What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Chess

Re: Chess

I still remember watching Fisher-Spassky on public TV in NYC in 1972. They had "music to watch chess by" and commentary by Shelby Lyman (weird: I remembered this as Reuben Fine), who was hysterical. Because of the politics everyday folks really got into it. I was 9 and it hooked me for life.
 
Last edited:
Re: Chess

I still remember watching Fisher-Spassky on public TV in NYC in 1972. They had "music to watch chess by" and commentary by Shelby Lyman (weird: I remembered this as Reuben Fine), who was hysterical. Because of the politics everyday folks really got into it. I was 9 and it hooked me for life.
I remember watching Fischer-Spassky on PBS. You think being the color guy for baseball is tough because there's so much empty time? Try chess. Sometimes he'd have forty minutes to fill.
 
I remember watching Fischer-Spassky on PBS. You think being the color guy for baseball is tough because there's so much empty time? Try chess. Sometimes he'd have forty minutes to fill.
Were those matches not timed?
 
I remember watching Fischer-Spassky on PBS. You think being the color guy for baseball is tough because there's so much empty time? Try chess. Sometimes he'd have forty minutes to fill.

And then the bell would ring and a move or a bunch of moves would come forth.

Line of the whole tournament "Incredible blunder by Spassky!"
 
Re: Chess

Were those matches not timed?
Sure they were. But in chess, you have an aggregate time to make all your moves. For any one move, you can take as long as you want. Sometimes chess players take a looonnnngggg time between critical moves (which they know are critical but neophytes may not). Also, as joecct notes, the moves didn't necessarily get reported as they were made.
 
Last edited:
Sure they were. But in chess, you have an aggregate time to make all your moves. For any one move, you can take as long as you want. Sometimes chess players take a looonnnngggg time between critical moves (which they know are critical but neophytes may not). Also, as joecct notes, the moves didn't necessarily get reported as they were made.
I'm aware of how it works, it's similar to competitive Magic The Gathering which I play, I was just wondering how it could 40+ minutes.
 
Re: Chess

I still remember watching Fisher-Spassky on public TV in NYC in 1972. They had "music to watch chess by" and commentary by Shelby Lyman (weird: I remembered this as Reuben Fine), who was hysterical. Because of the politics everyday folks really got into it. I was 9 and it hooked me for life.

Me, too.

Anyone who grew up in that era can never forget this, even if you weren't hooked on chess. I remember my youth soccer team talking about this nonstop. It captivated everyone.

There was an excellent, excellent book written 30 years later called Bobby Fischer Goes to War: How the Soviets Lost the Most Extraordinary Chess Match of All Time. It delved into not just the nuances of the match, but all the off board politics, maneuvering, gamesmanship, national pressures, and behind the scenes activities, presenting both sides of the fence.

If you can find the book, it is well worth the read. An even more extraordinary tale when you learn all the real stuff that went on during that time and match.
 
Last edited:
Re: Chess

Me, too.

Anyone who grew up in that era can never forget this, even if you weren't hooked on chess. I remember my youth soccer team talking about this nonstop. It captivated everyone.

There was an excellent, excellent book written 30 years later called Bobby Fischer Goes to War: How the Soviets Lost the Most Extraordinary Chess Match of All Time. It delved into not just the nuances of the match, but all the off board politics, maneuvering, gamesmanship, national pressures, and behind the scenes activities, presenting both sides of the fence.

If you can find the book, it is well worth the read. An even more extraordinary tale when you learn all the real stuff that went on during that time and match.

There's an excellent Indy film about Fischer that does a good job covering the match. It is a very, very sad story, though. Fischer was profoundly mentally ill, and the bizarre circumstances of his gift and his career did nothing but exacerbate it.
 
Re: Chess

There's an excellent Indy film about Fischer that does a good job covering the match. It is a very, very sad story, though. Fischer was profoundly mentally ill, and the bizarre circumstances of his gift and his career did nothing but exacerbate it.

I was going to mention that film, also. Yes, it's very well done and really delves into the problems of Fischer. It pulls no punches. Fischer was brilliant, perhaps one of a kind, but........
 
Re: Chess

I was going to mention that film, also. Yes, it's very well done and really delves into the problems of Fischer. It pulls no punches. Fischer was brilliant, perhaps one of a kind, but........
And unfortunately since he is/was by far the most famous (notorious?) American chess player, he became a stereotype.
 
Re: Chess

And unfortunately since he is/was by far the most famous (notorious?) American chess player, he became a stereotype.

It didn't help that the other great American player, Paul Morphy, was cuckoo for cocoa puffs too.
 
Re: Chess

At the moment I don't have time to post everything I want to, but...there might be better sources out there and if so please share, but I know the match will be viewable here.

Starts in a little over eight hours (7am EST).
 
Last edited:
Re: Chess

another draw today. after five games, tied at 2.5 - 2.5

is the idea at this level to draw as black and win as white?
 
Re: Chess

another draw today. after five games, tied at 2.5 - 2.5

is the idea at this level to draw as black and win as white?
That's one way of putting it. Just as a data point, I just reviewed my book about the Fischer-Spassky match and, of the nine games that were not draws, white was 6-3.

Another way of putting it is that you try to get ahead and play for draws. In Fischer-Spassky, 8 of the first 13 games were won (4 draws and one forfeit when Fischer didn't show up). Seven of the last eight games were draws, with the last game a win by Fischer when he had 11.5 points (which meant he only had to draw two of the last four games to win the match).
 
Re: Chess

another draw today. after five games, tied at 2.5 - 2.5

is the idea at this level to draw as black and win as white?

There are two schools of thought (because there are two, if not more, schools of thought about everything in chess). The first school says exactly what you said. White has tempo and so has a built in advantage. I think I read somewhere that at the GM level white vice black is worth +/-.1 points.

The second school believes that the player who dictates the opening should play for the win. Depending on openings and variations this gets complicated. The 10,000 foot view is that it is still usually white who makes the decisive "pruning" of the decision tree. For example, white might offer an early gambit loss of material. Even though it's black's decision to accept or decline the gambit, white had still narrowed down the "light cone" of game moves to a fraction of what the game started with.

Here's a hysterically funny King's Gambit Declined with Nigel Short playing a computer in 1977. In those days, the algorithms didn't quite have all the bugs worked out... :)

IINM there was a really, really wild FIDE title match between Karpov and Korchnoi where black won outright on a ridiculous number of games -- maybe 7 of 10. If it's the one I am thinking of it was also considered the most sloppy sanctioned title tournament ever and neither guy liked to really talk about it after that.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top