Fisher Spassky - Reykjavik 1972 partita 6 - liberi di gioc..

Francis MIniter wrote:

In the years between his rise to being a grandmaster (about 1961) to
his incredible assault on the World Championship in 1971-72...

*************
Fisher was my hero back then. When he came rolling onto the scene,
the glorious (and maybe a bit sloppy) boldness of the recent past was
gone. Drab, conservative, and ultra-defensive play was the theme.
Players opened with pawns to the 3rd square, carefully avoiding a
commitment to an outright assault on the board center. Fisher pushed
that pawn right out to K4 or Q4 and dared them to bring it on.

Michael
 >> Stay informed about: Fisher Spassky - Reykjavik 1972 partita 6 - liberi di gioc.. 

 > Bobby Fischer was never far from the intersection of Sport and Politics.

For me, he was the fourth greatest Jew of all time, after Jesus,
Einstein, Marx and before Dr Isaac Asimov. Having lost my regard for
Einstein and Marx, I now place him in the No. 2 spot.

 > In 1965 he was invited to the Capablanca Invitational in Havana, Cuba. The
 > State Department refused to allow him to go, so he played in the tournament by
 > teletype from a hotel - in New York, I think it was. For those with back issues
 > of Chess Life, see the September 1965 issue.

Chess diplomacy! Actually, chess was loved in all communist
countries, and it was very difficult to avoid playing there, for
anyone with a professional dedication for the game. Fischer really
did not have much choice. This antagonism was forced upon him.

 > In the years between his rise to being a grandmaster (about 1961) to his
 > incredible assault on the World Championship in 1971-72, a period of Soviet
 > hegemony in chess, he constantly complained of cheating by USSR players,
 > alleging that their weaker players would deliberately throw games to the
 > stronger players to insure that a Soviet would win the tournament. He also
 > chided the Soviets for providing teams of analysts to work through the night on
 > adjourned games so that the contestants could rest. In contrast, he himself was
 > a radical individualist, never relying on analysis that he had not performed
 > himself.

I remember one of his sayings, "I like to see 'em squirm." This
saying was widely promoted by the capitalist media, as an expression
of rugged individualism.

 > In the playoffs for the World Championship, he complained about the rules
 > regarding who wins in the event of a draw, but he never had to deal with that as
 > a practical problem, because he slashed through the preliminary rounds winning
 > 6-0 vs. Bent Larsen of Denmark, 6-0 against Mikhail Tal of Estonia (then in the
 > USSR), and 6-0 against Tigran Petrosian of the USSR. In the World Championship
 > itself against Spassky, he spotted Spassky two games by forfeit when he
 > protested the playing conditions, then went on to crush him as though it were an
 > even start.

That was probably the most awesome sporting performance of all time.
I remember that time very well. Thanks to India-USSR friendship which
peaked in 1971, I was going 100% for Spassky. His earlier victories
had been encouraging, but the way he got thrashed later on had no
precedent. It was simply incredible. A huge, powerful state machine
simply got blown out of existence! This was as great a vindication of
individual courage and talent as anything in history.

 > Afterwards, he simply did not play again until 1992, when his very act of
 > playing was a political statement, earning him relentless pursuit by the US
 > Government. It is indeed ironic that the nation that most proclaims the spirit
 > and value of the individual should find this epitome of individualism too much
 > for it.

The USA has changed a lot, and all for the worse, slowly and steadily
since WW2. Competition and individualism are all but gone, instead
there is media-driven conformity and corporatism. No wonder that
Fischer has no place in it.

 > In the intervening years (1972 - 1992), he again demanded rule changes for
 > international competition, which was one cause for the eventual split in the
 > ranks of FIDE, the International Chess Federation. On a rare occasion he would
 > write a scathing article to Chess Life magazine.
 >
 > I hope this wild man of chess finds peace in Iceland.

I don't know. He has said many nasty things about the Jews of this
world, despite his being fully of Jewish origin. He has said that the
Holocaust is one big hoax, and that the criminal state of Israel
should not exist. He sounds just like Hitler. Well, good for him
that he has already made his millions! When I said that Einstein was
the greatest bungler of all time, my, did not all the Jews of Usenet
jump upon me and declare me an incarnation of Adolph! And if I had
anything resembling a reputation worth crushing or even noticing,
would that not have been crushed!

