Fischer's overview
-
- Posts: 3199
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm
Fischer's overview
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P349BdHUxlc
-
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm
Re: Fischer's overview
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 21320
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Fischer's overview
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.
-
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm
Re: Fischer's overview
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 5248
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
- Location: Millom, Cumbria
Re: Fischer's overview
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.
"A classicist with a purely classic approach" as Robert Byrne once put it, and extremely well.
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)
-
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm
Re: Fischer's overview
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3199
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm
Re: Fischer's overview
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 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:26 pmIn 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.
-
- Posts: 21320
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Fischer's overview
Perhaps beyond, if this game is anything to go by.MJMcCready wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:21 pmHe 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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3199
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm
Re: Fischer's overview
He took quite a beating in that first game.