| |
Main
Date: 08 Sep 2008 08:53:33
From: help bot
Subject: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
I don't think it quite fair to the Rybka team that
I represent them with my inferior version of that
program, but then I am facing off against a mere
nearly-an-IM and his outmoded books, written by
mere humans. All in all, I believe I have a huge
advantage in analytical skill-- so long as my
chess program keeps working. : >D
Let's start with one of the most famous of all
chess moves which was never actually played:
GM Taimanov's "20. Qh3", about which so
much (nonsense?) has been written:
20. Qh3 Rf6
21. Bc4 f4
22. ?
-- help bot
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2008 16:00:52
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 16, 6:29=A0pm, thumbody <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ah well, apart from the fact that Fischer really meant
I just got off the phone with the psychic hot-line,
and they informed me that no, Mr. Fischer meant
exactly what he said-- so this weaseling attempt
falls flat on its face (splonk).
> if it had been
> him playing Mark T's game he would have won
Agreed. Hey-- we saw what happens when
Mr. Fischer takes the inferior side in his
famous game with Mr. Petrosian, where he
put the lights out, calculated twenty-eight
plies deep (selective search), and then had
the lights come on again so he could finish
up and win an endgame that all the pundits
held was drawn.
> with Q-h3 & anyway Mark's
> got his Yamaha-grand to occupy himself with whereas I only have chess
One can only /hope/ you have it, and that
*it* does not have you, in an inescapable
toe-hold death-grip.
> besides my words were fallen upon & distorted by those intent on placing
> me upon a pedestal when it was "should" I indicated as in Qh3 "might"
> have won..
Perhaps the Jews got a hold of your words
and /twisted/ them, to make you appear
foolish? As we saw with your popular book,
MSMG, even Dr. Nunn is not beyond the
reach of this all-powerful, world-wide
conspiracy to make you look bad by putting
words in your mouth; the truth is, you are a
quiet, conservative sort of fellow who rarely
expresses anything-- let alone an opinion
on some chess position from your own
game.
Indeed, despite claims to the contrary, it is
generally known that Mr. Evans made all the
analytical mistakes in your book, MSMG,
whereas everything that was done correctly
was of course your own, flawless work--
you being a demigod and all.
There is a certain strangeness to your
commentary... in which people are scolded
for putting you up on a pedestal, and yet you
deny your own words, refusing to admit
error. It is oddly reminiscent of one Dr.
IMnes-- a chap whose accomplishments in
chess are far too vast to list here. In fact, I
also detected a certain similarity in your
chess play-- as for instance, in this line:
(As White)
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 a6
4. Ba4 (end similarity)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2008 15:55:45
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Calling Innes' Bluff (was: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the
|
On Sep 15, 3:32=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 He already has, as I have repeatedly stated, in MGP4, page 387. Yet
> you have categorically stated that it "is /not/ Kasparov's opnion." Do
> you realize how ridiculous you look?
Ridiculous. One might just as well ask a red
snapper, "do you realize how wet you are?"
One might just as well be a hare, asking a
tortoise, "do you have any idea how slowly you
run?"
Or one could just as well ask an earthworm,
"have you no backbone?"
The fact is, if Dr. IMnes were ever to /stop/
looking ridiculous, no one here would even
recognize him; we would all be wondering
what happened to the poor chap, and if he
had perhaps met with foul play, or was too
ill to even type.
--help bot
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2008 15:40:48
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Calling Innes' Bluff (was: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the
|
On Sep 15, 6:39=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:d0e53808-b2ec-465f-a6ba-a9acd416ed46@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 15, 5:40 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> =A0 Translation:
>
> **AAARGH!
>
> Phil shot his mouth off when he didn't know what he was
>
> **Put up or shut up. Translatre a chalenge to talk chess? TRANSLATE????!!=
!!
>
> talking about, and now he's trying to cover up with bluster and
> nonsense. Just as I expected; he's done this many times before. There
> is no Kasparov opinion different from what he wrote in MGP4, or if
> there is, Innes sure as hell doesn't know what it is.
>
> **Yet another diversion! Does MGP4 address Taimanov's analysis or not - 5=
th
> time of asking WHAT is addressed. 5th time Kingston comes with nothing.
>
> **But Kingston want's to 'translate' this challenge to your tiny minds?
>
> Phil Innes
Translation: Phil shot his mouth off when he didn't know what he was
talking about, and now he's trying to cover up with bluster and
nonsense. Just as I expected; he's done this many times before. There
is no Kasparov opinion different from what he wrote in MGP4, or if
there is, Innes sure as hell doesn't know what it is.
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2008 15:22:49
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Calling Innes' Bluff (was: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the
|
On Sep 15, 5:40=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:c9dde472-22e6-4a34-80f8-0c3770954f7f@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 15, 2:39 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
> > On Sep 14, 2:07 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > If GK really
> > > refutes what Taimanov has to say, by all means let us have it -
>
> > Gladly, Phil. Just as soon as you produce this alleged different
> > opinion Kasparov holds now.
>
> > **WHAT? I already published Taimanov's analysis.
>
> =A0 Phil, your dyslexia is getting severe. For the umpteenth time, I am
> asking you for this alleged new opinion of Kasparov's,
>
> **You are aksing me for something you know about which addresses Taimanov=
's
> analysis or not?
>
> NOT for
> Taimanov's analysis. They are separate people, you know, Garry and
> Mark.
>
> **Yes, I do know them!
>
> =A0And "Taimanov's analysis" does not equal "Garry's opinion."
>
> **True - therefore, does Kasparov's opinion come up to Taimanov's mark , =
so
> to speak, and if so, what is it?
>
> > If you got some chess, come
> > with it. DON't evade the issue for the 3rd asking - do some work, take
> > Taimanov's lines and dispute them with Kasparov's by all means. But do
> > something other than posture.
>
> =A0 Phil, the only one doing any evasion here is you. You claim that
> Kasparov no longer stands by his analysis in MGP4, but you do not
> tells us where/when he said/wrote this, or what his new opinion is.
> When asked, you offer Taimanov's analysis, as if it were somehow
> synonymous with GK's opinion. It ain't.
>
> *Sorry - 4th time you are out! Do some work Kingston - and if it's there,
> share the result. Otherwise, don't ask me to do what isn't there, or prov=
e
> more negatives.
>
> > Please tell us where you have published this alleged opinion of
> > Kasparov's.
>
> > **I told you here I published Taimanov's analysis.
>
> =A0 There you go again, Phil! How many times do I have to say it?
>
> ** IT? =A0say IT? Say what Vaguer? How many times does it take you to say
> anything within a context that is answerable? Say WHAT?
>
> =A0I am
> NOT asking about Taimanov's analysis. I am referring to this statement
> of yours, posted here in this very thread, on 12 September 2008, in
> reponse to me, on the matter of GK's assessment of 20.Qh3:
>
> =A0 TK: I tend to agree with Kasparov that this win is a myth.
>
> =A0 PI: **That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion.
>
> =A0 You see, Phil? You claim to know Kasparov's opinion, and you claim
> that it is a *_different_* opinion than what he published on page 387
> of MGP4.
>
> **And I answered that already! If you don't bother to notice, what is tha=
t
> to me? Did he answer Taimanov's anlaysis or not? That is the ONLY relevan=
t
> aspect here - and if he did - what did he have to say?
>
> =A0 Yet you are unable, or unwilling, to produce *_any_* statement *_by
> Kasparov_* to that effect!
>
> **Shall I produce what you had to say? AND WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY?
> NOTHING!! Not in 10 tries on this subject. Not in 15 replies where you mi=
x
> up Fischer's 'say', and Kasparov's say - but to what point? EVIDENTLY if
> what is said does not meet Taimanov's analysis then it is less than
> adequate. So what does GK have to say to Taimanov's analysis? [5th ask]
>
> =A0All you do is say "Taimanov's analysis!",
> as if GK and MT were somehow synonymous.
>
> **As if I thought you could distinguish 'all I say' when all I say IS
> Taimanov's commentary.
>
> > There was no contrary
> > analysis when that was published, not from Kasparov and not from Fische=
r.
> > If
> > Kasparov has something now, then let him address Taimanov's analysis.
>
> =A0 He already has, as I have repeatedly stated, in MGP4, page 387. Yet
> you have categorically stated that it "is /not/ Kasparov's opnion." Do
> you realize how ridiculous you look?
>
> **I don't wear high heels either, or care much what people think of me no=
t
> doing it:))
>
> **Just show up with the chess, you idiot. You showed up so far with
> Fischer's refutation [nothing] =A0 Then you showed up with unimpeachable
> Hochberg [nothing, in fact, triuphalism and misleading irresposnible
> nothing - which you also got wrong] =A0And now its Kasparov's nothing =A0=
;)
>
> =A0 If you want me to post GK's analysis of 20.Qh3 from MGP4, I will be
> quite happy to do so. However, I do insist that first you either (A)
> produce some validation of your claim that it "is /not/ Kasparov's
> opnion," or (B) admit that you were talking through your hat when you
> said that it "is /not/ Kasparov's opnion."
>
> =A0 I'm calling your bluff, Phil. Show your cards or fold.
>
> **For someone who can't understand anything, and who is always referencin=
g
> things he can't prove, that is rich indeed. Just write if Kasparov addres=
sed
> Taimanov's analysis, and stop whining, you maggot! If he didn't, then pff=
t!
> to him too!
>
> **If you have something else to 'prove' or as you seem to be interested i=
n,
> 'appearing as' then you will do that. Personally I am interested in the
> chess for the two lines I mentioned at the very beginning. I am not
> interested in Taylor Kingston's good opinion of anything - should be asha=
med
> of it!
>
> Phil Innes
Translation: Phil shot his mouth off when he didn't know what he was
talking about, and now he's trying to cover up with bluster and
nonsense. Just as I expected; he's done this many times before. There
is no Kasparov opinion different from what he wrote in MGP4, or if
there is, Innes sure as hell doesn't know what it is.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2008 18:39:00
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Calling Innes' Bluff (was: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession)
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:d0e53808-b2ec-465f-a6ba-a9acd416ed46@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 15, 5:40 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
Translation:
**AAARGH!
Phil shot his mouth off when he didn't know what he was
**Put up or shut up. Translatre a chalenge to talk chess? TRANSLATE????!!!!
talking about, and now he's trying to cover up with bluster and
nonsense. Just as I expected; he's done this many times before. There
is no Kasparov opinion different from what he wrote in MGP4, or if
there is, Innes sure as hell doesn't know what it is.
**Yet another diversion! Does MGP4 address Taimanov's analysis or not - 5th
time of asking WHAT is addressed. 5th time Kingston comes with nothing.
**But Kingston want's to 'translate' this challenge to your tiny minds?
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2008 12:32:52
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Calling Innes' Bluff (was: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the
|
On Sep 15, 2:39=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 14, 2:07 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If GK really
> > refutes what Taimanov has to say, by all means let us have it -
>
> =A0 Gladly, Phil. Just as soon as you produce this alleged different
> opinion Kasparov holds now.
>
> **WHAT? I already published Taimanov's analysis.
Phil, your dyslexia is getting severe. For the umpteenth time, I am
asking you for this alleged new opinion of Kasparov's, NOT for
Taimanov's analysis. They are separate people, you know, Garry and
Mark. And "Taimanov's analysis" does not equal "Garry's opinion."
> If you got some chess, come
> with it. DON't evade the issue for the 3rd asking - do some work, take
> Taimanov's lines and dispute them with Kasparov's by all means. But do
> something other than posture.
Phil, the only one doing any evasion here is you. You claim that
Kasparov no longer stands by his analysis in MGP4, but you do not
tells us where/when he said/wrote this, or what his new opinion is.
When asked, you offer Taimanov's analysis, as if it were somehow
synonymous with GK's opinion. It ain't.
>
> =A0 Please tell us where you have published this alleged opinion of
> Kasparov's.
>
> **I told you here I published Taimanov's analysis.
There you go again, Phil! How many times do I have to say it? I am
NOT asking about Taimanov's analysis. I am referring to this statement
of yours, posted here in this very thread, on 12 September 2008, in
reponse to me, on the matter of GK's assessment of 20.Qh3:
TK: I tend to agree with Kasparov that this win is a myth.
PI: **That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion.
You see, Phil? You claim to know Kasparov's opinion, and you claim
that it is a *_different_* opinion than what he published on page 387
of MGP4.
Yet you are unable, or unwilling, to produce *_any_* statement *_by
Kasparov_* to that effect! All you do is say "Taimanov's analysis!",
as if GK and MT were somehow synonymous.
> There was no contrary
> analysis when that was published, not from Kasparov and not from Fischer.=
If
> Kasparov has something now, then let him address Taimanov's analysis.
He already has, as I have repeatedly stated, in MGP4, page 387. Yet
you have categorically stated that it "is /not/ Kasparov's opnion." Do
you realize how ridiculous you look?
If you want me to post GK's analysis of 20.Qh3 from MGP4, I will be
quite happy to do so. However, I do insist that first you either (A)
produce some validation of your claim that it "is /not/ Kasparov's
opnion," or (B) admit that you were talking through your hat when you
said that it "is /not/ Kasparov's opnion."
I'm calling your bluff, Phil. Show your cards or fold.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2008 17:40:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Calling Innes' Bluff (was: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession)
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:c9dde472-22e6-4a34-80f8-0c3770954f7f@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 15, 2:39 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 14, 2:07 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If GK really
> > refutes what Taimanov has to say, by all means let us have it -
>
> Gladly, Phil. Just as soon as you produce this alleged different
> opinion Kasparov holds now.
>
> **WHAT? I already published Taimanov's analysis.
Phil, your dyslexia is getting severe. For the umpteenth time, I am
asking you for this alleged new opinion of Kasparov's,
**You are aksing me for something you know about which addresses Taimanov's
analysis or not?
NOT for
Taimanov's analysis. They are separate people, you know, Garry and
Mark.
**Yes, I do know them!
And "Taimanov's analysis" does not equal "Garry's opinion."
**True - therefore, does Kasparov's opinion come up to Taimanov's mark , so
to speak, and if so, what is it?
> If you got some chess, come
> with it. DON't evade the issue for the 3rd asking - do some work, take
> Taimanov's lines and dispute them with Kasparov's by all means. But do
> something other than posture.
Phil, the only one doing any evasion here is you. You claim that
Kasparov no longer stands by his analysis in MGP4, but you do not
tells us where/when he said/wrote this, or what his new opinion is.
When asked, you offer Taimanov's analysis, as if it were somehow
synonymous with GK's opinion. It ain't.
*Sorry - 4th time you are out! Do some work Kingston - and if it's there,
share the result. Otherwise, don't ask me to do what isn't there, or prove
more negatives.
> Please tell us where you have published this alleged opinion of
> Kasparov's.
>
> **I told you here I published Taimanov's analysis.
There you go again, Phil! How many times do I have to say it?
** IT? say IT? Say what Vaguer? How many times does it take you to say
anything within a context that is answerable? Say WHAT?
I am
NOT asking about Taimanov's analysis. I am referring to this statement
of yours, posted here in this very thread, on 12 September 2008, in
reponse to me, on the matter of GK's assessment of 20.Qh3:
TK: I tend to agree with Kasparov that this win is a myth.
PI: **That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion.
You see, Phil? You claim to know Kasparov's opinion, and you claim
that it is a *_different_* opinion than what he published on page 387
of MGP4.
**And I answered that already! If you don't bother to notice, what is that
to me? Did he answer Taimanov's anlaysis or not? That is the ONLY relevant
aspect here - and if he did - what did he have to say?
Yet you are unable, or unwilling, to produce *_any_* statement *_by
Kasparov_* to that effect!
**Shall I produce what you had to say? AND WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY?
NOTHING!! Not in 10 tries on this subject. Not in 15 replies where you mix
up Fischer's 'say', and Kasparov's say - but to what point? EVIDENTLY if
what is said does not meet Taimanov's analysis then it is less than
adequate. So what does GK have to say to Taimanov's analysis? [5th ask]
All you do is say "Taimanov's analysis!",
as if GK and MT were somehow synonymous.
**As if I thought you could distinguish 'all I say' when all I say IS
Taimanov's commentary.
> There was no contrary
> analysis when that was published, not from Kasparov and not from Fischer.
> If
> Kasparov has something now, then let him address Taimanov's analysis.
He already has, as I have repeatedly stated, in MGP4, page 387. Yet
you have categorically stated that it "is /not/ Kasparov's opnion." Do
you realize how ridiculous you look?
**I don't wear high heels either, or care much what people think of me not
doing it:))
**Just show up with the chess, you idiot. You showed up so far with
Fischer's refutation [nothing] Then you showed up with unimpeachable
Hochberg [nothing, in fact, triuphalism and misleading irresposnible
nothing - which you also got wrong] And now its Kasparov's nothing ;)
If you want me to post GK's analysis of 20.Qh3 from MGP4, I will be
quite happy to do so. However, I do insist that first you either (A)
produce some validation of your claim that it "is /not/ Kasparov's
opnion," or (B) admit that you were talking through your hat when you
said that it "is /not/ Kasparov's opnion."
I'm calling your bluff, Phil. Show your cards or fold.
**For someone who can't understand anything, and who is always referencing
things he can't prove, that is rich indeed. Just write if Kasparov addressed
Taimanov's analysis, and stop whining, you maggot! If he didn't, then pfft!
to him too!
**If you have something else to 'prove' or as you seem to be interested in,
'appearing as' then you will do that. Personally I am interested in the
chess for the two lines I mentioned at the very beginning. I am not
interested in Taylor Kingston's good opinion of anything - should be ashamed
of it!
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2008 16:53:51
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 14, 6:27=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 4:59=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > **If you want to argue, and you do, also do some work!
>
> > > > =A0 This is like Jackie Gleason advising Twiggy to lose weight.
>
> > > =A0 Jackie Gleason? =A0Twiggy? =A0Clearly, there is
> > > a rift here-- a generation gap which is no less
> > > titanic than, well, the Lusitania... the Queen
> > > Elizabeth... or indeed, the Titanic herself.
>
> > =A0 No, Phil and I are not that far apart age-wise.
>
> =A0 =A0Well, no wonder Mr. Kingston has so much
> difficulty understanding Dr. IMnes-- he injects
> things that aren't there!
>
> =A0 My meaning was that the readership of rgc,
> which includes folks who stumble upon this
> wretched forum by accident (i.e.: a Google
> search on "chess" and "Fischer"), might very
> well find themselves strangers in a strange
> land, populated by unknown characters with
> names like Twiggy or Gleason, teleported
> from a bygone era.
>
> =A0 You see, old folks are less likely than very
> young bots like myself to be computer
> addicts or users. =A0Take Senator McCain for
> instance; he can dial a telephone or drive a
> stick shift car, but does he know how to
> send text messages? =A0No. =A0Can he do an
> advanced Goggle search, in which
> "conflict of interest" AND "Obama" AND
> "stock options" are combined? =A0No. =A0Does
> he own a Crackberry? =A0Again, no. =A0That's
> because he's very old, like folks who use
> words like "dowdy", or who make offhand
> references to Jackie Gleason. =A0 I'm afraid
> that apart from Larry Parr and a few
> other oldsters, a good number of readers
> will have no idea what such terms refer
> to.
>
> =A0 In any case, my comment had nothing
> whatever to do with the relative ages of
> Mr. Kingston and Dr. IMnes-- a man who
> is quite obviously in a different frame of
> reference with regard to space, time,
> and most other things.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
Our Greg, as usual, cuts quickly to the crux of something far
removed from even the outer epidermis of the matter.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2008 14:41:25
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In any case, my comment had nothing
> whatever to do with the relative ages of
> Mr. Kingston and Dr. IMnes-- a man who
> is quite obviously in a different frame of
> reference with regard to space, time,
> and most other things.
>
> -- help bot
Our Greg, as usual, cuts quickly to the crux of something far
removed from even the outer epidermis of the matter.
**I am interested in chess in a chess thread. I don't care who says what. I
do care two people did squat think that is funny, since 'the unfortunate
people arriving here' will make up their own minds if this is about Fischer
or fish-wives.
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2008 08:29:22
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
Chess One wrote:
>
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > In any case, my comment had nothing
> > whatever to do with the relative ages of
> > Mr. Kingston and Dr. IMnes-- a man who
> > is quite obviously in a different frame of
> > reference with regard to space, time,
> > and most other things.
> >
> > -- help bot
>
> Our Greg, as usual, cuts quickly to the crux of something far
> removed from even the outer epidermis of the matter.
>
> **I am interested in chess in a chess thread. I don't care who says what. I
> do care two people did squat think that is funny, since 'the unfortunate
> people arriving here' will make up their own minds if this is about Fischer
> or fish-wives.
Ah well, apart from the fact that Fischer really meant if it had been
him playing Mark T's game he would have won with Q-h3 & anyway Mark's
got his Yamaha-grand to occupy himself with whereas I only have chess &
besides my words were fallen upon & distorted by those intent on placing
me upon a pedestal when it was "should" I indicated as in Qh3 "might"
have won..