So if the Jews stick to form, they will not rest until they do to him
what they did to Jesus.

My respect for Fischer has only increased considerably. It is my
dream to play chess with him; loss to that man would be such an
honour.

Arindam Banerjee.
 >
 >
 > Francis A. Miniter<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Fisher Spassky - Reykjavik 1972 partita 6 - liberi di gioc.. 

Francis Miniter wrote:

I once had the fortune to play Samuel Reschevsky in a simultaneous
match in the
1980s, long after his best days. (Reschevsky might have been in the
running for
World Champion but for WWII. He was close in skill to Paul Keres.) I
was one
of 50. One person managed a draw - it wasn't me.

*******************
That is really cool, Francis. Reschevsky is one of the big names in
chess. Some of the masters played multiple matches blindfolded, too,
if I recall correctly.

Michael
 >> Stay informed about: Fisher Spassky - Reykjavik 1972 partita 6 - liberi di gioc.. 

adda1234 DeleteThis @bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee) wrote in message news:<890e65ea.0504051804.aa26175 DeleteThis @posting.google.com>...
 > "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston DeleteThis @chittenden.com> wrote in message news:<1112644074.853620.95680 DeleteThis @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
  > > Arindam Banerjee wrote:
   > > > Oh I am not challenging him or anyone. I am only mentioning a
   > > > possibility, however remote. Last time I heard, the best chess
   > > > programs were not good enough to beat grandmasters.
  > >
  > > You are not up on more recent developments. Today there are several
  > > commercially available personal computer programs rated around Elo 2700
  > > or better, able to beat most GMs. In recent matches, Kasparov and
  > > Kramnik were only able to draw against computers. The day is not far
  > > off when software stronger than any human player will be available for
  > > $50 or less.
 >
 > Very likely. In which case, grandmasters will become obsolete and we
 > will have chess programs playing against each other.
 >
 > Maybe for humans to retain interest in chess, they should go back to
 > the old Indian styles of playing, with slightly different rules and
 > totally different attitudes. Much more art there, with far more
 > relaxation and style and affability, and rather less competitiveness.
 > Players did not go for outright victory at all costs - that was
 > considered crude etiquette, for one had a loyalty to one's troops and
 > did not want them killed. Rather, it was more the way one got
 > victory, while retaining one's sense of loyalty to ones troops.

This way, you get extra points for retaining more troops than your
opponent, if we want to compete. I would think that computer programs
would have to be a lot better than what they are now, if extra rules
in chess that have been dropped are included. Like, the last piece
cannot be killed, and it is invincible. Also, only the king and
wazir/mantri pawns can be mantris, the others have to be the
corresponding.

Arindam Banerjee<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Fisher Spassky - Reykjavik 1972 partita 6 - liberi di gioc.. 

"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston RemoveThis @chittenden.com> wrote in message news:<1112876168.653142.256200 RemoveThis @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
 > Arindam Banerjee wrote:
  > > Maybe for humans to retain interest in chess, they should go back to
  > > the old Indian styles of playing, with slightly different rules and
  > > totally different attitudes. Much more art there, with far more
  > > relaxation and style and affability, and rather less competitiveness.
 >
  > > Players did not go for outright victory at all costs - that was
  > > considered crude etiquette, for one had a loyalty to one's troops and
  > > did not want them killed. Rather, it was more the way one got
  > > victory, while retaining one's sense of loyalty to ones troops.
 >
 > An interesting outlook, somewhat more like the concerns of a real
 > military commander. Thank you for sharing that. Could you explain
 > exactly what are the Indian rule differences, if it is not too
 > complicated?
 >
 > Taylor Kingston

Taylor, thanks for asking. I am afraid that I cannot refer you to any
book. I am writing this from my own experiences, after playing with
my grandparents and other elderly relatives.

If you are interested, see the Satyajit Ray movie "Shatranj ke
khilari" (Chess Players) where they would have used the following
rules. I suppose in the European middle ages they played as follows,
but you should know better about that!

1. The queen (wazir, mantri) stands to the left of the king (raja), so
the white queen faces the black king, and the black queen faces the
white king.
2. A pawn (pyada, borhay) can only move one step in its first move.
3. There are two moves for the very first move, for both. Like, white
can push a pawn and also move a bishop or knight. Or, he can move two
pawns, or one pawn two steps. Similarly for black, for only the very
first move.
4. There is no castling.
5. The king has just one knight's move. He can use it only once in
the game.
6. There is no en passant.
7. Only the king and queen pawns can become queen. The other pawns
become rook, knight or bishop depending upon the position they reach.
8. The last piece (apart from the king, that is) is unkillable but can
kill. (For a king should have at least one subject!!)

