NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/games/chess/11986

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-24 | 7.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!caen!malgudi.oar.net!uoft02.utoledo.edu!dcrosgr
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM's/IM's FROM DON
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 92 15:27:24 EST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services
Lines: 165

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Elliott C Winslow) writes:
>>-----------------------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

Just because there MAY have been outside reasons that limited their analysis
does not stop it from being an incomplete analysis. Perhaps they were not to
blame.

But, that does not stop the analysis from being less than convincing.


> 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."

They don't. They stated their position, I have stated it was skimpy convincing
at best.

They can do EXACTLY what they have done...

Kept quiet and hoped this will blow over.



>
> 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.

I could, if sophomores like you could. But, as long as people like you use
sloppy tactics, I'll come back and rub your nose in your own leavings...


>
> 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

If consistancy were the mark of good, someone who played consistantly poor
would be great.

WINNING is the mark of good.

> 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).

Gee you have three examples of 'poor play'. I guess you are right. This IS
convincing evidence.

>
> 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.

In your opinion.

What are your qualifications to judge someone's "sports physiology training",
by the way?

>
> 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