But anyway, I feel this whole obsessional qh3 business has been done to
death & that there are much more interesting things to talk about like
the steel-shod wooden clogs the fishmonger's wife used to 'clack' around
in on an icy Winter's day..
t. morphy.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2008 15:27:02
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 14, 4:59=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > > **If you want to argue, and you do, also do some work!
>
> > > =A0 This is like Jackie Gleason advising Twiggy to lose weight.
>
> > =A0 Jackie Gleason? =A0Twiggy? =A0Clearly, there is
> > a rift here-- a generation gap which is no less
> > titanic than, well, the Lusitania... the Queen
> > Elizabeth... or indeed, the Titanic herself.
>
> =A0 No, Phil and I are not that far apart age-wise.
Well, no wonder Mr. Kingston has so much
difficulty understanding Dr. IMnes-- he injects
things that aren't there!
My meaning was that the readership of rgc,
which includes folks who stumble upon this
wretched forum by accident (i.e.: a Google
search on "chess" and "Fischer"), might very
well find themselves strangers in a strange
land, populated by unknown characters with
names like Twiggy or Gleason, teleported
from a bygone era.
You see, old folks are less likely than very
young bots like myself to be computer
addicts or users. Take Senator McCain for
instance; he can dial a telephone or drive a
stick shift car, but does he know how to
send text messages? No. Can he do an
advanced Goggle search, in which
"conflict of interest" AND "Obama" AND
"stock options" are combined? No. Does
he own a Crackberry? Again, no. That's
because he's very old, like folks who use
words like "dowdy", or who make offhand
references to Jackie Gleason. I'm afraid
that apart from Larry Parr and a few
other oldsters, a good number of readers
will have no idea what such terms refer
to.
In any case, my comment had nothing
whatever to do with the relative ages of
Mr. Kingston and Dr. IMnes-- a man who
is quite obviously in a different frame of
reference with regard to space, time,
and most other things.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2008 13:59:09
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 14, 4:40=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 2:29 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > **If you want to argue, and you do, also do some work!
>
> > =A0 This is like Jackie Gleason advising Twiggy to lose weight.
>
> =A0 Jackie Gleason? =A0Twiggy? =A0Clearly, there is
> a rift here-- a generation gap which is no less
> titanic than, well, the Lusitania... the Queen
> Elizabeth... or indeed, the Titanic herself.
No, Phil and I are not that far apart age-wise.
> =A0 Very likely, few apart from myself and of
> course Larry Parr, will recall the days of old
> when, putting our radios aside, we tuned in
> to watch black and white TV. =A0 No more
> "fireside chats", no more listening to tales of
> The Shadow. =A0 No, it was a time of change--
> of /radical change/, like when Bret Butler in
> Gone with the Wind exclaimed "Frankly my
> dear, I don't give a damn".
No, that was Rhett Favre, and he said it to the Green Bay Packers,
or more accurately, they said it to him.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2008 13:40:57
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 14, 2:29 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> > **If you want to argue, and you do, also do some work!
>
> This is like Jackie Gleason advising Twiggy to lose weight.
Jackie Gleason? Twiggy? Clearly, there is
a rift here-- a generation gap which is no less
titanic than, well, the Lusitania... the Queen
Elizabeth... or indeed, the Titanic herself.
Very likely, few apart from myself and of
course Larry Parr, will recall the days of old
when, putting our radios aside, we tuned in
to watch black and white TV. No more
"fireside chats", no more listening to tales of
The Shadow. No, it was a time of change--
of /radical change/, like when Bret Butler in
Gone with the Wind exclaimed "Frankly my
dear, I don't give a damn".
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2008 11:29:41
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 14, 2:07=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:316858a1-d214-4d2b-80cb-b7b05a8ccb3c@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 14, 8:15 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > **Really? Well, since I know all them Petersberg players, including GK =
on
> > his visits - we have a mutual friend - I don't think so.
>
> =A0 So you are saying GK has changed his mind since MGP4 was published
> in 2004? Pray tell us then, O Up-to-the-Minute-One, what is his
> current opinion?
>
> **DO NOT paraphrase me. I say so, because you are not capable of repeatin=
g
> what people say to their own satisfaction - which means you don't underst=
and
> what they say.
I understand what people say quite well. Funny, the only person I
find especially difficult to understand is you, Phil, because you put
forth so much doubletalk.
Anyway, the question to you has nothing to do with my understanding.
It's quite simple, and I ask it yet again: Has Kasparov's opinion
about 20.Qh3 changed since 2004, and if so what is it now? You claim
it has changed, yet you present nothing to prove it.
> **As for GK, his opinion was expressed in the same year as the MT intervi=
ew.
> It is MT who says GK didn't solve it satisfactorily - and that is on reco=
rd.
> When we take this the other way around, whether GK referenced MT's analys=
is
> is in your own hands to decide - you have the title! - =A0if he did not, =
then
> I say he ducked it, or wrote as he did before seeing MT's comments.
Ahem, Phil, GK quite definitely *_does_* refer to Taimanov's
analysis. His conclusion can be summed up succintly, and I quote:
"alas."
> > But I am sure you
> > will think so, not because of his analysis trumps Taimanov's but becaus=
e
> > its
> > the last thing you read.
>
> > 2. Thus caught out, you write "It /is/ his true opinion ..." Nice to
> > see you admitting error for once, but then you try to wriggle out by
>
> > **Wait a minute there pardner! see above - I am not admitting what I sa=
y
> > to
> > be an error.
>
> =A0 Unless you have proof that Kasparov has changed his mind about
> 20.Qh3, you were indeed in error. So put up or shut up.
>
> **ROFL! Isn't it /your/ assertion Kasparov answers Taimanov's material
> satisfactorily? If you got it, produce it. I did mine! I got a whole game=
's
> analysis out of Taimanov - /and/ I checked with Fischer. If GK really
> refutes what Taimanov has to say, by all means let us have it -
Gladly, Phil. Just as soon as you produce this alleged different
opinion Kasparov holds now.
> **But let it address what Taimanov actually said which is what I posted t=
hat
> here.
Taimanov? I am asking about what Innes claims GK said. But does
Innes tell us? No, he just makes sound and fury, signifying nothing.
> **If you want to argue, and you do, also do some work!
This is like Jackie Gleason advising Twiggy to lose weight.
> Otherwise, you are
> reduced to asking indolent questions of those who already have, and
> published it.
Please tell us where you have published this alleged opinion of
Kasparov's.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2008 14:39:14
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 14, 2:07 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:316858a1-d214-4d2b-80cb-b7b05a8ccb3c@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 14, 8:15 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > **Really? Well, since I know all them Petersberg players, including GK
> > on
> > his visits - we have a mutual friend - I don't think so.
>
> So you are saying GK has changed his mind since MGP4 was published
> in 2004? Pray tell us then, O Up-to-the-Minute-One, what is his
> current opinion?
>
> **DO NOT paraphrase me. I say so, because you are not capable of repeating
> what people say to their own satisfaction - which means you don't
> understand
> what they say.
I understand what people say quite well. Funny, the only person I
find especially difficult to understand is you, Phil, because you put
forth so much doubletalk.
**Dear Vaguer - you do not quote me, you paraphrase, but insert you own
meaning. Get it? Stop doing that - learn to use Google protocols, and if you
have something to say, mention it where other's said it. Otherwise, you just
make stuff up.
Anyway, the question to you has nothing to do with my understanding.
It's quite simple, and I ask it yet again: Has Kasparov's opinion
about 20.Qh3 changed since 2004, and if so what is it now? You claim
it has changed, yet you present nothing to prove it.
**See immediately below. It is YOUR 'claim', and in fact, against Taimanov's
claim.
> **As for GK, his opinion was expressed in the same year as the MT
> interview.
> It is MT who says GK didn't solve it satisfactorily - and that is on
> record.
> When we take this the other way around, whether GK referenced MT's
> analysis
> is in your own hands to decide - you have the title! - if he did not, then
> I say he ducked it, or wrote as he did before seeing MT's comments.
Ahem, Phil, GK quite definitely *_does_* refer to Taimanov's
analysis. His conclusion can be summed up succintly, and I quote:
"alas."
** ? What ? Look stupic - quote it in context, or don't 'sum up' or extract
or assume. You have got that so wrong, I wonder you even know what you are
saying yourself. If Kasparov has something - WRITE ABOUT IT - dont /refer/
to what he wrote, which may or may not address Taimanov's analysis. YOU
introduced GK's analysis here, so what is it? ROFL
--------
> **ROFL! Isn't it /your/ assertion Kasparov answers Taimanov's material
> satisfactorily? If you got it, produce it. I did mine! I got a whole
> game's
> analysis out of Taimanov - /and/ I checked with Fischer. If GK really
> refutes what Taimanov has to say, by all means let us have it -
Gladly, Phil. Just as soon as you produce this alleged different
opinion Kasparov holds now.
**WHAT? I already published Taimanov's analysis. If you got some chess, come
with it. DON't evade the issue for the 3rd asking - do some work, take
Taimanov's lines and dispute them with Kasparov's by all means. But do
something other than posture.
> **But let it address what Taimanov actually said which is what I posted
> that
> here.
Taimanov? I am asking about what Innes claims GK said. But does
Innes tell us? No, he just makes sound and fury, signifying nothing.
**Do you want me to post /your/ e-mails? If you have Kasparov's public
analysis then write it. Otherwise whatever I might know is not public
business. I am talking about Taimanov'sopinion of Kasparov. Don't write more
unless you can say you understand what you are arguing about.
> **If you want to argue, and you do, also do some work!
This is like Jackie Gleason advising Twiggy to lose weight.
**Is it? I think I am calling you Kingston. I translated that long thing, I
published the analysis here, you have just shot your mouth off, and produced
nothing other than Kasparov's and Fischer's claims to refutation... pftt!
> Otherwise, you are
> reduced to asking indolent questions of those who already have, and
> published it.
Please tell us where you have published this alleged opinion of
Kasparov's.
**I told you here I published Taimanov's analysis. There was no contrary
analysis when that was published, not from Kasparov and not from Fischer. If
Kasparov has something now, then let him address Taimanov's analysis.And I
dont care who 'wins', but I do want to sort out opinion from analysis, as in
the previous 7 episodes with Taylor Kingston.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2008 07:05:51
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 14, 8:15=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 13, 9:47 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
> > On Sep 12, 3:56 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > **ahem. How about the idea that Kasparov can't solve it? and/or he is
> > plain
> > wrong that others can't too? It /is/ his true opinion, but is it a
> > /correct/
> > opinion?
>
> =A0 Phil, you are doing your usual obfuscatory ground-shifting. There
>
> **Taylor - this is my topic, my thread, my analysis, my initiative. I REF=
USE
> to let you get away with your idiocies here - you continue to think YOUR
> factless intrusions of others material are 'obfuscatory ground-shifting'.
> This is the 7th time in 3 weeks you have done so - and if I point it out =
you
> snip it! You are welcome to your own opinion, and with such a massive ego
> you must necessarily think this is all about you, and if other people don=
't
> anticipate what you are going to say, and make their own point - I sugges=
t
> that this is not 'ground-shifting' nor is it obscure-making. I suggest
> instead that you keep saying it is after you break in with your own topic=
.
>
> are two questions here, and I've been addressing only one of them. You
> switch back and forth between the two, hoping to confuse readers, but
> fooling no one.
> =A0 The two main points at issue here:
>
> =A0 1. Kasparov's opinion about 20.Qh3. I quoted what he said in MGP4,
> that the win is a myth. To this you replied, quite directly, "**That
> is /not/ Kasparov's opinion."
> =A0 Yet it quite clearly /is/ his opinion. To quote MGP4 again, "Thus,
> 20.Qh3 WOULD ***NOT*** HAVE WON ..." (emphasis added).
>
> =A0 That is the point at issue: that you are clearly wrong about what
> opinion Kasparov holds.
>
> **Really? Well, since I know all them Petersberg players, including GK on
> his visits - we have a mutual friend - I don't think so.
So you are saying GK has changed his mind since MGP4 was published
in 2004? Pray tell us then, O Up-to-the-Minute-One, what is his
current opinion?
> But I am sure you
> will think so, not because of his analysis trumps Taimanov's but because =
its
> the last thing you read.
>
> =A0 2. Thus caught out, you write "It /is/ his true opinion ..." Nice to
> see you admitting error for once, but then you try to wriggle out by
>
> **Wait a minute there pardner! see above - I am not admitting what I say =
to
> be an error.
Unless you have proof that Kasparov has changed his mind about
20.Qh3, you were indeed in error. So put up or shut up.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Sep 2008 14:07:21
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:316858a1-d214-4d2b-80cb-b7b05a8ccb3c@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 14, 8:15 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> **Really? Well, since I know all them Petersberg players, including GK on
> his visits - we have a mutual friend - I don't think so.
So you are saying GK has changed his mind since MGP4 was published
in 2004? Pray tell us then, O Up-to-the-Minute-One, what is his
current opinion?
**DO NOT paraphrase me. I say so, because you are not capable of repeating
what people say to their own satisfaction - which means you don't understand
what they say.
**As for GK, his opinion was expressed in the same year as the MT interview.
It is MT who says GK didn't solve it satisfactorily - and that is on record.
When we take this the other way around, whether GK referenced MT's analysis
is in your own hands to decide - you have the title! - if he did not, then
I say he ducked it, or wrote as he did before seeing MT's comments.
> But I am sure you
> will think so, not because of his analysis trumps Taimanov's but because
> its
> the last thing you read.
>
> 2. Thus caught out, you write "It /is/ his true opinion ..." Nice to
> see you admitting error for once, but then you try to wriggle out by
>
> **Wait a minute there pardner! see above - I am not admitting what I say
> to
> be an error.
Unless you have proof that Kasparov has changed his mind about
20.Qh3, you were indeed in error. So put up or shut up.
**ROFL! Isn't it /your/ assertion Kasparov answers Taimanov's material
satisfactorily? If you got it, produce it. I did mine! I got a whole game's
analysis out of Taimanov - /and/ I checked with Fischer. If GK really
refutes what Taimanov has to say, by all means let us have it -
**But let it address what Taimanov actually said which is what I posted that
here.
**If you want to argue, and you do, also do some work! Otherwise, you are
reduced to asking indolent questions of those who already have, and
published it.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2008 21:17:13
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Innes says Fischer was "done, shot, not very good any more" in
|
On Sep 13, 11:16=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 Phil, are you out of your mind?
That question amounts to a logical absurdity.
If Dr. IMnes were not out of his mind, he would
presumably answer "no"; but if nearly-an-IMnes
were out of his mind, he would presumably
give the same answer. Thus, nothing can be
learned by asking such a question of him.
That's why I'm asking his alter ego, Rob
Mitchell-- Mr. Mitchell, is your alter ego, Dr.
IMnes out of his mind? Consider carefully
before answering.
-- doc bot
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2008 15:41:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 13, 12:18=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 1. I was wrong to say that R. Byrne did not discuss the 20.Qh3
> variation in the 8/1971 CL&R and in "Both Sides of the Chessboard." It
> was the third and last alternative he mentioned at that point in the
> game, after 20.Ne6 and 20.Rf3. My apologies for overlooking it. Byrne
> wrote:
>
> =A0 =93[If] 20.Qh3 Rf6 21.Bc4 f4 22.Rxf6 Bxh3 23.Nf7+ Kh7 24.Rxh6+ Bxh6
> 25.Nxd8 Rxd8 26.gxh3 Bf8 but Black should win. In this line, if 22.Qh4
> or Qh5, then 22=85Bb7 wins.=94
This last variation appears to have been
quite easily refuted. The move 22. ...Bb7
draws.
> =A0 2. The 20.Qh3 question is discussed in Larry Evans=92 CL&R column in
> the February 1973 issue. I quote the relevant Q&A passage verbatim:
>
> =A0 =93Q. Hans Joachim Herrmann, W. Germany: In the exciting third game o=
f
> Taimanov-Fischer, match 1972 [sic =96 s/b 1971], given by Robert Byrne
> in Aug/71 p.422, most of the annotators said that Taimanov could have
> won with 20 Q-KR3. Even Fischer said so himself.
Note the lack of a capital "h" in "himself".
(Clearly, these two are not on the same
page.)
> But I do not think so!
> =A0 =93Byrne gives 20=85RB3 21.B-QB4 P-B5 and now on 22.Q-R5 (instead of =
his
> 22.RxR BxQ 23.N-B7ch K-R2 24.RxPch BxR 25.NxQ RxN 26.PxB B-B1 =91but
> Black should win=92) 22=85B-N2 White must play 23.R-K6!
This last move was confirmed by my old
version of Rybka, on my poor old computer.
> Q-KB1!
But here the computer parts ways with
human kind.
> 24.BxN Rxb
> (not 24=85Q-B4ch 25.R-B2!) 25.RxKP BxP Black=92s still a pawn ahead.
> International Master Mohrlok went on with 26.B-B3! and said that Black
> cannot be saved. But I think 26=85B-B2 works. Would either you or
> Fischer comment?=94
>
> =A0 =A0 =93A. 26=85K-N1 seems to hold, for if 27.N-K4 R-B2 28.R-KN5? PxR
> 29.NxP BxB wins. Black=92s position is precarious, granted, but Pawn is
> a Pawn. A convincing win for White after 20.Q-KB3 [sic =96 s/b 20.Q-KR3]
> still remains to be demonstrated. How about it, Bobby?=94
As noted by TheGreatPedant Edward Winter,
many claims by Mr. Fischer are never backed
up with substance. One example was Mr.
Fischer's ludicrous claim that he was going to
write a book "proving" that the Russians had
/fixed/ their games-- in particular, GK and AK.
Unsurprisingly, no such book ever appeared
in the real world. And so it goes... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2008 15:11:52
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Innes says Fischer was "done, shot, not very good any more" in
|
On Sep 13, 5:33=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 13, 9:55 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:202406cd-1fd7-4c18-95d1-2a7567c6bd02@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On Sep 12, 4:41 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Fischer was done by this time.
>
> > Done?? Fischer made the claim about 20.Qh3 in mid-1971. Last I
> > checked, he played quite a bit of chess after that.
>
> > **Yes, done, shot, not very good any more - scared to play with strong
> > players. He may have played 'quite a bit of chess' but kept well clear =
of
> > strong players, no?
>
> =A0 Phil, are you out of your mind?
>
> **Taylor, why don't you keep your obnoxious supositions to yourself? FIVE
> time you invented something to begin this way - in 3 weeks? And when
> presented with your own inventions have nothing to say!
>
> =A0"Kept well clear of strong
> players"?? In case you haven't heard, after defeating Taimanov 6-0 in
> mid-1971, Fischer went on to defeat Larsen 6-0 and Petrosian 6=BD-2=BD.
> These were what are called "Candidate Matches," and they involved only
> top GMs, the best in the world. Then he beat Spassky 12=BD-8=BD in 1972.
> This last match was for a title they call the World Championship of
> Chess. So please explain to us what "strong players" Fischer was
> keeping "well clear of" in this stretch.
>
> **Fucking hell! What a moron!@
You're so cute when you talk dirty.
> I already explained that at the time of the
> Taimanov interview THEN those players asked him what he had. Do you
> understand that Kingston. There is NO OTHER context!
Phil, as anyone able to read can see in this thread, I clearly
stated mid-1971, and you responded directly to that, saying Fischer
was "Yes, done, shot, not very good any more." That was the context to
which I referred, a context plain to anyone who bothers to read. I'm
sorry you are so dyslexic and gaffe-prone, but as long as you continue
be so, I will be here to point out your errors.
> NONE. And Fischer was
> not exactly honest even then, going back and fro on what he thought. The
> bottom line was he produced NOTHING at all, not in 71 or in 2004.
I think we are all agreed that Fischer never substantiated his claim
that 20.Qh3 would have won. Neither has Taimanov, or anyone, AFAIK.
This, however, is not the point under discussion at this moment.
> =A0 Phil, I think we have (yet again) definitive proof that your
> perceptions coincide with factual reality only to a very small extent.
> Planet Innes clearly inhabits its own alternate universe
>
> **What an idiot!~ This is the SIXTH grand comprenshion problem you have h=
ad
> in 3 weeks! Try to understand that you mindlessly invent stuff people nev=
er
> said -
A sense of irony overwhelms me. This is like Timothy Leary calling
Billy Graham an acid-head.
> do not quote what you argue against -
Excuse me? Phil, I quoted you verbatim.
> **THAT is factual reality.
Phil, you are as well-qualified to recognize factual reality as
Helen Keller was to be a film director.
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2008 10:54:10
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 13, 9:47=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 12, 3:56 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > It seems to me the group here is mainly interested in whether there
> > is or is not an objective win for White after 20.Qh3.
>
> > **Taimanov says ther is.
>
> > It sure doesn't
> > look like it, both Rybka and Fritz being unable to find any.
>
> > **ROFL! Really? What evidence is ther of that? Nothing! We don't even s=
ee
> > their evaluations quantitatively, yet Taylor Kingston 'sees it'.
