Slashdot Mirror
Bobby Fischer Online?
talilee writes "This story from AP (but I found it at SFGate.com) suggests that Bobby Fischer is playing online chess anonymously against champion level players. I'm glad to see that he has an opportunity to express his genius without having to deal with the overwhelming attention (and without exposing his, um, "eccentricities".)" The BBC has a slightly more informative story.
I dont know if its naive but i find it a bit depressing that someone with bobby's intellect has to exist anonyomously to avoid the public limelight and scrutiny just to survive - witness the media attacks that form against any succesful person in the public eye these days - depressing that freely available information means a loss of any right to privacy.
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
I'll bet he's controlling Deep Fritz via ICQ.
anybody have more info on what those eccentricities are?
This story from /. suggests that Anonymous Coward is posting online against +1 bonus level posters. I'm glad to see that he has an opportunity to express his "genius" without having to deal with the overwhelming attention (and without exposing his, um, "eccentricities".)
~~~~~~
under-paid karma whore
of course there probably isn't any way to prove that this was actually Fischer, but I for one belive Short, the man who claims to have played him, for one reason: whatever happpened during these game, he seems absolutely moved, as though the moves themselves had a power and grandeur that transcenced the game. I guess it could be fake, but he sounds like these games wanted to make him cry.
I wonder though if he wouldn't post the move lists the for games. that would tell us something.
sean
I play chess online a good bit, and Bobby Fischer or not - there are some badass chess players out there. Sometime I can hold my own and other times those guys pull all kinds of weird stuff on me. My mother once found Omar Sharif playing bridge online.
...All I can say is that my life is pretty strange...
Maybe it's an American Fischer fan who learned all the "Fisher-related facts." The only evidence against that is just the quality of play.
Still--can we rule out it was a very powerful experimental chess computer or a very talented and reclusive chess star? Maybe Kramnik or Kasparov has an odd sense of humor and was making all the moves while his American buddy was doing all the typing.
Unless it's one of the current greats incognito, this story is interesting even if the opponent really isn't Fischer. It sounds like there's someone out there with an incredible chess talent!
I find this interesting since British Grandmaster Nigel Short has this theory just based on the style he played with that "person". Short said his adversary's style of play was very intriguing and something he had not seen before..
"My unseen opponent began with some highly irregular, if not totally absurd, opening moves - shifting all his pawns forward by one square. These were moves that no Grandmaster(?) would ever play." Short said he immediately suspected a hoax, but became aware there was method in the apparent madness.
If you ask me this evidence is very shaky and In my opinoin the thought of Bobby fisher playing is only a rumor
Diplomacy is the art of letting people have your way
Any chess experts want to comment on this unconventional play?
Did they ever find that guy, last i heard they were still looking for him.
Hilarious, Google Search: bobby fischer
When your as good as me
I find it hard to understand how someone who has been interested in chess for the length of time you claim to have been, can be ignorant of Bobby Fischer, one of the greatest players of all time.
Bobby was the youngest International Grandmaster ever. He won 8 US Chess Championships, and won basically every game he played between 1962 and 1972.
Unfortunately, he has become a reclusive paranoid schizophrenic who rants about how the Jews and Russians are out to get him (it should be noted that Bobby is half-Jewish).
By the way, in the future, perhaps you should try Google for queries like this.
If you have a problem with my views, REPLY, don't moderate!
Why does Short think this guy is Fischer? Because he whipped Short's ass and because he's familiar with obscure players from the sixties? Look, I'm really into computers from the 80s and late 70s. I could rattle off a large amount of obscure stats about Colecos, a bunch of z80 machines, early apples, including file systems, bus speeds - does this mean I'm Steve Wozniak or Bill Gates? I don't think so. Neither are all the other hundreds of people on /. with the same interest.
As for this guy being a good chess player - good for him, it doesn't mean he's fischer. I'm sure there are people of world-class quality at chess who choose not to go pro for a variety of reasons - again, it doesn't make them bobby fischer.
I'm the stranger...posting to
Those of you who, like me, don't know why he's a fugitive, here' s the story in brief. (Warning: bad midi background music). To make short story really really short, he played a Yugoslavian dude for money during the cold war and the US government put out an arrest warrant.
Just b/c his typing, his use of language, knowledge, etc reminds you of someone that does NOT mean it is.
From bbc :
Despite his misgivings, Short eventually arranged to play the unknown opponent, and in October last year lost the first of their four confrontations 8-0.
Now, my question is, how many people in the world can beat Short 8-0, and who can they be?
To see what Short means about this moves ,besides my bother actualy talked with one of
t m]
check this games against FIDE rated
masters on the ICC only Fisher could have done
that
the fellows of that matches and confirmed him that Fisher was his opponent
Fisher on ICC
[http://www.chlodwig.com/Fischer/Fi_Games_ICC.h
This DVD is a great movie about Bobby Fischer and his life as a kid, blowing away all the other kid chess players. =) Check it out. Good movie.
The BBC has a slightly more informative story.
... lost the first of their four confrontations 8-0.
... such as these tidbits?
Since then [Fischer's] whereabouts have remained a mystery and he has surfaced only once - in 1992 - for a 20th anniversary rematch in Siberia....
The SFGate article and other sources say that the rematch was in Yugoslavia.
Short
Huh?
Hope this works now
Fisher on ICC
Woahh some lameness filter hoe this avoid it
Somebody please explain to me how to lose four games and end up with the score being 8-0.
Hot damn, that's why I keep losing all my chess matches online : Bobby, will you please STOP PLAYING AGAINST ME ?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Searching for Bobby Fischer [imdb.com] is supposedly a true story about a brilliant child named Josh Waitzkin who is aware of the negativity surrounding Bobby Fischer and chooses to not become another Bobby Fischer.
You're right, it's a great movie, but how would you know since you haven't watched it?!
--
Haha
I bet hes reading this story now and knows everyones looking for him, i doubt he will play online anymore
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Nigel Short was playing Deep Fritz anonymously. IBM wanted to give the computer a few practice rounds prior to the Kramnik matchup. And since IBM is an American company, of course Deep Fritz's conversation would sound American... all its AI training was done by American scientists! *wink*
I think we ought to put Fritz through a Turing test.
--
Short's full story was posted on usenet. A bit more information than in either of the press stories.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled - R Feynman
Somebody please explain to me how to lose four games and end up with the score being 8-0.
It did not say games, it said confrontations. Their first meeting out of four probably had eight games.
Or, I could be wrong...
