Fischer's overview

[MJMcCready]

How much do you agree with what Bobby is saying here? His account of the roles of theory&creativity some might find contestable, I suppose, but it seems to me he's offering a very rational account of what chess has become although I am not entirely sure of what he means by 'prearrangement'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P349BdHUxlc

[Nick Ivell]

Bobby meant the fixing of games, which he had a bee in his bonnet about from 1962 onwards.

He may have had a point. However, I don't believe Bobby was the best player in the world in 1962.

An interesting conversation. He makes an argument for Fischer random. Then again, a lot of this is the rambling of an ageing genius who knows he's been overtaken.

And how 'creative' was Bobby, in point of fact? I bow to no one in my admiration of his play, but I've been going through his 1950s games (what else is lockdown for) and don't see much evidence of positional intuition.

[Roger de Coverly]

And how 'creative' was Bobby, in point of fact?

In the early 1960s, he had a reputation of being aware of all published theory and perhaps a bit beyond. Knowing that Bxf7 worked against Reshevsky's Dragon is one such example. Also against Reshevsky and in MSMG, the improvement on a 1930s Dragon between Alekhine and Botvinnik.

[Nick Ivell]

Is that not just opening theory though? The very think he was railing against in his semi-dotage?

And talking of theory, his KID in the early days was pathetic! I've played through so many games where his dislike of cramped positions is evident.

When I think of Bobby, I think of an immense tactical skill, allied to hard work and stamina. As for creativity, I'm not too sure about that.

[Matt Mackenzie]

No player as strong as RJF is ever bereft of creativity, though I do get what you are saying.

"A classicist with a purely classic approach" as Robert Byrne once put it, and extremely well.

[Nick Ivell]

I suppose it depends what we mean by creativity.

Playing through Bobby's early games, I am more struck by his vices than his creativity: the materialism, the narrow repertoire, his dislike of irrational positions.

Some of these vices stayed with him for his whole career!

Chess has moved on. Bobby was the best player in the world in the early 70s. By the mid-70s, Karpov had probably caught him up. As for Kasparov and Carlsen, I have no doubt that they are objectively stronger players.

[MJMcCready]

And how 'creative' was Bobby, in point of fact?

In the early 1960s, he had a reputation of being aware of all published theory and perhaps a bit beyond. Knowing that Bxf7 worked against Reshevsky's Dragon is one such example. Also against Reshevsky and in MSMG, the improvement on a 1930s Dragon between Alekhine and Botvinnik.

He did have weaknesses also though, which he struggled to shake off. I think one of them was the French Winawer, which was something of an Achilles heel up until the mid-60s if I remember correctly.

[Roger de Coverly]

He did have weaknesses also though, which he struggled to shake off. I think one of them was the French Winawer, which was something of an Achilles heel up until the mid-60s if I remember correctly.

Perhaps beyond, if this game is anything to go by.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044313

against Laren the following year, he reverted to more mainstream ideas

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044346

Spassky didn't attempt to find out what Fischer had prepared against the Winawer.

[MJMcCready]

He took quite a beating in that first game.