>
> > :))))
>
> > Oh yes,
> > neither could Kasparov. Unless you have some analysis refuting their
> > conclusions, I tend to agree with Kasparov that this win is a myth.
>
> > **That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion.
>
> =A0 Really? Then why did he publish a book in which he said the win is a
> myth?
>
> **Presumably he wrote a book and shared his opinion on the position, and =
it
> was a genuine opinion [at least at the time] - after all, no one else sol=
ved
> it either. Taimanov /said/ Kasparov couldn't solve it. Kasparov could be
> right or wrong, but confronted with current knowledge and analysis, what =
we
> want from Kasparov is his analysis, then we can have our own opinions =A0=
;)
>
> > =A0Do you have some evidence that it is to
> > support your statement?
>
> =A0 Phil, do you never check anything before shooting your mouth off? I
> already posted it here several days ago.
>
> =A0 I say again, just consult My Great Predecessors, Volume 4. The 3rd
> Taimanov-Fischer match game is annotated in detail on pages 385-389.
> Analysis of the 20.Qh3 variation takes up most of page 387. You will
> see there, if you actually care enough to read it, that Kasparov
> concludes, quite plainly:
>
> =A0 "Thus, 20.Qh3 WOULD ***NOT*** HAVE WON ..." (emphasis added due to
> Phil's dyslexia)
>
> =A0 Clear enough for you? Evidence enough for you? Support enough for
> you?
>
> **You merely re-assert Kasparov's opinion and that is not evidence at all=
-
> as usually you are castigating other people when in this instance I clear=
ly
> asked for EVIDENCE to support his opinion.
>
> > I rather think that Garry is persuaded otherwise.
>
> =A0 =A0Right, people always write 500-page books in order to say the
> opposite of their true opinions.
>
> **ahem. How about the idea that Kasparov can't solve it? and/or he is pla=
in
> wrong that others can't too? It /is/ his true opinion, but is it a /corre=
ct/
> opinion?
Phil, you are doing your usual obfuscatory ground-shifting. There
are two questions here, and I've been addressing only one of them. You
switch back and forth between the two, hoping to confuse readers, but
fooling no one.
The two main points at issue here:
1. Kasparov's opinion about 20.Qh3. I quoted what he said in MGP4,
that the win is a myth. To this you replied, quite directly, "**That
is /not/ Kasparov's opinion."
Yet it quite clearly /is/ his opinion. To quote MGP4 again, "Thus,
20.Qh3 WOULD ***NOT*** HAVE WON ..." (emphasis added).
That is the point at issue: that you are clearly wrong about what
opinion Kasparov holds.
2. Thus caught out, you write "It /is/ his true opinion ..." Nice to
see you admitting error for once, but then you try to wriggle out by
shifting ground: "...but is it a /correct/ opinion?" That is quite
irrelevant to the fact that you were mistaken as to *_what his opinion
was._*
Then, in your customary fashion, you start to dig a hole for
yourself. You continue: "in this instance I clearly
asked for EVIDENCE to support his opinion." Sorry, Phil, you did not.
You simply said "That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion."
Employing one of your typical fallacies, you are trying to equate
two different things: (1) the nature of GK's opinion, and (2) the
validity of GK's opinion. Showing yourself mistaken about (1), you try
to pretend we're talking about (2). Your rhetorical ineptitude and
dishonesty are pathetic.
As far as *support* for GK's opinion is concerned, get hold of MGP4
and read his analysis yourself. I'm tired of spoon-feeding your
ignorance.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Sep 2008 08:15:29
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 13, 9:47 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 12, 3:56 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> **ahem. How about the idea that Kasparov can't solve it? and/or he is
> plain
> wrong that others can't too? It /is/ his true opinion, but is it a
> /correct/
> opinion?
Phil, you are doing your usual obfuscatory ground-shifting. There
**Taylor - this is my topic, my thread, my analysis, my initiative. I REFUSE
to let you get away with your idiocies here - you continue to think YOUR
factless intrusions of others material are 'obfuscatory ground-shifting'.
This is the 7th time in 3 weeks you have done so - and if I point it out you
snip it! You are welcome to your own opinion, and with such a massive ego
you must necessarily think this is all about you, and if other people don't
anticipate what you are going to say, and make their own point - I suggest
that this is not 'ground-shifting' nor is it obscure-making. I suggest
instead that you keep saying it is after you break in with your own topic.
are two questions here, and I've been addressing only one of them. You
switch back and forth between the two, hoping to confuse readers, but
fooling no one.
The two main points at issue here:
1. Kasparov's opinion about 20.Qh3. I quoted what he said in MGP4,
that the win is a myth. To this you replied, quite directly, "**That
is /not/ Kasparov's opinion."
Yet it quite clearly /is/ his opinion. To quote MGP4 again, "Thus,
20.Qh3 WOULD ***NOT*** HAVE WON ..." (emphasis added).
That is the point at issue: that you are clearly wrong about what
opinion Kasparov holds.
**Really? Well, since I know all them Petersberg players, including GK on
his visits - we have a mutual friend - I don't think so. But I am sure you
will think so, not because of his analysis trumps Taimanov's but because its
the last thing you read.
2. Thus caught out, you write "It /is/ his true opinion ..." Nice to
see you admitting error for once, but then you try to wriggle out by
**Wait a minute there pardner! see above - I am not admitting what I say to
be an error.
shifting ground: "...but is it a /correct/ opinion?" That is quite
irrelevant to the fact that you were mistaken as to *_what his opinion
was._*
**In other words in your opinion if Kasparov merely says so but he is wrong,
you are in some way content?
Then, in your customary fashion, you start to dig a hole for
yourself. You continue: "in this instance I clearly
asked for EVIDENCE to support his opinion." Sorry, Phil, you did not.
You simply said "That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion."
**What a pity you have to continuosuly CHEAT in order to bleat! I note that
my own words DIFFERENTIATED opinion from evidence. But Our Taylor does not
repeat that here, since otherwise his selective quoting would not stand up.
Employing one of your typical fallacies, you are trying to equate
two different things: (1) the nature of GK's opinion, and (2) the
validity of GK's opinion. Showing yourself mistaken about (1), you try
to pretend we're talking about (2). Your rhetorical ineptitude and
dishonesty are pathetic.
As far as *support* for GK's opinion is concerned, get hold of MGP4
and read his analysis yourself. I'm tired of spoon-feeding your
ignorance.
**And with his usual pissy dismissal, which itself says nothing on either
topic, Our Taylor departs. I win my bet, and what's new?
**This is how Our Taylor fell out with Richard Laurie, Larry Evans, Ray
Keene, me, and ... the method is to introduce an element to what others say,
then accuse them of disregarding it. But is the 'it' even indicated as worth
consideration? Our Vaguer does not understand that his few words do not seem
compelling to others, since they rely on strong opinion and absent fact.
**The perfect example is Our Taylor's introduction of 'prediction' to a
thread discussing analysis and evaluation of handwriting - this is why, said
Our Taylor, I am nutz. I did note 4 other instances of this behavior over
the past 3 weeks, all of which are Taylor has ignored.
**Our Taylor uses the same nonsense above: I say opinion is not evidence.
Then he accuses me of raising two subject in order to avoid discussion, and
to confuse you all... :)))
**Now, maybe Fischer really had something he never spoke about, and maybe GK
does have something he didn't have in 2004? And if so then we might all look
at it. As I began this post, there are two lines following White's 21st
move. I should be interested in what I then called 'mainline' analysis, and
also what I called the Paradox variation.
**I don't care /who/ says what, except for my technical interest, if its
computer analysis I should be interested in its move-by-move evaluation.
That is the same topic I began with.
**Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2008 10:22:28
From: SBD
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
Innes then lives in la la land in his head, and his opinions on very
many things
seem extremely suspect, frequently base or course, and consequently
are all
worth challenging. But why do you continue to suggest that Innes had
something? On being challenged by those he couldn't bluff, he had
nothing to
say.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Sep 2008 07:44:04
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:75618e11-529f-4d5d-8e17-9e19d8ff384e@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Innes then lives in la la land in his head, and his opinions on very
> many things
> seem extremely suspect, frequently base or course, and consequently
> are all
> worth challenging. But why do you continue to suggest that Innes had
> something? On being challenged by those he couldn't bluff, he had
> nothing to
> say.
DR RD flips out again! Not ANY context in this post.
I wonder he doesn't directly ask me to prove that Fischer didn't write
any Qh3 analysis?
You see, if I could do that, I could then easily prove to anyone here that
Paul Truong didn't write the FSS material.
But DR RD is too cunning ! - if he actually submitted any context, then we
would be able to see the logical absurdity of his propositions about other
people, requiring them to prove a negative, and so on.
But let us not trouble the minds of those who want to write about
'something', indeed 'nothing' too, since I appear to have nothing to say
about something.
I did have things to say about 2 simple propositions here this week - on
Taimanov's analysis, which after much 'opinion' some people are now actually
looking at, and the apparently contentious point of view that Fischer was
done after 1971. The only real evidence I can think of for the latter point
is (a) the much lower quality of his 2nd go-round match with Spassky, and
(b) he was too chicken to play the current top-tier of players. See - you
can almost-prove a negative. ;)
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2008 10:20:42
From: SBD
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 13, 12:02=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Larry was skeptical of Bobby's analysis on several occasions. He told
> me that Bobby never answered this challenge.
Was it Evans who noted Fischer's occasional descent into "wish chess"?
This plagues us all of course, but its manifestation is of course more
interesting in players of that caliber.
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2008 10:02:42
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
HOW ABOUT IT, BOBBY?
< =93A. 26=85K-N1 seems to hold, for if 27.N-K4 R-B2 28.R-KN5? PxR
29.NxP BxB wins. Black=92s position is precarious, granted, but Pawn is
a Pawn. A convincing win for White after 20.Q-KB3 [sic =96 s/b 20.Q-KR3]
still remains to be demonstrated. How about it, Bobby?=94 > -- Evans On
Chess
Larry was skeptical of Bobby's analysis on several occasions. He told
me that Bobby never answered this challenge.
In his introduction to Botvinnik - Fischer (#39 in MY 60 MEMORABLE
GAMES)
GM Larry Evans also correctly noted that Bobby threw "away the win he
maintains was still there."+
Subsequent analysis by Botvinnik and Kasparov refuted Fischer's claim
of a win.
In one of his columns Larry also recounted how Bobby often changed his
mind about a position and phoned him in the wee hours to discuss the
analysis.
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Sep 12, 3:45?pm, William Hyde <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sep 11, 6:28?pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sep 11, 5:53?pm, William Hyde <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > I'm pretty sure that Byrne didn't know about this footnote. ?If he
> > > > had, surely he
> > > > would not have ignored Qh3 in his analysis. ?The footnote must have
> > > > been
> > > > a bit embarrassing for him.
> >
> > > ? I wonder if he ever found out about it.
> >
> > Taylor, these are chess players we are talking about. ?Over the next
> > year,
> > I estimate that approximately 47,000 kind people pointed this out to
> > him.
> > People were probably still informing him of it at the time of Fischer-
> > Spassky II.
> >
> > > He also did not mention it
> > > in "Both Sides of the Chessboard," the book he co-authored (with Ivo
> > > Nei) on the Fischer-Spassky match. That did not come out until 1974,
> > > so he would have had time to alter his analysis. But it looks like th=
e
> > > book just repeated verbatim what he wrote in CL&R, at least on that
> > > particular point.
>
> On the matter of Byrne?s annotations: (1) an important correction,
> and (2) an addition:
>
> 1. I was wrong to say that R. Byrne did not discuss the 20.Qh3
> variation in the 8/1971 CL&R and in "Both Sides of the Chessboard." It
> was the third and last alternative he mentioned at that point in the
> game, after 20.Ne6 and 20.Rf3. My apologies for overlooking it. Byrne
> wrote:
>
> ?[If] 20.Qh3 Rf6 21.Bc4 f4 22.Rxf6 Bxh3 23.Nf7+ Kh7 24.Rxh6+ Bxh6
> 25.Nxd8 Rxd8 26.gxh3 Bf8 but Black should win. In this line, if 22.Qh4
> or Qh5, then 22?Bb7 wins.?
>
> 2. The 20.Qh3 question is discussed in Larry Evans? CL&R column in
> the February 1973 issue. I quote the relevant Q&A passage verbatim:
>
> ?Q. Hans Joachim Herrmann, W. Germany: In the exciting third game of
> Taimanov-Fischer, match 1972 [sic ? s/b 1971], given by Robert Byrne
> in Aug/71 p.422, most of the annotators said that Taimanov could have
> won with 20 Q-KR3. Even Fischer said so himself. But I do not think
> so!
> ?Byrne gives 20?RB3 21.B-QB4 P-B5 and now on 22.Q-R5 (instead of his
> 22.RxR BxQ 23.N-B7ch K-R2 24.RxPch BxR 25.NxQ RxN 26.PxB B-B1 ?but
> Black should win?) 22?B-N2 White must play 23.R-K6! Q-KB1! 24.BxN Rxb
> (not 24?Q-B4ch 25.R-B2!) 25.RxKP BxP Black?s still a pawn ahead.
> International Master Mohrlok went on with 26.B-B3! and said that Black
> cannot be saved. But I think 26?B-B2 works. Would either you or
> Fischer comment??
>
> ?A. 26?K-N1 seems to hold, for if 27.N-K4 R-B2 28.R-KN5? PxR
> 29.NxP BxB wins. Black?s position is precarious, granted, but Pawn is
> a Pawn. A convincing win for White after 20.Q-KB3 [sic ? s/b 20.Q-KR3]
> still remains to be demonstrated. How about it, Bobby??
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2008 09:18:11
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 12, 3:45=A0pm, William Hyde <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 6:28=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 11, 5:53=A0pm, William Hyde <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I'm pretty sure that Byrne didn't know about this footnote. =A0If he
> > > had, surely he
> > > would not have ignored Qh3 in his analysis. =A0The footnote must have
> > > been
> > > a bit embarrassing for him.
>
> > =A0 I wonder if he ever found out about it.
>
> Taylor, these are chess players we are talking about. =A0Over the next
> year,
> I estimate that approximately 47,000 kind people pointed this out to
> him.
> People were probably still informing him of it at the time of Fischer-
> Spassky II.
>
> > He also did not mention it
> > in "Both Sides of the Chessboard," the book he co-authored (with Ivo
> > Nei) on the Fischer-Spassky match. That did not come out until 1974,
> > so he would have had time to alter his analysis. But it looks like the
> > book just repeated verbatim what he wrote in CL&R, at least on that
> > particular point.
On the matter of Byrne=92s annotations: (1) an important correction,
and (2) an addition:
1. I was wrong to say that R. Byrne did not discuss the 20.Qh3
variation in the 8/1971 CL&R and in "Both Sides of the Chessboard." It
was the third and last alternative he mentioned at that point in the
game, after 20.Ne6 and 20.Rf3. My apologies for overlooking it. Byrne
wrote:
=93[If] 20.Qh3 Rf6 21.Bc4 f4 22.Rxf6 Bxh3 23.Nf7+ Kh7 24.Rxh6+ Bxh6
25.Nxd8 Rxd8 26.gxh3 Bf8 but Black should win. In this line, if 22.Qh4
or Qh5, then 22=85Bb7 wins.=94
2. The 20.Qh3 question is discussed in Larry Evans=92 CL&R column in
the February 1973 issue. I quote the relevant Q&A passage verbatim:
=93Q. Hans Joachim Herrmann, W. Germany: In the exciting third game of
Taimanov-Fischer, match 1972 [sic =96 s/b 1971], given by Robert Byrne
in Aug/71 p.422, most of the annotators said that Taimanov could have
won with 20 Q-KR3. Even Fischer said so himself. But I do not think
so!
=93Byrne gives 20=85RB3 21.B-QB4 P-B5 and now on 22.Q-R5 (instead of his
22.RxR BxQ 23.N-B7ch K-R2 24.RxPch BxR 25.NxQ RxN 26.PxB B-B1 =91but
Black should win=92) 22=85B-N2 White must play 23.R-K6! Q-KB1! 24.BxN Rxb
(not 24=85Q-B4ch 25.R-B2!) 25.RxKP BxP Black=92s still a pawn ahead.
International Master Mohrlok went on with 26.B-B3! and said that Black
cannot be saved. But I think 26=85B-B2 works. Would either you or
Fischer comment?=94
=93A. 26=85K-N1 seems to hold, for if 27.N-K4 R-B2 28.R-KN5? PxR
29.NxP BxB wins. Black=92s position is precarious, granted, but Pawn is
a Pawn. A convincing win for White after 20.Q-KB3 [sic =96 s/b 20.Q-KR3]
still remains to be demonstrated. How about it, Bobby?=94
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2008 08:16:46
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Innes says Fischer was "done, shot, not very good any more" in
|
On Sep 13, 9:55=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:202406cd-1fd7-4c18-95d1-2a7567c6bd02@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 12, 4:41 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > Fischer was done by this time.
>
> =A0 Done?? Fischer made the claim about 20.Qh3 in mid-1971. Last I
> checked, he played quite a bit of chess after that.
>
> **Yes, done, shot, not very good any more - scared to play with strong
> players. He may have played 'quite a bit of chess' but kept well clear of
> strong players, no?
Phil, are you out of your mind? "Kept well clear of strong
players"?? In case you haven't heard, after defeating Taimanov 6-0 in
mid-1971, Fischer went on to defeat Larsen 6-0 and Petrosian 6=BD-2=BD.
These were what are called "Candidate Matches," and they involved only
top GMs, the best in the world. Then he beat Spassky 12=BD-8=BD in 1972.
This last match was for a title they call the World Championship of
Chess. So please explain to us what "strong players" Fischer was
keeping "well clear of" in this stretch.
Phil, I think we have (yet again) definitive proof that your
perceptions coincide with factual reality only to a very small extent.
Planet Innes clearly inhabits its own alternate universe
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2008 14:38:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
Chess One wrote:
> **You now sound like our dear departed Louis!
You can produce no quote of me saying I
sound like Mr. Blair.
"Without quotations, nothing exists."
-- Buddha Blair, circa 5000 B.C.
> Whatever you assumptions, my
> goal was to 'merely' shift the conversation from who said what, to what is
> perhaps objectively observable, and let the chips, the pawns, fall where
> they may.
They do, regardless; I believe it was a chap
named F. Newton who set all this in motion,
by inventing his law of gravity. (Prior to that,
things just floated about randomly, and one
could only play chess by using a magnetic
set.)
> To the contrary,
> I believe that this position can be solved
> without the need for any Fischer-religion or
> anti-Fischer religion, just on the basis of
> chess analysis.
>
> **I agree. If you actually want to do that then you will
Did-- past tense. It came out a simple
draw by repetition, BTW.
> but I do wish you
> to understand that consistently writing with you to engage in some objective
> matter, rather than personality matter, is what you have yourself eshewed by
> your actions. Why should I need to write to your view of things, submitting
> to 'obsessions' and other deprecations
*Observations*, my boy. Get the order
correct: first you obsessed, and only then
was I able to /notice/, to observe your
peculiar behavior.
> whereas my opinion is that the
> position at the board is *fascinating* in chessic terms.
I find it an interesting mess of an attack,
but there is a certain something lacking,
in that Black did not do anything really
dumb to warrant White launching an all-
out attack.
In addition, I cringe when I see the move
Qb3, as it blocks White's own pawn from
advancing, as it logically should (or so it
seems to me). Pieces smashing away in
front of their own pawns is just so crude,
so caveman like. Leave that sort of thing
to the professionals, to Paul Morphy or
Adolf Anderssen.
> This approach -- of fixating on what may
> have been said by someone about Mr.
> Fischer's alleged comment -- tells a scary
> tale of bizarre idol worship and in a sense,
> human (intellect) sacrifice.
>
> **Yes it could, but ONLY responding to what people have fixated upon, albeit
> Taylor Kingston's recommendation of Hochberg as some kind of saint beyond
> reproach, [though he seemingly wrote a footnote without providence which he
> could not confirm, and also not followed through upon] is ALSO to fixate on
> the same matter as a reactionary.
You're right: I should never respond, but
always create my own, new threads! I
think I will obsess over Sanny's Web site,
or maybe the sandwich I had for lunch?
(But why am I called a reactionary by a
chap who himself can be found following
others around like a lost puppy, from
thread to thread? It seems ludicrous, at
best. Let Mr. Sloan call me that.)
> **Instead there remains the difficult task of attempting to understand what
> Taimanov and Fischer created together, as something rather remarkable.
Well, the 6-0 /result/ was remarkable.
The games were rather ordinary, by our
modern standards. Wanna know where
you can find some truly remarkable
games? Have a look-see at what can
happen when Rybka takes on her
closest competitors-- 3000+ vs. 3000; I
find that amazing feats of technique, of
attack and defense, are created in the
coalescence of artificial intelligence
vapors. But something is lacking here,
too-- the human element. Em. Lasker
called it a struggle, a fight, but then, his
brother was the real chess player in the
family.