They played 4 sessions. The 1st session consisted of 8 games. Syntax.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
I don't know if you guys know this...but Bobby Fisher didn't really dissappear...being a chess guy, he lacked on some social skills and was a little shy.....he has been hiding under my couch for the last several years trying to avoid social confrontation...but now that I know he has been tapping into my internet connection for personal gain, I am forced to reveal him on slashdot. Bobby fisher is in my house in trout run PA. Tell CNN. They need to give me money before they come to look at him.
The anti-salmon
Damn. That was pretty funny.
This theory was advanced on 23 Aug here.
Lameness filter officially lame, film at 11...
if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
http://www.chlodwig.com/Fischer/Fi_Games_ICC.ht
This is no computer, NO computer would ever play a game like this.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
When a Computer is playing chess, its not going to play games like that, at blitz speed.
No computer ever has started with the kinds of openings seen in the movelists, and if its a blitz game theres not enough time for a human to be using the computer in the backround to help him.
Not to mention this annoymous fischer has played fischer random chess as well and that style of chess no computer can properly play.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
On September 1, 1992, Bobby Fischer came out of his 20 year retirement and gave a press conference in Yugoslavia. He pulled out an order from the U.S. Treasury Department warning him that he would be violating U.N. sanctions if he played chess in Yugoslavia. He spit on the order and now faces 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine if he returns to the U.S. In addition, he most forfeit his $3.65 million to the U.S. Treasury and forefeit 10% of any match royalties earned.
Some things never change. How many stories have we had now featuring the blockheaded American government foisting asinine rules on individuals? 10 years in prison and 3.8 million in penalties for playing chess??? They're lucky he only spit on the order...
You're using her as bait, Master!
But damn, can't he lay off posting goatsex links as Anonymous Coward? Then again, it might be Kasparov trying to discredit Bobby, he's been bitter ever since the Big Blue Fiasco.
Its Definately a Human playing these games.
We dont know if its Fischer, but who else is it going to be? Fischer cant play games in person, whoever is playing these games just happens to live near where fiscer lives and likes playing fischer random chess
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss.
If the opponent WON all 4 games, the score would have been 8-0.
Championship chess normally has lots of draws.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Clearly not all Anonymous folks are grandmasters in disguise...
If it is the real deal, I wonder if he and Kasparov (sp?) could take on Deep blue together.
Or, 3 grandmasters from around the world...humm.
wonder what would happen.
Moose.
"It's called a sacrifice, only fools and computers don't understand it" -Field of dreams.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
You say that if I answered enough of your questions correctly about Wozniak, californial, etc, that I could pass for Woz. Man, that wold be challenging - very challenging - but certainly doable. Likewise, why couldn't a person simply have studied Fischer's playing style, and aped that? Such an impersonation would be research-intensive, but doable.
Of course, once we start speculating about intentional imposters as opposed to honest mistake on Short's part, we need to haul out Occam's razor and ask ourselves which is most simple, and therefor most likely:
1.) Fischer is actually playing anonymously over the internet, but it dropping pseudo-subtle hints that he is Fischer to a man he knows would catch on. This is happening after nearly a decade of complete seclusion, and after almost thirty years of "retirement" broken only by a single game.
2. Someone is impersonating Fischer - perhaps a person, perhaps a computer.
3. Someone, quite innocently, has acquired a vast knowledge of chess history and a playing style similar to Fischer's - perhaps by studying his old games simply in an effort to learn from him.
4. Short is just misinterpreting the chess moves and conversation of the anonymous player.
I don't know which of these is the most simple, but I suspect that #1 is not it.
I'm the stranger...posting to
Sorry, I was using the Intel floating point unit and it rounded up. :-)
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Funny -- he's [Al Gore] the one that failed out of two college programs and one was divinity school (how do you fail "Jesus loves me this I know"?). ... If you knock Bush's grades (which weren't stellar), you can't praise Gore's (which were Fs).
Perhaps I was just brainwashed by the common media impression and the fact he tries to pursue hard topics. His selection as VP and relative mastery of English when debating Bush do add a suggestion of intelligence.
However, your facts to do appear to be correct as confirmed by this Washington Times Article (reprinted).
Of course, grades aren't everything as Bush will attest.
Perhaps IBM has unleashed a bigger, stronger, smarter Deep Blue AI upon the Internet. Its only task is to play chess and get rumour mills pumping.
Bobby Fischer is an interesting case study in differences among these. I suspect he was a smart guy, but could he really find the String Theory equations in physics, write the next Hamlet, or solve P == NP? The inverse is an interesting question, too: could Richard Feynman have beaten Bobby Fischer if he had dedicated his life to chess in the same way Fischer did? Doubtful IMHO, due to the thing Fischer had that Feynman ostensibly did not have: a remarkable aptitude for chess.
There's also an interesting analogy in sports. The strongest, fastest player does not necessarily lead to the best player. To be the best, you have to have some natural talent, i.e. aptitude.
Effectiveness, i.e. being really good at something, requires both intelligence and aptitude. Intelligence, of which I'm sure Fischer had his share, helps get you to a certain level, just as being fast and strong helps in sports, but to be truly great requires aptitude, which is altogether different.
By the same token, being really good at something like chess does not necessarily mean you're particularly intelligent. Maybe, but not necessarily.
Longer discussion by GM: Full Article on Usenet
Preceeding found on Page from Internet Chess Club (ICC)
I wanted to test my antagonist further so I thought of a number of tricky questions as we gossiped. For example, I asked him: "Do you know Armando Acevedo?" Senor Acevedo is an obscure Mexican player, not remotely of Grandmaster strength.
My opponent's reply came instantly, if cryptically: "Siegen 1970". Now if you look in the tournament book of the Siegen Chess Olympiad of 1970 you will find that Bobby Fischer played a certain Armando Acevedo in a preliminary round. He was obviously trying to tell me something.
Typing "Fischer Armando Acevedo" into Google turns up a reference to the 1970 Siegen match on the 3rd link. (The 2nd link is a consequence of Short's article.) It's in Spanish, but the exact phase "Siegen, 1970 appears explicity next to the first occurrance of "Fischer". See for yourself. The point is that one need not have access to a thirty year old tournament book, as Short suggests, to quickly generate the reply that he received. Thus this particular piece of evidence is a lot weaker than it appears.
What if we knew for a fact there were only a few ducks left in the world, but that many people had dogs that looked and sounded very much like ducks? Wouldn't occam's razor then state that the "duck" is really probably a dog? There's only one, highly reclusive and wacko Bobby Fischer, but many people could have learned to imitate his playing style and talk about things he would have known about.
I'm the stranger...posting to
You're kidding right? This player beat Short a lot worse than Short has been beaten anyone in the world including Garry Kasparov. The likelihood that there is someone out there able to defeat the best players in the world who happens to be so good he plays up to 8 bad moves at the beginning of the game and still defeats them who has never revealed himself is so unlikely as to be absurd.Maybe you'd feel better if you saw exactly what Short had to say about the incident.
