Originally posted by buddy2Fischer did not have Fritz nor did he have a team of GMs to train with. I guess I could say the same thing for such players as Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, and maybe even Alekhine. ect. From Botvinnik to Kramnik the players did not do their own home work. Maybe Fischer is a better talent than is Kasparov?
The Herceg Novi blitz event was the speed tournament of the 20th century. It had four world champions competing, and Bobby not only finished 4 ½ points ahead of Tal in second place, he also obliterated the Soviet contingent, 8 ½ - 1 ½, whitewashing Tal, Tigran Petrosian and Vasily Smyslov, six-zip; breaking even with Viktor Korchnoi; and defeating David Brons ...[text shortened]... ame, thereby also giving, in effect, heavy speed odds to powerful opponents.
So whadya think?
Originally posted by buddy2Very impressive,I didn't know about that tourney.I read the following story,on an informal ocassion (maybe it was a rest day in a tournament,not sure),the players were playing blitz against each other.Petrosjan was beating all of them with great ease.Then Fischer sat down.Petrosjan beat him,Bobby couldn't cope with it and kept rematching,Petrosjan just kept beating him 'till other players removed Bobby from the seat,so that they would have a chance to play as well.
The Herceg Novi blitz event was the speed tournament of the 20th century. It had four world champions competing, and Bobby not only finished 4 ½ points ahead of Tal in second place, he also obliterated the Soviet contingent, 8 ½ - 1 ½, white ...[text shortened]... ffect, heavy speed odds to powerful opponents.
So whadya think?
I don't remember the date,but it was before Petrosjan became WC.
So,on the severe beatings,their score is 1-1.Shall we say they were equals?Or maybe once Petrosjan was the best,but later Fischer overtook him?
EDIT: Btw,we're hi-jacking mate's thread 😳
Originally posted by buddy2Maybe so.
I believe only Capablanca would have given Fischer a battle when both were at their peaks. Fischer played Petrosian some off-hand games and won a few WHEN FISCHER WAS 15! At his maturity Fischer would easily have cleaned up on Petrosian.
However, I recall reading that Petrosian setup Fischer to play a few Blitz games against Leonid Stein. Fisher didn't know much of Stein and initially gave him odds in the game. That soon changed after Stein started to win. If my memory is correct, Stein had the best of the games. How unfortunate that Stein died so early (and mysteriously)
Herceg Novi Blitz Tournament (5-Minute Chess) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
1. Fischer x 2 1 2 1½ 1½ 2 2 1½ 1½ 2 2 19
2. Tal 0 x 2 1 0 2 1½ ½ 2 1½ 2 2 14½
3. Korchnoi 1 0 x ½ 0 2 2 2 1 1½ 2 2 14
4. Petrosian 0 1 1½ x 1 1 1½ 1 1 1½ 2 2 13½
5. Bronstein ½ 2 2 1 x ½ ½ 1 ½ 1½ 1½ 2 13
6. Hort ½ 0 0 1 1½ x 1 2 2 1 1 2 12
7. Matulovic 0 ½ 0 ½ 1½ 1 x ½ 2 2 1½ 1 10½
8. Smyslov 0 1½ 0 1 1 0 1½ x ½ 1 1 2 9½
9. Reshevsky ½ 0 1 1 1½ 0 0 1½ x ½ 1½ 1 8½
10. Uhlmann ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 0 1 1½ x 0 2 8
11. Ivkov 0 0 0 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 2 x 2 7½
12. Ostojic 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 x 2
EXPLAINING AWAY BOBBY’S DOMINANCE
"Efim Lazarev, the biographer of GM Leonid Stein, tells the following story about a speed session between Fischer and the Soviet grandmaster the night after the first round at Stockholm:
That evening, after the round, Stein came to see Geller. Fischer too dropped in. In his halting Russian he suggested a lightning chess match with Geller. Geller was clearly in a bad mood that evening [after losing to an unheralded Colombian IM], but, on hearing the offer, could not restrain a sly grin and, pointing to Stein, who was sitting modestly in a corner, said:
“Play him instead.”
Since Fischer had not been present at the drawing of lots and Stein had not played in the first round, the American was not acquainted with him. Geller introduced them. At first Bobby declined to play someone whom he took for a novice, someone who clearly could not be a worthy opponent at lightning chess. However, then he agreed to play Mr. Stein but added that he would not play for nothing .... Bobby proposed a small stake: 10 crowns. To equalize their chances, he offered Mr. Stein a handicap: if Mr. Stein won even two points in five games, the stake would be his.
“Very well,” Stein replied.
In less than 10 minutes Fischer had lost the first game. He lost the second one even faster .... Geller was laughing so that there were tears in his eyes.
The outcome surprised Fischer so that he now proposed playing on equal terms.
With much greater respect for the newcomer, he now began playing less rashly but still failed to secure an advantage. In the evenings that followed, Bobby often invited Stein, with whom he had become friendly, to new lightning chess encounters, in which first one and then the other would emerge the winner.
The above account by Lazarev, wafts with ichthyological perfume.