> **I do not blame you for not continuing along the lines I suggested
Your last post was the first time I saw any
"lines" which could rationally be followed.
Before that, it was all a jumbled mess of
seemingly random gibberish.
But I am not really interested in finding
the inevitable holes in analysis; already I
have shown that by letting the world's best
handle both sides, the result is a simple
draw by repetition-- found rather easily,
though my machine is no world-shaker,
my version of the program outmoded.
> I always felt that Larry Evans was right to continue to talk about Fischer, since while
> everyone 'knows' what happened, how many understand it?
Indeed, he was right to "continue to talk
about" Mr. Fischer, because of his unique
position in recent chess history. Where
Mr. Evans fell down was in his pretending
that time stopped; that life did not go on
and indeed, could not continue without the
return of Mr. Fischer to active play. I
wonder if this was not merely a replay of
what happened a century earlier, when
Paul Morphy suddenly quit chess.
> My offer to you is a
> sincere one - should you really want to take it on, I would introduce you to
> Dr. Alberts of MAMS fame, and you could conspire together.
Against whom? ; >D
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2008 14:03:02
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 12, 4:41=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Is this as much to say that Fischer was blowing smoke, and Hochberg bowed=
to
> the Great Bobby? As I wrote here before, a very serious group of GMs
> challenged Fischer [those who could then crush him flat], who had nothing=
to
> say for his opinion.
>
> Fischer was making it up - and while proposing he knew things from the
> position, could not provide any analysis of it. Not any. What sort of
> 'player' had he become? Earlier in his life he was generous to a fault in
> recognizing the position as the objective thing. He did indeed believe in
> pawns, not psychology
>
> Fischer was done by this time.
Done?? Fischer made the claim about 20.Qh3 in mid-1971. Last I
checked, he played quite a bit of chess after that.
> He was into 'opinions' on things, and as we
> see from chess, not substantiated ones. In fact, juvenile ones in chess, =
and
> in social/cultural appreciations. Fischer was brittle, and Fischer broke.
>
> This is the shame of the person who could not relieve himself of what he =
had
> honestly achieved - so he became a big-head opinionator to match any
> politician.
>
> Sad but true! Real and true. Fischer's judgment on all things hereafter w=
ere
> not illustrated by any objective measure we all hold to be objective. In
> truth, he became nutz@ - not even understanding that his utterances were =
not
> understandable to those he uttered to. Were not the same values they had.
>
> Fischer bought into the idea that he was a celebrity before he was an
> artist, and failed to recognise his own genius, sacrificing that to his
> immature sense of what it was all worth =A0to you! - a brief appearance i=
n the
> spotlights to say caustic things of which he clearly had little
> understanding.
>
> His is a tragic tale, but true. That was the caveat Taimanov mentioned
> concerning chessic genius - not brittle and flawed in Fischer's case, but
> brittle and disastrous to the man.
>
> Phil Innes
>
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 12, 3:45 pm, William Hyde <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 6:28 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 11, 5:53 pm, William Hyde <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm pretty sure that Byrne didn't know about this footnote. If he
> > > > had, surely he
> > > > would not have ignored Qh3 in his analysis. The footnote must have
> > > > been
> > > > a bit embarrassing for him.
>
> > > I wonder if he ever found out about it.
>
> > Taylor, these are chess players we are talking about. Over the next
> > year,
> > I estimate that approximately 47,000 kind people pointed this out to
> > him.
> > People were probably still informing him of it at the time of Fischer-
> > Spassky II.
>
> > He also did not mention it
>
> > > in "Both Sides of the Chessboard," the book he co-authored (with Ivo
> > > Nei) on the Fischer-Spassky match. That did not come out until 1974,
> > > so he would have had time to alter his analysis. But it looks like th=
e
> > > book just repeated verbatim what he wrote in CL&R, at least on that
> > > particular point.
>
> > It is odd that he didn't mention it, unless the book was a literal cut
> > and paste
> > job. But perhaps he just tried to find the "win" and naturally could
> > not. He might
> > have decided that it was better to pass over it in silence than to
> > print a page
> > of inconclusive analysis on a game in a preliminary match.
>
> > > I don't take Hochberg's footnote as necessarily endorsing Fischer's
> > > claim. I think he just felt the claim itself should be reported, and
> > > since Byrne did not, Hochberg took it upon himself to add the
> > > footnote.
>
> > I agree. But I personally never doubted it.
>
> > > Do you mean Kmoch's profiles of great players he knew? Those were
> > > serialized in Hochberg's column atwww.chesscafe.com. I included two
> > > of them (on Gr=FCnfeld and Tartakower) in the "Heroic Tales" antholog=
y.
>
> > I saw the ones published at the Chess Cafe, but I was under the
> > impression
> > that there were others.
>
> > > > I've just trashed the house looking for my CL&R stash, to no avail,=
so
> > > > I can't
> > > > comment on whether this claim was examined in later issues. I suspe=
ct
> > > > it was
> > > > not, all eyes were on the future.
>
> > > I have hard-bound CL&R annuals for 1970-72, and all other issues
> > > through 1975 on DVD.
>
> > You realize that you are risking my financial health by the bare
> > mention of
> > these?
>
> > After the Fischer-Taimanov games were analyzed by
>
> > > Byrne in the August 1971 issue, they were not mentioned again,
> > > according to the annual indexes. At least not the games in full.
> > > Perhaps the matter of 20.Qh3 was discussed in a reader's letter, one
> > > of Evans' columns, or in some other way. When time permits I'll try t=
o
> > > find out.
> > > Not easy, though. The DVDs contain scans of the actual printed
> > > magazines, converted into pdf's. Impossible to do electronic searches
> > > on them; everything must be eyeballed.
>
> > pdf =3D profoundly dumb format.
>
> > William Hyde
>
> =A0 Well, I've been through the 1971 and 1972 CL&R annuals. There seems
> to have been no "letters to the editor" section back then, so I
> concentrated on Evans' column. Nowhere did a reader inquire about the
> Taimanov-Fischer position. I'll check 1973-75 later, but I am not
> hopeful of finding anything.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2008 09:55:11
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:202406cd-1fd7-4c18-95d1-2a7567c6bd02@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 12, 4:41 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Is this as much to say that Fischer was blowing smoke, and Hochberg bowed
> to
> the Great Bobby? As I wrote here before, a very serious group of GMs
> challenged Fischer [those who could then crush him flat], who had nothing
> to
> say for his opinion.
>
> Fischer was making it up - and while proposing he knew things from the
> position, could not provide any analysis of it. Not any. What sort of
> 'player' had he become? Earlier in his life he was generous to a fault in
> recognizing the position as the objective thing. He did indeed believe in
> pawns, not psychology
>
> Fischer was done by this time.
Done?? Fischer made the claim about 20.Qh3 in mid-1971. Last I
checked, he played quite a bit of chess after that.
**Yes, done, shot, not very good any more - scared to play with strong
players. He may have played 'quite a bit of chess' but kept well clear of
strong players, no? As for his claim - its a boast unless its substantiated.
Fischer was a big-head you know! And he had a big mouth too. But given 35
years to come up with something to back up his boast -- de nada! Fischer
then lived in la la land in his head, and his opinions on very many things
seem extremely suspect, frequently base or course, and consequently are all
worth challenging. But why do you continue to suggest that Fischer had
something? On being challenged by those he couldn't bluff, he had nothing to
say. Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2008 13:38:45
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 12, 3:56=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> =A0 It seems to me the group here is mainly interested in whether there
> is or is not an objective win for White after 20.Qh3.
>
> **Taimanov says ther is.
>
> =A0It sure doesn't
> look like it, both Rybka and Fritz being unable to find any.
>
> **ROFL! Really? What evidence is ther of that? Nothing! We don't even see
> their evaluations quantitatively, yet Taylor Kingston 'sees it'.
>
> :))))
>
> =A0Oh yes,
> neither could Kasparov. Unless you have some analysis refuting their
> conclusions, I tend to agree with Kasparov that this win is a myth.
>
> **That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion.
Really? Then why did he publish a book in which he said the win is a
myth?
> Do you have some evidence that it is to
> support your statement?
Phil, do you never check anything before shooting your mouth off? I
already posted it here several days ago.
I say again, just consult My Great Predecessors, Volume 4. The 3rd
Taimanov-Fischer match game is annotated in detail on pages 385-389.
Analysis of the 20.Qh3 variation takes up most of page 387. You will
see there, if you actually care enough to read it, that Kasparov
concludes, quite plainly:
"Thus, 20.Qh3 WOULD ***NOT*** HAVE WON ..." (emphasis added due to
Phil's dyslexia)
Clear enough for you? Evidence enough for you? Support enough for
you?
> I rather think that Garry is persuaded otherwise.
Right, people always write 500-page books in order to say the
opposite of their true opinions.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2008 09:47:20
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 12, 3:56 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> It seems to me the group here is mainly interested in whether there
> is or is not an objective win for White after 20.Qh3.
>
> **Taimanov says ther is.
>
> It sure doesn't
> look like it, both Rybka and Fritz being unable to find any.
>
> **ROFL! Really? What evidence is ther of that? Nothing! We don't even see
> their evaluations quantitatively, yet Taylor Kingston 'sees it'.
>
> :))))
>
> Oh yes,
> neither could Kasparov. Unless you have some analysis refuting their
> conclusions, I tend to agree with Kasparov that this win is a myth.
>
> **That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion.
Really? Then why did he publish a book in which he said the win is a
myth?
**Presumably he wrote a book and shared his opinion on the position, and it
was a genuine opinion [at least at the time] - after all, no one else solved
it either. Taimanov /said/ Kasparov couldn't solve it. Kasparov could be
right or wrong, but confronted with current knowledge and analysis, what we
want from Kasparov is his analysis, then we can have our own opinions ;)
> Do you have some evidence that it is to
> support your statement?
Phil, do you never check anything before shooting your mouth off? I
already posted it here several days ago.
I say again, just consult My Great Predecessors, Volume 4. The 3rd
Taimanov-Fischer match game is annotated in detail on pages 385-389.
Analysis of the 20.Qh3 variation takes up most of page 387. You will
see there, if you actually care enough to read it, that Kasparov
concludes, quite plainly:
"Thus, 20.Qh3 WOULD ***NOT*** HAVE WON ..." (emphasis added due to
Phil's dyslexia)
Clear enough for you? Evidence enough for you? Support enough for
you?
**You merely re-assert Kasparov's opinion and that is not evidence at all -
as usually you are castigating other people when in this instance I clearly
asked for EVIDENCE to support his opinion.
> I rather think that Garry is persuaded otherwise.
Right, people always write 500-page books in order to say the
opposite of their true opinions.
**ahem. How about the idea that Kasparov can't solve it? and/or he is plain
wrong that others can't too? It /is/ his true opinion, but is it a /correct/
opinion?
**Please try to say if you understand why you are railing about - since your
posting style is to disparage people for things which evidently are just
your own *special* understanding. In the past 3 weeks there are how many? 5
instances of you making things up which aren't there.
**Here you just go on about hero worship - first of all Hochberg can't be
wrong, but evidently published a footnote with no evidence or providence or
follow through - looked like a cheap shot just in order to use Fischer's
name - which is not exactly saintly behavior. Now its a misunderstanding
about what is opinion and what is evidence. pfft! Now twice on the same
issue you have strong opinions and are not embarassed by the complete lack
of fact or evidence you can produce to support them.
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2008 12:18:51
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:47:20 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
Phil's thought evolves in the short space of a couple of posts,
without any indication that he's disagreeing with what he earlier
said.
First:
>> **That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion.
Then:
>**Presumably he wrote a book and shared his opinion on the position, and it
>was a genuine opinion [at least at the time] -... what we
>want from Kasparov is his analysis, then we can have our own opinions ;)
A little later:
>You merely re-assert Kasparov's opinion and that is not evidence at all ...
> in this instance I clearly asked for EVIDENCE to support his opinion.
Finally:
> It /is/ his true opinion, but is it a /correct/ opinion?
Phil, we don't mind your changing your mind -- what we find offensive
is your way of pretending that what you say now is just what you said
earlier. How in Gawd's name do you think you can get away with this
stuff on Usenet, where every post is preserved for ready reference?
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2008 08:41:59
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:47:20 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Phil's thought evolves in the short space of a couple of posts,
> without any indication that he's disagreeing with what he earlier
> said.
>
> First:
>
>>> **That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion.
>
> Then:
>
>>**Presumably he wrote a book and shared his opinion on the position, and
>>it
>>was a genuine opinion [at least at the time] -... what we
>>want from Kasparov is his analysis, then we can have our own opinions ;)
>
> A little later:
>
>>You merely re-assert Kasparov's opinion and that is not evidence at all
>>...
>> in this instance I clearly asked for EVIDENCE to support his opinion.
>
> Finally:
>
>> It /is/ his true opinion, but is it a /correct/ opinion?
>
> Phil, we don't mind your changing your mind -- what we find offensive
You find looking at anything offensive, primary evidence, chess positions
!! :))
To wit: what is the Kasparov opinion referenced above? His opinion about
Taimanov's analysis? I don't think so - Kingston dismisses Taimanov's
analysis. He is not interested in it. I note that what my 'That' references
is eliminated, and Kingston has now said he is not interested in my point at
all [which is Taimanov's] but he /references/ my point as if he were
speaking about the same thing.
> is your way of pretending that what you say now is just what you said
> earlier. How in Gawd's name do you think you can get away with this
> stuff on Usenet, where every post is preserved for ready reference?
I placed the analysis here. I 'got away with that'. I think it is the
critical analysis, and none of you other commentators have done anything
whatever except condemn it without any chess of your own. First tries were
to support the non-existent Fischer analysis, and when that was challenged
and couldn't be found, we heard about Saint Hochberg, who had diddly squat
too.
The point is to ask what question you are addressing here - there are two
critical lines, with several possible results for each. Kasparov refuted
Fischer's claim to a win. But that's nothing new - Taimanov demonstrated
White's position to be advantageous in his opinion. Both these lines refer
to the 'mainline'.
If Kasparov also had a go at the paradox variation which offered //black//
the initiative, then one might like to see what he resolved about it. He
/was/ aware of the line. Taimanov wrote in 2004 that Kasparov had not
resolved it. Did Kasparov write something after that which was still
published in 2004? And if he wrote it, what is the result?
If instead you want to believe things, then you might as well revert to
thinking Fischer saw it all, but never shared it, etc. Which is not
evidence, but belief. You might even be right! Fischer may have had stuff -
but I am not interested in belief - I am interested in addressing the
critical lines of the position and determining if what commentators say is
true or false CHESSICLY.
If you are not interested in the same orientation as I am, then, like
Tayloir Kingston, you will ignore Taimanov's analysis and must necessarily
'believe' Kasparov bopth covered the critical lines, as well as doing so
correctly.
If you Murray do not /understand/ the difference in this approach, I can
nevertheless understand why you chose to believe all sorts of things.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2008 13:17:07
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 12, 3:45=A0pm, William Hyde <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 6:28=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 11, 5:53=A0pm, William Hyde <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I'm pretty sure that Byrne didn't know about this footnote. =A0If he
> > > had, surely he
> > > would not have ignored Qh3 in his analysis. =A0The footnote must have
> > > been
> > > a bit embarrassing for him.
>
> > =A0 I wonder if he ever found out about it.
>
> Taylor, these are chess players we are talking about. =A0Over the next
> year,
> I estimate that approximately 47,000 kind people pointed this out to
> him.
> People were probably still informing him of it at the time of Fischer-
> Spassky II.
>
> He also did not mention it
>
> > in "Both Sides of the Chessboard," the book he co-authored (with Ivo
> > Nei) on the Fischer-Spassky match. That did not come out until 1974,
> > so he would have had time to alter his analysis. But it looks like the
> > book just repeated verbatim what he wrote in CL&R, at least on that
> > particular point.
>
> It is odd that he didn't mention it, unless the book was a literal cut
> and paste
> job. =A0But perhaps he just tried to find the "win" and naturally could
> not. =A0He might
> have decided that it was better to pass over it in silence than to
> print a page
> of inconclusive analysis on a game in a preliminary match.
>
> > =A0 I don't take Hochberg's footnote as necessarily endorsing Fischer's
> > claim. I think he just felt the claim itself should be reported, and
> > since Byrne did not, Hochberg took it upon himself to add the
> > footnote.
>
> I agree. =A0But I personally never doubted it.
>
>
>
> > =A0 Do you mean Kmoch's profiles of great players he knew? Those were
> > serialized in Hochberg's column atwww.chesscafe.com. I included two
> > of them (on Gr=FCnfeld and Tartakower) in the "Heroic Tales" anthology.
>
> I saw the ones published at the Chess Cafe, but I was under the
> impression
> that there were others.
>
> > > I've just trashed the house looking for my CL&R stash, to no avail, s=
o
> > > I can't
> > > comment on whether this claim was examined in later issues. =A0I susp=
ect
> > > it was
> > > not, all eyes were on the future.
>
> > =A0 I have hard-bound CL&R annuals for 1970-72, and all other issues
> > through 1975 on DVD.
>
> You realize =A0that you are risking my financial health by the bare
> mention of
> these?
>
> =A0After the Fischer-Taimanov games were analyzed by
>
> > Byrne in the August 1971 issue, they were not mentioned again,
> > according to the annual indexes. At least not the games in full.
> > Perhaps the matter of 20.Qh3 was discussed in a reader's letter, one
> > of Evans' columns, or in some other way. When time permits I'll try to
> > find out.
> > =A0 Not easy, though. The DVDs contain scans of the actual printed
> > magazines, converted into pdf's. Impossible to do electronic searches
> > on them; everything must be eyeballed.
>
> pdf =3D profoundly dumb format.
>
> William Hyde
Well, I've been through the 1971 and 1972 CL&R annuals. There seems
to have been no "letters to the editor" section back then, so I
concentrated on Evans' column. Nowhere did a reader inquire about the
Taimanov-Fischer position. I'll check 1973-75 later, but I am not
hopeful of finding anything.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2008 16:41:53
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
Is this as much to say that Fischer was blowing smoke, and Hochberg bowed to
the Great Bobby? As I wrote here before, a very serious group of GMs
challenged Fischer [those who could then crush him flat], who had nothing to
say for his opinion.
Fischer was making it up - and while proposing he knew things from the
position, could not provide any analysis of it. Not any. What sort of
'player' had he become? Earlier in his life he was generous to a fault in
recognizing the position as the objective thing. He did indeed believe in
pawns, not psychology
Fischer was done by this time. He was into 'opinions' on things, and as we
see from chess, not substantiated ones. In fact, juvenile ones in chess, and
in social/cultural appreciations. Fischer was brittle, and Fischer broke.
This is the shame of the person who could not relieve himself of what he had
honestly achieved - so he became a big-head opinionator to match any
politician.
Sad but true! Real and true. Fischer's judgment on all things hereafter were
not illustrated by any objective measure we all hold to be objective. In
truth, he became nutz@ - not even understanding that his utterances were not
understandable to those he uttered to. Were not the same values they had.
Fischer bought into the idea that he was a celebrity before he was an
artist, and failed to recognise his own genius, sacrificing that to his
immature sense of what it was all worth to you! - a brief appearance in the
spotlights to say caustic things of which he clearly had little
understanding.
His is a tragic tale, but true. That was the caveat Taimanov mentioned
concerning chessic genius - not brittle and flawed in Fischer's case, but
brittle and disastrous to the man.
Phil Innes
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 12, 3:45 pm, William Hyde <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 6:28 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 11, 5:53 pm, William Hyde <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I'm pretty sure that Byrne didn't know about this footnote. If he
> > > had, surely he
> > > would not have ignored Qh3 in his analysis. The footnote must have
> > > been
> > > a bit embarrassing for him.
>
> > I wonder if he ever found out about it.
>
> Taylor, these are chess players we are talking about. Over the next
> year,
> I estimate that approximately 47,000 kind people pointed this out to
> him.
> People were probably still informing him of it at the time of Fischer-
> Spassky II.
>
> He also did not mention it
>
> > in "Both Sides of the Chessboard," the book he co-authored (with Ivo
> > Nei) on the Fischer-Spassky match. That did not come out until 1974,
> > so he would have had time to alter his analysis. But it looks like the
> > book just repeated verbatim what he wrote in CL&R, at least on that
> > particular point.
>
> It is odd that he didn't mention it, unless the book was a literal cut
> and paste
> job. But perhaps he just tried to find the "win" and naturally could
> not. He might
> have decided that it was better to pass over it in silence than to
> print a page
> of inconclusive analysis on a game in a preliminary match.
>
> > I don't take Hochberg's footnote as necessarily endorsing Fischer's
> > claim. I think he just felt the claim itself should be reported, and
> > since Byrne did not, Hochberg took it upon himself to add the
> > footnote.
>
> I agree. But I personally never doubted it.
>
>
>
> > Do you mean Kmoch's profiles of great players he knew? Those were
> > serialized in Hochberg's column atwww.chesscafe.com. I included two
> > of them (on Gr�nfeld and Tartakower) in the "Heroic Tales" anthology.
