had played no1 board in the famous Rest of the World v. USSR match in the 1960's and was considered the strongest non-Russian player in the 60's other than Fischer. In 1970, Fischer defeated him 6-0 i ...[text shortened]... o draws against the "greatest player ever" when Spassky was 51 years old!!! Geez, read a book!
ever heard of the amazing spassky defence? - NO!!!
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by flexmoreYou can speculate all you like. Nobody will ever know. The fact remains, Fischer was born and subsequently ended Spassky's "domination" back in '72.
if fischer had never been born ... then how long do you think spassky would have dominated the rest of the chess world???