The Keene-Divinsky list

[Reinfeld]

I forgot to mention this Fischer book, his first:

http://www.amazon.com/Bobby-Fischers-Ga ... 0923891463

This came out in 1959. Highlight: RJF's original annotations to the Game of the Century. The original is hard to find. I have the H/C, which I picked up in a used shop for $10 a few years ago - luckiest purchase of my life. It retails on Amazon for $257 right now.

The version at the link is a P/B reprint, published by the strange Sam Sloan. Unaltered, apart from Sloan's bizarre intro.

I have the paperback version of No Regrets. Love that book.

Of course the real controversy revolves around the pirated/faked/genuine My 61 Memorable Games, published shortly after RJF's death. Search that out, and you'll quickly run into a controversy that burns an hour or two.

- R.

[LWSteve]

My rarest chess book that I own is by Andy Soltis
"The Stonewall Attack"

I have two copies both are 2nd editions revised.
They are very hard to find.

FYI - This is one of the best openings that GM's prefer to use against computers.

You too can crush your chess computer with this opening.
Just follow Andy's advice. He duh man.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Stonewall-Att ... all+attack

LWSteve

[Reinfeld]

the Novi Blitz tournamanet was covered in an obscure book
"Chess Meets of the Century" written by Fischer and Bjelica
great book

Steve - yes! Yessss...the precious...that's a light blue pamphlet, so anonymous. You always see stacks of those little things in the bookstores, next to three Pandolfinis, four Schillers and a few Reinfelds.

- R.

[Steve B]

the Novi Blitz tournamanet was covered in an obscure book
"Chess Meets of the Century" written by Fischer and Bjelica
great book

Steve - yes! Yessss...the precious...that's a light blue pamphlet, so anonymous. You always see stacks of those little things in the bookstores, next to three Pandolfinis, four Schillers and a few Reinfelds.

- R.

actually its an oversized Orange colored paperback
starts out blue.. but glows Orange when Soviet GM's draw near

Gollum...Gollum... Regards
Steve

[Reinfeld]

I have to needle Nick some more, just for amusement:

Oh another thing with stats. If I remember Fischer only lost a few games in the US Championship and even went through one winning every game because the competition comparatively speaking was a lot lower.

The Russian Championship was much harder since about 15 out of the top 20 players in the World played in those championships. So to compare percentages you would have to remove all those games from the players if you wanted to see a more accurate % or performance or just compare international tournaments careers or common opponent results.

It's all about who you played regards....

Here's the problem:

The first point is right - had Fischer played a higher percentage of games against uniformly stronger opposition (i.e. the Russians), his stats would be lower. Quality of opposition *does* matter.

But look - you can't measure solely by the second-best. You can't ding Fischer for outplaying lower-level competitors while crediting the Russians for not losing to them. The quality of competition in Russian championships was better overall, sure - but the best players were still the best players: Petrosian, Spassky, Tal, Geller, Korchnoi, Stein. It doesn't matter that they won by *smaller* margins. They still won. And Fischer beat them.

Every player is a product of his time. Chess changes. If the best player is miles better than everybody else, he loses ground on the all-time lists (see Morphy.) Any statistical analysis has to factor that in.

- R.

[spacious_mind]

I have to needle Nick some more, just for amusement:

Oh another thing with stats. If I remember Fischer only lost a few games in the US Championship and even went through one winning every game because the competition comparatively speaking was a lot lower.

The Russian Championship was much harder since about 15 out of the top 20 players in the World played in those championships. So to compare percentages you would have to remove all those games from the players if you wanted to see a more accurate % or performance or just compare international tournaments careers or common opponent results.

It's all about who you played regards....

Here's the problem:

The first point is right - had Fischer played a higher percentage of games against uniformly stronger opposition (i.e. the Russians), his stats would be lower. Quality of opposition *does* matter.

But look - you can't measure solely by the second-best. You can't ding Fischer for outplaying lower-level competitors while crediting the Russians for not losing to them. The quality of competition in Russian championships was better overall, sure - but the best players were still the best players: Petrosian, Spassky, Tal, Geller, Korchnoi, Stein. It doesn't matter that they won by *smaller* margins. They still won. And Fischer beat them.