>
> I saw the ones published at the Chess Cafe, but I was under the
> impression
> that there were others.
>
> > > I've just trashed the house looking for my CL&R stash, to no avail, so
> > > I can't
> > > comment on whether this claim was examined in later issues. I suspect
> > > it was
> > > not, all eyes were on the future.
>
> > I have hard-bound CL&R annuals for 1970-72, and all other issues
> > through 1975 on DVD.
>
> You realize that you are risking my financial health by the bare
> mention of
> these?
>
> After the Fischer-Taimanov games were analyzed by
>
> > Byrne in the August 1971 issue, they were not mentioned again,
> > according to the annual indexes. At least not the games in full.
> > Perhaps the matter of 20.Qh3 was discussed in a reader's letter, one
> > of Evans' columns, or in some other way. When time permits I'll try to
> > find out.
> > Not easy, though. The DVDs contain scans of the actual printed
> > magazines, converted into pdf's. Impossible to do electronic searches
> > on them; everything must be eyeballed.
>
> pdf = profoundly dumb format.
>
> William Hyde
Well, I've been through the 1971 and 1972 CL&R annuals. There seems
to have been no "letters to the editor" section back then, so I
concentrated on Evans' column. Nowhere did a reader inquire about the
Taimanov-Fischer position. I'll check 1973-75 later, but I am not
hopeful of finding anything.
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2008 12:59:29
From: William Hyde
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 12, 3:19=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 9:09=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > =A0 =A0 :: Fischer himself later recognized it: "It was the turning poi=
nt of the
> > match. =A0Taimanov missed a win by 20. Qh3." ::
>
> =A0 My own look at the early part of this game has
> me "fixated" long before we reach the famous
> Q-h3 non-move, for upon seeing how Rybka
> fawns over Ng5--e6, I wonder if it can possibly
> be as advantageous for White as she imagines.
> =A0 The resulting pawn at e6 is weak, if annoying,
The weak e6 pawn also occurred in game 1. While
Taimanov lost that game, Tal for example liked his
position.
> =A0 Indeed, if memory serves, it was Mr.
> Taimanov who is famed for just hanging a
> Rook
But he isn't famous for macro blunders in general, and not many
people would retain their equanimity after losing four games in
a row. Obviously he was not in Fischer's league in 1971, but
he had a good tournament record, including some recent victories.
In an earlier cycle Larsen understood the psychological danger of
trying
to win a lost cause and just losing worse. After losing three games
in a row to Spassky in their match, he realized that there was no
chance
to advance farther in that candidates cycle, and just drew the fourth
game.
Later he even won a game, and emerged from the match in a much better
psychological state than he did from the Fischer match, where he did
not
make that sensible decision.
William Hyde
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2008 12:45:50
From: William Hyde
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 11, 6:28=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 5:53=A0pm, William Hyde <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'm pretty sure that Byrne didn't know about this footnote. =A0If he
> > had, surely he
> > would not have ignored Qh3 in his analysis. =A0The footnote must have
> > been
> > a bit embarrassing for him.
>
> =A0 I wonder if he ever found out about it.
Taylor, these are chess players we are talking about. Over the next
year,
I estimate that approximately 47,000 kind people pointed this out to
him.
People were probably still informing him of it at the time of Fischer-
Spassky II.
He also did not mention it
> in "Both Sides of the Chessboard," the book he co-authored (with Ivo
> Nei) on the Fischer-Spassky match. That did not come out until 1974,
> so he would have had time to alter his analysis. But it looks like the
> book just repeated verbatim what he wrote in CL&R, at least on that
> particular point.
It is odd that he didn't mention it, unless the book was a literal cut
and paste
job. But perhaps he just tried to find the "win" and naturally could
not. He might
have decided that it was better to pass over it in silence than to
print a page
of inconclusive analysis on a game in a preliminary match.
> =A0 I don't take Hochberg's footnote as necessarily endorsing Fischer's
> claim. I think he just felt the claim itself should be reported, and
> since Byrne did not, Hochberg took it upon himself to add the
> footnote.
I agree. But I personally never doubted it.
>
> =A0 Do you mean Kmoch's profiles of great players he knew? Those were
> serialized in Hochberg's column atwww.chesscafe.com. I included two
> of them (on Gr=FCnfeld and Tartakower) in the "Heroic Tales" anthology.
I saw the ones published at the Chess Cafe, but I was under the
impression
that there were others.
> > I've just trashed the house looking for my CL&R stash, to no avail, so
> > I can't
> > comment on whether this claim was examined in later issues. =A0I suspec=
t
> > it was
> > not, all eyes were on the future.
>
> =A0 I have hard-bound CL&R annuals for 1970-72, and all other issues
> through 1975 on DVD.
You realize that you are risking my financial health by the bare
mention of
these?
After the Fischer-Taimanov games were analyzed by
> Byrne in the August 1971 issue, they were not mentioned again,
> according to the annual indexes. At least not the games in full.
> Perhaps the matter of 20.Qh3 was discussed in a reader's letter, one
> of Evans' columns, or in some other way. When time permits I'll try to
> find out.
> =A0 Not easy, though. The DVDs contain scans of the actual printed
> magazines, converted into pdf's. Impossible to do electronic searches
> on them; everything must be eyeballed.
pdf =3D profoundly dumb format.
William Hyde
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2008 12:24:41
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 12, 2:45=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> **Yes it could, but ONLY responding to what people have fixated upon, alb=
eit
> Taylor Kingston's recommendation of Hochberg as some kind of saint beyond
> reproach,
You're really mixed up, Phil. All I've said is that I believe
Fischer did indeed do what Hochberg reported in the footnote, which
was this:
"In New York after the match, Fischer said 'This was the turning
point of the match. Taimanov missed a win with 20.Q-R3.' -- ed."
In other words, I believe that Fischer said this, and that he said
it in New York, after the Taimanov match was over. I do not consider
Hochberg a saint, though he did have a good reputation.
> [though he seemingly wrote a footnote without providence
The correct word is provenance, Phil.
> which he
> could not confirm,
Our Phil, who can only rarely tell us his source for anything, and
who will readily believe hearsay, is suddenly concerned with
provenance and confirmation? Interesting.
> and also not followed through upon]
It would seem to me that the main responsibility to follow through
was Fischer's. It was Fischer who made the claim that 20.Qh3 would
win, not Hochberg. It would have been nice if Bert could have gotten
more from Fischer, but Bobby *_was_* rather busy at the time.
> **Instead there remains the difficult task of attempting to understand wh=
at
> Taimanov and Fischer created together, as something rather remarkable.
It seems to me the group here is mainly interested in whether there
is or is not an objective win for White after 20.Qh3. It sure doesn't
look like it, both Rybka and Fritz being unable to find any. Oh yes,
neither could Kasparov. Unless you have some analysis refuting their
conclusions, I tend to agree with Kasparov that this win is a myth.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2008 15:56:50
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:50aae72f-f932-4e99-b521-0424cc0bd67e@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 12, 2:45 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> **Yes it could, but ONLY responding to what people have fixated upon,
> albeit
> Taylor Kingston's recommendation of Hochberg as some kind of saint beyond
> reproach,
You're really mixed up, Phil. All I've said is that I believe
**What does ' beleive mean?
Fischer did indeed do what Hochberg reported in the footnote, which
was this:
"In New York after the match, Fischer said 'This was the turning
point of the match. Taimanov missed a win with 20.Q-R3.' -- ed."
In other words, I believe that Fischer said this, and that he said
it in New York, after the Taimanov match was over. I do not consider
Hochberg a saint, though he did have a good reputation.
> [though he seemingly wrote a footnote without providence
The correct word is provenance, Phil.
**No Sir, providence would indicate something else, which Hochberg also
lacked. I mean what I said. Providence meaning he had something to base his
opinion upon. Preovenance is that basis.
> which he
> could not confirm,
Our Phil, who can only rarely tell us his source for anything, and
who will readily believe hearsay, is suddenly concerned with
provenance and confirmation? Interesting.
**In other words, Taylor Kingston who has lionised Hochberg, and wants to
challenge why Hochberg repeated something which, Bill Hyde thinks is not
likely the result to what Byrne knew or understood. So what are the facts of
it? Hochberg represented what he thought were Fischer's views, but these
were not illustrated? Is this really defendable? Taylor Kingston thinks so -
but a sincere wad of Russian GMs call this American 'opinion', and Fissher
has nothing to say.
**For those familiar with the posts of Vaguer Kingston, this is no surprise.
It is usual for him to contest on no specific chess knowledge those who have
some. pfft!
> and also not followed through upon]
It would seem to me that the main responsibility to follow through
was Fischer's. It was Fischer who made the claim that 20.Qh3 would
win, not Hochberg.
**It was not Fischer - it was Taimanov!
It would have been nice if Bert could have gotten
more from Fischer, but Bobby *_was_* rather busy at the time.
**Yeah, nice. And, hey, cool! But hey! But 25 years later not a sausage from
Fischer, so hey! Maybe bullshit from Fischer? Hey! When serious evaluation
of a position occurs from very serious players in Petersberg, then we got
'nice from Bert', then hey! Who seems like the hey-seed?
> **Instead there remains the difficult task of attempting to understand
> what
> Taimanov and Fischer created together, as something rather remarkable.
It seems to me the group here is mainly interested in whether there
is or is not an objective win for White after 20.Qh3.
**Taimanov says ther is.
It sure doesn't
look like it, both Rybka and Fritz being unable to find any.
**ROFL! Really? What evidence is ther of that? Nothing! We don't even see
their evaluations quantitatively, yet Taylor Kingston 'sees it'.
:))))
Oh yes,
neither could Kasparov. Unless you have some analysis refuting their
conclusions, I tend to agree with Kasparov that this win is a myth.
**That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion. Do you have some evidence that it is to
support your statement? I rather think that Garry is persuaded otherwise.
**CERTAINLY no strong GM has played Fischer's line since, to obtain a what
should understand to be a certain draw, and this would only interest the
curious [real players], rather than the Librarian, no?
**Taylor Kingston here does not comment on any single move or sequence of
moves. Yet he concludes on the arguably most complex position of the C20th,
without need of that.
**What you, dear reader, are convinced by is either this form of commentary,
or a vital understanding of an electric position as being something that
would make you wonder.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2008 12:19:50
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 12, 9:09=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 =A0 :: Fischer himself later recognized it: "It was the turning point=
of the
> match. =A0Taimanov missed a win by 20. Qh3." ::
My own look at the early part of this game has
me "fixated" long before we reach the famous
Q-h3 non-move, for upon seeing how Rybka
fawns over Ng5--e6, I wonder if it can possibly
be as advantageous for White as she imagines.
The resulting pawn at e6 is weak, if annoying,
and Rybka herself does not shrink from letting
a White Bishop reach the f7 square, where it
is eagerly sacrificed for a Rook, minus a pawn.
But is it not possible that the thing behind the
fixating over a move not even played is just a
psychological defense mechanism? After all,
/in reality/, there was an elementary piece
fork with ...Bc6-- what Mr. Spassky would
term a "one move blunder". That's got to hurt,
making it all the way to the candidates quarter
finals and then blundering like that. We also
see evidence of psychological defense in the
quite frequent commentaries regarding Mr.
Taimanov's versatility, his talent in music com-
pensating for his chess-obsessed opponent's
win.
I prefer to pull back, to take a gander at the
other facts which provide ample evidence as
to the "why" of this outcome. Mr. Fischer's
rating was not even in the same ballpark as
his opponent, and that was based on both
their respective performances against other
players. This fact reflects the "why" of the
elementary piece fork that decided this
game in the real world, the one which deals
with moves actually played, not imagined.
Mr. Fischer was a superb tactician-- as we
saw in his famous game with Mr. Petrosian,
where the Russian caught him out in the
opening, yet he held on and declining a
draw by repetition, went on to win by ex-
ploiting tactical nuances.
Indeed, if memory serves, it was Mr.
Taimanov who is famed for just hanging a
Rook against Mr. Fischer in anther game--
in a tenable ending where both the opening
and middle-game had successfully been
circumnavigated, despite his opponent's
ferocious total-war approach. I think the
hullabaloo (over Qh3) may be a psycho-
logical cover for the fact that Mr.Taimanov
was simply more prone to gross tactical
errors.
Chess is mostly tactics, after all.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2008 15:31:07
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 12, 9:09 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> :: Fischer himself later recognized it: "It was the turning point of the
> match. Taimanov missed a win by 20. Qh3." ::
My own look at the early part of this game has
me "fixated" long before we reach the famous
Q-h3 non-move, for upon seeing how Rybka
fawns over Ng5--e6,
**You will be so polite as to mention at which move you or Rybka suggests
anything? If it is Rybka, its quantitative evaluation?
I wonder if it can possibly
be as advantageous for White as she imagines.
**The rest of this excised, since it is chessically incomprehensible.
PI
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2008 16:26:01
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 11, 5:41=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **'did not', and did not manage to evaluate Ribka's opinion as expressed =
by
> its evalualtion, nor come up with the *paraodox variation* which is the r=
eal
> challenge, and which if we would suppose Fischer had anything for his boa=
st
> about winning, must be.
Screwy thinking. I make no assumptions
regarding there needing to be any analysis
whatever to back up claims that Mr. Fischer
may have said blah-blah. To the contrary,
I believe that this position can be solved
without the need for any Fischer-religion or
anti-Fischer religion, just on the basis of
chess analysis. I realize this is blasphemy,
and I may one day be banned and forced to
retire to my hut on Bali, but it's a risk I am
willing to take.
This approach -- of fixating on what may
have been said by someone about Mr.
Fischer's alleged comment -- tells a scary
tale of bizarre idol worship and in a sense,
human (intellect) sacrifice.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2008 14:45:04
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:7c189bb7-f2cf-4511-9ea3-a2e49c178170@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 5:41 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **'did not', and did not manage to evaluate Ribka's opinion as expressed
> by
> its evalualtion, nor come up with the *paraodox variation* which is the
> real
> challenge, and which if we would suppose Fischer had anything for his
> boast
> about winning, must be.
Screwy thinking. I make no assumptions
regarding there needing to be any analysis
whatever to back up claims that Mr. Fischer
may have said blah-blah.
**You now sound like our dear departed Louis! Whatever you assumptions, my
goal was to 'merely' shift the conversation from who said what, to what is
perhaps objectively observable, and let the chips, the pawns, fall where
they may.
To the contrary,
I believe that this position can be solved
without the need for any Fischer-religion or
anti-Fischer religion, just on the basis of
chess analysis.
**I agree. If you actually want to do that then you will, but I do wish you
to understand that consistently writing with you to engage in some objective
matter, rather than personality matter, is what you have yourself eshewed by
your actions. Why should I need to write to your view of things, submitting
to 'obsessions' and other deprecations, whereas my opinion is that the
position at the board is *fascinating* in chessic terms.
I realize this is blasphemy,
and I may one day be banned and forced to
retire to my hut on Bali, but it's a risk I am
willing to take.
**You will do as you will do. But this is not about you! Did you not
understand that?
This approach -- of fixating on what may
have been said by someone about Mr.
Fischer's alleged comment -- tells a scary
tale of bizarre idol worship and in a sense,
human (intellect) sacrifice.
**Yes it could, but ONLY responding to what people have fixated upon, albeit
Taylor Kingston's recommendation of Hochberg as some kind of saint beyond
reproach, [though he seemingly wrote a footnote without providence which he
could not confirm, and also not followed through upon] is ALSO to fixate on
the same matter as a reactionary.
**Instead there remains the difficult task of attempting to understand what
Taimanov and Fischer created together, as something rather remarkable.
**I do not blame you for not continuing along the lines I suggested - after
all, no one at all solved this riddle - which is extraordinarily complex in
chessic terms. I do suggest that to escape these inferences of what people
beleive, ala Kingston on Hochberg, requires work. Who has done that? Not
Kingston, not Hochberg - that is mere rhetoric. If you, Greg Kennedy want to
solve the issue, you will attend to the chessic aspect of it, ignoring
people who merely posture some knowledge. If you could resolve this deeper
than Taimanov's own understanding you would be famous. I will ensure that -
I will make it so!
**Our conspiracy to have Rybka do the work fell apart because of an
insistence [yours] on the players, rather than their moves. I always felt
that Larry Evans was right to continue to talk about Fischer, since while
everyone 'knows' what happened, how many understand it? My offer to you is a
sincere one - should you really want to take it on, I would introduce you to
Dr. Alberts of MAMS fame, and you could conspire together.
Phil Innes
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2008 15:28:47
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 11, 5:53=A0pm, William Hyde <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 5:04=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The more I think about Taylor Kingston's recommendation about Hochberg'=
s
> > published and saintly commentary, the less I think of Hochberg, and Bry=
ne
> > too, to whom Hochberg presumably attained his information.
>
> I'm pretty sure that Byrne didn't know about this footnote. =A0If he
> had, surely he
> would not have ignored Qh3 in his analysis. =A0The footnote must have
> been
> a bit embarrassing for him.
I wonder if he ever found out about it. He also did not mention it
in "Both Sides of the Chessboard," the book he co-authored (with Ivo
Nei) on the Fischer-Spassky match. That did not come out until 1974,
so he would have had time to alter his analysis. But it looks like the
book just repeated verbatim what he wrote in CL&R, at least on that
particular point.
> I know I took the footnote too seriously myself. =A0"Fischer said it was
> a win, so
> it is a win" would have summed up my attitude for years. =A0I don't
> think I thought
> any different until our interview with Taimanov. =A0The example of =A0the
> Botvinnik
> game should have taught me otherwise, but I think I wanted Taimanov to
> have
> had a win. =A0I liked Taimanov, not so much for who he was or how he
> played,
> but because he had a career outside chess.
>
> All =A0the same, whatever Fischer said in those days was news, right or
> wrong.
> My guess is that Hochberg included this footnote as a news item in
> itself.
> Like most of us, he doubtless assumed Fischer was right - he was a
> decent
> player, expert strength at least, but not able to seriously analyze
> the position.
I don't take Hochberg's footnote as necessarily endorsing Fischer's
claim. I think he just felt the claim itself should be reported, and
since Byrne did not, Hochberg took it upon himself to add the
footnote.
> My limited experience with magazines is that there's always a terrible
> rush as
> the submission date draws near, and I suspect this arrived just before
> the
> thing was put in print (hence including it as a footnote, and not in
> the body
> of the article).
Very likely so.
> CL&R in those days had a lot of analysis, from Gligoric's "Game of the
> Month",
> Kmoch's roundup of games (Hochberg had Kmoch's unfinished manuscript,
> I wonder where that is now?),
Do you mean Kmoch's profiles of great players he knew? Those were
serialized in Hochberg's column at www.chesscafe.com. I included two
of them (on Gr=FCnfeld and Tartakower) in the "Heroic Tales" anthology.
> semi-regular contributions by Keres,
> Reshevsky,
> and Benko.
>
> Yes, there was a good deal of triumphalism at the time. =A0US players
> had
> been waiting a long time for this, as star after star didn't quite get
> there,
> Pillsbury, Fine, Reshevsky, and Fischer. =A0A lot of pent-up emotion was
> being let loose.
>
> I've just trashed the house looking for my CL&R stash, to no avail, so
> I can't
> comment on whether this claim was examined in later issues. =A0I suspect
> it was
> not, all eyes were on the future.
I have hard-bound CL&R annuals for 1970-72, and all other issues
through 1975 on DVD. After the Fischer-Taimanov games were analyzed by
Byrne in the August 1971 issue, they were not mentioned again,
according to the annual indexes. At least not the games in full.
Perhaps the matter of 20.Qh3 was discussed in a reader's letter, one
of Evans' columns, or in some other way. When time permits I'll try to
find out.
Not easy, though. The DVDs contain scans of the actual printed
magazines, converted into pdf's. Impossible to do electronic searches
on them; everything must be eyeballed.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Sep 2008 18:38:07
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Innes says Fischer was "done, shot, not very good any more" in
|
On Sep 13, 10:56=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 08:16:46 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Sep 13, 9:55=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:202406cd-1fd7-4c18-95d1-2a7567c6bd02@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com.=
..
> >> On Sep 12, 4:41 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > Fischer was done by this time.
>
> >> =A0 Done?? Fischer made the claim about 20.Qh3 in mid-1971. Last I
> >> checked, he played quite a bit of chess after that.
> >> **Yes, done, shot, not very good any more - scared to play with strong
> >> players. He may have played 'quite a bit of chess' but kept well clear=
of
> >> strong players, no?
> > =A0Phil, are you out of your mind? "Kept well clear of strong
> >players"?? In case you haven't heard, after defeating Taimanov 6-0 in
> >mid-1971, Fischer went on to defeat Larsen 6-0 and Petrosian 6=BD-2=BD.
> >These were what are called "Candidate Matches," and they involved only
> >top GMs, the best in the world. Then he beat Spassky 12=BD-8=BD in 1972.
> >This last match was for a title they call the World Championship of
> >Chess. So please explain to us what "strong players" Fischer was
> >keeping "well clear of" in this stretch.
