Could Fischer have been right?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Of course Fischer was right!

Only about the Jews and 9/11

😉

Originally posted by RJHinds
Of course Fischer was right!

Everyone knew that the Kremlin let us say 'advised' how they would like
a tournament to go and the circumstances the Russian players lived under
it would have been very brave (or foolish) for them not to go along.

Bronstein hints strongly that they were ordered to ensure that Reshevsky did not
win the 1953 candidates.

However Curacao 1962 seems have been a private agreement and the
19 year old Bobby did not want them to get away with it.

Bobby was 6 years away from being the great player he became.
If he had taken more games from the top three Petrosian, Geller and Keres he
would have forced them to re-think their agreement.
Instead against the top 3 he scored p.12 W2 D6 L4.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a great Fischer fan but in Curacao 1962 he was not in form.
Maybe he allowed what they were doing to upset him. If so he learned something.
You have to have an open mind about these things.

Remember he also visited Tal in hospital during Curacao 1962 so he
was not all that much anti-Russian. ( Only when it suited him. 🙂 )

However FIDE did listen and changed the WC format to stop these 'agreements'
from happening again.

As for the current candidates.
Believe me if there were any game throwing going on then it would be done
in a much more subtle way so that chumps like us would not see it.
The risk of getting caught and a lifetime ban is a strong deterrent.
GM's blunder all the time. Some are incredible howlers. It happens. It's chess.

Originally posted by Kareemelbadry
It is inconceivable to me that Grischuk played 30.Bxd4 today against Kramnick:

[pgn][White "Grischuk, Alexander"]
[Black "Kramnik, Vladimir"]
[BlackElo "2810"]
[WhiteElo "2764"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Nc3 Bd7 10.h3 h6 11.Rd1 Kc8 12.a4 a5 13.b3 b6 14.Bb2 Ne7 15.Rd2 c5 16.Ne2 Ng6 17. ...[text shortened]... opening he knows tomorrow against Carlsen and just fights to hang on for dear life...

One time Karpov dropped a piece to Larry Christiansen on move 14 or so- stuff happens. I see your point, but I think "inconceivable" is too strong a word. It is definitely surprising, but it's not the first time something like that has happened, and it won't be the last.

He probably just hallucinated. My guess is that he just had a blind spot about the "back" c-pawn on c7 moving to c5 after the "front" c-pawn recaptures. Humans do that from time to time, even at the very top.

Originally posted by Kareemelbadry
I don't think that works. After 31...Nd4, white can simply push the pawn, forcing black to play Ke7. Then after 33 Bxd4, it is white who is winning the ending.

Yes, the line isn't totally obvious, but Grischuk had more than ten minutes left on his clock and I really don't think it's hard to see that the ending following 30.Bxd4 is lost.

I was watching the game, and I recall he had less than one minute to make a move and played it with seconds to go. Then again, I have been watching and seen the clocks run down more than once, so maybe this was not the case.

Short, who put the position up prior to Nd4 being played, instinctively took the view that taking the Knight was lost, and then demonstrated that it was lost, but took more than a minute to conclusively come to this conclusion, I would say.

And he ain't playing for a shot at the world title.

Many people use the term 'unforgivable' in sport to refer to a bad mistake. I find this odd. Under the pressure and spotlight professional sportsmen are under, I would forgive them if they decided to stay at home and sit crying quietly in a corner.

And think how dull games would be without moments like this and the tension that comes from knowing that one move like this can destroy hours of good work.

There is no need, and it is quite insulting, to suggest that this was anything other than a mistake, and I am certainly not good enough to say how bad a one it was.

Originally posted by woodypusher
Both of Kramnik's wins are against fellow Russians, keeping him in the running to be the next WCC challenger.

Fischer was a chess genius, he was also a looney, who saw threats everywhere (95% of which were wrong). There were a few grains of truth to Fischers comments about the Russians, but that's about all.

The kings gambit is lost and someone has poisoned my orange juice !!!!

Originally posted by bill718
Fischer was a chess genius, he was also a looney, who saw threats everywhere (95% of which were wrong). There were a few grains of truth to Fischers comments about the Russians, but that's about all.

You should read Soltis' book on Soviet chess - besides the great games and notes, there is a history of tournament managing (fixing to some degree) that was completely acceptable and encouraged by the official chess union there. Botvinnick's career was the beginning of this. There were a lot of grains of truth to Fischer's comments about Soviet chess...

Originally posted by imbalances
There were a lot of grains of truth to Fischer's comments about Soviet chess

That's the 5% bill718 was talking about.

What hasn't been mentioned I don't think is that the Soviet players at that time were as good as state sponsored players. Their housing, income and ability to leave the USSR to travel to tournaments, was entirely decided by political bodies/individuals. They didn't necessarily have the free-will to decide to play for wins. If their Soviet paymasters told the to arrange draws between themselves and fight to the death against Fischer to exhaust him, then I assume they would have to follow the plan....

Hi Blue Ghost.

I mentioned something along those lines.

"Everyone knew that the Kremlin let us say 'advised' how they would like
a tournament to go and the circumstances the Russian players lived under
it would have been very brave (or foolish) for them not to go along. "

Proof that there was 'fixing' going on comes from Botvinnik.
In his memoirs Botvinnik states was asked by the powers that be if he would like
one of his opponents not to play for a win against him.
Botvinik refused adding if he suspected such a thing he would hang a piece and resign.

Beyond that, greenpawn, Soviet players who had previously found success against Botvinnick were'nt invited to Moscow-Leningrad nor European competitions when he was competing. In fact, some were dropped from the chess union at the urging of Botvinnick and his powerful allies.

For the Soviets of the 1940's-1950's, it was any and everything to take down Alekhine, Euwe, and the rest of the world's top players that they deemed had collaborated with the Nazis.

Korchnoi and others have long since held that this system of "anything to win" did not abate in the 60's and 70's.