Kasparov vs Deep Blue,what happened?

[Leto]

BTW FIDE didn't make concessions in the things he wanted. They did, but 20 years later...

Not true, in 1973 Fischer gave three conditions, that the match last until a player gets 10 wins, no limit in number of games, and in the case of a 9-9 score Fischer retains the title.

In June 1974 FIDE held a congress consisting of U.S. and U.S.S.R. representatives. It ruled that the match should last until six wins, Fischer replied that if this is so he would resign his title. FIDE could have accepted his resignation right there but instead they agreed to allow the match last until a player gets 10 wins, up to 36 games, and rejected the 9-9 condition.

Fischer sent a letter to FIDE in June 1974 declaring his resignation. A special FIDE congress was held in March 1975 to try once again to get Fischer to play Karpov. They ruled that they would accept Fischer's condition of unlimited match duration, but did not accept the 9-9 clause. No reply was received from Fischer and thus Karpov became world champion a month later.

In Karpov's 1991 autobiography he says he met privately with Fischer several times after 1975 in attempts to arrange a match with him but was unsucessful.

[james uselton]

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???

I don't remember Kasparov ever running away from a challenge. He retired to pursue a political career. Unfortunate, considering his bizarre political views, but at least he's not a neo-Nazi like Fischer was.

Strange. I don't remember Fischer running away from a challenge either. He retired over a disagreement with how FIDE handled the world-championship cycle back then...

Come on! The whole thing was a humongous tantrum and FIDE made lots of concessions about it, until Bobby started to be unreasonable. Besides, he did not play a single game from 1972 to 1975.

Miguel

Again, so what? Back then the WCC cycle was every 3 years. He didn't have to qualify again, he was the reigning champ. To each his own. Hardly any GM doesn't exhibit some sort of unusual personality trait from time to time.

BTW FIDE didn't make concessions in the things he wanted. They did, but 20 years later...

Correct me if I'm wrong but,
I think they started making concessions almost at once to Karpov---The rematch clause for one---which was denied Fischer.

[bob]

BTW FIDE didn't make concessions in the things he wanted. They did, but 20 years later...

Not true, in 1973 Fischer gave three conditions, that the match last until a player gets 10 wins, no limit in number of games, and in the case of a 9-9 score Fischer retains the title.

And exactly what happened in the long match between K and K?

In June 1974 FIDE held a congress consisting of U.S. and U.S.S.R. representatives. It ruled that the match should last until six wins, Fischer replied that if this is so he would resign his title. FIDE could have accepted his resignation right there but instead they agreed to allow the match last until a player gets 10 wins, up to 36 games, and rejected the 9-9 condition.

Fischer sent a letter to FIDE in June 1974 declaring his resignation. A special FIDE congress was held in March 1975 to try once again to get Fischer to play Karpov. They ruled that they would accept Fischer's condition of unlimited match duration, but did not accept the 9-9 clause. No reply was received from Fischer and thus Karpov became world champion a month later.

In Karpov's 1991 autobiography he says he met privately with Fischer several times after 1975 in attempts to arrange a match with him but was unsucessful.

[bob]

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???

I don't remember Kasparov ever running away from a challenge. He retired to pursue a political career. Unfortunate, considering his bizarre political views, but at least he's not a neo-Nazi like Fischer was.

Strange. I don't remember Fischer running away from a challenge either. He retired over a disagreement with how FIDE handled the world-championship cycle back then...

Come on! The whole thing was a humongous tantrum and FIDE made lots of concessions about it, until Bobby started to be unreasonable. Besides, he did not play a single game from 1972 to 1975.

Miguel

Again, so what? Back then the WCC cycle was every 3 years. He didn't have to qualify again, he was the reigning champ. To each his own. Hardly any GM doesn't exhibit some sort of unusual personality trait from time to time.

BTW FIDE didn't make concessions in the things he wanted. They did, but 20 years later...

Correct me if I'm wrong but,
I think they started making concessions almost at once to Karpov---The rematch clause for one---which was denied Fischer.

FIDE has generally kowtowed to Russian players over the years. Probably because so many of the top players came from Russia. It's just a fact of life. At one point Fischer objected to the adjourned game procedure, because the Russians would bring a "team" along to analyze the game overnight while the principal player slept, This favors a player that can put together a very strong team to help him. Today, this adjournment is usually solved with action-type time controls...

[michiguel]

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???

I don't remember Kasparov ever running away from a challenge. He retired to pursue a political career. Unfortunate, considering his bizarre political views, but at least he's not a neo-Nazi like Fischer was.

Strange. I don't remember Fischer running away from a challenge either. He retired over a disagreement with how FIDE handled the world-championship cycle back then...

Come on! The whole thing was a humongous tantrum and FIDE made lots of concessions about it, until Bobby started to be unreasonable. Besides, he did not play a single game from 1972 to 1975.