I couldn't disagree more about Gore. Gore is at most a mediocre intellect. His is most certainly greater than most of the American public, but he's positively mediocre when compared with other well educated individuals. His speaking abilities are pretty marginal. His use of diction is absolutely uninspiring, in fact, he repeats himself too much. His analytical abilities show no spark of insight. He is not that well read and, for what it's worth, he wasn't even a good student.
Frankly, I don't see why certain people choose to ascribe the word intellect to Gore. The man is essentially a geek and not much more. By this I mean, he puts a lot of energy into what he does. He memorizes lots of facts and figures and he's capable of blinding people with bullshit when absolutely necessary. Perhaps this trait impresses some, but not me, I do not call that intellect.
The bottom line is that I see little reason to think of Gore as being any more intelligent or intellectual than what is seen in Washington, company executives, and the like. If there's any good reason to believe otherwise, please point it out to me.
How do you program a machine to make such deranged opening moves, then spank one of the top players in the world repeatedly? If a computer has managed that, I fear we're closer to true AI than we realise. Run for the hills!
... is Fischer not playing chess online. Like how else could he get up a good game?
I haven't played chess in YEARS, but my assumption about blitz play is that if white goes queen's pawn things get really hairy real fast.
I had a friend who played that way, and it was super difficult to develop strategy, as he had the agressive high ground from the get-go. One mistake as black, and you were dead meat.
I get the notion that Fischer preferred Kings pawn. Are there more opportunities for severe error with a queen's pawn opening?
Just asking.. (grin)
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
Whoever wrote this program, please step forward. You're a genius. The program has passed the Turing test with flying colors.
Someone you trust is one of us.
I sure can't think of anyone besides Fischer, especially with the kind of psycho play he's been describing. Fischer has been advocating alternate forms of play like shuffle chess so this would seem right up his alley.
No artist tolerates reality. -- Nietzsche
Anyone know if someone has done any analyses of how Fischer's ability compares to other Grandmasters? If this online Fischer can trounce Short in speed chess whereas Short can hold his own with Kasparov then does this necessarily mean that Fischer can trounce Kasparov?
Also why didn't Fischer play Kasparov back in 1992 and what is Fischer Random play?
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
MBA? Ha HA!
This is slashdot, made up of engineering types. Don't we all know this is the "special" degree they have to make management feel educated and proof positive 95% of the time that the holder is probably scientifically and mathematically illiterate and logically impaired.
Why couldn't this be Bobby Fischer? This seems like the best way for him to interact with people.
He seems to hate being in the limelight, and there's no reason to believe he's no longer active in chess on any level. So why not?
Sounds like an ideal forum for him to play, to me.
If any of you want to learn more about Bobby and his antics, read a book called 'Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest Of The World'. It's genius.
I used to have a local chess club (formed in 1991) called "The Bobby Fischer Memorial Chess Club", but then one year later he re-appeared. But we didn't rename the club since we knew he'd disappear again. The club's motto? "Not dead but what has he done for us lately?"
Rich...
Ignore Alien Orders
This is from Thomas Pynchon, when CNN tracked him down and filmed him--and maybe, sort of, in a way, "threatened" to show the film.
And this from a reporter who previously stalked him:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/05/pynchon/
Just because someone's not in the news, doesn't mean he or she is a shut-in. Of course, this may be different for Bobby Fischer, but it's a perspective we need to keep.
Though Fischer is one of the greatest chess players ever he DIDN'T win EVERY game ("basically" or otherwise) between 1962 and 72.
But true enough, on his way to the 1972 title he did destroy Taymanov and Larsen, both 6:0, almost unbeleivable...
This bit of text in the usenet article was interesting:
---
Boris considered it highly probable that I had come up against the elusive genius. When I said that, contrary to popular perception, he didn't sound mad, at all, Boris replied "Of course he isn't."
---
Boris isn't exactly a mental health expert. This is the same Boris Spassky who during the matches in 1972 broke down and accused Fischer of having mind-altering electronics installed in his arm chair.
All I can say is keep this Mr. Short guy away from the judges panel at any future Turing-like tests. He's too easily impressed by textual responses in terse conversations that include facts easily found thru Deja or Google. (ie, the 1970 mexican reference)
If it were a computer playing...
Still it'll be fun to watch
..........FULL STOP.
I'll let you make your own judgements, cause mine aren't worth too much, but read some other stories on that site before you take that version as gospel. Personally, I've have found ishipress.com to be somewhat entertaining in a slightly twisted way.
Bleh!
I (a reasonably strong player but nothing special--around USCF 2100) just logged on to ICC and played 6 games as a guest at 3 0. In 5 of the games, I spoofed Fischer--got embarrassed to play dreck against a strong player and played real chess. I went 6-0!! (Note that two wins were on time--I was lost on the board once.) The fourth game is my masterpiece :-)
... 2.Kf2 is a classic weapon of chess hustlers.
I think the psychological burden on the player facing such garbage can't be discounted. 1.f3
Here are the five silly games.
[Event "ICC 3 0 u"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2001.09.10"]
[Round "-"]
[White "guest209"]
[Black "guest976"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ICCResult "White forfeits on time"]
[Opening "R\\'eti opening"]
[ECO "A04"]
[NIC "QP.11"]
[Time "01:43:55"]
[TimeControl "180+0"]
1. Nf3 f6 2. e4 Kf7 3. d4 g6 4. c4 e6 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Bd2 b6 7. a3 Bxc3 8.
Bxc3 d6 9. e5 Bb7 10. exd6 cxd6 11. Be2 Ne7 12. O-O Nd7 13. Re1 Re8 14. b4
Nf8 15. Qb3 Kg7 16. d5 e5 17. Bd3 Rc8 18. Qc2 Qc7 19. Bd2 Nd7 20. Nh4 a6 21.
Nxg6 hxg6 22. Re4 Nf8 23. Rg4 f5 24. Rg5 Qd7 25. h4 Nh7 26. Rg3 e4 27. Be2
Nf6 28. h5 Rh8 29. hxg6 Qe8 30. Bc3 Nxg6 31. Bxf6+ Kxf6 32. Qc3+ Qe5 33.
Qxe5+ Nxe5 34. Rc1 Rcg8 35. Rxg8 Rxg8 36. Kf1 f4 37. f3 e3 38. Rd1 Rh8 39.
