MattieShoes wrote:Of course IBM is concerned with the bottom line. They're not an NPO. Making money is what they DO. The science they support is simply long term ways to make more money. Criticizing them for it seems... odd. Was somebody under the impression that they weren't?
As for not granting a rematch, why would they? They got exactly what they wanted already. They beat the champ. There was nowhere to go but down. The Superbowl champs don't grant rematches either. And this was similar -- a lot of hype and glitz with a game thrown in that is usually worse than many games from the "regular season".
Take another example. Fischer beat the champ, then retired without defending his title. If he had played and lost to Karpov rather than quitting, would people still be putting him on a pedestal? Well, probably they would simply because he was American, but a lot less so.
Not to mention he would not have been beaten by Karpov.
As much as Fischer was a jerk he would have laid waste to the Constrictor, we solidly agree on this point. Karpov in 81 or 84/85 would be a closer match I feel.
Karpov at his best would have been beaten badly by Fischer....the reason is simple....Karpov is an ultra positional player,damn good yes,but....once Fischer starts his tactical fireworks and his amazing ability to complicate the position on the board,Karpov will be blown away like a ballon in the middle of a storm....
Dr.D
In case you didn't know, Karpov was better than Spassky. Also, Petrosian was a great positional player and lost to Fischer but wasn't blown away.
Fischer was the best in his day and most likely the best of all time but he wouldn't blow away a Karpov at his peak or Kasparov.
Maybe you forgot that super long match of 1984? Maybe you have forgotten that Karpov drew Kasparov in 1990?
No I didn't,but I stick to my thoughts....
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
MattieShoes wrote:Of course IBM is concerned with the bottom line. They're not an NPO. Making money is what they DO. The science they support is simply long term ways to make more money. Criticizing them for it seems... odd. Was somebody under the impression that they weren't?
As for not granting a rematch, why would they? They got exactly what they wanted already. They beat the champ. There was nowhere to go but down. The Superbowl champs don't grant rematches either. And this was similar -- a lot of hype and glitz with a game thrown in that is usually worse than many games from the "regular season".
Take another example. Fischer beat the champ, then retired without defending his title. If he had played and lost to Karpov rather than quitting, would people still be putting him on a pedestal? Well, probably they would simply because he was American, but a lot less so.
Not to mention he would not have been beaten by Karpov.
As much as Fischer was a jerk he would have laid waste to the Constrictor, we solidly agree on this point. Karpov in 81 or 84/85 would be a closer match I feel.
Karpov at his best would have been beaten badly by Fischer....the reason is simple....Karpov is an ultra positional player,damn good yes,but....once Fischer starts his tactical fireworks and his amazing ability to complicate the position on the board,Karpov will be blown away like a ballon in the middle of a storm....
Dr.D
Kasparov was well known for his ability to create tactically complicated positions and to tactically outcalculate his opponents. And yet the overall score in the Karpov-Kasparov WC matches is practically a tie. Karpov at one point almost succeeded in regaining his title when he had a lead going into the final game in the ultimate match.
So I don't see any basis for arguing that Karpov would have been blown away by Fischer's tactical play. Look at his record against Kasparov, the highest rated player in the history of the game.
Who knows what the result would have been if Fischer had defended his title and played against Karpov and/or Kasparov. Fischer was a coward in the same way that the management at IBM were cowards for dismantling Deep Blue, thus preventing the machine from ever playing again.
No,Fischer was not a coward,paranoid maybe,but definitely not a coward....A lot of people hate him for his political views,but this has nothing to do with his chess playing performance....
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Kasparov got his helmet handed to him. In that match, the world champion encountered that computer, which the rest of us had already encountered in lesser incarnations, that could outplay him in a match.
Well said....
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Kasparov got his helmet handed to him. In that match, the world champion encountered that computer, which the rest of us had already encountered in lesser incarnations, that could outplay him in a match.
That's a little harsh Matt, and their is no question in my mind the results could have been reversed.
Kasparov lost yes, but he wasn't the underdog. This time the underdog, Deep Blue II won.