Miguel

Again, so what? Back then the WCC cycle was every 3 years. He didn't have to qualify again, he was the reigning champ. To each his own. Hardly any GM doesn't exhibit some sort of unusual personality trait from time to time.

BTW FIDE didn't make concessions in the things he wanted. They did, but 20 years later...

Correct me if I'm wrong but,
I think they started making concessions almost at once to Karpov---The rematch clause for one---which was denied Fischer.

FIDE has generally kowtowed to Russian players over the years. Probably because so many of the top players came from Russia. It's just a fact of life. At one point Fischer objected to the adjourned game procedure, because the Russians would bring a "team" along to analyze the game overnight while the principal player slept, This favors a player that can put together a very strong team to help him. Today, this adjournment is usually solved with action-type time controls...

RJF was a jerk, period. Bobby adjourned a game against Najdorf in the Olympiad (one in the early 60's). Fischer was very confident he could win, but Najdorf, playing for Argentina, not USSR, found by himself a way to fight and tie. A frustrated Bobby threw all the pieces out of the board, which qualified him to lose the game. Since Najdorf was a gentleman, met with the Argentine team and all they agreed to leave it as draw (you will rarely see this nowadays).

This was another of the multiple excuses Bobby tried to find. If he could not find a decent analyst to help him with adjouned games, it was not because he was not Soviet, it was because he did not tolerate anybody.

I addition, the FIDE president was Max Euwe, which I understand was a gentleman and I do not think he was siding with USSR. Please someone correct me if I am wrong.

Now, Bobby may not have been a jerk. The only other possibility is that he was already a mental case. That is a very reasonable explanation.

At that time, all this "evil Russians" trying to screw the westerners was another cold-war brainwashing silliness. I bought it when I was a kid, until I started to read that the real gentleman in the whole story was Spassky. I should have trusted my mother intuition, who told me that , but Bobby was my hero.

Miguel

[james uselton]

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???

I don't remember Kasparov ever running away from a challenge. He retired to pursue a political career. Unfortunate, considering his bizarre political views, but at least he's not a neo-Nazi like Fischer was.

Strange. I don't remember Fischer running away from a challenge either. He retired over a disagreement with how FIDE handled the world-championship cycle back then...

Come on! The whole thing was a humongous tantrum and FIDE made lots of concessions about it, until Bobby started to be unreasonable. Besides, he did not play a single game from 1972 to 1975.

Miguel

Again, so what? Back then the WCC cycle was every 3 years. He didn't have to qualify again, he was the reigning champ. To each his own. Hardly any GM doesn't exhibit some sort of unusual personality trait from time to time.

BTW FIDE didn't make concessions in the things he wanted. They did, but 20 years later...

Correct me if I'm wrong but,
I think they started making concessions almost at once to Karpov---The rematch clause for one---which was denied Fischer.

FIDE has generally kowtowed to Russian players over the years. Probably because so many of the top players came from Russia. It's just a fact of life. At one point Fischer objected to the adjourned game procedure, because the Russians would bring a "team" along to analyze the game overnight while the principal player slept, This favors a player that can put together a very strong team to help him. Today, this adjournment is usually solved with action-type time controls...

RJF was a jerk, period. Bobby adjourned a game against Najdorf in the Olympiad (one in the early 60's). Fischer was very confident he could win, but Najdorf, playing for Argentina, not USSR, found by himself a way to fight and tie. A frustrated Bobby threw all the pieces out of the board, which qualified him to lose the game. Since Najdorf was a gentleman, met with the Argentine team and all they agreed to leave it as draw (you will rarely see this nowadays).

This was another of the multiple excuses Bobby tried to find. If he could not find a decent analyst to help him with adjouned games, it was not because he was not Soviet, it was because he did not tolerate anybody.

I addition, the FIDE president was Max Euwe, which I understand was a gentleman and I do not think he was siding with USSR. Please someone correct me if I am wrong.

Now, Bobby may not have been a jerk. The only other possibility is that he was already a mental case. That is a very reasonable explanation.

At that time, all this "evil Russians" trying to screw the westerners was another cold-war brainwashing silliness. I bought it when I was a kid, until I started to read that the real gentleman in the whole story was Spassky. I should have trusted my mother intuition, who told me that , but Bobby was my hero.

Miguel

Amigo, I do believe you are referring to the article by Dmitrije Bjelica, which appeared in several Russian chess journals---40 years ago!

Before we go any further, you might want to view the chess notes by Edward Winter on Bjelica entitled "A Unique Chess Writer".
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/bjelica.html

Here is the crux of Bjelica's article--Fischer was in the limelight at the Olympiad. Tal was late in arriving, and Bobby kept asking when the world champion was coming.

“Maybe Tal doesn’t want to play me? He scored four wins against me in the Candidates’ Tournament and is now afraid of a revenge!”

But Tal did come. And although he was tired after his journey he couldn’t refuse Fischer a few lightning games. They played five games, and Tal won 4:1.

