NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/games/chess/11973

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 6.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!world!ekw
From: [e-mail] (Elliott C Winslow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM's/IM's FROM DON
Summary: onus-manship
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:18:41 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: Elliott Winslow non-GM
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Lines: 124

>-----------------------Debate issue begins
>The GMs (Benjamin included) have given little proof to their claim that Fisher
>is not as good as he used to be. That coupled with their admitted bias against
>Fischer, renders their claims under-substantiated. I call for more.
>-----------------------Debate issue ends

More analysis?  I admit that the notes in Chess Life were done in a less
analytical, more "patronizing" mode than, say, what you might get in
Informant 55.  This was requested of them, and they certainly could have
included more variations.  Personally, I would have preferred to see it
that way, but various forces (space, target readership?) prevailed.  But is
the onus really on "the GMs"?  Perhaps you could pay them for private
analysis, during which they could convince you in painstaking detail that a
lot was missed.  I don't see why they have to answer for your "call for
more."

In any case, there are other places you could look for comprehensive
analysis of the sort that you seem to be asking for.  I say "seem to be"
because, judging from the content and style of your prolific posts, you are
obviously more interested in being first board on the rec.games.chess
debate team than rising to next-to-last board on the rec.games.chess chess
team.  Oops, more ad hominems.  As if you could ever purge them from *your*
postings.

The just-in-the-USCF Informant 55 *does* have *all* the games from the FS
II match.  With notes by:

1   358  Matanovic
2   588  Speelman
3   359  Seirawan
4   397  Seirawan
5   360  Balashov/Nikitin
6   398  Seirawan
7   348  Seirawan
8   602  Seirawan
9  (331) Seirawan
10  548  Seirawan
11  178  Timman
12  600  Balashov
13  179  Matulovic
14  399  Damljanovic
15  487  Speelman
16  581  Matanovic
17  159  Matanovic
18  400  Matanovic
19  161  Matanovic
20  165  Balashov
21  209  Matanovic
22  167  Balashov
23  160  Balashov
24  231  Balashov
25  240  Matanovic
26  608  Balashov
27  654  Balashov
28  655  Balashov
29  656  Balashov
30  657  Matanovic

Many of the notes are the same as appeared elsewhere, and in many of the
games, especially those with notes by Matanovic, Matulovic, and Balashov, the
notes that appear elsewhere are a lot more critical (*both* meanings).  I
don't know if Speelman's notes were in print (hopefully with prose!)
previously, but he did the most interesting job.  [I look forward to the
forthcoming debate over how the USCF can sell the Informant in the face of
all this.]

If you want a verbal analysis of why Fischer isn't a good as he used to be,
it would be that he is not as consistent as in the old days.  Yes, in 1972
he also got the worst game in a few early middlegames, but in those cases
it was thanks to hard opening work, whether Spassky's or the collective
Soviet chess machine (etc. etc.), not callous slop.  Too much of that in
this match.

Here are a few examples:

Game 3: An even lamer reaction than Karpov when confronted with (1.e4 c5
2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4 Nf6 7.N1c3 a6 8.Na3) 8...d5!?
by Kasparov in their 1985 match.  In the old days Fischer would have refuted
Spassky's play right then and there (see game 5), and not let it slip,
either (see game 5!).

Game 12 was interesting; the blocking up of the queenside was severely
criticized by many annotators, but it might not have been so bad.  But it
certainly led to passive defense, which had always been Fischer's anathema
and in his prime he adroitly avoided.  Not here.

Game 26: Fischer played as if he had no idea what to do.  So what did he
do?  Nothing.  He was squashed without a chance.  But this is a main line in
the delayed-e6 Benoni!  I won't go into all the ways that Black *can* play
this line, Fischer had no idea.  Maybe he was in a trance.  He played like a
Mexican IM (to be specific, Campos-Lopez, and perhaps it's no credit to
Spassky that he played just like I did, in our (that's Winslow-Campos-Lopez,
not Spassky-Winslow :-) game).

Now let me swerve the argument a bit.  Not whether Fischer is as good as he
was, but whether he is still the best in the world.  Even if he is as good
as he was before, that may just not be good enough anymore.  What with
computer training (I have been informed from various sources that Fischer
had the chess databases, but his handling of some of the openings suggests
that, unless he had new ideas that just didn't work to the particular
counters that Spassky played, he just didn't know the praxis of his
repertoire), sports physiology training (I'm not just talking tennis), and
just the general refinement of battle techniques (admittedly I'm not too
clear how to present this aspect, but looking at the general kinetics of the
games of the top players from decade to decade, the phenomenon is there), it
feels like Bobby is fighting with iron sword (oh, okay, let's make the
analogy wooden racket: one-love Boris)(sorry for poor tennis knowledge)
against magnesium alloy.

In short, he's not tough enough anymore.

By the way, anybody note that Spassky was maybe even the *ONE* opponent for
him?  Big psychological debt, gentlemanly, non-combative, even
ever-conceding in the pre-match negotiations, equally stodgy in his
repertoire.  It will be interesting to see how he fares against Ljubojevic,
who, while somewhat slipping, was just a year ago one of the greatest
players (remember him tying for first with Kasparov in Linares, and feeling
cheated at that?), and is a brilliant and creative opening theoretician.
His one danger is some idiosyncrasies in certain openings, for example the
King's Indian Attack against the Caro-Kann.  If Bobby plays the Caro-Kann
against Ljubo, I for one am *definitely* going to wonder what the hell is
going on.

  --elliott