I cannot think of any more differences. Now, for some other details:

The pieces used in play look different, and have different names. The
smallest are the pawns (called borhay in Bengali, and pyada in Hindi).
They are the foot soldiers. The knight (ghora in both Bengali and
Hindi) looks similar to the pawn, but is bigger. The bishop (goj or
elephant in Bengali, and ooNth or camel in Hindi) is bigger than the
knight, and it is easy to confuse. (At least with the pieces I played
with!). The confusion inevitable in battle is thus modelled here, I
conjecture. The rook (hathi or elephant in Hindi, and kisti or
chariot in Bengali) looks different to them. The queen (mantri in
Bengali, wazir in Hindi, both meaning minister) is the second biggest
piece after the king.

While competitive no doubt, the playing of chess is also to cultivate
good manners and politeness. Thus while it may be impolite to take
back a move, it is far more impolite to refuse. People can take as
much time as they wish for a move.

Arindam Banerjee.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Fisher Spassky - Reykjavik 1972 partita 6 - liberi di gioc.. 

Arindam Banerjee wrote:
 > Taylor, thanks for asking. I am afraid that I cannot refer you to
any
 > book. I am writing this from my own experiences, after playing with
 > my grandparents and other elderly relatives.
 >
 > If you are interested, see the Satyajit Ray movie "Shatranj ke
 > khilari" (Chess Players) where they would have used the following
 > rules. I suppose in the European middle ages they played as follows,
 > but you should know better about that!

I have heard wonderful things about Satyajit Ray's films, but have
not seen any. I shall have to see if I can get them on DVD or video.

 > 1. The queen (wazir, mantri) stands to the left of the king (raja),
so
 > the white queen faces the black king, and the black queen faces the
 > white king.
 > 2. A pawn (pyada, borhay) can only move one step in its first move.
 > 3. There are two moves for the very first move, for both. Like,
white
 > can push a pawn and also move a bishop or knight. Or, he can move
two
 > pawns, or one pawn two steps. Similarly for black, for only the very
 > first move.
 > 4. There is no castling.
 > 5. The king has just one knight's move. He can use it only once in
 > the game.
 > 6. There is no en passant.
 > 7. Only the king and queen pawns can become queen. The other pawns
 > become rook, knight or bishop depending upon the position they reach.
 > 8. The last piece (apart from the king, that is) is unkillable but
can
 > kill. (For a king should have at least one subject!!)
 >
 > I cannot think of any more differences. Now, for some other details:
 >
 > The pieces used in play look different, and have different names.
The
 > smallest are the pawns (called borhay in Bengali, and pyada in
Hindi).
 > They are the foot soldiers. The knight (ghora in both Bengali and
 > Hindi) looks similar to the pawn, but is bigger. The bishop (goj or
 > elephant in Bengali, and ooNth or camel in Hindi) is bigger than the
 > knight, and it is easy to confuse. (At least with the pieces I
played
 > with!). The confusion inevitable in battle is thus modelled here, I
 > conjecture. The rook (hathi or elephant in Hindi, and kisti or
 > chariot in Bengali) looks different to them. The queen (mantri in
 > Bengali, wazir in Hindi, both meaning minister) is the second biggest
 > piece after the king.

Interesting rules, with very significant differences. I wonder if
these are the same that Mir Sultan Khan, the great Indian master of the
1930s, was raised on, and had to "unlearn" when he came to Europe and
played Western chess. And is this the sort of chess that, say,
Viswanathan Anand would have learned first?

 > While competitive no doubt, the playing of chess is also to cultivate
 > good manners and politeness.

A noble goal. I do not know how it is in India, but my impression is
that many Western chess players, at least as represented on these
newsgroups, could use some lessons in politeness.

Taylor Kingston<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Fisher Spassky - Reykjavik 1972 partita 6 - liberi di gioc.. 