The sad part was there would never be a re-match.
I suppose you have a point there but I dont know what it is. You say the results could have been reversed. You could say that about anything under the sun.
Custer's last stand could have been reversed---if he had not split up his troops.
The second Louis-schmelling fight could have been reversed---if Schmelling had fought Louis like he did in the first fight.
Curacao 1962 could have been reversed---if Geller, Keres, and Petrosian had been straight shooters. Bobby could have been champ a decade earlier.
and if Tal would have been healthier, Bobby would have been become champ even later.
Miguel
Where have I heard that before---Oh yeah, they said that about Steinitz when he played Lasker. And they said that about Lasker when he played Capablanca. And they said that about Alekhine when---wait, he was just piss-faced. They didnt say Tal was sick we he beat Botvinnik but only a short time later when he lost. They said Karpov was ill when he started losing to Kasparov in 84' And thats only world champions we're discussing!
You do have a point and a good sense of humor though.
James
You started a funny speculation about Fischer and I followed up.
No, Tal was seriously ill and it was no joke. Besides, to come back to the early 60's, Tal was spanking Fischer and that was no speculation.
Much later in life, Tal made tow extraordinary runs. In one of them, he had the record of a longest streak of being undefeated (yes, with his style). Maybe it was beaten now by Kramnik?. In the late 70's he started to show his magnificent chess again and it was dominant but a bit too late, too old (see Montreal 79, Interzonals etc.).
MattieShoes wrote:Of course IBM is concerned with the bottom line. They're not an NPO. Making money is what they DO. The science they support is simply long term ways to make more money. Criticizing them for it seems... odd. Was somebody under the impression that they weren't?
As for not granting a rematch, why would they? They got exactly what they wanted already. They beat the champ. There was nowhere to go but down. The Superbowl champs don't grant rematches either. And this was similar -- a lot of hype and glitz with a game thrown in that is usually worse than many games from the "regular season".
Take another example. Fischer beat the champ, then retired without defending his title. If he had played and lost to Karpov rather than quitting, would people still be putting him on a pedestal? Well, probably they would simply because he was American, but a lot less so.
Not to mention he would not have been beaten by Karpov.
As much as Fischer was a jerk he would have laid waste to the Constrictor, we solidly agree on this point. Karpov in 81 or 84/85 would be a closer match I feel.
Karpov at his best would have been beaten badly by Fischer....the reason is simple....Karpov is an ultra positional player,damn good yes,but....once Fischer starts his tactical fireworks and his amazing ability to complicate the position on the board,Karpov will be blown away like a ballon in the middle of a storm....
Dr.D
Kasparov was well known for his ability to create tactically complicated positions and to tactically outcalculate his opponents. And yet the overall score in the Karpov-Kasparov WC matches is practically a tie. Karpov at one point almost succeeded in regaining his title when he had a lead going into the final game in the ultimate match.
So I don't see any basis for arguing that Karpov would have been blown away by Fischer's tactical play. Look at his record against Kasparov, the highest rated player in the history of the game.
Who knows what the result would have been if Fischer had defended his title and played against Karpov and/or Kasparov. Fischer was a coward in the same way that the management at IBM were cowards for dismantling Deep Blue, thus preventing the machine from ever playing again.
No,Fischer was not a coward,paranoid maybe,but definitely not a coward....A lot of people hate him for his political views,but this has nothing to do with his chess playing performance....
Dr.D
Not just because of his political views, but because he avoided all the top players and instead decided to play Spassky again 20 years later. Doesn't show much fortitude.
Kasparov got his helmet handed to him. In that match, the world champion encountered that computer, which the rest of us had already encountered in lesser incarnations, that could outplay him in a match.
That's a little harsh Matt, and their is no question in my mind the results could have been reversed.
Kasparov lost yes, but he wasn't the underdog. This time the underdog, Deep Blue II won.
The sad part was there would never be a re-match.
I suppose you have a point there but I dont know what it is. You say the results could have been reversed. You could say that about anything under the sun.
