"help bot" <nomorechess@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:34289645-ffaa-4ae6-908e-83d0cc6d7f6f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 5, 8:15 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> But the effect of other players on Karpov, who can be said to have an
>> artistic temperament to chess, was that he said he could never really
get
>> excited [artistically] at the prospect of playing Kasparov - but
Korchnoi
>> provided him a huge stimulus - and he quantified that, by saying
>> something
>> like 85% of his creative energies.
>>
>> He then continued on this theme, in Karpov on Karpov, to state that
>> Fischer
>> would have been his greatest challenge, in the 90th percentiles.
>>
>> That is an artistic tribute and a sincere one to Fischer-the-player.
>
> It seems likely that this particular blather was a
> response to the innumerable attacks "on Karpov",
> but by others.
Sorry, that sentence doesn't parse.
> One of these others was of course,
> Gary Kasparov, who continued to belittle his
> adversary until he signed a contract forbidding it,
> not very long ago.
'these others'? Did you announce your own topic yet?
What I wrote is that Karpov fessed up to things he did as world champion,
that he later was not proud of, and that he is the first I know to have
done
this in writing.
He also admitted a personal element about his own creativity in respect of
specific opponents. I do not understand from greg Kennedy who can't even
admit his own name, what the hell he knows or thinks or speculates upon -
or
even what his opinion is, never mind how informed it is.
> The ploy was to suggest that GK was unworthy,
> or that AK had not necessarily tried his darnedest
> to excel against him; a rather obvious cop-out or
> lie.
In what way, even in a general sense, are people who like Bach but not
Beethoven deploying cop-out tactics or lying?
> To me, this is no different from the multitude
> of lies and fabrications told by master story-teller
> Gary Kasparov, many of which targeted Anatoly
> Karpov, casting him as the main villain in twisted
> plots which virtually always contained serious
> flaws and self-contradictions, not to mention
> casting errors (GK as the hero??!).
These strong players are all of a muchness to Greg Kennedy, who BTW, had
not
admitted reading the chess bio I quote from, or anything else to inform
his
opinions. Maybe all GMs look and act the same to him?
>> Far better if Fischer-the-player had continued to believe in pawns
rather
>> than suffer the fate of the [self] abandoned celebrity.
>
> Another possibility was for Bobby Fischer to
> refuse to compete, but at the same time craft
> numerous works on the game, which quite
> naturally would have been best-sellers. That
> would have solved his financial woes, while at
Fischer had no especial financial woes [laugh]
> the same time affording him an outlet in which
> to critique the play of other grandmasters, and
> bash the FIDE, the USCF, and most of all, the
> Russians and the Jews who were all "out to get
> him". (Hey, if /I Was Beaten in a Pasadena
> Jailhouse/ sold, then why not /The World Wide
> Plot to Get Bobby Fischer/?)
Because that would be a completely trite response to the issues in his
life,
and address issues as if written by a persona created by the public, not
an
actual person.
As far as the public was concerned there was no Fischer-the-person, there
was only the chess hero. And when heroes don't compete any more for us, we
the public resent the fact, and want to punnish the Hero.
The fate of abandoned-celebrity is to be treated just as you have done
here
with Karpov and Kasparov. You can no longer fantasize yourself into their
situations, neither can you get there by you own efforts - intolerable
situation! - [for fantacists] so you 'kill' him still, even though Fischer
is dead.
This is why Taimanov said that he pitied all these Russian kids whose only
route out of their drab regional futures was their chess, and that he
thought was too brittle a base to withstand much of life.
Phil Innes
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
|