But Bobby, contrary to his custom, didn’t get angry because Tal promptly crushed Najdorf too, who had very much angered Bobby.

This is what happened. Najdorf had asked Fischer for an autograph. Bobby had agreed, but – for one dollar. This had offended Najdorf.

Then came their game in the Olympiad. Bobby had an easily won game but made a mistake, and Najdorf was able to draw. Bobby then swept the pieces off the board in disgust, and Najdorf merely said:

“You’ll never play in South America again ....”


Any chess enthusiast who believes this wild, wacky story---I got a bridge in New York I'll sell you dirt cheap.

Tal was an eyewitness to this event---here is what he said "Bobby was a real gentleman during games. He was always fair and very correct!"

How about a bet! You take the low road with Bjelica and I'll take the high road with Tal---and we'll be in Scotland afore ye!!!

regards, Jim

[michiguel]

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???

I don't remember Kasparov ever running away from a challenge. He retired to pursue a political career. Unfortunate, considering his bizarre political views, but at least he's not a neo-Nazi like Fischer was.

Strange. I don't remember Fischer running away from a challenge either. He retired over a disagreement with how FIDE handled the world-championship cycle back then...

Come on! The whole thing was a humongous tantrum and FIDE made lots of concessions about it, until Bobby started to be unreasonable. Besides, he did not play a single game from 1972 to 1975.

Miguel

Again, so what? Back then the WCC cycle was every 3 years. He didn't have to qualify again, he was the reigning champ. To each his own. Hardly any GM doesn't exhibit some sort of unusual personality trait from time to time.

BTW FIDE didn't make concessions in the things he wanted. They did, but 20 years later...

Correct me if I'm wrong but,
I think they started making concessions almost at once to Karpov---The rematch clause for one---which was denied Fischer.

FIDE has generally kowtowed to Russian players over the years. Probably because so many of the top players came from Russia. It's just a fact of life. At one point Fischer objected to the adjourned game procedure, because the Russians would bring a "team" along to analyze the game overnight while the principal player slept, This favors a player that can put together a very strong team to help him. Today, this adjournment is usually solved with action-type time controls...

RJF was a jerk, period. Bobby adjourned a game against Najdorf in the Olympiad (one in the early 60's). Fischer was very confident he could win, but Najdorf, playing for Argentina, not USSR, found by himself a way to fight and tie. A frustrated Bobby threw all the pieces out of the board, which qualified him to lose the game. Since Najdorf was a gentleman, met with the Argentine team and all they agreed to leave it as draw (you will rarely see this nowadays).

This was another of the multiple excuses Bobby tried to find. If he could not find a decent analyst to help him with adjouned games, it was not because he was not Soviet, it was because he did not tolerate anybody.

I addition, the FIDE president was Max Euwe, which I understand was a gentleman and I do not think he was siding with USSR. Please someone correct me if I am wrong.

Now, Bobby may not have been a jerk. The only other possibility is that he was already a mental case. That is a very reasonable explanation.

At that time, all this "evil Russians" trying to screw the westerners was another cold-war brainwashing silliness. I bought it when I was a kid, until I started to read that the real gentleman in the whole story was Spassky. I should have trusted my mother intuition, who told me that , but Bobby was my hero.

Miguel

Amigo, I do believe you are referring to the article by Dmitrije Bjelica, which appeared in several Russian chess journals---40 years ago!

Mon Amie, I don't know what kind of strawman are you building, but you should figure that as an Argentine chessplayer I have better chances to have heard this from more direct sources. Don't you think?

Miguel

Before we go any further, you might want to view the chess notes by Edward Winter on Bjelica entitled "A Unique Chess Writer".
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/bjelica.html

Here is the crux of Bjelica's article--Fischer was in the limelight at the Olympiad. Tal was late in arriving, and Bobby kept asking when the world champion was coming.

“Maybe Tal doesn’t want to play me? He scored four wins against me in the Candidates’ Tournament and is now afraid of a revenge!”

But Tal did come. And although he was tired after his journey he couldn’t refuse Fischer a few lightning games. They played five games, and Tal won 4:1.

But Bobby, contrary to his custom, didn’t get angry because Tal promptly crushed Najdorf too, who had very much angered Bobby.

This is what happened. Najdorf had asked Fischer for an autograph. Bobby had agreed, but – for one dollar. This had offended Najdorf.

Then came their game in the Olympiad. Bobby had an easily won game but made a mistake, and Najdorf was able to draw. Bobby then swept the pieces off the board in disgust, and Najdorf merely said:

“You’ll never play in South America again ....”


Any chess enthusiast who believes this wild, wacky story---I got a bridge in New York I'll sell you dirt cheap.

Tal was an eyewitness to this event---here is what he said "Bobby was a real gentleman during games. He was always fair and very correct!"

How about a bet! You take the low road with Bjelica and I'll take the high road with Tal---and we'll be in Scotland afore ye!!!

regards, Jim