Custer's last stand could have been reversed---if he had not split up his troops.
The second Louis-schmelling fight could have been reversed---if Schmelling had fought Louis like he did in the first fight.
Curacao 1962 could have been reversed---if Geller, Keres, and Petrosian had been straight shooters. Bobby could have been champ a decade earlier.
You have no point at all! Go troll in other waters!
Kasparov got his helmet handed to him. In that match, the world champion encountered that computer, which the rest of us had already encountered in lesser incarnations, that could outplay him in a match.
That's a little harsh Matt, and their is no question in my mind the results could have been reversed.
Kasparov lost yes, but he wasn't the underdog. This time the underdog, Deep Blue II won.
The sad part was there would never be a re-match.
I suppose you have a point there but I dont know what it is. You say the results could have been reversed. You could say that about anything under the sun.
Custer's last stand could have been reversed---if he had not split up his troops.
The second Louis-schmelling fight could have been reversed---if Schmelling had fought Louis like he did in the first fight.
Curacao 1962 could have been reversed---if Geller, Keres, and Petrosian had been straight shooters. Bobby could have been champ a decade earlier.
and if Tal would have been healthier, Bobby would have been become champ even later.
Miguel
Where have I heard that before---Oh yeah, they said that about Steinitz when he played Lasker. And they said that about Lasker when he played Capablanca. And they said that about Alekhine when---wait, he was just piss-faced. They didnt say Tal was sick we he beat Botvinnik but only a short time later when he lost. They said Karpov was ill when he started losing to Kasparov in 84' And thats only world champions we're discussing!
You do have a point and a good sense of humor though.
James
You started a funny speculation about Fischer and I followed up.
No, Tal was seriously ill and it was no joke. Besides, to come back to the early 60's, Tal was spanking Fischer and that was no speculation.
Much later in life, Tal made tow extraordinary runs. In one of them, he had the record of a longest streak of being undefeated (yes, with his style). Maybe it was beaten now by Kramnik?. In the late 70's he started to show his magnificent chess again and it was dominant but a bit too late, too old (see Montreal 79, Interzonals etc.).
Miguel
Yes, I know Tal was ill at Curacao---he was hospitalized and Fischer was the only GM to visit him at the hospital. This incident was well publicized.
However, These strong players need an excuse for losing. One famous Grandmaster quote was---I have never, ever beaten a well man!
My point is sometimes they are legitimate and most of the time they are not---Fischer fever for instance. Taimanov got it, Larsen got it, Petrosian got it and Spassky got it. Maybe when these strong players get crushed they do get ill.
Regards, Jim
MattieShoes wrote:Of course IBM is concerned with the bottom line. They're not an NPO. Making money is what they DO. The science they support is simply long term ways to make more money. Criticizing them for it seems... odd. Was somebody under the impression that they weren't?
As for not granting a rematch, why would they? They got exactly what they wanted already. They beat the champ. There was nowhere to go but down. The Superbowl champs don't grant rematches either. And this was similar -- a lot of hype and glitz with a game thrown in that is usually worse than many games from the "regular season".
Take another example. Fischer beat the champ, then retired without defending his title. If he had played and lost to Karpov rather than quitting, would people still be putting him on a pedestal? Well, probably they would simply because he was American, but a lot less so.
Not to mention he would not have been beaten by Karpov.
As much as Fischer was a jerk he would have laid waste to the Constrictor, we solidly agree on this point. Karpov in 81 or 84/85 would be a closer match I feel.
Karpov at his best would have been beaten badly by Fischer....the reason is simple....Karpov is an ultra positional player,damn good yes,but....once Fischer starts his tactical fireworks and his amazing ability to complicate the position on the board,Karpov will be blown away like a ballon in the middle of a storm....
Dr.D
In case you didn't know, Karpov was better than Spassky. Also, Petrosian was a great positional player and lost to Fischer but wasn't blown away.
Fischer was the best in his day and most likely the best of all time but he wouldn't blow away a Karpov at his peak or Kasparov.
