Fischer worked on improving at chess like noone else. none of russians at time were true professionals. They all had jobs, degrees, Fischer knew just one thing, how to play chess
what made fischer so much better at his time?
Sort:
Oldest
Ironicly enough, Fischer brought opening preparation to a whole new level, before he condemned the game for being purely memorisation of openings.
190 iq?
odessian wrote:
Fischer worked on improving at chess like noone else. none of russians at time were true professionals. They all had jobs, degrees, Fischer knew just one thing, how to play chess
Some Soviet GMs had other serious responsibilities while others did not.
Spassky, for example, was a pure professional with a token title of journalist.
Tricklev wrote:
Ironicly enough, Fischer brought opening preparation to a whole new level, before he condemned the game for being purely memorisation of openings.
I think the fact that Fischer understood that the game is purely memorizational with it's opening that he did what he did, plan better than any of his opponents in the opening; and the fact that he studied chess full time, 8-12 hours daily...I have read that he had a chess board in every room.
Chess was all Fischer was. There were no women. No kids. No friends really. Hell, even at the banquet for his victory over Spasky, he whipped out a pocket set and worked at chess. He was an extremely brilliant man who was completely and utterly one track.
Sadly, his lack of any social skills whatsoever probably kept him from being considered the greatest ever. He barely won the one title he did, for his idiotic behavior. It took the intervention of the chess powers that be to even give him the chance to play Spasky.
True, he was a chess genius and a real piece of **** human being. I really dislike this man
Are you kidding Reb?
exactly, so i stated what made Fischer different and also what I think of him personally. His persona was actually a contributing part to his victories
what you mean "added to the game?? " a 9th pawn?
paul211 wrote:
Made his the best his memory and ultimate desire to win.
I quote: "It is said that he has never forgotten a game he has played or an analysis he has read" (Schonberg 264). Fischer can also remember most of his speed games, in which both players are limited to five minutes to make all of their moves. After the World Speed Chess championship at Hercegnovi, Yugoslavia, in 1970, "Fischer rattled off the scores of all his twenty-two games, involving more than 1,000 moves, from memory!" (Brady VIII). Not only does he remember speed chess directly after a match, he has also been known to remember for years. "Fischer met the Russian Player Vasiukov and showed him a speed game that the two had played in Moscow fifteen years before. Fischer recalled the game move by move" (Brady VII). It is plain to see that these qualities were instrumental in producing the chess accomplishments of Bobby Fischer, but his I.Q. and memory capacity could have gone nowhere without one final quality.
Can anyone do this kind of feat?
I think that with all of his retention or memorization capacity Fischer was analyzing a game like a computer today, at a slower speed but very effectively indeed.
And let's not forget the amazing results of Bobby in rapid games.
I believe that his 1.e4 opening is taking one step higher the Paul Morphy's style of play.
He did say that Morphy was the greatest player ever. His opinion anyhow and did find in Morphy's games play the key to do it better.
What did he find? No one will ever know.
He studied Lasker's games and liked them too but it wasn't some secret holy grail of chess, he just studied hard -- it was convenient to call Morphy, the only other great American player, the best of all time during the cold war.
He was great OTB but I wouldn't put too much stock in what came out of the guy's mouth.
bsrasmus wrote:
The OP didn't ask why Fischer was so good. The OP asked what Fischer added to the game.
I don't think Fischer fundamentally changed the way that the game of chess was played. He added the 960 variant, of course. And he invented the clock that used almost univerally today. But he didn't really invent a new way of doing tactics and he didn't create a new school of thought about positional play. I think Kasparov meant that he brought a new level of professionalism. He really worked at chess, while for others it was a special hobby.
thanks bsrasmus.
i have another question concerning fischer... in a documentary about him, it said that he disappered and worked for 3 years on a chess book. the book title wasn't mentioned tho.
I'm reading "bobby fischer teaching chess" right now... but i'm not sure it's the book the commentator mentioned... does anybody know more about that?
and yes, it seems like he went nuts/insane after the match against spassky... but this thread wasn't about that...
May 7, 2010
0
#16
Fischer wasn't a great theorist; he soaked up the discoveries of others. He was a reasonably intelligent person who as a youth dedicated himself to the game,willing to play at any time. Linked with his capacity for hard work was his hatred of losing. As chess was his only pillar of ego, it had to be maintained at all costs. There are many reports of him crying when he lost. I don't see Magnus Carlsen or Radjabov crying. they have more rounded personalities. When you get that good at one thing and you get older and know that as a human being you have to disperse yourself more, pay less time in chess, and inevitably lose your status. Fischer did add to the prestige of professional chess, which had (in the West) become a joke and in the Communist courtries a propaganda tool (we play better chess, we are a better society). He caused thousands to become interested in the game so one has to balance that against his paranoid theories.
Thats correct buddy3, I am sure he did cry after losing some matches. I am not denying that Fischer was overtly obcessed w/ chess, but it is pretty cool to have something in your life important enough to cry over, even if it is chess. This is the very reason he was so good and maybe the best ever, if he wasnt, we would not be here talking about him. I agree w/ what a few said in that he may not have added elements that changed chess as much as he added complete and utter dedication which was unmatched during his time and ultimately responsible for his early dominance.....
May 7, 2010
0
#18
Single-minded, obsessive, all consuming, total dedication to the game of chess, to the exclusion of everything else - combined with a prodigious, if not superautistic memory.
Add an absolute hatred of the mere notion or idea of losing.
And that's Fischer.
I seriously doubt that Fischer was the only great player that cried after a critical loss. In fact, I recall reading of Spassky going to the street and weeping bitterly after an especially painful loss to his great rival Tal in the last round of an event that was to qualify for that year's candidates cycle. The loss to Tal eliminated Spassky from the cycle. I have never read of Fischer crying after a loss as an adult player, maybe when he was still a child .... sure. Children often cry when they lose in almost anything, especially when they believe they are good in that particular thing or if its very important to them.
Myths About Bobby Fischer:
1) He was only interested in chess-actually he liked to bowl and shag fly balls(American Baseball) and box and exercise and eat out for dinner(he didn't cook).
2) He spent his life alone in his room-actually he dated lots of attractive women.
3) He had no friends-he had lots of friends including fellow chess players and
well-known American athletes and celebrities.
hi,
i listend to an interview of kasparov after the death of fischer and he said, that fischer introduced us to a whole new way of playing chess... he introduced us to professional chess.
fischer easily beaten any GM at his time, so obviously he played like no one ever saw before... but what excactly was that?
did he invented new tactics and such things which no one were prepared for? or was he just more "professional", meaning more dedicated/obsessed than the others? but then again... he was still so young.
I'm just asking if after fischer THE WAY/MOVES OF PLAYING CHESS changed or just the dedication of the professionals increased