Journal GeckoFood's Journal: * Geek Alert * -- JE About Chess 8
There are few things in this world about which I am passionate. There is my family, of course, as well as cooking. I am slowly winding up on current events and politics (and have had a few shouting matches, whereas a couple of years ago I would never have even considered it). There are some interests I hold dear, even though I do not discuss them a lot. One of those interests happens to be chess.
Most Americans over the age of 30 know about Bobby Fischer (or have at least heard of him). He won the World Chess Championship from Boris Spasski back in 1972 in Reykjavik, after which he threw a giant tantrum and vanished from the limelight, forfeiting his title to Anatoly Karpov in 1975. I have read the mainstream accounts, and I have heard some of his radio interviews from the Philippines, and it can be stated without any hesitation that he is definitely a cracked egg. I guess when you are that intelligent, and you become an introvert in the pursuit of a single interest (in his case, chess), I suppose that is bound to happen.
Disclaimer - I am not a big Fischer fan. I think the man is a prick.
I decided to dig a little when it came to his forfeiting his title. Why did he do it? I always assumed that he was interested in giving himself an little advantage in holding on to his title when it was time to defend it.
Current FIDE rules for world championship matches state that there is a fixed number of games (I believe that number is 25) in the match. A win gains a player a single point, a loss zero points, and a draw gives each player a half point. In the event of a drawn match, the champion retains his title. Therein lies a serious problem - it serves the cause of the champion to play for a draw instead of a win, as all he needs to do is strive for equality. Since he keeps the title if he draws the whole match, and playing for a draw is easier than going for a win, the champion is likely to play passively and avoid the best possible play, just to keep order. When all done, the champion can then walk away with the title and whatever moneys are entitled to him.
Thus, Fischer already had a strong advantage going into a title defense.
Fischer forfeited his title when he and FIDE could not come to an agreement on how to organize the title defense. It was not over money, or endorsements, or getting more advantages. Fischer was wanting FIDE to actually change the way they conducted the matches. He laid out a plan whereas the players would play until a certain number of wins was achieved. This was in line with the old style of world championship matches, such as was played between Alekhine and Capablanca in Buenos Aires in 1927. This would strip away the champion's advantage, and force the best possible play to secure the match. In essence, he wanted FIDE to give both sides equal chances.
I will not attempt to defend Fischer for other things he has done. I will not say he was justified in sticking to his guns and refusing to play. I will say, though, that on this one point, I think he was right. He did have a better way of doing things, and FIDE missed an opportunity to fix what is readily agreed as broken.
more to the point (Score:2)
Re:more to the point (Score:1)
I could play, with every advantage possible, againt a blindfolded, drunk koala bear and lose, opposable thumbs and all.
Let me go get my camcorder....
Maybe he just loved Chess (Score:1)
One thing is certain, he is well recognized as the best chess player ever,
some ppl joked he was inside the trunk of Deep blue...
Why would he want to make the game fair if he needn't the advantage?.
Was it to prove he was smarter, was it because he wanted to even up the game for himself?.
I think this guy loved the game so much he just wanted other people to play
it well(as in fair and square), other players to enjoy it the way he thought it
Re:Maybe he just loved Chess (Score:1)
One thing is certain, he is well recognized as the best chess player ever,
Had he stayed with the game, I think that would be true. However, having not played seriously in such a long time, I think he has fallen from grace in that regard. There is no question that he was far ahead of his competition in his day. He is still ranked 3rd or 4th in the world rankings, even though he does not play anymore.
I think this guy loved the game so much he just wanted other people to play it well
I think you've na
spectator sport (Score:2)
Re:spectator sport (Score:1)
I did not watch the Kasparov/Fritz 3D match, but I kept up on the internet and went back through the games post mortem. I don't have the patience to watch live, but I do like keeping track, regardless. I would imagine I missed some interesting commentary and tidbits by not tuning in live. Did they make references through the match about Deep Blue?
That's another story altogether -- Kasparov got screwed on the match with Deep Blue. As soon as it was over IBM dismantled the system and refused a rematch. I th
Re:spectator sport (Score:2)
Oh yes, all the time. And yeah, he did get screwed, as he himself pointed out. They designed it specifically to beat him. He says he's just trying to put off the inevitable point where no human will be able to even give a computer a good game.
Re:spectator sport (Score:1)
Oh yes, all the time. And yeah, he did get screwed, as he himself pointed out. They designed it specifically to beat him.
Designing it to beat him is ok, actually. I have no issue with this, as he is the strongest player ever (perhaps not the most interesting, but definitely the strongest). Where IBM stuck it to him is refusing the rematch. He deserved the chance. On the flip side, I have no doubt that Fritz, Junior, Hiarcs, Tiger and especially Shredder are a lot stronger than Deep Blue. That brings up