> > =A0Phil, I think we have (yet again) definitive proof that your
> >perceptions coincide with factual reality only to a very small extent.
> >Planet Innes clearly inhabits its own alternate universe
>
> Our Taylor simply refuses to understand? =A0Mere game scores and match
> results don't indicate much. =A0His obsession with time lines versus
> actual /EVIDENCE/ reveals many hidden agendi. =A0Why does he fear a
> deeper textual analysis of Fischer's correspondence during that
> period, as well laundry and grocery lists, phone messages, etc? This
> can be done by any well-intentioned, reasonably intelligent,
> open-minded layman, and it reveals Fischer was done, as in DONE!! =A0e
> pluribus unum. =A0What is it you're afraid of?
>
> R..
> ...O..
> .......L..
> ..........F.
>
> Heuch!
I think it's time for another Faux Phil Innes contest. Dr. Dowd won
the last one.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Sep 2008 18:37:15
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Innes says Fischer was "done, shot, not very good any more" in
|
On Sep 13, 12:18=A0pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 10:56=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 08:16:46 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >On Sep 13, 9:55=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >>news:[email protected]=
m...
> > >> On Sep 12, 4:41 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> > Fischer was done by this time.
>
> > >> =A0 Done?? Fischer made the claim about 20.Qh3 in mid-1971. Last I
> > >> checked, he played quite a bit of chess after that.
> > >> **Yes, done, shot, not very good any more - scared to play with stro=
ng
> > >> players. He may have played 'quite a bit of chess' but kept well cle=
ar of
> > >> strong players, no?
> > > =A0Phil, are you out of your mind? "Kept well clear of strong
> > >players"?? In case you haven't heard, after defeating Taimanov 6-0 in
> > >mid-1971, Fischer went on to defeat Larsen 6-0 and Petrosian 6=BD-2=BD=
.
> > >These were what are called "Candidate Matches," and they involved only
> > >top GMs, the best in the world. Then he beat Spassky 12=BD-8=BD in 197=
2.
> > >This last match was for a title they call the World Championship of
> > >Chess. So please explain to us what "strong players" Fischer was
> > >keeping "well clear of" in this stretch.
> > > =A0Phil, I think we have (yet again) definitive proof that your
> > >perceptions coincide with factual reality only to a very small extent.
> > >Planet Innes clearly inhabits its own alternate universe
>
> > Our Taylor simply refuses to understand? =A0Mere game scores and match
> > results don't indicate much. =A0His obsession with time lines versus
> > actual /EVIDENCE/ reveals many hidden agendi. =A0Why does he fear a
> > deeper textual analysis of Fischer's correspondence during that
> > period, as well laundry and grocery lists, phone messages, etc? This
> > can be done by any well-intentioned, reasonably intelligent,
> > open-minded layman, and it reveals Fischer was done, as in DONE!! =A0e
> > pluribus unum. =A0What is it you're afraid of?
>
> > R..
> > ...O..
> > .......L..
> > ..........F.
>
> > Heuch!
>
> That is eerily well-done.
It was quite nice, but, as help-bot observed, it lacked the horribly
congested sentences P Innes throws out, and the beyond-the-
dictionaries grammar he uses to spice his frothy rant. Also, when P
Innes goes on, and he always goes on, the rant runs several
paragraphs. Back before he discovered the Internet, P Innes probably
used bar napkins to hold his screeds, cramming as much of his 'wisdom'
onto them as he could fit.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2008 16:01:08
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Innes says Fischer was "done, shot, not very good any more" in
|
On Sep 13, 1:18=A0pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > =A0Phil, I think we have (yet again) definitive proof that your
> > >perceptions coincide with factual reality only to a very small extent.
> > >Planet Innes clearly inhabits its own alternate universe
>
> > Our Taylor simply refuses to understand? =A0Mere game scores and match
> > results don't indicate much. =A0His obsession with time lines versus
> > actual /EVIDENCE/ reveals many hidden agendi. =A0Why does he fear a
> > deeper textual analysis of Fischer's correspondence during that
> > period, as well laundry and grocery lists, phone messages, etc? This
> > can be done by any well-intentioned, reasonably intelligent,
> > open-minded layman, and it reveals Fischer was done, as in DONE!! =A0e
> > pluribus unum. =A0What is it you're afraid of?
>
> > R..
> > ...O..
> > .......L..
> > ..........F.
>
> > Heuch!
> That is eerily well-done.
Nah-- he forgot to misspell several words
and muck up the punctuation big-time. For
instance, Dr. IMnes virtually never can spell
"correspondence" correctly-- not even when
he posts as alter ego Rob Mitchell. One
way or another, "dence" becomes "dance",
and the number of "r"s in "correspond" can
vary from one to three.
And everyone knows that agenda is from
the Latin /agendum/, and is *already* in the
plural form; thus the attempt "agendi" is a
logical aburdity. Even if "agenda" were not
already plural, the proper pluralization would
of course be "agendae", not "agendi"; that's
because the term originated from Latin, not
Andean or Spanish.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2008 10:18:16
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Innes says Fischer was "done, shot, not very good any more" in
|
On Sep 13, 10:56=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 08:16:46 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Sep 13, 9:55=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:202406cd-1fd7-4c18-95d1-2a7567c6bd02@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com.=
..
> >> On Sep 12, 4:41 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > Fischer was done by this time.
>
> >> =A0 Done?? Fischer made the claim about 20.Qh3 in mid-1971. Last I
> >> checked, he played quite a bit of chess after that.
> >> **Yes, done, shot, not very good any more - scared to play with strong
> >> players. He may have played 'quite a bit of chess' but kept well clear=
of
> >> strong players, no?
> > =A0Phil, are you out of your mind? "Kept well clear of strong
> >players"?? In case you haven't heard, after defeating Taimanov 6-0 in
> >mid-1971, Fischer went on to defeat Larsen 6-0 and Petrosian 6=BD-2=BD.
> >These were what are called "Candidate Matches," and they involved only
> >top GMs, the best in the world. Then he beat Spassky 12=BD-8=BD in 1972.
> >This last match was for a title they call the World Championship of
> >Chess. So please explain to us what "strong players" Fischer was
> >keeping "well clear of" in this stretch.
> > =A0Phil, I think we have (yet again) definitive proof that your
> >perceptions coincide with factual reality only to a very small extent.
> >Planet Innes clearly inhabits its own alternate universe
>
> Our Taylor simply refuses to understand? =A0Mere game scores and match
> results don't indicate much. =A0His obsession with time lines versus
> actual /EVIDENCE/ reveals many hidden agendi. =A0Why does he fear a
> deeper textual analysis of Fischer's correspondence during that
> period, as well laundry and grocery lists, phone messages, etc? This
> can be done by any well-intentioned, reasonably intelligent,
> open-minded layman, and it reveals Fischer was done, as in DONE!! =A0e
> pluribus unum. =A0What is it you're afraid of?
>
> R..
> ...O..
> .......L..
> ..........F.
>
> Heuch!
That is eerily well-done.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2008 14:53:55
From: William Hyde
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 11, 5:04=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The more I think about Taylor Kingston's recommendation about Hochberg's
> published and saintly commentary, the less I think of Hochberg, and Bryne
> too, to whom Hochberg presumably attained his information.
I'm pretty sure that Byrne didn't know about this footnote. If he
had, surely he
would not have ignored Qh3 in his analysis. The footnote must have
been
a bit embarrassing for him.
I know I took the footnote too seriously myself. "Fischer said it was
a win, so
it is a win" would have summed up my attitude for years. I don't
think I thought
any different until our interview with Taimanov. The example of the
Botvinnik
game should have taught me otherwise, but I think I wanted Taimanov to
have
had a win. I liked Taimanov, not so much for who he was or how he
played,
but because he had a career outside chess.
All the same, whatever Fischer said in those days was news, right or
wrong.
My guess is that Hochberg included this footnote as a news item in
itself.
Like most of us, he doubtless assumed Fischer was right - he was a
decent
player, expert strength at least, but not able to seriously analyze
the position.
My limited experience with magazines is that there's always a terrible
rush as
the submission date draws near, and I suspect this arrived just before
the
thing was put in print (hence including it as a footnote, and not in
the body
of the article).
CL&R in those days had a lot of analysis, from Gligoric's "Game of the
Month",
Kmoch's roundup of games (Hochberg had Kmoch's unfinished manuscript,
I wonder where that is now?), semi-regular contributions by Keres,
Reshevsky,
and Benko.
Yes, there was a good deal of triumphalism at the time. US players
had
been waiting a long time for this, as star after star didn't quite get
there,
Pillsbury, Fine, Reshevsky, and Fischer. A lot of pent-up emotion was
being let loose.
I've just trashed the house looking for my CL&R stash, to no avail, so
I can't
comment on whether this claim was examined in later issues. I suspect
it was
not, all eyes were on the future.
William Hyde
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2008 09:09:15
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"William Hyde" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:eda644e1-063b-431b-a05f-6987715977c8@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 5:04 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The more I think about Taylor Kingston's recommendation about Hochberg's
> published and saintly commentary, the less I think of Hochberg, and Bryne
> too, to whom Hochberg presumably attained his information.
I'm pretty sure that Byrne didn't know about this footnote. If he
had, surely he
would not have ignored Qh3 in his analysis. The footnote must have
been
a bit embarrassing for him.
I know I took the footnote too seriously myself. "Fischer said it was
a win, so
it is a win" would have summed up my attitude for years. I don't
think I thought
any different until our interview with Taimanov. The example of the
Botvinnik
game should have taught me otherwise, but I think I wanted Taimanov to
have
had a win. I liked Taimanov, not so much for who he was or how he
played,
but because he had a career outside chess.
**2 notes: (1) Taimanov himself says
:: Fischer himself later recognized it: "It was the turning point of the
match. Taimanov missed a win by 20. Qh3." ::
** (2) in the interview he replied somewhat indirectly to a couple of
Fischer questions [to be polite] but then dilated on the general state of
chess players, esp. young ones being 'brittle" since chess was all they
knew - this was ostensibly about young Russian players from the provinces,
but the back-chat seemed indicative of broader referencing - eg, Fischer
seemed to him like a 'one-skill player from the [US] provinces', albeit
Brooklyn province.
All the same, whatever Fischer said in those days was news, right or
wrong.
My guess is that Hochberg included this footnote as a news item in
itself.
Like most of us, he doubtless assumed Fischer was right - he was a
decent
player, expert strength at least, but not able to seriously analyze
the position.
--------------------------
**Yes - I think Taimanov also worried it to death, then just let go - until
his student came up with what follows. I'll quote him as much as possible
below.. **Asterisks = **PI
MT::
But time passed, passion to resolve it ceased, and objective analysis
yielded the following results. It appears that by looking at the numerous
branches, I probably wanted to achieve too much in the variation 20.Qh3 Rf6
21.Bc4 f4, and having lost objectivity (excessive optimism at times results
in an over-estimation of chances!) overlooked a continuation which, although
would not have brought me to the required forced win, nevertheless
guaranteed an obviously better endgame.
Briefly, after the obligatory variation 20.Qh3 Rf6 21.Bc4 f4 it was
necessary to play 22.Rxf6+ Bxh3 (On 22...Qxf6 decisive is 23.Qd3 Qxg5
24.Qxd5, and if 22...Nxf6 23.Nf7+ the game returns to the main variation.)
23.Nf7+ Kh7 24.Nxd8 Nxf6 (or 24...Bxf6 25.Nc6 Be6 26.Re1; and on 24...Rxd8
it is possible to play 25.Rc6 Bd7 26.Bd3+ Kh8 27.Rc2) 25.Nc6 Bf5 ( if
25...Ne4 26.Bd3 Bf5 27.Bc3!) 26.Nxe5 and here White has every reason to
expect success.::
**How strange then that his student should propose the Paradox var [this is
what I wanted to see if 'Fritz' or Rybka could find, then quantitatively
evaluate]
MT::
I finished this analysis with a sigh of simplification and belief in the
celebration of logic in chess. But young Sergey Klimov once came to me for
training (these days he is an international master) and ... tried to
challenge my final conclusions. He tasked himself with independently
estimating the critical position and after two-weeks of home research found
a completely unexpected resource for Black.
On 20.Qh3 Rf6 21.Bc4 Sergey offered a paradoxical continuation: 21...Rxc6
22.Nf7+ Kh7 23.Nxd8 Rxc4 ::
**Even then MT didn't think there was any more to it, indicating he thought
there was nothing more than a draw, after all...
MT::
Black has a material deficit but his pieces are active, and the White
Knight on d8 is in danger. And in case of the natural 24.Nf7 Kg6! the
impression is created that White should be content with a draw by way of
25.Nh8+ Kh7 26.Nf7 because after 25. Nxh6 Nf4 26. Bxf4 exf4 the initiative
passes to Black...
I admit having no desire to reconcile myself with such a revolution of
events, and it was necessary again to sit down to more formidable analysis.
The hanging arrangement of my opponent's pieces offered a clue to the
decision of the problem. ::
**But he becomes despite his fatigue or ennui, intrigued once again - these
should really be called Enigma variations!! :)
**Then MT tries to sign-off on this latest twist - in his own words
MT ::
Truly, from the position of the last diagram, after the forced
introductory moves - 24.Nf7 Kg6 25.Nxh6 Nf4 (I could not find anything
better for either side) the disharmony is evident not only of White's
position, (the queen and the knight under pressure) but also in his partner's
camp (the improvident position of the Black King, rooks on c4 and a8, and
undeveloped c8-bishop). How to capitalize on this? The required chance is
provided by the strike 26.Qf3! The attack on the rook wins a tempo for
promising tactical operations. Despite an abundance of replies, it is
apparently impossible to solve Black's problems. For example:
a) 26...Re4 27.Bxf4 exf4 28.Nxf5! Bxf5 29.g4!;
b) 26...Rxa2 27.Bxf4 exf4 (27...Rxf4 28.Qc6+ Kh7 29.Nf7) 28.Qd5 Ba6
29.Qe6+;
c) 26...Ra7 27.Bxf4 exf4 28.Qd5 Rc5 (28...Rd4 29.Qc6+ Rd6 30.Qe8+ Kxh6
31.Qxc8) 29.Qg8 Ba6 30.Qe6+ Kh7 31.Nf7
d) 26...Rb8 27.Bxf4 exf4 28.Qd5 Rc5 29.Qf7+ Kxh6 30.Rxf4
In all cases White gains an advantage. Maybe the position is fraught with
other secrets, but I admit, after seemingly endless analyses, it causes in
me this "idiosyncrasy" or particular way of thinking. And therefore I pass
the analysis to the attention of the inquisitive reader... ::
**But arrgh....! No one really came through with anything, as he said [maybe
in the interview proper?], not super computer, not Kasparov... could solve
it - and he also worked with Shahcom associates in Petersburg who were
equally puzzled - including the highly technical theoretician Khalifman,
Karpov edited an opening series there with Svidler, Alekseev and Sakaev were
also there, and even Viktor K chose Shahcom for his Russian language Games
title.
**In the age of the chess computer, and faster games - nothing of such
complexity seems evident to us anymore, or perhaps we don't have time to
look, being over-reliant on 'Fritz''s say so. It seems only fair he should
eventually resolve it himself and I'll leave the last words to him; // last
diagram is the analysis diagram after 23...Rxc4 //
MT ::
The flair didn't deceive me. Many years later I found out, that in the
position of the last diagram White has one more tempting tactical
opportunity: 24.Bxh6! Bxh6 25. Qh5! and in view of the threats 26. Qf7 and
26. Nf7 White achieves real benefits.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2008 17:04:37
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
The more I think about Taylor Kingston's recommendation about Hochberg's
published and saintly commentary, the less I think of Hochberg, and Bryne
too, to whom Hochberg presumably attained his information.
What was he doing:? Publishing an attitude magazine celebrating Fischer's
boast - or did he have any chess analysis to put in his chess magazine?
To suggest that Fischer solved this game, and not offer anything whatever of
analysis, is indecent to public intelligence, and as like propaganda as you
could get. Triumpahlism doesn't serve chess, and doesn't serve big-head
Fischer either.
It is not good publishish practice, and Hochberg cannot now defend himself -
yet let us not 'believe' he is a saint, as Taylor Kingston proposes in his
usual white/black commentary on heroes and villains. Let us think instead he
issued an unproven bit of propaganda, and never followed up on it, like a
particularly bad journalist seeking sensation, then zzzzzzzzzz.
That is a reasonable doubt. Because the gent is dead and cannot reply does
not mean that what he said was true or cannot be challenged, or was even
reasonable to publish at the time without chessic evidence.
Evidence! There is the key. Hochberg had none, and even had secondary-none,
via whatever Bryne thought Fischer thought. When challenged directly,
Fischer had nothing to say against solid analysis provided by players who
were then better than he.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2008 13:36:28
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 11, 4:13=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > =A0but is complicated by the response 21. f4.
>
> =A0 Exactly as I had guessed, the IMnes analysis
> falls down by overlooking the obvious.
>
> ** but I am not advocating 21. f4! I am merely suggesting that White does
> better thereby! I have suggested another move which seems more potent,
> entirely!
As the posted commentary was a jumbled
mess of seemingly random variations, I may
have overlooked something.
Now, if I were to type this whole game
back in, I would likely spot the distinction
betwixt a 21. f4 for White, and Rybka's
own ...f4 for Black in a heartbeat, but I
was trying to *credit both sides* with
Rybka's "best play" ...which did not
include such a move. In fact, I am left
wondering why a Dr. IMnes would not
wish to travel down the main Rybka line,
for it salvaged a draw for his man, Mr.
Taimanov. (I'm backing Mr. Fischer,
despite his obvious mishandling of the
KID.)
> **And such is the comprehension of our help-not to what is already writte=
n
> here several times.
Note the peculiar absence of any recognition
of Dr. IMnes' inability to communicate, as has
been frequently noted by many others; this is
clearly not my problem, but his own. The poor
chap simply can't write plain English-- perhaps
a side-effect of his mastery of so many other
languages?
> **Such as help-not armed with Rybka, even still cannot comment on this
> position, neither has anyone else these past 30 years, and my witness is
> what they actually do, and what they fail to do - not what they 'say abou=
t'
> things.
Babble, babble and more babble-- you are
in denial, my boy! Wake up and smell the
coffee: Rybka /quite easily/ held a draw in
this position, despite all the bobble-heads
and their jabber about Qh3 winning. Heck,
I didn't even need to break a sweat on this
one; try me on a truly /difficult/ problem.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2008 05:53:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 18, 10:52=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> > =A0 1) 20=85.Rf6 21.Bc4! f4! 22.Qf3!
>
> =A0 Apart from the silly exclams, this is where GK
> diverges from my old, outdated version of Rybka,
> running on my old, slow machine. =A0 Rybka says
> that 22. Qh5 is best, and that it quickly and
> inexorably leads to a simple draw by repetition.
>
> =A0 In contrast, Mr. Kasparov's Qf3"!" move is
> judged as inferior, leading to an advantage *for
> Black* via ...hxg5.
Update: although a simple draw occurs after
the move Qh5, playing forward quite a ways
down Mr. Kasparov's exclam-happy variation,
Rybka at times thinks White is on top, then
reconsiders further on, concluding that Black
has a tiny edge in a Queen-less ending.
The fact is, I would go for the obvious draw
with Qh5; but someone with a very powerful
computer and the strongest version of Rybka
and lots and lots of time could try letting her
chew on the Qf3 position for a week or two,
to see if the subtle differences between
such choices as grabbing White's QB vs.
White's KB alter the outcome.
In the old days, analysts agreed that Qh3
did *not* lead to a win, and nothing seems to
have changed in that regard. What surprises
me is that every human analyst seems to
have missed the elementary repetition draw
that my old Rybka easily found, focusing
instead on a multitude of "winning tries".
Take note: we don't need no stinkin' win,
man! See that dude playing Black? That's
Bobby Fischer, and so a draw is like, um,
like a giant chocolate ice cream sundae,
with whipped cream and nuts and a cherry
on top. I say we, like, take the draw, man.
Let ol' man Spassky try to beat this dude,
'cause if we try, we're just gonna get
spanked.
-- '70s bot
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 19:52:53
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 18, 4:34=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 Here are Kasparov=92s comments on White=92s 20th move in the game
> Taimanov-Fischer, Candidates Match, Vancouver, 1971, game 3. The
> position in question is:
>
> =A0 W: Kg1, Qb3, Rc6, Rf1, Bd2, Be2, Ng5, pawns a2, b2, g2, h2.
> =A0 B: Kh8, Qd8, Ra8, Rf8, Bc8, Bg7, Nd5, pawns b6, c7, e5, f5, h6
>
> =A0 Barring typos by me, everything below is verbatim from "My Great
> Predecessors Part IV=94 (Everyman Chess, London, 2004), page 387:
>
> 20.Nf3?
>
> =A0 Fischer later stated that Taimanov =93missed a win with 20.Qh3,=94 bu=
t
> he did not give any concrete variations. That is how myths are born!
