#1 engine in 2012

[gerold]

Hi Larry,

Fischer I don't like, he plays always the same and he have a bit luck because at this times not many good chess players plays vs. Fischer. Spassky are never one of the TOP-5 I think. Shortly, I don't like him. Fischer are never good for chess only for marketing things other have in his brain around Fischer. People like sensation and like Fischer.

Hi Frank, why do you say so? I understand that one can dislike Fischer but he's one of the greatest of all times. Example: he played in the era of more champions in chess history: Boris Spassky, Tigran Petrosjan, Viktor Korchnoj, Mikhail Tal, Lev Polugajevsky, Mikhail Botvinnik, Bent Larsen, Mark Taimanov, Leonid Stein, Paul Benko, Vassily Smyslov, Samuel Reshevsky, David Bronstein, Lajos Portisch, Efim Geller, and i' m sorry that surely i forget someone else. All these players have made a piece of chess history and Fischer had a 15 years career in the middle of this group of super GMs.

Fischer reached the highest elo of all times (at that time), he scored 6-0 vs Taimanov, 6-0 vs Larsen, 6,5 vs 2,5 vs Petrosjan and crushed Spassky in the world championship.

No one in chess history made something like that.

I don't know if he was the greatest one, but he had to compete against the entire USSR, working totally alone (he didn't have a team behind like all USSR GMs).

Yes it was a sensation, but it was not its fault. People watched him like an american star in a world dominated by russians.

Best Regards

+1

[Dayffd]

Hi Larry,

oh yes, Capablanca I like too... Spassky are never one of the TOP-5 I think... Best
Frank

Hi Frank,

As always your comments are thoughtful and interesting to read. I would like to refer to a part of your recent post above concerning Spassky. I may be not understanding exactly what you mean here since it sounds to me like you are saying Sapssky was never one of the top 5 players. Perhaps he wasn't in the top 5 of all time, buut we should not forget he was world champion at one time and Fischer rated him as among the top 10 of all time.

Also, in this thread it is remarked about how players today obtain a lot of their ability utilizing ches engines, memorization of openings, and copying ideas. Little is mentioned of Dr. Em. Lasker. His views, as expressed in Manual of Chess, could also be considered and to me are worth considering.

I also recall one of the few times I "prepared" an opening to play at a simul vs an IM at Prince George's Plaza in Maryland (USA). It was an interesting game and I wish I had kept the score, but this was so many years ago...

Best Regards,

David

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi David,

Lasker was for more as only chess reasons an interesting person and of course also one of the players I like. Latest year a big biography about him is available, over 1.000 sites with a lot of material. I like this book and read from time to time here, replayed Lasker games and have fun too. This book is really great.

In German:
http://www.schachversand.de/d/listen/he ... r/231.html
Over 100 EUR from Exzelsior.

I think the Russian organization made a self mate with Spassky. So many good players never get a really chance at this times. Fischer plays the most of times vs. weaker opponents in USA. He didn't play many of tourneys vs. strong opponents. After he won the World Championship nothing to see from Fischer.

His opinion to different politics is not very nice. He wrote a lot about Jews and the second world war. Germans never have a concentration camp ... ha, ha and so many bullshit comes from him. He died in Island and 4 persons are on his burial. The Icelander don't like him, clear what he do here in the latest years are not very nice. Bobby Fischer isn't figurehead. Its a black chapter in chess a very black chapter. But interesting for people which like to make money with him. So many books about him, about a chess player which plays always the same openings. I can nothing see in Bobby Fischer and I think more as 50 players are stronger as Bobby Fischer, no proof about his playing strength is available after he won the World Champion Ship vs. a Russian player Spassky it isn't best the Russion had as this time.

Best
Frank

[MM]

Hi Larry,

oh yes, Capablanca I like too... Spassky are never one of the TOP-5 I think... Best
Frank

Hi Frank,

As always your comments are thoughtful and interesting to read. I would like to refer to a part of your recent post above concerning Spassky. I may be not understanding exactly what you mean here since it sounds to me like you are saying Sapssky was never one of the top 5 players. Perhaps he wasn't in the top 5 of all time, buut we should not forget he was world champion at one time and Fischer rated him as among the top 10 of all time.

Also, in this thread it is remarked about how players today obtain a lot of their ability utilizing ches engines, memorization of openings, and copying ideas. Little is mentioned of Dr. Em. Lasker. His views, as expressed in Manual of Chess, could also be considered and to me are worth considering.

