|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1189 OF 1189 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Sep-20-08
 |
| slomarko: actualy Fischer was whining about that quite a lot but it was probably just scene. i think he knew that Spasski was a more dangerous opponent than Petrossian at the time and since he (Fischer) was returning to competitions after a period of absence he just decided to play it safe. i interestingly Larsen was too quite obsessed with playing on board 1 |
 |
Sep-20-08
|
| slomarko: and then Fischer kicked Petrossian's ass easily but this is what happened to Larsen on board 1: Larsen vs Spassky, 1970
conclusion: Larsen was more a board 4 type player |
|
Sep-20-08
 |
| egilarne: In all fairness, Larsen played a draw and won against Spassky, and beat Stein in the fourth game. 1,5-1,5 against the current World Champion and overall 2,5-1,5 must be considered a very good first board performance: The draw against Spassky: Spassky vs Larsen, 1970 The win against Spassky: Spassky vs Larsen, 1970 The win against Leonid Stein: Larsen vs Stein, 1970 |
|
Sep-20-08
 |
| Splittet: <egilarne> slomarko is not big on the big picture. |
|
Sep-20-08
 |
| frogbert: some people are notorious at hand-picking single facts that fit their purpose and agenda, while closing their eyes for anything else, no matter how monumental and obvious and striking to anyone who wants to see. for instance, any complete statistics about some player's results, can be refuted by a single game where he/she wins or loses spectacularly - depending on what one wants to "prove" or "refute". :o) |
|
Sep-20-08
|
| frogbert: egilarne, the complete results you quote for larsen can be considered "statistics", and hence can't be considered any valid argument. you need to pick <one> game, so i suggest you go for the larsen win, which proves that spassky really should've played on 4th board or something. |
|
Sep-21-08
|
| slomarko: <for instance, any complete statistics about some player's results, can be refuted by a single game where he/she wins or loses spectacularly - depending on what one wants to "prove" or "refute". :o)> Boris Spassky beat Bent Larsen 19 to 6, with 17 draws = Larsen was not in the same league as Spassky. |
|
Sep-21-08
 |
| Etienne: Ivanchuk has beaten Morozevich 9-2 with 2 draws (or something along those lines). Morozevich is clearly not in Ivanchuk's league! (or such stupid statement like this) |
|
Sep-21-08
|
| slomarko: there is nothing like the good old double accounts. |
|
Sep-21-08
|
| Etienne: Isn't it? The best in this is that I'm slomarko's double-account. |
|
Sep-21-08
|
| Splittet: I always knew slomarko and Etienne were the same person! |
|
Sep-21-08
|
| frogbert: etienne, who are you supposed to be a double of, really? has this been stated in clear print at any point? if i knew, i could do some investigation on my own, and then tell you whether you are a double or not. :o) |
|
Sep-21-08
|
| frogbert: splittet, i sort of understand why someone would accuse you of being a double - due to your nick, i mean. "split" or "splittet" sort of generate allusions to a split(tet) personality or similar, but otherwise i'm not fully up to speed here, either. |
|
Sep-21-08
|
| slomarko: ok now i'm convinced they aren't doubles. ROFL |
|
Sep-21-08
|
| Etienne: Well I have clearly stated that I am slomarko's double account. Of course slomarko will never admit it. |
|
Sep-21-08
|
| frogbert: slomarko, i fell terribly left out here! just tell us who etienne and splittet are doubles of, can't you? a) each other?
b) of me?
c) of you?
d) of someone else? who?
any of these we can rule out? :o) |
|
Sep-21-08
|
| frogbert: btw, you can probably rule out b) - as you probably noticed, i told jfq last night that i've only had two accounts ever on cg.com, and never used them simultaneously. my first account became like 3,5 years old and then died, and my current is just a little more than one year now... |
|
Sep-21-08
|
| Etienne: I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. I am the eggman, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus! |
|
Sep-21-08
 |
| whiteshark: The walrus was Paul! |
|
Sep-21-08
|
| whiteshark: ... but ... who's <Paul>? |
|
Sep-21-08
|
| Etienne: Paul is a dead men. |
|
| Sep-21-08 |
| navy boy: I don't feel that it is fair say Larsen was a 'board 4 type player'. He was the in form Westerner from 1967-69, including a streak of 7 tournament wins. Whereas Fisher had not played for the last 2 years.
To go +2 =1 -1 against the best the USSR could offer is quite a result and probably the pinnicale of his career. Besides, as Fisher said "I thought it would be easier playing Petrosian"! |
|
Sep-21-08
 |
| Augalv: <Fischer did allow Larsen to play board 1 in the 1970 USSR vs The World team competition.> Larsen said he wouldn't to play if he wasn't on board 1, then, the representatives of the organizing committee asked Bobby to allow Larsen to play board 1, but Booby asked them "and what about the prize?", "the prize is the same" the reps replied, and Bobby said "well in that case I accept" |
|
Sep-21-08
 |
| Ken MacGillivray: I came on to this page essentially to read comments about the wonder boy Magnus; today to this point in time, several posts but not a word about or any reference to Magnus Carlson. What is going on here? |
|
Sep-22-08
 |
| Rolfo: <Ken MacGillivray: I came on to this page essentially to read comments about the wonder boy Magnus; today to this point in time, several posts but not a word about or any reference to Magnus Carlson. What is going on here?> Don't worry, it sometimes takes some quiet days to recover, besides when someone praises Magnus too often a certain other one says *yawn* and boring :) |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1189 OF 1189 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