Ke1 Rh1+ 40. Bf1 a5 41. Rd4 axb4 42. Rxf4+ Kg5 43. Re4 Nxc4
{White forfeits on time}
0-1
[Event "ICC 3 0 u"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2001.09.10"]
[Round "-"]
[White "guest976"]
[Black "guest209"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ICCResult "Black forfeits on time"]
[Opening "Gedult's opening"]
[ECO "A00"]
[Time "01:38:00"]
[TimeControl "180+0"]
1. f3 d5 2. Kf2 e5 3. c3 Nf6 4. Ke3 Bc5+ 5. Kd3 e4+ 6. Kc2 Bf5 7. d3 exd3+
8. exd3 Nc6 9. Qe1+ Be7 10. Kd1 O-O 11. Be2 Re8 12. Bf4 Bc5 13. Nd2 Bxd3 14.
Bxd3 Rxe1+ 15. Kxe1 Qe7+ 16. Ne2 Re8 17. Kd1 Ne5 18. Bxe5 Qxe5 19. Kc2 c6
20. Rae1 Qd6 21. h4 Be3 22. h5 Bxd2 23. Kxd2 a6 24. h6 g6 25. Nd4 Rxe1 26.
Rxe1 c5 27. Ne2 b5 28. Kc1 c4 29. Bc2 Kf8 30. Kb1 Ng8 31. Nd4 Nxh6 32. g4
Ng8 33. g5 Ne7 34. f4 Nc6 35. Nxc6 Qxc6 36. Re5 Qd6 37. Bd1 f6 38. gxf6 Qxf6
39. Rxd5 Qxf4 40. a3 Ke7 41. Ka2 Qc1 42. Rd4 a5 43. Rd5 b4 44. cxb4 axb4 45.
axb4 Qe3 46. Ra5 c3 47. bxc3 {Black forfeits on time} 1-0
[Event "ICC 3 0 u"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2001.09.10"]
[Round "-"]
[White "guest695"]
[Black "guest976"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ICCResult "White checkmated"]
[Opening "Barnes defense"]
[ECO "B00"]
[NIC "VO.17"]
[Time "01:34:18"]
[TimeControl "180+0"]
1. e4 f6 2. Ne2 Kf7 3. Ng3 e5 4. Be2 g6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Nd5 c6 7. Ne3 Be6 8. h3
Bg7 9. b3 Ne7 10. c4 Rf8 11. d4 Nd7 12. Bb2 Nb6 13. d5 cxd5 14. Nxd5 Nbxd5
15. exd5 Bd7 16. O-O Kg8 17. Bg4 Qc8 18. Bxd7 Qxd7 19. Ne4 Bh6 20. Nxf6+
Rxf6 21. h4 Raf8 22. h5 Nf5 23. hxg6 Rxg6 24. g3 Qg7 25. c5 Nxg3 26. cxd6
Ne2+ 27. Kh2 Bf4+ 28. Kh3 Rh6# {White checkmated} 0-1
[Event "ICC 3 0 u"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2001.09.10"]
[Round "-"]
[White "guest976"]
[Black "guest695"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ICCResult "Black forfeits on time"]
[Opening "Gedult's opening"]
[ECO "A00"]
[Time "01:28:55"]
[TimeControl "180+0"]
1. f3 d5 2. Kf2 Nc6 3. Kg3 e6 4. Kf4 Bd6+ 5. Ke3 Nf6 6. Kf2 Nh5 7. e3 O-O 8.
Ne2 f5 9. d4 f4 10. c3 Qh4+ 11. Kg1 e5 12. Na3 fxe3 13. Bxe3 e4 14. Bf2 Qf6
15. Ng3 Nxg3 16. hxg3 exf3 17. Qxf3 Qxf3 18. gxf3 Rxf3 19. Kg2 Rf8 20. Bb5
Ne7 21. Rae1 Nf5 22. Nc2 c6 23. Bd3 g6 24. Ne3 Nxe3+ 25. Bxe3 Bf5 26. Bxf5
Rxf5 27. Rhf1 Raf8 28. Rxf5 Rxf5 29. g4 Rf8 30. Rf1 Rxf1 31. Kxf1 a5 32. Kg2
a4 33. Kf3 b5 34. g5 Kg7 35. a3 Kf7 36. Kg4 {Black forfeits on time} 1-0
[Event "ICC 3 0 u"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2001.09.10"]
[Round "-"]
[White "guest755"]
[Black "guest976"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ICCResult "White forfeits on time"]
[Opening "Queen's pawn"]
[ECO "A40"]
[NIC "QO.17"]
[Time "01:19:59"]
[TimeControl "180+0"]
1. d4 f6 2. c4 Kf7 3. Nc3 Ke6 4. e4 d6 5. d5+ Kd7 6. Be2 Ke8 7. f4 g6 8. Bg4
Bg7 9. Be6 Nh6 10. h3 Nf7 11. Bd2 c5 12. Qg4 Na6 13. O-O-O Nc7 14. f5 g5 15.
h4 h6 16. hxg5 hxg5 17. Rxh8+ Nxh8 18. Nf3 Kf8 19. Nxg5 fxg5 20. Bxg5 Bxe6
21. fxe6 Kg8 22. Rh1 Qf8 23. Bh6 Ne8 24. Bd2 Nf6 25. Qe2 Qe8 26. Nb5 Qg6 27.
Nc7 Rc8 28. Nb5 a6 29. Nc3 Qg4 30. b3 Qxe2 31. Nxe2 Rf8 32. g4 Nxg4 33. Ng3
Be5 34. Nf5 Ng6 35. Rg1 Rxf5 36. exf5 Nf4 37. Rxg4+ Kf8 38. Bxf4 Bxf4+ 39.
Rxf4 Kg7 40. Kd2 Kf6 41. Ke3 b6 42. Kf3 a5 43. a3 Kg7 44. Kg4 Kf6 45. Kh4
Kg7 46. Kh5 Kf6 47. Kh6 Ke5 48. Rf1 Kf6 {White forfeits on time} 0-1
On this page of photos of Fischer, there's a comparison of signatures at the bottom. Why is Bobby being compared to Richard D. James? Are they trying to say he's Aphex Twin?
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
My wife's adviser for her PhD in geology was called to testify on global warming to some government committee a few years ago. In this, he was questioned by a number of respected individuals in the science field, many of whom were geologists (although not of the same specialty as my wife's adviser). At the end, Gore came in for a short 5-minute Q&A period. My wife's adviser said that the questions Gore put forth were the most intelligent and thought provoking of the bunch. Obviously he had been well briefed by his aides, but my wife's adviser says that it was clearly his own thinking (follow-up questions to his answers and such). He would most surely disagree with your opinions about Gore.
Oh, yes. My wife's adviser is a conservative southerner from Alabama. Most definitely not a Gore supporter.
You can be quite intelligent and now be an excellent orator. In fact you can be quite intelligent and not be very good at English. Don't put down Gore's intelligence. In fact, all the democrat presidents (and Gore) from the last half century stack up as wonderfully intelligent. However, most of them performed as president very poorly. Intelligence is not strongly correlated with the quality of one's presidency.