"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston DeleteThis @chittenden.com> wrote in message news:<1112920034.153429.124430 DeleteThis @l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
 > Arindam Banerjee wrote:
  > > Taylor, thanks for asking. I am afraid that I cannot refer you to
 > any
  > > book. I am writing this from my own experiences, after playing with
  > > my grandparents and other elderly relatives.
  > >
  > > If you are interested, see the Satyajit Ray movie "Shatranj ke
  > > khilari" (Chess Players) where they would have used the following
  > > rules. I suppose in the European middle ages they played as follows,
  > > but you should know better about that!
 >
 > I have heard wonderful things about Satyajit Ray's films, but have
 > not seen any. I shall have to see if I can get them on DVD or video.

It is based upon a short story by Premchand, a Hindi writer. I like
the story better, even though the film is in colour and has strong
performances by Amjad Khan and Shabana Azmi. In brief, it is set in
the early 19th century in Oudh, and is about two chess players
(members of the ruling Muslim nobility) who neglect their wives and
fortunes in their passion for the game. They do not care when the
British depose their ruler Wajid Ali Shah, who as a highly cultured
person sees the futility of battle and so surrenders meekly. In the
story, these two fight to the death on some trivial issue. Premchand
wants to show that these people were not lacking in courage, but that
their energies were misdirected. In the movie, the two play according
to the new rules - showing how they opportunistically adapted. While
Ray's ending follows reality in an overall social sense, I believe
that Premchand's ending was more true. It showed how excellence at
symbolic warfare, caused by luxury, peace and lethargy, overcame the
need for excelling at actual warfare, at which their enemies were so
good.


  > > 1. The queen (wazir, mantri) stands to the left of the king (raja),
 > so
  > > the white queen faces the black king, and the black queen faces the
  > > white king.
  > > 2. A pawn (pyada, borhay) can only move one step in its first move.
  > > 3. There are two moves for the very first move, for both. Like,
 > white
  > > can push a pawn and also move a bishop or knight. Or, he can move
 > two
  > > pawns, or one pawn two steps. Similarly for black, for only the very
  > > first move.
  > > 4. There is no castling.
  > > 5. The king has just one knight's move. He can use it only once in
  > > the game.
  > > 6. There is no en passant.
  > > 7. Only the king and queen pawns can become queen. The other pawns
  > > become rook, knight or bishop depending upon the position they reach.
  > > 8. The last piece (apart from the king, that is) is unkillable but
 > can
  > > kill. (For a king should have at least one subject!!)
  > >
  > > I cannot think of any more differences. Now, for some other details:
  > >
  > > The pieces used in play look different, and have different names.
 > The
  > > smallest are the pawns (called borhay in Bengali, and pyada in
 > Hindi).
  > > They are the foot soldiers. The knight (ghora in both Bengali and
  > > Hindi) looks similar to the pawn, but is bigger. The bishop (goj or
  > > elephant in Bengali, and ooNth or camel in Hindi) is bigger than the
  > > knight, and it is easy to confuse. (At least with the pieces I
 > played
  > > with!). The confusion inevitable in battle is thus modelled here, I
  > > conjecture. The rook (hathi or elephant in Hindi, and kisti or
  > > chariot in Bengali) looks different to them.

May I add, the rook is also called nouko or boat in Bengali. And I am
not sure if kisti is actually a chariot. But you say kisti or shah in
Bengali or Hindi for check. Chess is daba in Bengali and shatranj in
Hindi.

The queen (mantri in
  > > Bengali, wazir in Hindi, both meaning minister) is the second biggest
  > > piece after the king.
 >
 > Interesting rules, with very significant differences. I wonder if
 > these are the same that Mir Sultan Khan, the great Indian master of the
 > 1930s, was raised on, and had to "unlearn" when he came to Europe and
 > played Western chess. And is this the sort of chess that, say,
 > Viswanathan Anand would have learned first?

How old is he? He may not have been exposed to the Indian rules at
all. For those brought up on the Indian rules, it should be very
difficult to switch to the Western rules. Perhaps that accounts for
the lack of significant Indian chess personalities in the
international fora before Anand.

 >
  > > While competitive no doubt, the playing of chess is also to cultivate
  > > good manners and politeness.
 >
 > A noble goal. I do not know how it is in India, but my impression is
 > that many Western chess players, at least as represented on these
 > newsgroups, could use some lessons in politeness.
 >
 > Taylor Kingston<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Fisher Spassky - Reykjavik 1972 partita 6 - liberi di gioc..