bob wrote:ml wrote:bob wrote:ml wrote:Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:ml wrote:Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:Terry McCracken wrote:bob wrote: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...
I have a theory, I dont know how solid it is. Morphy was Fischer's idol. When Morphy walked away from chess as a young man he created a mythology that continues to this day. Fischer wanted to pull a Morphy, to walk away from chess, as as young man in his prime, without the appearance of running away from a challenge. Fischer had hundreds of conditions he wanted in the negotiations with Karpov. They agreed to everyone except the 9-9 clause. In a ten game match if it came down to a 9-9 tie Fischer retains the title. Thats the straw that broke the camels back. Russia and Karpov would never accept such a condition. I think Fischer knew this. This was his escape clause---he could walk away and retain his championship---never having lost it in battle. He always referred to himself as world champion until the day he died. I've heard he would even open his mail unless it was addressed Bobby Fischer, World chess Champion.
I think he felt the 9-9 clause was just. Here is an excerpt from a letter he wrote to Larry Evans at chess Life in Nov 1974---
"Steinitz, Tchigorin, Lasker (too), Gunsberg, Zukertort, etc. all played under the ten win system I proposed (and some matches with the 9-9 tie clause). Yet the Russians pretend that I'm asking for an UNPRECEDENTED advantage. Incidentally, Larry, the Capa-Alekhine match DID have a draw clause at 5-5. Yes, Alekhine had to win by 6-4 to take the title just the same as my match proposal."
My point is, if Karpov didnt defeat him, then someone on down the line would. Fischer knew this---he wasnt completely bonkers. He wanted to die as the world Chess Champion---and he found a way to do it (at least in his own mind).