First, Bobby would have known the names of his opponents in the interzonal and would have prepared for games against every single one, including even those trailing in the caboose of the tournament table. Secondly, the author has Bobby addressing GM Stein as Mr. Stein, and the idea that he would not associate the two names is absurd. Thirdly, everyone is agreed that Bobby read chess literature voluminously with nearly total recall, and Stein’s picture had appeared in numerous magazines by 1962. Fourthly, after supposedly losing a speed match to Stein, the author still has Bobby regarding him as a “newcomer” rather than the strong grandmaster whom Bobby surely recognized from the very beginning or, at the very latest, after the first game between them. Finally, the author speaks of further chess encounters during succeeding evenings, claiming that “first one and then the other would emerge the winner.” This last phrase is meaningless, and we have no idea what the real balance of the results might have been.
After 1962, Soviet reporting on Fischer’s speed play falls off. There is mention of an offhand game between Fischer and Stein at Havana 1966, but not much more than that. Perhaps, the common sense conclusions – which ought to be the conventional wisdom – are the following: 1. Earlier Soviet reporting exaggerated Fischer’s problems in speed play as a ploy to imply that he was not a chess genius nonpareil; 2. By the mid-1960s (as suggested by the testimony of Jack Collins, Frank Brady and others), Fischer had become utterly formidable in five-minute chess; and 3. The Soviets stopped writing on Fischer’s speed play because horror stories about Bobby rolling Soviet grandmasters were unwelcome in the pages of 64 and Shakhmaty."
I got this from internet. Regarding Fischer's blitz strength, I would prefer to go by the Herceg Novi Blitz tournament, rather than stories circulated so many times nobody knows where they came from originally. fischer was 25 at the time of tournament. Look at the participants. I'm not a great admirer of Fischer personally, but his accomplishments OTB are undeniable.
getting back to the thread subject.. 🙄 i not a very good player even at correspondence .. i need to get better, but i'm still starting.. but playing in Blitz im totally worse.. i play with my hand on the mouse and then i see a good move... i play it.. all of the sudden without taking everything in consideration.. and PUFF.. winning game... blunder... lose..
I guess most people at RHP are better at correspondence than blitz, though I'm not sure of the fact. The time element can be huge in chess. Pattern recognition is probably at the bottom of it. In blitz, you see the possiblity of a back rank mate so you go in for it, thinking that your opponent might not take the time to see it. Many times it materializes and you're successfull. In correspondence the possiblity of a back rank mate is almost nil because you're opponent takes the time to examine the tree of possibilities. So, the speed of recognition of a tactical pattern is paramount in blitz, but is not as important in correspondence. How do you improve pattern recognition? (This is what Mateulose was asking) I think you have to play thousands of games and study thousands of games. Even then in blitz you're going to make elementary oversights. A good way to humiliate yourself is to let Fritz analyze a blitz game. I can't count how many one move checkmates I missed or one move piece captures. One of the things I do lately is to always look at unprotected pieces, including my own, before risking a move. It takes a little longer but avoids a lot of heartache.
Well, I followed some advice here, and it seems to be working somewhat. The rule of "placing your hands behind your ass" during OTB tournies seems to work well in blitz online. The problem I had beforehand I guess, was I kept my hand on the mouse, and only started examining where my cursor was and not the entire "board", this made me have sectional viewing, and this is bad for chess playing. Draging peices is also distracting, I like the RHP way of moving peices better, but with hands tied behind my butt, I can overcome that. Anyways, online blitz is probably a lot harder then OTB blitz, because in online blitz you have time, the game, and mouse draging to worry about, and in OTB you have just time and the game to worry about.
Given all this, I don't think online blitz is a good way to improve your chess because the victor of such games won off other factors other then just the game itself. (Ugh, and there is mouse slipping too, argh, that happened to me TOO MANY TIMES)
BTW, on the other topic, Fischer is/was probably the best blitz player of all time, which is why they had a movie called "searching for Bobby Fischer" about a young blitz player emerging. In fact, there is a huge debate if Fisher was a better chess player or blitz player. Some GM's and IM's were terrible at blitz, but Bobby wasn't one of them, in fact, many ppl say he was even better at it.
Originally posted by SirLoseALotBlitz Strategy from Genrikh Chepukaitis (from interview at chesscafe):-
All right then,you guys have more and better evidence than me.I'll have to agree,Fischer was the best blitz player of his time.
Do you know the"Button theory of Chepukaitis"?. It is very simple. In the end game you play random moves as close to the clock as possible. It gains seconds. Also I transfer the risk of making decisions to my opponent. Chess is a very deep game and there is a chance that I might spoil my position playing a weak move after just one second thinking. So I keep myself away from resolving particular positions, give my opponent the widest choice of opportunities and hope he marries the wrong woman. It is not important to play well, to play the best move.
Yea, that's a good point. In blitz you don't have to play the best move in a position. Many times you spend time finding great moves (like Mateulose was saying) and one terrible move ruins your position. At my meager level, I've learned to just maintain an even game and wait for my opponent to blunder a piece or even a pawn, then simplify as quickly as possible. Another point in blitz that nobody has mentioned is not to play into an opponent's strength. So, for example, when he plays c5 to my e4 I play the wing gambit, not that its any good. At RHP I'd get crushed cause someone would run to the book and find a good line. Doing it in blitz is difficult. Another, psychological aspect, is that my opponent is saying to himself: "This guy is playing the wing gambit. I bet he has dozens of books on this line and has all the little traps memorized." The downside is when I play someone really good, he is not at all fazed because he realizes the line is crap. So, I guess, if I ever get up there, I'm going to have to study the English Attack or ...whatever. Sigh...