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
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?
Fischer-Petrosian wasnt a blowout??? Look---it was 6 1/2---2 1/2. How many feel this was a blowout? I'm curious.
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?
Fischer-Petrosian wasnt a blowout??? Look---it was 6 1/2---2 1/2. How many feel this was a blowout? I'm curious.
Took you that long to check? Yes that match was a blowout. So what...
If you haven't anything productive to add to my posts then don't!
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?
Fischer-Petrosian wasnt a blowout??? Look---it was 6 1/2---2 1/2. How many feel this was a blowout? I'm curious.
Took you that long to check? Yes that match was a blowout. So what...
If you haven't anything productive to add to my posts then don't!
Well, I didnt have to look it up---I knew it. What I was waiting for was to see if anyone was going to correct you for saying it wasnt a blow-out. Nobody did so I spoke up. Man, I know some women who are more decisive than you are. What about this---if you say something---stick to your guns! And dont come back with something as lame as---OK, so it was a blow-out so what. I dont like talking to you anymore than you like talking to me---But Terry, someone has to educate you!!!
Excuse me Terry, but I must have been absent when they elected you hall monitor with the power to tell people when and where to post.
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???
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.
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???
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...
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???
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...
Absolutely,and so did Kasparov by the way....he went even further by creating his own chess organazation
_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
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.