Maybe you forgot that super long match of 1984? Maybe you have forgotten that Karpov drew Kasparov in 1990?
No I didn't,but I stick to my thoughts....
Dr.D
The expression is Stick to my Guns for future referrence.
MattieShoes wrote:Of course IBM is concerned with the bottom line. They're not an NPO. Making money is what they DO. The science they support is simply long term ways to make more money. Criticizing them for it seems... odd. Was somebody under the impression that they weren't?
As for not granting a rematch, why would they? They got exactly what they wanted already. They beat the champ. There was nowhere to go but down. The Superbowl champs don't grant rematches either. And this was similar -- a lot of hype and glitz with a game thrown in that is usually worse than many games from the "regular season".
Take another example. Fischer beat the champ, then retired without defending his title. If he had played and lost to Karpov rather than quitting, would people still be putting him on a pedestal? Well, probably they would simply because he was American, but a lot less so.
Not to mention he would not have been beaten by Karpov.
As much as Fischer was a jerk he would have laid waste to the Constrictor, we solidly agree on this point. Karpov in 81 or 84/85 would be a closer match I feel.
Karpov at his best would have been beaten badly by Fischer....the reason is simple....Karpov is an ultra positional player,damn good yes,but....once Fischer starts his tactical fireworks and his amazing ability to complicate the position on the board,Karpov will be blown away like a ballon in the middle of a storm....
Dr.D
Kasparov was well known for his ability to create tactically complicated positions and to tactically outcalculate his opponents. And yet the overall score in the Karpov-Kasparov WC matches is practically a tie. Karpov at one point almost succeeded in regaining his title when he had a lead going into the final game in the ultimate match.
So I don't see any basis for arguing that Karpov would have been blown away by Fischer's tactical play. Look at his record against Kasparov, the highest rated player in the history of the game.
Who knows what the result would have been if Fischer had defended his title and played against Karpov and/or Kasparov. Fischer was a coward in the same way that the management at IBM were cowards for dismantling Deep Blue, thus preventing the machine from ever playing again.
No,Fischer was not a coward,paranoid maybe,but definitely not a coward....A lot of people hate him for his political views,but this has nothing to do with his chess playing performance....
Dr.D
Not just because of his political views, but because he avoided all the top players and instead decided to play Spassky again 20 years later. Doesn't show much fortitude.
In 20 years are you going to say that about Kasparov???
MattieShoes wrote:Of course IBM is concerned with the bottom line. They're not an NPO. Making money is what they DO. The science they support is simply long term ways to make more money. Criticizing them for it seems... odd. Was somebody under the impression that they weren't?
As for not granting a rematch, why would they? They got exactly what they wanted already. They beat the champ. There was nowhere to go but down. The Superbowl champs don't grant rematches either. And this was similar -- a lot of hype and glitz with a game thrown in that is usually worse than many games from the "regular season".
Take another example. Fischer beat the champ, then retired without defending his title. If he had played and lost to Karpov rather than quitting, would people still be putting him on a pedestal? Well, probably they would simply because he was American, but a lot less so.
Not to mention he would not have been beaten by Karpov.
As much as Fischer was a jerk he would have laid waste to the Constrictor, we solidly agree on this point. Karpov in 81 or 84/85 would be a closer match I feel.
Karpov at his best would have been beaten badly by Fischer....the reason is simple....Karpov is an ultra positional player,damn good yes,but....once Fischer starts his tactical fireworks and his amazing ability to complicate the position on the board,Karpov will be blown away like a ballon in the middle of a storm....
Dr.D
In case you didn't know, Karpov was better than Spassky. Also, Petrosian was a great positional player and lost to Fischer but wasn't blown away.
Fischer was the best in his day and most likely the best of all time but he wouldn't blow away a Karpov at his peak or Kasparov.
Maybe you forgot that super long match of 1984? Maybe you have forgotten that Karpov drew Kasparov in 1990?
No I didn't,but I stick to my thoughts....
Dr.D
The expression is Stick to my Guns for future referrence.
Thanks master Terry....
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