--Be human.
Hey PhillipM
Learning to deal w/ your anger (not repressing it) is preferable to expressing it through hatred of different groups of people.
I would also like to add that perhaps 80% of the people out their who have ethnic, sexual and religious prejudices against others are not likely to change their beliefs, regardless of what events occur that are contrary to those beliefs.
My karma is -1 because I don't use AC posting. LOL.
Okay, Slashdotter's, who's up for starting a collection to pay Bobby Fischer, wherever he is, to represent humanity this October against Deep Fritz? I'll send a buck! Somebody should do a "Draft Bobby" webpage or something...
After looking at some of the games, I, for one, think it's him.
As Bernoulli said on seeing Newton's solution to the falling body problem (in which he also invented the calculus of variations): "On reconnaît le lion à son coup de patte", "One knows the lion by the stroke of his paw." This lion definitely has struck some great players.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
They should hook Deeper Blue to the net, and set up a game, inviting Fischer to play. I'd be very intrigued to see who won.
Paul Morphy was stonger -- even Fischer concedes that. But nice troll anyway.
Classic.
My favorite game was the one where he pushed his two bishop pawns and then proceeded to walk his king around, move his queen out of the way, replace it with the king, and effectively swap his king and queen in 10 moves. LOL! What unique and effective gameplay. Amazing stuff.
Justin Dubs
> Fringe murmurs hit the major media this weekend when Nigel Short declared that he believes he has been playing Bobby Fischer online. (Another report of the report here from AP.) Rumors of Fischer playing internet chess have been going around for months now and have caused a furor amongst the usual fans and foes. Most of these stories go as follows: 1) Mr. X insists that both players log on as guests and all communication is handled by way of an intermediary. 2) Mr. X plays crazy openings, often moving his king back and forth to intentionally waste time. 3) Despite this, Mr. X destroys top GMs in these blitz games, making virtually no errors. 4) The games are never published, Mr. X never says he is Fischer or makes comments suggesting he is. 5) Mr. X occasionally answers trivia questions about Fischer's life.
You don't need to be Johnny Cochran to know the difference between concrete and circumstantial evidence, and what we have above is a wheelbarrow full of the latter. Nigel Short, speaking in the Sunday Telegraph Review article that is also devoid of substantiation, says that he is "99 per cent sure" he has "been playing against the chess legend." This is based on four sets of games, none of which are given or commented on, other than to say that Short lost the first set 8-0. (The article also says Short went 6-6 in a blitz match with Kasparov in 1995. From the context of Short's actual words these were apparently casual games.) The Telegraph doesn't call the evidence circumstantial, it calls it "overwhelming." Johnny Cochran would be proud.
Short was also impressed by Mr. X replying "Siegen 1970" when the Englishman asked him if he knew Armando Acevedo. Well, I not only know of him, but I met the simpatico Mexican master in the flesh 10 years ago. But that's another story. Acevedo lost to Fischer in the 1970 Siegen Olympiad. That many a Fischer fan and anyone with a database would also know this seems to have been overlooked in this latest continuation of the rampant desire to believe Fischer is not only alive and well, but just biding his time before coming back to take his rightful crown at the age of 58. (It is not as if the person playing these games, Fischer or not, would be unaware of the intense speculation that has been ongoing in the chess community. Fischer was the only Grandmaster the Mexican faced, at least as far as his published games are concerned.) Who is qualified to ask Fischer a question that only Fischer would know? Not many people, and probably not Nigel Short. (Here's one for Bobby: Buenos Aires, 1996. What did you say Mickey Kantor was too busy doing to protect your rights? The rude comment the interpreter wouldn't translate, but you caught her and repeated it several times? But most people at that press conference would know this one...)
Personally I have no problem at all believing Fischer plays online anonymously. Despite the obvious decline in his mental health, he was still very animated by chess when I met him in 1996. I do not doubt that if he played into shape he would be a tough opponent for the top 10 today and more than a match for Armando Acevedo. But acting as though he would be an invincible demigod after 30 years of almost complete removal from competitive chess is silly. He played a few dozen games against Spassky in 1992 and the rare flashes of brilliance only glimmered brighter due to the thick layers of rust on his game. His knowledge and insight helped Peter Leko several years ago when the two would meet in Hungary, this we know. We cannot imagine a Fischer who has left chess behind.
As I said above, if you have good arguments you don't need junk. A master playing with strong computer assistance would have little trouble demolishing a top GM in blitz, we know this from experience. Even in rapid games humans make too many mistakes to compete successfully against CPU power on a consistent basis. I'm quite willing to believe that Bobby Fischer is "out there" and playing blitz online, but it will take published games, and more than just a few, to make this into anything more than a rumor.
OK, I have been competing in chess for most of my life, so I am a pretty decent player (not a GM or anything). Most of the comments here have clearly been by patzers. Here comes my take on the whole thing.
I played through the alleged Fisher-games against the IMs (unfortunately Short's games are nowhere to be found), I also read the full Google Groups article that someone posted.
The opening moves that "Fischer" used are not a "secret weapon" that he has been working on all these years. They are simply designed to give the opponent an advantage. They are also absurd enough to give quite the psychological advantage if your oponent does not exploit them. Psychology is important in chess. More than most players realize. If you get your ass kicked from some unknown guy who plays such an opening, you are going to be unsure of yourself and play much, much weaker than when you are on a streak. (see for example Kasparov vs Deep Blue)
A computers are notoriously good at shorter timelimits (programmers reading this ought to understand why throwing more time at an exponential problem leads to marginal increase in playing strength). This could very well be some bored IM or something, that is playing some weird moves in the opening and then uses the computer to defend super-humanly, confusing the opponent and finally winning simply because there are so much messy tactics on the board (which a computer will always like).
Fortunately there are good statistical tests, used for checking for people cheating with computers. These are based on the fact that most programs make the same moves in the same position. If Short were to show his games, they could be analyzed by the standard ICC-algorithm.
The knowledge that "Fischer" showed in the chat between the games could have been generated with fast google-searches, as has been previously stated.
However... The games against the IMs are pretty damn impressive. And 8-0 against Short?! A guy manually operating a computer would most likely be too slow to manage that. The improbable thing about this story is not that Fischer plays chess on the internet (why would he not?). The improbable thing is that he would still be that good. I know that he is an american legend, but is it humanly possible? Short gives it a 99% probability because his ego is involved, because he really wants it to be true and because he probably is not aware of how easy it is to use the internet to get information fast (such as the 1970-thing). I just don't know what to think. I think that my final verdict is that Short probably did play Fischer, but that the excitement and psychology of the strange openings made him play less well than he normally would. I cannot believe that Fischer would still be the best chess-player in the world.
Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati
Just like Thomas Jefferson, who had a well known fear of public speaking? Boy, *that* guy was a moron!
Unfortunately, Bobby Fischer was made the "Elvis of chess" by many frustrated American chess fans who feel even more uncomfortable that their own national team mostly consists of Soviet born and bred players.
Fischer was vas a very strong player, but mostly psychologically superior to his opponents during 2 years only (1970-72), outside that time his successes were not outstanding. The dominations of Lasker between 1896-1914 (and possibly 1923-24), of Alekhine (1927-1933) and Karpov (1975-85) are more remarkable in my opinion.
I saw the games mentioned in the article. Computer was used by someone who also understands chess. It could possibly be Fischer using a computer, though.
He is a very dangerously sick schizo, and it is good for the chessworld and the whole world that he is hiding somewhere, not propagating his ideas instead.
-- "If you had fallen into a shit pit during a battle, lick yourself off and move on." - Jaroslav Hasek
You're right. Engineers need bean counters and
someone to keep the office supplies stocked.
-Kevin
Umm, no.
That's 1 point for a win, 1/2 for a tie, 0 for a loss.
This is an EX-PARROT!
Two problems with your statement...
1) Schizophrenia is a genetic trait... You don't just 'become' schizo... You are born that way.
2) What almost no one has ever come forward and said, is that schizophrenia and other mental diseases seem to be the CAUSE of incredible aptitude in the first place. This is likely why extremely talented people often commit suicide (Kurt Cobain comes to mind) OR are known as 'eccentric.' You imply it's unfortunate that he is so skilled yet crazy, but I believe he wouldn't be so skilled if he wasn't crazy.
Schizophrenia is an amazing thing. I openly admit I am schizophrenic, (although it is under control) and can easially spot others with the same condition. I believe it is benifital far more than detrimental.
I can think of no more perfect example of schizophrenia than "Only Happy When It Rains" by Shirley Manson. The deep depressions and other emotions she discusses in the song (and in real life) are the most common indicators of the condition. Also, the character played by Catherine Zeta Jones in "The Haunting" is a fair example of schizophrenia as well (she mentions sleep disorder, and creativity, and not wanting to get rid of it... but that character she describes is not the same one portrayed throughout the rest of the movie).
One last thing I'd like to mention. It is much better to be overly paranoid, than less paranoid than appropriate. When was the last time you a headline like "Paranoid Man Shot in Back" ? Schizophrenia yeilds creativity everywhere I've seen it, and serves the person well in moderation.
Oh, don't confuse hearing voices (dementia) for schizophrenia.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
The pieces are identical, but the layout is somewhat different. If you're white, the queen is on the left side of the king. If you're black, the queen is on the right side of your king. So the queens are opposite each other, the kings are opposite each other... the layout isn't symmetrical. Given that white moves first as well, white is generally the preferred side of the board to be on.
Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
People talk about privacy like it can be achieved. I certainly have not seen it possible.
Click here or here.
I think the original poster was using game in a more widely used sense of the word than you are. He meant "match", but I think only chess and tennis call them that and apply "game" to a different unit of play.
I have all the respect in the world for you to be able to go out into the world and function as a schizophrenic. However, in the Abnormal Psychology class that I recently took we learned that while schizophrenia may be around for a person's entire life, it doesn't surface until a person is in his or her early 20's.
I agree with you about the talent part though. We were shown different pieces of art that were created by people with schizophrenia and they all looked amazingly complex and beautiful.
Note how he gives an excuse as to why he will not be able to acquire additional evidence in his original article because Fischer will probably not play him anymore.
Several times in the article Short teases us with amazing evidence which he wishes he could share with us, but alas
I think Short is having a bit of fun with us, chess GMs can have a sense of humour you know.
These are 3 minutes blitz games. You play fast or you are toast. You don't have time at all to fire search engines and find such answers while at the same time defeating a GM.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Common, time yourself and find a meaningful answer to the question using whatever tools you have. How long didi it take you? 10 sec? 15 sec? (I tried several times, gave up after 30 sec).
We are talking about 3 minutes matches.
Perhaps having a complete database with all the biographic details (all of them including games against unknown players) of Fisher would help, but still, how long does it take you to type "Acevedo Mexico" and copy a meaningful answer to the chat program while at the same time thinking how to defeat a GM that can stand his ground against Kasparov in blitz games???
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Its never good to hate a large group of people, meaning millions of people
Why? Hating anyone is BAD, Hate is always a BAD thing.
Bobby doesnt know how to control his own fury.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
It is 1 for a win
....
1/2 for a draw
0 for a lost.
This lad won 8 games in a row
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Furthermore, even if this man had every reason to believe Gore was as intellect from this meeting, it was just ONE 5 minute meeting, I've personally seen and heard of many examples contrary to his supposed intellect that I simply refuse to believe Gore is a "real" intellectual, let alone intelligent. Also, most people have not had the opportunity to see him personally like that. I really don't see how the general public _honestly_ develops that perception of him.
The real reason, in my opinion, is because the media has a very definite liberal bias and because Bush is not impressive intellectually. Gore is arguably more intellectual than Bush (However, I would say that he's overall less intelligent than GW, despite the fact that many would disagree.) Another major reason is because a lot of people do not truely understand what intellect is. They confuse the ability to recite facts and figures with intellect, conviction with comprehension, preparation with insight, and so on. Nonetheless, I do not believe that makes a really convincing picture for most the public.
The press says Gore is intellectual and few individuals take the trouble to see through it. The press says he's intelligent and intellectual, because he's the best choice to further their politics, given the fact that the other Democratic candidates were un-ellectable and that GW is a Republican.
I agree very much with you on the fact that intellect doesn't necessarily equate with intelligence and that neither necessarily equate with being a capable leader. This is part of the reason why I voted for Bush. This is also the biggest reason why Gore would be one of the last candidates on my list, even if I were a Democrat; Gore, at best, has an average intellect and he has little else to offer.
What is wrong with denying the holocaust?
...
As long as it is done in the frame of questioning historical event then everything is ok.
After all, this is what historians do
He says He'd play any machine in this interview.
http://queen.chessclub.com/philchess/rjfischer2
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Schizophrenia is a genetic trait... You don't just 'become' schizo... You are born that way.
;-) Seriously though, make the most of your condition, whatever it is...
Yes, but since it frequently doesn't show up until someone is 25 or 30, it's reasonable to think they're "becoming" schizo. You're right though -- more people need to know that this condition is genetic and/or occurs during fetal or early brain development. (We think.)
I openly admit I am schizophrenic... I believe it is benifital far more than detrimental.
