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.
I don't believe fischer was a coward at all. He was extremely unhappy with the way the Russians dominated FIDE and the way the WC was always modified to favor the Russians to the detriment of everyone else... An example was FIDE stopping a WC match because they thought Karpov was "exhausted"...
After his win against Spassky, Fischer stopped playing altogether. He did not play a single game in an accredited match or tournament, and there were plenty of opportunities to do so, even outside of the Soviet sphere of influence. But as I recall, it was Fischer who behaved badly throughout his match with Spassky, making unreasonable demands, always complaining about something, snuffing the organizers by missing the opening ceremony in Reykjavik, forfeiting games, showing up late, and so on. Spassky put up with Fischer's antics, and did so with a lot of patience. And FIDE went along with many of Fischer's requests. He could have done what Kasparov did after the 48-game marathon. Instead, he chose to quit.
What did Kasparov do besides complain when the event was cut off???
In any case, coward is certainly the wrong word to describe Fischer, he was the best of the time by a significant margin. He had nothing to fear across the chess board... his other issues are well known, but have nothing to do with cowardice...
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.
I don't believe fischer was a coward at all. He was extremely unhappy with the way the Russians dominated FIDE and the way the WC was always modified to favor the Russians to the detriment of everyone else... An example was FIDE stopping a WC match because they thought Karpov was "exhausted"...
After his win against Spassky, Fischer stopped playing altogether. He did not play a single game in an accredited match or tournament, and there were plenty of opportunities to do so, even outside of the Soviet sphere of influence. But as I recall, it was Fischer who behaved badly throughout his match with Spassky, making unreasonable demands, always complaining about something, snuffing the organizers by missing the opening ceremony in Reykjavik, forfeiting games, showing up late, and so on. Spassky put up with Fischer's antics, and did so with a lot of patience. And FIDE went along with many of Fischer's requests. He could have done what Kasparov did after the 48-game marathon. Instead, he chose to quit.
What did Kasparov do besides complain when the event was cut off???
In any case, coward is certainly the wrong word to describe Fischer, he was the best of the time by a significant margin. He had nothing to fear across the chess board... his other issues are well known, but have nothing to do with cowardice...
If Kasparov was a jerk, Fischer was 1000x more of a jerk than him in every single department. BF showed that his whole career. He quit tournaments, manipulated TDs, threw chess pieces out of anger, you name it. BF was my inspiration, but please, let's not compare his shameful behavior with anybody. We don not why he quit in 75, but no option is really honorable.
Here the discussion is that if GK had a tantrum, it is not so unthinkable for a tremendous sport competitor. IBM's decisions came from cold desks. That is a big difference.
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.
I don't believe fischer was a coward at all. He was extremely unhappy with the way the Russians dominated FIDE and the way the WC was always modified to favor the Russians to the detriment of everyone else... An example was FIDE stopping a WC match because they thought Karpov was "exhausted"...
After his win against Spassky, Fischer stopped playing altogether. He did not play a single game in an accredited match or tournament, and there were plenty of opportunities to do so, even outside of the Soviet sphere of influence. But as I recall, it was Fischer who behaved badly throughout his match with Spassky, making unreasonable demands, always complaining about something, snuffing the organizers by missing the opening ceremony in Reykjavik, forfeiting games, showing up late, and so on. Spassky put up with Fischer's antics, and did so with a lot of patience. And FIDE went along with many of Fischer's requests. He could have done what Kasparov did after the 48-game marathon. Instead, he chose to quit.
What did Kasparov do besides complain when the event was cut off???
In any case, coward is certainly the wrong word to describe Fischer, he was the best of the time by a significant margin. He had nothing to fear across the chess board... his other issues are well known, but have nothing to do with cowardice...
Not only did Kasparov become world champion and defend his title numerous times, he played in tournaments of the highest calibre, winning most of them, and even surpassing Karpov's tournament record. What did Fischer do after the 1972 match? For the next 20 years, absolutely nothing. Then he played a $5 million rematch with Spassky when their ratings had declined to the 2500 level, and had a large banner erected proclaiming it to be the "World Chess Championship."
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.
I don't believe fischer was a coward at all. He was extremely unhappy with the way the Russians dominated FIDE and the way the WC was always modified to favor the Russians to the detriment of everyone else... An example was FIDE stopping a WC match because they thought Karpov was "exhausted"...
After his win against Spassky, Fischer stopped playing altogether. He did not play a single game in an accredited match or tournament, and there were plenty of opportunities to do so, even outside of the Soviet sphere of influence. But as I recall, it was Fischer who behaved badly throughout his match with Spassky, making unreasonable demands, always complaining about something, snuffing the organizers by missing the opening ceremony in Reykjavik, forfeiting games, showing up late, and so on. Spassky put up with Fischer's antics, and did so with a lot of patience. And FIDE went along with many of Fischer's requests. He could have done what Kasparov did after the 48-game marathon. Instead, he chose to quit.
What did Kasparov do besides complain when the event was cut off???
In any case, coward is certainly the wrong word to describe Fischer, he was the best of the time by a significant margin. He had nothing to fear across the chess board... his other issues are well known, but have nothing to do with cowardice...
Not only did Kasparov become world champion and defend his title numerous times, he played in tournaments of the highest calibre, winning most of them, and even surpassing Karpov's tournament record. What did Fischer do after the 1972 match? For the next 20 years, absolutely nothing. Then he played a $5 million rematch with Spassky when their ratings had declined to the 2500 level, and had a large banner erected proclaiming it to be the "World Chess Championship."
I didn't say he wasn't a nut-case. I simply said I don't believe he was a "coward"...
I think Karpov would have beaten Fischer, even in 75. I also think Spassky would have beaten Fischer in their 72 match had Spassky not been suffering from depression. You should watch some Spassky documentaries, the guy says his saddest day ever was when he became the Soviet champion. Spassky hated his country's government and made that clear, even duing his match with Fischer he was arguing with the Soviets. He says that he lost the match before the third game of the match started and I believe him.
As for Kasparov vs Deep Blue 2, Kasparov beat himself.
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.
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.
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.