> Let us try to figure out what in fact Taimanov missed. Since after
> 20.Qh3! White is threatening Rxh6+!, a barrier must be erected in the
> path of the white rook:
Hey, this guy is really sharp! Like me, he
spotted the obvious, one-mover threat.
> =A0 1) 20=85.Rf6 21.Bc4! f4! 22.Qf3!
Apart from the silly exclams, this is where GK
diverges from my old, outdated version of Rybka,
running on my old, slow machine. Rybka says
that 22. Qh5 is best, and that it quickly and
inexorably leads to a simple draw by repetition.
In contrast, Mr. Kasparov's Qf3"!" move is
judged as inferior, leading to an advantage *for
Black* via ...hxg5.
> 22...Bb7!
Wrong. That exclam cannot make up for
the inferior play, any more than a tall hat can
make up for Mr. Innes' puny brain.
> =A0 Thus, 20.Qh3! would not have won
Even a blind rabbit finds a carrot, now and
then.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 16:25:02
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 18, 9:02=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **Here is the chess context: Since I too have Rybka
Maybe you have the new USCF 3200+ version.
I have an old notebook computer (so old, I can't
figure out whether it has 512K or maybe 1024K
memory). Note that my "work" on this line was
hardly state-of-the-art, but when Rybka gladly
surrenders a draw, it generally means there is
no win; that's because she doesn't know that
the great BF had Black; that she was supposed
to beat White 6-0 and go on to become human
world champ!
> and can give its
> evaluation move by move, and to the 2 critical lines
An interesting choice of words-- two critical
lines. Who says that there are two, and only
two such lines? Why do you accept it as
fact -- are you taking for granted the thinking
of lowly human grandmasters (the Rook-
hanger people, surpassed by Deep Blue
some time in the last century) again?
>- I merely thought
> others might like to see where Rybka is right, and where it is wrong!
Riiight. That is why you have been so quick
to show the readers of rgc your work, and not
just Tango with dancing partner Mr. Kingston
(who always insists on leading, despite not
even knowing the steps).
> This is much along the thesis of Dr. Alberts and his MAMS studies - and i=
mportant
> in the evaluation paradigm of programming.
Sure it is. But what are you waiting for?
Why are you so reluctant -- if that is quite
the word -- to show your analytical work?
These asides are irrelevant to the main
point-- your amazing work in refuting
Rybka's drawing line (which debunks idle
chatter about "Qh3 wins").
> **So if you want to talk about other posters here negatively all the time=
,
> every post, including mocking the chess subject too, as not fascinating b=
ut
> perjoratively obsessive, while paying insufficient attention to what the
> issue is as some general condition to engage your views, then you should
> stick with the Brain's gang. They will understand and appreciate what you
> do.
Does anyone know where I might buy a
new hypocrisy-meter? Mine just shattered.
> =A0 The nearly-an-IM /needs/ to keep the myth
> alive-- the idea that Qh3 could have changed
> the course of chess history in some dramatic
> way; that a single error was the so-called
> turning point. =A0 Reality is a harsh mistress,
> and the reality here is that Mr. Taimanov was
> making crude tactical errors, one of which
> cost him a Rook and another of which was
> in the famous Qh3 game, where MT fell for
> a one-move Bishop fork. =A0 Like the Warden
> in Cool Hand Luke, reality is fair-- HARD,
> but fair.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 13:34:58
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
By failing to produce any evidence of the other opinion Kasparov
supposedly held about 20.Qh3 in the Taimanov-Fischer game, Phil Innes
has tacitly admitted that he lied through his teeth when he said this
other opinion existed. So, I might as well present what exactly
Kasparov's opinion was, and as far as we know, still is. Whether that
opinion is right or wrong, I don't care, but I thought rgcm readers
should at least know what Kasparov *_actually_* wrote, rather than
what Innes halliucinates or fabricates.
Here are Kasparov=92s comments on White=92s 20th move in the game
Taimanov-Fischer, Candidates Match, Vancouver, 1971, game 3. The
position in question is:
W: Kg1, Qb3, Rc6, Rf1, Bd2, Be2, Ng5, pawns a2, b2, g2, h2.
B: Kh8, Qd8, Ra8, Rf8, Bc8, Bg7, Nd5, pawns b6, c7, e5, f5, h6
Barring typos by me, everything below is verbatim from "My Great
Predecessors Part IV=94 (Everyman Chess, London, 2004), page 387:
20.Nf3?
Fischer later stated that Taimanov =93missed a win with 20.Qh3,=94 but
he did not give any concrete variations. That is how myths are born!
Let us try to figure out what in fact Taimanov missed. Since after
20.Qh3! White is threatening Rxh6+!, a barrier must be erected in the
path of the white rook:
1) 20=85.Rf6 21.Bc4! f4! 22.Qf3! (Taimanov judged 22.Rxf6?! 22...Bxh3
23.Nf7+ Kh7 24.Nxd8 to be in his favour, but 24...Nxf6 25.Nc6 Ne4
26.Bd3 Bf5 27.Bc3 Re8 or 27...Nd6 gives Black at least an equal game,
while after 24...Bxf6! 25.Nc6 Be6 26.Re1 b5 27.Bb3 Ra6! 28.Nxe5 Ne3!
29.Bxe6 Bxe5 30.Bb3 c5 he even has winning chances) 22...Bb7! 23.Rxf6
(23.Ne6? Qd7!) 23...Nxf6! 24.Nf7+ Kh7 (Taimanov) 25.Bd3+! (not
25.Qxb7? Qd4+) 25...Kg8 26.Qxb7 Qd4+! 27.Rf2! Ng4 28.Qxa8+ Kxf7 29.Qc6
(after 29.Qc8 Qxf2+ 30.Kh1 Qd4 31.Qxc7+ Kf6 32.Qc6+ Ke7 White has
only perpetual check) 29...Qxd3 30.Qxc7+ Kg6 31.Qxb6+ Kf5, regaining
the material and easily maintaining the balance;
2) 20...Nf6 (a reply which did not temper Taimanov's enthusiasm,
"since easily-found variations are in favour of White") 21.Bc3 f4!
(alas, this move is not among the "easily-found variations=94) 22.Qh4
Bb7 and again it is not apparent how White can gain an advantage:
23.Rd1 Qe7 24.Re6 Qc5+ 25.Kf1(f1) Rae8!, or 23.Ne6 Qd7! 24.Rxc7
(24.Nxg7 Qxg7 25.Bf3 Bxc6 26.Bxc6 , and if Black does not like
26...Rxa2 27.Bxe5 Qg5, then 26...Ra5!? 27.Bxa5 bxa5 is safe) 24...Qxe6
25.Rxb7 Rxa2! 26.Bf3 Nd5 27.Bxd5 Qxd5 28.Rxb6 Kh7 with equality.
Thus, 20.Qh3! would not have won, but merely intensified the
situation still further. Taimanov had obviously lost his objectivity,
which is why he was so upset about not being able to find the
ephemeral win. The tension Taimanov created that day (together with
his opponent) exceeded his chess abilities. Hence also the weak-willed
knight retreat, which was a heartening sign for Fischer, who had been
anxiously awaiting White's move for over an hour.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2008 17:32:32
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 17, 9:58=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 I've long suspected that Phil engages in some sort of self-deceiving
> Orwellian doublethink. Change his mind? Why, that would indicate
> error, and Phil cannot admit error.
Here is what Dr. IMnes *says*:
"I am interested in addressing the critical lines of the
position and determining if what commentators say is
true or false CHESSICLY."
But when presented with analysis by the world's
strongest chess analyst, Rybka, the good doctor
wanted to ignore the main line draw and veer off
on discussion of lines which Rybka had simply
discarded as inferior.
To my mind, this is probably because of the
direct conflict between Dr, IMnes' thesis and
the objective result of real chess analysis.
The nearly-an-IM /needs/ to keep the myth
alive-- the idea that Qh3 could have changed
the course of chess history in some dramatic
way; that a single error was the so-called
turning point. Reality is a harsh mistress,
and the reality here is that Mr. Taimanov was
making crude tactical errors, one of which
cost him a Rook and another of which was
in the famous Qh3 game, where MT fell for
a one-move Bishop fork. Like the Warden
in Cool Hand Luke, reality is fair-- HARD,
but fair.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 09:02:09
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ea5c6c10-d0e1-47bc-89c2-d0f4d393d13f@l43g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 17, 9:58 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> I've long suspected that Phil engages in some sort of self-deceiving
> Orwellian doublethink. Change his mind? Why, that would indicate
> error, and Phil cannot admit error.
Here is what Dr. IMnes *says*:
"I am interested in addressing the critical lines of the
position and determining if what commentators say is
true or false CHESSICLY."
But when presented with analysis by the world's
strongest chess analyst, Rybka, the good doctor
**I told you Kennedy, that 2,000 insulting words as preface, plus your
insertion of 'obsession', was a game of monkeys you could go play all by
yourself. How come you left that out?
**Here is the chess context: Since I too have Rybka, and can give its
evaluation move by move, and to the 2 critical lines - I merely thought
others might like to see where Rybka is right, and where it is wrong! This
is much along the thesis of Dr. Alberts and his MAMS studies - and important
in the evaluation paradigm of programming.
**So if you want to talk about other posters here negatively all the time,
every post, including mocking the chess subject too, as not fascinating but
perjoratively obsessive, while paying insufficient attention to what the
issue is as some general condition to engage your views, then you should
stick with the Brain's gang. They will understand and appreciate what you
do.
**As with Kingston, don't reply if you have to 'believe' something about
what I have written above, or 'translate' it, Otto-like, to something it
does not indicate. You should have gained the general sense from this
message that your posts have been obnoxious, and that for a constant
commentator on other people who cannot own his own name, you practice a
cowardly routine. And you see why you do it, no? See below... it is typical
of weak players to write this about strong players, and while it is on its
face strupid, equally psychologically evident is your fixation to 'bring
down' all strong players.
Phil Innes
wanted to ignore the main line draw and veer off
on discussion of lines which Rybka had simply
discarded as inferior.
To my mind, this is probably because of the
direct conflict between Dr, IMnes' thesis and
the objective result of real chess analysis.
The nearly-an-IM /needs/ to keep the myth
alive-- the idea that Qh3 could have changed
the course of chess history in some dramatic
way; that a single error was the so-called
turning point. Reality is a harsh mistress,
and the reality here is that Mr. Taimanov was
making crude tactical errors, one of which
cost him a Rook and another of which was
in the famous Qh3 game, where MT fell for
a one-move Bishop fork. Like the Warden
in Cool Hand Luke, reality is fair-- HARD,
but fair.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2008 06:58:08
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 16, 3:18=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:47:20 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Phil's thought evolves in the short space of a couple of posts,
> without any indication that he's disagreeing with what he earlier
> said.
>
> First:
>
> >> **That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion.
>
> Then:
>
> >**Presumably he wrote a book and shared his opinion on the position, and=
it
> >was a genuine opinion [at least at the time] -... what we
> >want from Kasparov is his analysis, then we can have our own opinions =
=A0;)
>
> A little later:
>
> >You merely re-assert Kasparov's opinion and that is not evidence at all =
...
> > in this instance I clearly asked for EVIDENCE to support his opinion.
>
> Finally:
>
> > It /is/ his true opinion, but is it a /correct/ opinion?
>
> Phil, =A0we don't mind your changing your mind -- what we find offensive
> is your way of pretending that what you say now is just what you said
> earlier. =A0How in Gawd's name do you think you can get away with this
> stuff on Usenet, where every post is preserved for ready reference?
I've long suspected that Phil engages in some sort of self-deceiving
Orwellian doublethink. Change his mind? Why, that would indicate
error, and Phil cannot admit error.
It's like in "1984": when Oceania switched from warring with
Eastasia and allying with Eurasia to vice versa, The Party pretended
there was no change; Oceania had _always_ been at war with Eurasia,
had _always_ been allied with Eastasia. When the chocolate ration was
cut from 40 grams per day to 30, The Party announced that the
chocolate ration had been *_increased_* to 30 grams.
And so it is with Phil, who tries to convince us that he has
_always_ said what he says now, that when he said X it was obviously
to be understood as Y. Unfortunately for him, he does not have an army
of Party workers changing the computer files, and we have the whole
record of his gaffes, fallacies, fabrications and track-covering as a
matter of public record.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Sep 2008 21:44:54
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 16, 2:18=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:47:20 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Phil's thought evolves in the short space of a couple of posts,
> without any indication that he's disagreeing with what he earlier
> said.
>
> First:
>
> >> **That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion.
>
> Then:
>
> >**Presumably he wrote a book and shared his opinion on the position, and=
it
> >was a genuine opinion [at least at the time] -... what we
> >want from Kasparov is his analysis, then we can have our own opinions =
=A0;)
>
> A little later:
>
> >You merely re-assert Kasparov's opinion and that is not evidence at all =
...
> > in this instance I clearly asked for EVIDENCE to support his opinion.
>
> Finally:
>
> > It /is/ his true opinion, but is it a /correct/ opinion?
>
> Phil, =A0we don't mind your changing your mind -- what we find offensive
> is your way of pretending that what you say now is just what you said
> earlier. =A0How in Gawd's name do you think you can get away with this
> stuff on Usenet, where every post is preserved for ready reference?
It reminds me of the infamous and fictitious Orwell "quotation" that
Innes tried to pass off on hlas and here.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2008 08:25:17
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:8e24cbd8-a81a-4481-96f9-0ad615381341@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 16, 2:18 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:47:20 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>
> Phil, we don't mind your changing your mind -- what we find offensive
> is your way of pretending that what you say now is just what you said
> earlier. How in Gawd's name do you think you can get away with this
> stuff on Usenet, where every post is preserved for ready reference?
It reminds me of the infamous and fictitious Orwell "quotation" that
Innes tried to pass off on hlas and here.
**Kingstonite from Brennen. The quotation is question was not a quotation,
but a comment on what transpired between H. Miller and Blair. Brennen too
has Otto's desease, or was it the middle one?
**Interim apologies to help-bot, and true, I didn't catch up Rybka's
refutation, since I made it clear I don't need to read all those insults as
a preface to them [about 2,000 words]. All we really need here to cheer up
the party is for Louis Blair to show up and start quoting people from any
old context at all.
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 16 Sep 2008 13:09:53
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 16, 3:18=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> Phil's thought evolves in the short space of a couple of posts,
> without any indication that he's disagreeing with what he earlier
> said.
>
> First:
>
> >> **That is /not/ Kasparov's opinion.
>
> Then:
>
> >**Presumably he wrote a book and shared his opinion on the position, and=
it
> >was a genuine opinion [at least at the time] -... what we
> >want from Kasparov is his analysis, then we can have our own opinions =
=A0;)
>
> A little later:
>
> >You merely re-assert Kasparov's opinion and that is not evidence at all =
...
> > in this instance I clearly asked for EVIDENCE to support his opinion.
>
> Finally:
>
> > It /is/ his true opinion, but is it a /correct/ opinion?
>
> Phil, =A0we don't mind your changing your mind -- what we find offensive
> is your way of pretending that what you say now is just what you said
> earlier. =A0How in Gawd's name do you think you can get away with this
> stuff on Usenet, where every post is preserved for ready reference?
This cut-and-paste job seems to make Dr.
IMnes' comments look half-way intelligible,
however...
the fact remains, Mr. Kingston *did* give
the source for all of the GK analysis which
the good doctor purportedly seeks;
and every line I've seen posted here fails
to address Rybka's main line draw-- a fact
which directly contradicts the nearly-an-IM's
central thesis, the very foundations on
which his idiocy lies.
As we've seen, Dr. IMnes maintains that
the game in question entails the most
complex chess positions of all time, which
is obviously nonsense. The good doctor
also tells us that although everybody and
his brother broke their backs trying, not a
one could solve the mysteries of the Qh3
position, due to its unique complexity and
difficulty. In reality, it took me but a few
minutes to find a simple draw, aided by
Rybka... on my slow machine... and with
an outmoded version... and while doing
other things and letting the program do
the grunt work.
The forcing nature of the position, the
hanging pieces, the exposed Queen,
made this task rather easy when com-
pared to analyzing truly difficult positions
such as those which befuddle both com-
puters and humans due to their non-
forcing nature. Thus to my mind, what
stands out about this game -- and this
match in general -- are the one-move
blunders which plagued Mr. Taimanov;
the elementary forks he overlooked, and
which were decisive both in game and
match results. The Qh3 brouhaha is a
/mere diversion/ from harsh reality.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2008 17:41:42
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:b53d576d-acd4-4a6f-ba19-17ce700acd8a@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 4:13 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > but is complicated by the response 21. f4.
>
> Exactly as I had guessed, the IMnes analysis
> falls down by overlooking the obvious.
>
> ** but I am not advocating 21. f4! I am merely suggesting that White does
> better thereby! I have suggested another move which seems more potent,
> entirely!
As the posted commentary was a jumbled
mess of seemingly random variations, I may
have overlooked something.
**your own ego ?
Now, if I were to type this whole game
back in, I would likely spot the distinction
betwixt a 21. f4 for White, and Rybka's
own ...f4 for Black in a heartbeat, but I
was trying to *credit both sides* with
Rybka's "best play" ...which did not
include such a move.
**'did not', and did not manage to evaluate Ribka's opinion as expressed by
its evalualtion, nor come up with the *paraodox variation* which is the real
challenge, and which if we would suppose Fischer had anything for his boast
about winning, must be.
But we see the current writer is not noticing anything of this, despite 3
repitions of it, of which he has opened his own large mouth, instead of that
of Rybka's and indeed, disparaged those who think the position of
substantial interest, which include me, Fischer, Kasparov and Taimanov, as a
perjorative 'obsession'.
It is the obssession of he, who cannot write his own name, to do so. No
matter what or who contradicts such flaulent intelligence, all must be
knocked down by our Greg, who cannot engage on the same chessis level, even
with Rybka, as those he 'contradicts'.
It is ignorable since it progresses no understanding of either the position
or computer evaluation of it.
Phil Innes
In fact, I am left
wondering why a Dr. IMnes would not
wish to travel down the main Rybka line,
for it salvaged a draw for his man, Mr.
Taimanov. (I'm backing Mr. Fischer,
despite his obvious mishandling of the
KID.)
> **And such is the comprehension of our help-not to what is already written
> here several times.
Note the peculiar absence of any recognition
of Dr. IMnes' inability to communicate, as has
been frequently noted by many others; this is
clearly not my problem, but his own. The poor
chap simply can't write plain English-- perhaps
a side-effect of his mastery of so many other
languages?
> **Such as help-not armed with Rybka, even still cannot comment on this
> position, neither has anyone else these past 30 years, and my witness is
> what they actually do, and what they fail to do - not what they 'say
> about'
> things.
Babble, babble and more babble-- you are
in denial, my boy! Wake up and smell the
coffee: Rybka /quite easily/ held a draw in
this position, despite all the bobble-heads
and their jabber about Qh3 winning. Heck,
I didn't even need to break a sweat on this
one; try me on a truly /difficult/ problem.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2008 11:22:30
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 11, 9:29=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 =A0 Here is what Rybka sees (and from the
> sudden withdrawal of Dr. IMnes as GM
> Taimanov's self-appointed representative,
> I take it his analysis falls down right about
> here), from memory:
>
> **Just for anyone interested in the game, here follows Taimanov's analysi=
s
> of move-22 lines. [this is not the main drama here
At last, we are in agreement. As I stated
earlier, in attempting to locate this game
score I had to play through others... and it
was obvious that something was amiss.
This Mr. Taimanov was no Boris Spassky,
no Anatoly Karpov or Gary Kasparov.
One can only guess what might have
happened had BF participated in the prior
FIDE championship cycle, but here he is
stomping all over people. One of these
games looked much like many where I've
easily snatched pawns from the GetClub
Normal level (except that BF is much
/bolder/ in his materialistic greed).
> It would seem that the required decision has held up to scrutiny
Nonsense. The talking heads have touted
Qh3 as far more than Rybka's scrutiny has
shown was warranted. In addition to Bobby
Fischer and Dr. IMnes, every other bobble-
head I've read over the years made a big
ta-do out of Qh3 (mindlessly aping BF, I
presume). This comes as no surprise, as
mindless aping of others' "analysis" is
symptomatic of popular chess literature.
> but is complicated by the response 21. f4. =A0
Exactly as I had guessed, the IMnes analysis
falls down by overlooking the obvious.
I am reminded a little of the old days, when
all the talking heads had it that certain
endgame positions "could not be won" since
they had tried and failed. Decades later, it
happened that computers were invented,
and after considerably more time they, the
computers, had become powerful enough to
solve these chess problems by brute force.
As so often happened throughout history,
all the know-it-all talking heads were easily
proved wrong. But they never learn! These
bobble-heads will invariably continue to
pretend they know far more than they ever
could, even were they half as clever as
they mistakenly believe themselves to be.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2008 16:13:18
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:d5d5f80c-e84a-4a5d-8ada-6eb5a707c802@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 9:29 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Here is what Rybka sees (and from the
> sudden withdrawal of Dr. IMnes as GM
> Taimanov's self-appointed representative,
> I take it his analysis falls down right about
> here), from memory:
>
> **Just for anyone interested in the game, here follows Taimanov's analysis
> of move-22 lines. [this is not the main drama here
At last, we are in agreement. As I stated
earlier, in attempting to locate this game
score I had to play through others... and it
was obvious that something was amiss.