Well, duh. You're schizo! Of course you're going to have wacky beliefs like that!
Reminds me of the time that Colin Powell kicked my ass at Total Annihilation.
> I never confronted my opponent with the
> question, "Am I playing Bobby
> Fischer?" I did ask him, however, who was the
> strongest blitz chess-player
> he had ever played. His response was, "If I am
> who you think I am, I would
> answer Mikhail Tal."
New definition of intelligence: can you convince Nigel Short you are Bobby Fischer.
Ken
The same thing that's wrong with letting it happen again. I'm afraid, however, it's too late for that.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Oh really, so now we are required to follow certain interpretation of the history ...
Please, whatever you learn in your history schoolbooks was written by the victors and surely reflects their biases. Trying to deny or even prosecute any other view does not make it more believable.
Gore graduated with honors. That doesn't look like F's to me.
He attended divinity school briefly for a few classes. Later, he attended another college but left to go run for a Congressional seat that had just opened up. Neither case qualifies as "failed", IMHO.
As for his ability to connect with voters, the media is constantly praising Bush's "way with people" but last time I checked, Gore got half a million more votes than Bush nationwide.
As with other replies to this post, I disagree.
When athletic ability reaches its highest level, improvement comes from intelligence. Anyone who is a "student of the game" will be better than one who is not, given approximate level of physical skills.
The same thing applies to almost everything else. I really don't believe in this esoteric idea of a aptitude. To me, aptitude is just having more understanding of a subject than the person making the assessment.
sedawkgrep
Is that a salami in my pants or am I just happy to be me?
the moves in the link are indeed very unconventional. i think that's good evidence: weirdo moves, and strong enough skills to beat one international grandmaster 7 - 0, the other one 16 - 4.
also, the maches look like the anonymous player (who might have been BF) wanted to refine and explore his tactics - he is consistently moving all the pawns forward one and the king to the center of the board. if he had just wanted to win by 'throwing off' his opponent, he would have changed the strategy in game 3 at the latest. but nooooo.. he continued on, letting his opponent adjust and take advantage of his strategy. despite giving his opponent a huge advantage, he still pulls off most matches.
another theory would be that this is an international grand master training to defeat computer programs. these moves are in no opening library. if i was a grand master and had refined these new strategies against machines, i would want to try them vs 'real' opponents as well.
Do you really think Nigel Short could be beaten by a Weak Computer?!
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
What a screwed up technique! It's... crazy... and brilliant at the same time.
I haven't played much chess in a while, but a quick viewing of some of the games posted show that Fischer (let's assume that it's him) exploits two commonly held notions of modern chess: early castling and protecting the king at all costs. It seems (to me) that he assumes that his opponent will castle and builds a pre-determined offense based on which corner his opponent will put the king, perhaps using his "useless" pawn moves watch his opponents strategy build. Common themes include disrupting the side pawns (even sacrificing a knight to do it) and putting bishops on b2 and g2 to control the long diagonals.
He also uses his king as an offensive weapon! Amazing! Instead of locking him in the left or right corner dungeon he freely moves him around the board, protecting him to some degree but using him more as a weapon than a protected piece.
One immediate side affect of the strategy is that all pieces get pushed up. In effect, Fischer builds a fortified position in his opponenet's territory, sometimes leaving a blank row or two on his own end. This not only cramps his opponent, but forces him to attack in unorthodox ways, something he is probably not used to.
Personally, I think it's either insane or brilliant, maybe both. Perhaps when his opponents get used to him moving his king in a circle to taunt them during the first five moves they'll figure out a way to beat him. Or perhaps he's opened a new era of chess strategy. Either way, I'm going to start playing again.
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
So I was looking around and found some
interesting interviews. I guess he's a chess outlaw.
I think, when all is said and done, when you stack up Jefferson's writings against _Earth in the Balance_, history will conclude that Al Gore was some monstrous freak who emerged from the soup of Love Canal.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
...get an account, Mister Anonymous Coward, and mod me down when your time as moderator comes. Attaching a name to your work can be very satisfying - you should try it sometime.
By the way, I'm glad to have to people replying to my comments, both good and bad - and I don't give a rat's ass about karma.
I'm the stranger...posting to
I must challenge your challenges. You make the statement "Gore is at most a mediocre intellect." You then site examples such as his "speaking abilities", "use of diction", "analytical abilities", and the ever popular "he wasn't even a good student."
Those are all well and good statements, but I must ask who would have a good intellect? Bobby Fischer(the subject of this thread)? Bill Gates? Alan Turing? Walt Disney? Mozart?
I don't consider myself to be an intellectual, but I do consider myself to be among the educated elite. I was having a conversation about tax breaks for poor people with a Princeton physics PhD, a geologist, a BFA graphic designer, and myself (materials engineer). I brought up the point that although we may have all been poor at some point in our life, we have very little perspective when it comes to issues like welfare.
My point is that I have spoken in front of several hundred peers on several occasions. It is not easy and once I even said, "Oh shit" into the mic when my first slide of a presentation was backwards. I had the balls to stay up there and continue. I even pulled a couple of jokes out of my ass. Life in the spotlight is not easy. Gore and Bobby Fischer should be looked upon with amazement that they can do what they do since 99.9999% of the people could not.
Ummm, Jon, aren't you supposed to be dead...? - Otter(3800)
Celebrities usually already have at least one 'shell corporation', and don't have any issue with the slightly higher price to purchase dedicated 'business' connectivity.
I am baffled that anybody on /. would be unable to remain anonymous online for long. You need only find an ISP that accepts payment by other than credit card, and that does not require ID to register a new account.
Now pre-pay your account fees for 6-12 months in advance, using a money order (or cash). The ISP might suspect you of being a spammer, but that won't stop them from taking your money.
So long as you do not intentionally 'out' yourself (never personalize your PC or web site settings), don't buy things online, and don't do anything to get the Feds interested, your identity should remain private.
What about cookies?
You mean you don't have a PC dedicated to web browsing, upon which you never keep any personal files? You don't regularly blow away the hard drive, upgrade the ethernet card (new MAC, new GUID, etc), and change the visible IP address?
You say 'I'm too poor to afford such extravagance!' ?
Then you're probably also not interesting enoough for anybody to go to great efforts to invade your privacy.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
I just heard a story on NPR about this Bobby Fischer thing...
...and that fact that it's coming from Short - a chess grandmaster - just makes it even more depressing.
Nigel Short (the man claiming to be playing against Bobby Fischer) has no evidence whatsoever, just blind & hopeful inferences.
He hasn't even done something as simple as asking his opponent "Are you Bobby Fischer?" His 'evidence' seems to be that the opponent's style of play is sort-of like Fischer's... And the opponent is "very polite."