I also recall one of the few times I "prepared" an opening to play at a simul vs an IM at Prince George's Plaza in Maryland (USA). It was an interesting game and I wish I had kept the score, but this was so many years ago...

Best Regards,

David

Hi David,

i am sorry if i insert myself in this discussion but the argument is too interesting to avoid it.

As regards Boris Spassky, i agree with Fischer. I think he was one of the most talented players of all times. He defeated Tigran Petrosjan in 1969 at the world championship. At that time Petrosjan seemed almost unbeatable in a match.

As regards Doctor Eman. Lasker, i remember that i read that once he said ''I spent so much time in my life trying to forget what i've learned''.

He said that what really counts is ''method''.

What a wonderful genius he was (he discussed many times with his friend Einstein...).

Best Regards

[Dayffd]

Hi David,

Lasker was for more as only chess reasons an interesting person and of course also one of the players I like. Latest year a big biography about him is available, over 1.000 sites with a lot of material. I like this book and read from time to time here, replayed Lasker games and have fun too. This book is really great.

In German:
http://www.schachversand.de/d/listen/he ... r/231.html
Over 100 EUR from Exzelsior.

I think the Russian organization made a self mate with Spassky. So many good players never get a really chance at this times. Fischer plays the most of times vs. weaker opponents in USA. He didn't play many of tourneys vs. strong opponents. After he won the World Championship nothing to see from Fischer.

His opinion to different politics is not very nice. He wrote a lot about Jews and the second world war. Germans never have a concentration camp ... ha, ha and so many bullshit comes from him. He died in Island and 4 persons are on his burial. The Icelander don't like him, clear what he do here in the latest years are not very nice. Bobby Fischer isn't figurehead. Its a black chapter in chess a very black chapter. But interesting for people which like to make money with him. So many books about him, about a chess player which plays always the same openings. I can nothing see in Bobby Fischer and I think more as 50 players are stronger as Bobby Fischer, no proof about his playing strength is available after he won the World Champion Ship vs. a Russian player Spassky it isn't best the Russion had as this time.

Best
Frank

Hi Frank,

Where would I begin? As far as the purely chess aspect is concerned, I think you are correct that there were players during the Soviet era that never had the chances to play internationally that such as Spassky, Petrosian, Taimonov (sp?), Geller, and many others had. Still, I thiink this does not detract from Spassky's play at his peak. As for Fischer playing weaker opponents in the USA, I think that is perhaps not quite correct since this implies there were stronger opponets Fischer did not play. He was simply the best player in the USA and defeated all of his rivals; his closest competitor in the USA being S. Reshevsky, Pal Benko, and L. Evans. I don't think I left anyone out. Internationally, Fischer became the strongest player in the world - how many top ranked players could boast the kind of scores Fischer put up in those significant tourneys he played in, including the candidates matches and then winning the world championship decisively. Fischer, chessically speaking, was one of the greatest players in the annals of chess - in my opinion.

As for his politics, at best towards the end, they were distasteful. In fact, they were downright ugly. Personally I think he had gone over the brink with his politics, but if we separate his chess from his politics...

Back to Lasker, as MM said, Lasker once wrote he had spent much of his time trying to forget what he had learned. Left out was that he also said this because opening theory and pronouncements were wrong. His philosophy of chess was that of struggle in which the psychological part plays a role. Generally though, he stressed the importance of keeping a position flexible and he waxed poetic in his examples. )Lasker's Manual of Chess)

As for MM whom I am quoting below,

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Hi David,

i am sorry if i insert myself in this discussion but the argument is too interesting to avoid it. (No problem !)

As regards Boris Spassky, i agree with Fischer. I think he was one of the most talented players of all times. He defeated Tigran Petrosjan in 1969 at the world championship. At that time Petrosjan seemed almost unbeatable in a match.

(Fischer once said Petrosian had the knack of snuffing out an opponent's plans 20 moves before they even entered his head - or words to that effect. This was in his 60 Memorable Games. Petrosian was and still is one of my favorite players, along with M. Tal, A. Alekhine, and a couple of others.)

As regards Doctor Eman. Lasker, i remember that i read that once he said ''I spent so much time in my life trying to forget what i've learned''.

He said that what really counts is ''method''.

What a wonderful genius he was (he discussed many times with his friend Einstein...).