This Mr. Taimanov was no Boris Spassky,
no Anatoly Karpov or Gary Kasparov.
One can only guess what might have
happened had BF participated in the prior
FIDE championship cycle, but here he is
stomping all over people. One of these
games looked much like many where I've
easily snatched pawns from the GetClub
Normal level (except that BF is much
/bolder/ in his materialistic greed).
> It would seem that the required decision has held up to scrutiny
Nonsense. The talking heads have touted
Qh3 as far more than Rybka's scrutiny has
shown was warranted. In addition to Bobby
Fischer and Dr. IMnes, every other bobble-
head I've read over the years made a big
ta-do out of Qh3 (mindlessly aping BF, I
presume). This comes as no surprise, as
mindless aping of others' "analysis" is
symptomatic of popular chess literature.
> but is complicated by the response 21. f4.
Exactly as I had guessed, the IMnes analysis
falls down by overlooking the obvious.
** but I am not advocating 21. f4! I am merely suggesting that White does
better thereby! I have suggested another move which seems more potent,
entirely!
I am reminded a little of the old days, when
all the talking heads had it that certain
endgame positions "could not be won" since
they had tried and failed. Decades later, it
happened that computers were invented,
and after considerably more time they, the
computers, had become powerful enough to
solve these chess problems by brute force.
**And such is the comprehension of our help-not to what is already written
here several times. He merely talks amongst himselves, as it were, not
noticing what is before him.
**Such as help-not armed with Rybka, even still cannot comment on this
position, neither has anyone else these past 30 years, and my witness is
what they actually do, and what they fail to do - not what they 'say about'
things.
**This is the true differentiation between the player'a insight and the
patzer's much stronger opinion.
Phil Innes
As so often happened throughout history,
all the know-it-all talking heads were easily
proved wrong. But they never learn! These
bobble-heads will invariably continue to
pretend they know far more than they ever
could, even were they half as clever as
they mistakenly believe themselves to be.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 19:34:23
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 8, 11:53=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 I don't think it quite fair to the Rybka team that
> I represent them with my inferior version of that
> program, but then I am facing off against a mere
> nearly-an-IM and his outmoded books, written by
> mere humans. =A0All in all, I believe I have a huge
> advantage in analytical skill-- so long as my
> chess program keeps working. =A0:>D
>
> =A0 Let's start with one of the most famous of all
> chess moves which was never actually played:
> GM Taimanov's "20. Qh3", about which so
> much (nonsense?) has been written:
>
> =A020. =A0Qh3 =A0Rf6
>
> =A021. =A0Bc4 =A0f4
Here is what Rybka sees (and from the
sudden withdrawal of Dr. IMnes as GM
Taimanov's self-appointed representative,
I take it his analysis falls down right about
here), from memory:
22. Qh5 Bb7
23. Re6 Qd7
24. Rxf6 Nxf6
25. Nf7+ Kh7
26. Ng5+ Kh8
27. Nf7+
and we get a simple repetition of position
draw.
The claim that "Bobby Fischer said" there
was a win means nothing if there is no win.
Little-known fact: BF was *not* infallible!
It is amusing to watch people fawn over
such claims, even after all these years. (My
own preference for idol worship is of course
Elvis-- no, Zamfir, master of the Pan flute--
no, make that Ahhnold Schwarzennegger--
no, I worship no mere man.)
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2008 09:29:41
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 1971: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 8, 11:53 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> I don't think it quite fair to the Rybka team that
> I represent them with my inferior version of that
> program, but then I am facing off against a mere
> nearly-an-IM and his outmoded books, written by
> mere humans. All in all, I believe I have a huge
> advantage in analytical skill-- so long as my
> chess program keeps working. :>D
>
> Let's start with one of the most famous of all
> chess moves which was never actually played:
> GM Taimanov's "20. Qh3", about which so
> much (nonsense?) has been written:
>
> 20. Qh3 Rf6
>
> 21. Bc4 f4
Here is what Rybka sees (and from the
sudden withdrawal of Dr. IMnes as GM
Taimanov's self-appointed representative,
I take it his analysis falls down right about
here), from memory:
**Just for anyone interested in the game, here follows Taimanov's analysis
of move-22 lines. [this is not the main drama here - those wishing to follow
the game can continue to see its possible evolution at
http://www.chessville.com/LessonsLearned/2004Mar.htm
I will decline further commentary by Greg Kennedy who never met a strong
player he didn't like - and like many cudda-bins thinks its all about the
players, not the chess! What I wanted (as well as Rybka being able to notice
the black Queen's capture) was a move by move numeric evaluation of the
game - since this would have provided us all with an insight into the
program's sense of the game, and maybe, but only maybe, it could have found
something new? Phil Innes]
***
It would seem that the required decision has held up to scrutiny, but is
complicated by the response 21. f4. To everything that I have here
examined, alas, there was an objection:
On 22.Qh5 possible was 22...Bb7 23.Bxd5 (or 23.Rxf6 Qxf6) 23...Qxd5;
On 22.Qh4 - Bb7 23.Ne6 Qd7;
On 22.Qd3 - 22...hxg5 23.Rxf6 Bxf6;
And finally on 22.Qf3!? - Bb7! 23.Rxf6 (23.Ne6 Qd7! 24.Bxd5 Rxe6!)
23...Nxf6! 24.Nf7+ Kh7 25.Qxb7 (25.Bd3+ Kg8!) 25...Qxd2 26.Qxa8 Qd4+ 27.Kh1
Qxc4.
In all variations Fischer emerges in the clear.
<. >
Briefly, after the obligatory variation 20.Qh3 Rf6 21.Bc4 f4 it was
necessary to play 22.Rxf6+ Bxh3 (On 22...Qxf6 decisive is 23.Qd3 Qxg5
24.Qxd5, and if 22...Nxf6 23.Nf7+ the game returns to the main variation.)
23.Nf7+ Kh7 24.Nxd8 Nxf6 (or 24...Bxf6 25.Nc6 Be6 26.Re1; and on 24...Rxd8
it is possible to play 25.Rc6 Bd7 26.Bd3+ Kh8 27.Rc2) 25.Nc6 Bf5 ( if
25...Ne4 26.Bd3 Bf5 27.Bc3!) 26.Nxe5 and here White has every reason to
expect success.
***
22. Qh5 Bb7
23. Re6 Qd7
24. Rxf6 Nxf6
25. Nf7+ Kh7
26. Ng5+ Kh8
27. Nf7+
and we get a simple repetition of position
draw.
The claim that "Bobby Fischer said" there
was a win means nothing if there is no win.
Little-known fact: BF was *not* infallible!
It is amusing to watch people fawn over
such claims, even after all these years. (My
own preference for idol worship is of course
Elvis-- no, Zamfir, master of the Pan flute--
no, make that Ahhnold Schwarzennegger--
no, I worship no mere man.)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 18:18:32
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 9, 2:49=A0pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> > =A0 Has Dr. IMnes been receiving "help" from
> > his nemesis, Mr. Kingston? =A0
> =A0 Yes, but does he listen?
Some men (i.e. Rush Limbaugh) are born to
talk; others are born to listen. Dr. IMnes is not
among the latter.
> I already pointed out the erroneous "+" to
> Phil in another thread a day or two ago.
I noticed a thread name change by
Mr. Kingston, and decided that some
folks in the original thread might get
annoyed by it being "hijacked" in order
to discuss Dr. IMnes' obsession with
Qh3. So I created a new thread... and
somehow missed what has since gone
on in the old.
Were it not for Dr.IMnes' very peculiar
obsession with Qh3, we might discuss
the fact that some of the other moves
did not impress either Rybka or Fritz,
and there is hot debate as to which
was the very worst of them. I tend to
side with Rybka (maybe because great
minds think alike??!) in every case
except the one where she prefers Nc3
and ...Nc6 with openings book disabled.
(I tell her again and again that only
duffers block their QB-pawns like that,
but she never listens.)
Assuming I have the correct moves,
this Qh3 brouhaha was easily solved
by Rybka-- unless someone with a
later version or a much faster machine
wants to double-check my work. It
turned out to be rather simple, when
compared to many chess positions
which are far beyond the power of
today's computers to handle. In any
case, many of my games at GetClub
contain more difficult problems than
this one because of the fact that some
pieces are hanging, pinned, or in some
other way very limited; with the Qh3
position, the options are quite limited
due to immediate tactical threats.
Clearly, Dr. IMnes is in waters well
beyond his depth.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 11:49:44
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 9, 12:51=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 9, 6:40=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > 20. =A0Qh3 =A0Rf6
>
> > > 21. =A0Bc4 =A0f4
>
> > > 22. =A0?
>
> > Now, this is a very interesting move, nominally the Main Variation [MV]=
but
> > not the only move. From this point we have a significant branching in t=
he
> > analysis - it would interest me to know what Fritz has scored 21. ... f=
4 as
> > well as...
>
> =A0 I take it Mr. Taimanov lost his way at
> this point, and Dr. IMnes wishes to re-
> direct discussion along lines covered
> "more thoroughly" in his book.
>
> =A0 My earlier observation was that although
> much ado has been made of what might
> have happened if Qh3 had been played,
> the sum and substance is that perhaps
> Mr. Taimanov would have lost 6.5--0.5,
> instead of 6-0. =A0 (Then, realizing that BF
> was not invincible, Bent Larson could
> have taken him down in a close match
> and gone on to crush Boris Spassky,
> 10-0!!)
>
> > Secondly there is another very significant move, introduced years later=
by
> > Sergey Klimov: 21. ...Rxc6 which I shall nominate the 'paradox variatio=
n'
>
> =A0 Well, I dismissed this out-of-hand as
> losing significant material. =A0Meanwhile,
> Rybka /looked at all the variations/ and
> dismissed it as human-bungling (i.e.
> sub-2700 chess). =A0 Why the need to
> side-track? =A0 Is it becoming painful to
> see how easily Black holds? =A0Is the
> myth of Qh3 /that/ powerful?
Kasparov in MGP4, p. 387: "Fischer later stated that 'Taimanov
missed a win with 20.Qh3,' but he did not give any concrete
variations. That is how myths are born."
> > [PV] and ask Greg for Fritz scores and moves to both MV and PV.
>
> =A0 Good. =A0If you ask him, then I won't have
> to bother with trying to decode all these
> funky letters and brackets into my native
> language.
>
> > Therefore :-
>
> > MV [after 21...f4] 22. Rxf6+
>
> =A0 Has Dr. IMnes been receiving "help" from
> his nemesis, Mr. Kingston? =A0
Yes, but does he listen? I already pointed out the erroneous "+" to
Phil in another thread a day or two ago.
> The game, as
> it is given onwww.chessgames.com, has
> the black King on h8, so there are no
> discovered checks (as above).
> =A0 Now, this seemed to make sense in that
> the Knight on g5 was not captured due to
> the white Queen pinning the h-pawn to the
> black King, which resides on h8. =A0Yes/no?
> Doeswww.chessgames.comhave the
> wrong moves?
>
> =A0 -- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 15:25:28
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:5e0e926b-5c10-4171-9525-89c85689d7fe@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 9, 12:51 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 9, 6:40 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > 20. Qh3 Rf6
>
> > > 21. Bc4 f4
>
> > > 22. ?
>
> > Now, this is a very interesting move, nominally the Main Variation [MV]
> > but
> > not the only move. From this point we have a significant branching in
> > the
> > analysis - it would interest me to know what Fritz has scored 21. ... f4
> > as
> > well as...
>
> I take it Mr. Taimanov lost his way at
> this point, and Dr. IMnes wishes to re-
> direct discussion along lines covered
> "more thoroughly" in his book.
>
> My earlier observation was that although
> much ado has been made of what might
> have happened if Qh3 had been played,
> the sum and substance is that perhaps
> Mr. Taimanov would have lost 6.5--0.5,
> instead of 6-0. (Then, realizing that BF
> was not invincible, Bent Larson could
> have taken him down in a close match
> and gone on to crush Boris Spassky,
> 10-0!!)
>
> > Secondly there is another very significant move, introduced years later
> > by
> > Sergey Klimov: 21. ...Rxc6 which I shall nominate the 'paradox
> > variation'
>
> Well, I dismissed this out-of-hand as
> losing significant material. Meanwhile,
> Rybka /looked at all the variations/ and
> dismissed it as human-bungling (i.e.
> sub-2700 chess). Why the need to
> side-track? Is it becoming painful to
> see how easily Black holds? Is the
> myth of Qh3 /that/ powerful?
Kasparov in MGP4, p. 387: "Fischer later stated that 'Taimanov
missed a win with 20.Qh3,' but he did not give any concrete
variations. That is how myths are born."
> > [PV] and ask Greg for Fritz scores and moves to both MV and PV.
>
> Good. If you ask him, then I won't have
> to bother with trying to decode all these
> funky letters and brackets into my native
> language.
>
> > Therefore :-
>
> > MV [after 21...f4] 22. Rxf6+
>
> Has Dr. IMnes been receiving "help" from
> his nemesis, Mr. Kingston?
Yes, but does he listen? I already pointed out the erroneous "+" to
Phil in another thread a day or two ago.
**I am so sorry, it must be the excess commentary getting in the way, look
at all these bananas!
**Anyway, I leave you both to your commentary about others, since it is
entirely a disrespectful one by Kennedy, and I don't need to write in
response to that, or 'talk' about what Taylor pointed out 'in another
thread' a few days ago. So much for this level of 'disscussion' of chess.
PI
> The game, as
> it is given onwww.chessgames.com, has
> the black King on h8, so there are no
> discovered checks (as above).
> Now, this seemed to make sense in that
> the Knight on g5 was not captured due to
> the white Queen pinning the h-pawn to the
> black King, which resides on h8. Yes/no?
> Doeswww.chessgames.comhave the
> wrong moves?
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 09:51:48
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
On Sep 9, 6:40=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > 20. =A0Qh3 =A0Rf6
>
> > 21. =A0Bc4 =A0f4
>
> > 22. =A0?
>
> Now, this is a very interesting move, nominally the Main Variation [MV] b=
ut
> not the only move. From this point we have a significant branching in the
> analysis - it would interest me to know what Fritz has scored 21. ... f4 =
as
> well as...
I take it Mr. Taimanov lost his way at
this point, and Dr. IMnes wishes to re-
direct discussion along lines covered
"more thoroughly" in his book.
My earlier observation was that although
much ado has been made of what might
have happened if Qh3 had been played,
the sum and substance is that perhaps
Mr. Taimanov would have lost 6.5--0.5,
instead of 6-0. (Then, realizing that BF
was not invincible, Bent Larson could
have taken him down in a close match
and gone on to crush Boris Spassky,
10-0!!)
> Secondly there is another very significant move, introduced years later b=
y
> Sergey Klimov: 21. ...Rxc6 which I shall nominate the 'paradox variation'
Well, I dismissed this out-of-hand as
losing significant material. Meanwhile,
Rybka /looked at all the variations/ and
dismissed it as human-bungling (i.e.
sub-2700 chess). Why the need to
side-track? Is it becoming painful to
see how easily Black holds? Is the
myth of Qh3 /that/ powerful?
> [PV] and ask Greg for Fritz scores and moves to both MV and PV.
Good. If you ask him, then I won't have
to bother with trying to decode all these
funky letters and brackets into my native
language.
> Therefore :-
>
> MV [after 21...f4] 22. Rxf6+
>
> PV [after 21.Rxc6] 22. Nf7+
Has Dr. IMnes been receiving "help" from
his nemesis, Mr. Kingston? The game, as
it is given on www.chessgames.com, has
the black King on h8, so there are no
discovered checks (as above).
Now, this seemed to make sense in that
the Knight on g5 was not captured due to
the white Queen pinning the h-pawn to the
black King, which resides on h8. Yes/no?
Does www.chessgames.com have the
wrong moves?
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 15:21:06
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:5084b4f2-4da8-4bdd-83c4-7e953ad02303@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 9, 6:40 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> MV [after 21...f4] 22. Rxf6+
>
> PV [after 21.Rxc6] 22. Nf7+
Has Dr. IMnes been receiving "help" from
his nemesis, Mr. Kingston? The game, as
it is given on www.chessgames.com, has
the black King on h8, so there are no
discovered checks (as above).
**I am afraid that a king on h8 is checked by Nf7 and... but I don't want to
do this if Greg Kennedy doesn't. maybe he is a bit overcome by his wits? PI
Now, this seemed to make sense in that
the Knight on g5 was not captured due to
the white Queen pinning the h-pawn to the
black King, which resides on h8. Yes/no?
Does www.chessgames.com have the
wrong moves?
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2008 06:33:46
From: thumbody
Subject: Re:the great Qh3 obsession..
|
Chess One wrote:
>
> "help bot"
> > MV [after 21...f4] 22. Rxf6+
> >
> > PV [after 21.Rxc6] 22. Nf7+
>
> Has Dr. IMnes been receiving "help" from
> his nemesis, Mr. Kingston? The game, as
> it is given on www.chessgames.com, has
> the black King on h8, so there are no
> discovered checks (as above).
>
> **I am afraid that a king on h8 is checked by Nf7 and... but I don't want to
> do this if Greg Kennedy doesn't. maybe he is a bit overcome by his wits? PI
Yes - that's correct nf7+ etc. but we're dealing here with a
pervert/var. which none other than an obsessional need bother with..
Yes - 22. rxf6 should not display a bloody confusing check/symbol..
Yes - 22. rxf6 qxf6
23. bxd5 qxg5
24. bxa8 bxh3 & it's all over red rover..
Not even 5.5 - .5 like someone here tried to suggest..
Just the actual 6. 0.
t.
>
> Now, this seemed to make sense in that
> the Knight on g5 was not captured due to
> the white Queen pinning the h-pawn to the
> black King, which resides on h8. Yes/no?
> Does www.chessgames.com have the
> wrong moves?
>
> -- help bot
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2008 17:30:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Re:the great Qh3 obsession..
|
"thumbody" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>>
>> "help bot"
>
>> > MV [after 21...f4] 22. Rxf6+
>> >
>> > PV [after 21.Rxc6] 22. Nf7+
>>
>> Has Dr. IMnes been receiving "help" from
>> his nemesis, Mr. Kingston? The game, as
>> it is given on www.chessgames.com, has
>> the black King on h8, so there are no
>> discovered checks (as above).
>>
>> **I am afraid that a king on h8 is checked by Nf7 and... but I don't want
>> to
>> do this if Greg Kennedy doesn't. maybe he is a bit overcome by his wits?
>> PI
>
> Yes - that's correct nf7+ etc. but we're dealing here with a
> pervert/var. which none other than an obsessional need bother with..
>
> Yes - 22. rxf6 should not display a bloody confusing check/symbol..
>
> Yes - 22. rxf6 qxf6
(On 22...Qxf6 decisive is 23.Qd3 Qxg5 24.Qxd5, and if 22...Nxf6 23.Nf7+ the
game returns to the main variation.)
After:
22.Rxf6+ Bxh3. 23.Nf7+ Kh7 24.Nxd8 Nxf6 (or 24...Bxf6 25.Nc6 Be6 26.Re1; and
on 24...Rxd8 it is possible to play 25.Rc6 Bd7 26.Bd3+ Kh8 27.Rc2) 25.Nc6
Bf5 ( if 25...Ne4 26.Bd3 Bf5 27.Bc3!) 26.Nxe5 and here White has every
reason to expect success.
>
pi
> 23. bxd5 qxg5
>
> 24. bxa8 bxh3 & it's all over red rover..
>
> Not even 5.5 - .5 like someone here tried to suggest..
>
> Just the actual 6. 0.
>
> t.
>
>
>
>>
>> Now, this seemed to make sense in that
>> the Knight on g5 was not captured due to
>> the white Queen pinning the h-pawn to the
>> black King, which resides on h8. Yes/no?
>> Does www.chessgames.com have the
>> wrong moves?
>>
>> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 06:40:05
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: GM Taimanov vs. GM Fischer, the great Qh3 obsession
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:7b4a0fb7-6b10-48a1-9300-b257527bf1c8@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> 20. Qh3 Rf6
>
> 21. Bc4 f4
>
> 22. ?
Now, this is a very interesting move, nominally the Main Variation [MV] but
not the only move. From this point we have a significant branching in the
analysis - it would interest me to know what Fritz has scored 21. ... f4 as
well as...
Secondly there is another very significant move, introduced years later by
Sergey Klimov: 21. ...Rxc6 which I shall nominate the 'paradox variation',
[PV] and ask Greg for Fritz scores and moves to both MV and PV.
Therefore :-
MV [after 21...f4] 22. Rxf6+
PV [after 21.Rxc6] 22. Nf7+
Phil Innes
>
> -- help bot
|
|