That's brilliant!! Using the same methodology, I can prove that all the polite squirels on this planet are actually reincarnate-clones of Humphrey Bogart! Cool!
The profound idiocy of the human race astounds me on a daily basis.
Because of the positioning of the queens (Q) black has two more safe spots for pawns (P) to reside on. Safe being explained that there's a greater chance of protecting a P with other minor pieces - ie. other pawns - than black does. Because of this (and I forget the math to explain it) white goes first to even it out.
I'll look through my books for the math / averages.
"From of old, there are not lacking things that have attained Oneness." - Lao Tzu
I haven't seen the games, but this is an obvious hoax by Short and others. Rumors were abounding about Fischer so they made him appear.
When I was playing about twenty years ago there was a fad of opening f3, kf2, ke3, kf4, kg6, kf2 as early as possible in speed games. The object was to demonstrate how incredibly bad your opponent was, when he couldn't beat you after that farce of moves.
When Short was about to play Kasparov for the world title, he said (approximately) his opponent:
1) Had an unpleasant personality.
2) Couldn't get along with normal people.
3) Looked like an ape.
Short likes to jerk the chain.
[When Kasparov was informed of Short's comments he said that was good, Short was trying to build up the gate, like at a Heavyweight Boxing Championship.]
Doc
> This is no computer, NO computer would ever play a game like this.
The odd openings mean nothing, as a computer will play any moves which are in its opening book. It would be fairly easy for someone with the time to construct an opening book which uses these openings.
Whats more difficult to determine is why a sensible human would ever play moves like these, assuming they are playing to win. The self-handicapping argument doesn't seem right to me. 3 minute blitz is an area in which computers perform quite favorably as compared to humans, even grandmasters. I believe that even with this 'handicap' a fast SMP computer running fritz would probably make butter out of any human at this time control. The whole thing seems like a hoax to me.
-KMS
If the original poster meant "match" that doesn't make a lot of sense because in 60's the majority of chess activity was on tournaments, NOT matches. There use to be only a final match to decide who will face the current champion (if I remember correctly). Beofore 3 matches Fischer won for the 1972 title (Taymanov, Larsen, Petrossyan) he either played no offical matches, or if he did, he lost them.
Anyway, Fischer won a lot of games and a number of tournaments but he DIDN't WIN every game nor
every tournament. And before sometime in late 60's he was just ONE of many good players...
I am a very serious chess player. I looked through all of the games - every single one, purported to have been played by Fischer. Going into it, I was VERY skeptical; my initial reaction to the story was that it is most likely a hoax done with a strong computer. As many have stated, computers can play world class chess at fast time controls.
The unorthodox openings, at first glance, might lead one to believe that it wouldn't be a computer. However, someone could create a special opening book with these moves, plug them into a program, and accomplish this feat. The (intentionally) poor opening moves, therefore proves nothing one way or the other. It is even quite plausible that a strong computer would be able to defend such inferior positions. I kept looking for tell-tale signs of computer play. It's not that simple to discern. I believe there are clues that this is a human, however. Nonetheless, I could be wrong. Moreover, even if it is a human (which I rate at 80 percent probability), it may not be Fischer.
The clues are subtle... one thing to look for is the likelihood that a computer will make the same or very similar moves in identical positions. Although, again, this too can be overridden by a human operator.
One occasion jumped out at me - one of the few (and possibly the ONLY - more on that later - legitimate loss that "Fischer" played). You will note that "Fischer" was black when "he" lost. Note that the very next game, "Fischer" is again black (one of the few games in which they didn't alternate colors). This strikes me as a very, very human (read "egotistical") reaction - e.g. you just beat me as black, I want a rematch as black for revenge and I'll play the same opening and play an improvement. Note, the next game's opening is the same (although there is a transposition of move order - another sign that it is probably a human), "Fischer" deviates on move 12, plays an improvement, and proceeds to win the game. This, I consider very, very, VERY strong evidence that the player is human.
The other losses (2) of "Fischer" were, in my estimation, instances of "Fischer" intentionally losing. One was a simple, well-known mate (the fastest mate possible) in which "Fischer" intentionally sets himself up for mate - this was most likely a human with a sense of humor allowing this to happen (known as "help-mate"). I don't see that any computer would have a sense of humor, nor allow this simple mate, so it was either done by a human or a human operator (if there was a computer in the loop at all). The other loss, "Fischer" resigns when there is no compelling reason (he had fought out of many, much worse positions to the one in which he resigned) - I have no explanation, perhaps he wanted a different opening and wasn't interested in that particular position.
The remainder of the play was, in my opinion, human. However, it is somewhat difficult to tell at times. I believe that a computer would, in general, be more materialistic, especially in blitz, than the play exhibited by "Fischer". I saw no evidence of the famous "horizon effect" which computers are known to suffer from; however, this was blitz and many times humans aren't able to exploit this type of thing in fast play.
I cannot say for sure, but I'm pretty damned confident that it wasn't a computer. There are probably a handful of humans who could pull this type of thing off - Fischer is one candidate. Kasparov another. Indian GM Viswanathan Anand maybe, though doubtful. GM Karpov, doubtful, though one couldn't rule him out. The aged but legendary GM David Bronstein - maybe, just maybe, but he's a bit old, however this is definitely his style of play. I'd say Fischer could be the man behind the moves. I mean, really, it would be surprising if Fischer wasn't playing chess on the internet, the only question is: are these his games?! I say "probably" so.
You think Cobain is talented? Ok, I believe you're schizo.
You know, the day I wrote my reply I expected some brian-rot in respone from you, and I had a big essay composed in my head. Now I've just got this: You're charting the path on a short trip to hell. I've read your other posts on this forum and I have taken the measure of your character. You are clearly a bigot filled with irrational hatred. Go ahead and take your trip. Just keep your shit the fuck away from me. Whatever capacity I had to politely tolerate filth such as yourself went up in flames on tuesday.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
That is amazing how your love-filled heart had no problem linking me with the events on Tuesday.
I am sick of humanitarians of your kind who leave absolutely no room for others.
No, "dealing with it" is coming to terms with the situation. "Dealing with it" does not necessarily involve being expressive about it. A guy can secretly hate his job, but as long as he prevents himself from doing some sort of violent/unethical act, then he has "dealt with it".
The same for any situation.
A person who has come to terms w/ the situation, problem, etc. no longer has to be expressive about it.
Uh, and no, people do not "fuck" or "kill" things to deal with them. That's just some kind of huge bullshit generality. People either deal with it, or they pop. If what you said were true, all blue collar workers would be bombing their work centers.
Really, I wish you would actually make an intelligent comment.
My karma is -1 because I don't use AC posting. LOL.