(Yes he did. He was, so far as I know (and this I read somewhere), the only contemporary of A. Einstein to question that part of Relativity claiming the C (the speed of light) could not be exceeded. Doesn't mean Relativity is wrong...just saying. Oh yeah...what is this recent bit about neutrinos? Aside from that, though, like everyone Lasker had some points which did not shine quite so brightly.)

Best Regards,

David

Best Regards
_________________
MM

[Uri Blass]

Hi David,

Lasker was for more as only chess reasons an interesting person and of course also one of the players I like. Latest year a big biography about him is available, over 1.000 sites with a lot of material. I like this book and read from time to time here, replayed Lasker games and have fun too. This book is really great.

In German:
http://www.schachversand.de/d/listen/he ... r/231.html
Over 100 EUR from Exzelsior.

I think the Russian organization made a self mate with Spassky. So many good players never get a really chance at this times. Fischer plays the most of times vs. weaker opponents in USA. He didn't play many of tourneys vs. strong opponents. After he won the World Championship nothing to see from Fischer.

His opinion to different politics is not very nice. He wrote a lot about Jews and the second world war. Germans never have a concentration camp ... ha, ha and so many bullshit comes from him. He died in Island and 4 persons are on his burial. The Icelander don't like him, clear what he do here in the latest years are not very nice. Bobby Fischer isn't figurehead. Its a black chapter in chess a very black chapter. But interesting for people which like to make money with him. So many books about him, about a chess player which plays always the same openings. I can nothing see in Bobby Fischer and I think more as 50 players are stronger as Bobby Fischer, no proof about his playing strength is available after he won the World Champion Ship vs. a Russian player Spassky it isn't best the Russion had as this time.

Best
Frank

Politics is not relevant here and we are talking about chess.

Fischer's playing strength in 1970-1972 was clearly above all other people
of the same time and Spassky is not the only Russian player who lost against Fischer at that time.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Uri,

but a player, good only in 2-4 years isn't for me the best of the World. Fischer forget to give the prove after he won vs. Spassky. Could be a generation problem too, means that the generation after Fischer are in my opinion stronger chess players. I can't believe that Fischer could be a real chance vs. Karpow for one example.

Fischer was a coward with a lot of problems with itself. I read in my young years so many material about him and I can't build an other opinion.

Fischer are a strong chess player, World-Champion yes ... but if I look in the history of chess I think 50 or more players are stronger as Fischer. Again, this is my personal opinion only.

Best
Frank

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Hi Uri,

but a player, good only in 2-4 years isn't for me the best of the World. Fischer forget to give the prove after he won vs. Spassky. Could be a generation problem too, means that the generation after Fischer are in my opinion stronger chess players. I can't believe that Fischer could be a real chance vs. Karpow for one example.

Fischer was a coward with a lot of problems with itself. I read in my young years so many material about him and I can't build an other opinion.

Fischer are a strong chess player, World-Champion yes ... but if I look in the history of chess I think 50 or more players are stronger as Fischer. Again, this is my personal opinion only.

Best
Frank

Fischer at his prime would eat Karpov for breakfast....Maybe Kasparov's playing style could through some difficulties at Fischer if they ever play a match....
Dr.D

[MM]

Hi Uri,

but a player, good only in 2-4 years isn't for me the best of the World. Fischer forget to give the prove after he won vs. Spassky. Could be a generation problem too, means that the generation after Fischer are in my opinion stronger chess players. I can't believe that Fischer could be a real chance vs. Karpow for one example.

Fischer was a coward with a lot of problems with itself. I read in my young years so many material about him and I can't build an other opinion.

Fischer are a strong chess player, World-Champion yes ... but if I look in the history of chess I think 50 or more players are stronger as Fischer. Again, this is my personal opinion only.

Best
Frank

Fischer at his prime would eat Karpov for breakfast....Maybe Kasparov's playing style could through some difficulties at Fischer if they ever play a match....
Dr.D

+1

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Wael,

possible, but we don't have the proof.
And after all what I saw from Fischer I can't believe it.
And again, this is my personal opinion about him, so each one should have a personal opinion about this one or that one.

For me is Fischer an poor men with a lot of problems. I missed a bit good helps in times Fischer need help. Most have other things in his brain around Fischer. This is indeed not a very nice situation for him and the Chess World.

Around Fischer we have a legende with a lot of possibilities for make chess more popular. But I dislike negativ publicity and for this negative publicity Fischer itself is responsibly.

Sorry but I like more activ World Champions, like Karpow or Kasparow and so many others we had.

But if you or others like Fischer, I have no problems with it

Best
Frank