Every player is a product of his time. Chess changes. If the best player is miles better than everybody else, he loses ground on the all-time lists (see Morphy.) Any statistical analysis has to factor that in.

- R.

Good Morning, Glad to see you all providing input to this interesting topic. I really have nothing against Fischer, after all he was my first hero too. Regarding Chessmetrics that is a main base I use as well. However if you look at Chessmetrics there is a 1 year list. 2 year, 3 year, 5 year, 10 year, 15 year and 20 year.
Overall I prefer to rate the 20 year higher than a shorter list under the title "All Time Greats" Fischer does not appear there because he stopped playing.
Rating him 12 on what I listed is as far as I can place him on an "all time great" list. Fischer put himself to the top of any 1 year list or 2 year list because of his fantastic spurt after loosing the Candidates in 1966. Would you rate Lebron higher than Jordan because he has now won two in a row? I guess some would but I would not.

6-0 against Taimanov
6-0 against Larsen
5.1/2 -2/12 against Petrosian

Those are all great results. But the Taimanov and Petrosian results are life savers. Take those away then compare his results with the Russians or if you wish keep them in there and compare against the Russians.

To me Spassky profiteered from an era where the best Russians were getting old with one seriously good younger Russian playing highly erratic with Tal. Karpov and Kasparov were not around.

So Spassky beats Petrosian to become World Champion and loses to Fischer in the next one. After that Spassky himself quickly falls off any rating charts in a matter of a few years. I do not consider Spassky to be one of the better world champions and is also rated much too high in my opinion.

Fischer deserves all the credit he did receive for becoming world champion but he did not sustain it, he did not even show that he was a worthy champion because he did not play a single game afterwards.

He avoided Karpov like the plague. Two years at the top 1970 - 1972 is not enough for me. Even Zukertort listed 64 on the Keene Divinski list had 56 months.

I just look at Fischer as two years at the very top which is too short compared to all the other World Champions. Below was his true competition or measurement.

After 1971 Candidates

Averbakh = 1
Botvinnik = 1
Bronstein = 2
Geller +4 = 2 - 5
Keres +4 = 3 - 3
Korchnoi +2 = 4 - 2
Petrosian + 8 = 15 - 4
Polugaevsky = 1
Smyslov +3 = 5 - 1
Spassky = 2 - 3
Stein +1 = 1
Taimanov +7 = 1
Tal +2 =5 - 4

+31 - 22

Pre 1971 Candidates

Averbakh = 1
Botvinnik = 1
Bronstein = 2
Geller +4 = 2 - 5
Keres +4 = 3 - 3
Korchnoi +2 = 4 - 2
Petrosian + 3 = 12 - 4
Polugaevsky = 1
Smyslov +3 = 5 - 1
Spassky = 2 - 3
Stein +1 = 1
Taimanov +1 = 1
Tal +2 =5 - 4

+20 - 22

Regarding books, I just listed complete player game books not any other books that they authored or any tournament books. The MacFarland books are my favorites of all publishers.

Alekhine's best book is a MacFarland book. Here you have in one Volume all his games. Same with Reuben Fine.

Regards,

Nick

[Steve B]

Rating him 12 on what I listed is as far as I can place him on an "all time great" list. Fischer put himself to the top of any 1 year list or 2 year list because of his fantastic spurt after loosing the Candidates in 1966. Would you rate Lebron higher than Jordan because he has now won two in a row? I guess some would but I would not.

Sorry Nick
but its hard to take seriously any list that places Efim Geller higher then Fischer
Efim Geller?
Cmon ..be honest
you are the Captain of a Chess team and your gonna tell me you would rather have Geller on your Team rather then Fischer?
i can just see that...
Hhmmm .lets see ..Fischer ..Geller...Fischer...Geller
gee this is a tough one..
ill go with Geller

i guess you did that because Geller is one of the few GM's with a plus score against Fischer
my guess is that if you asked any GM of Fischer's day...any...if they thought Geller deserves to be listed higher then Fischer on an "all-time greats" list they would probably dial 911 and call in an emergency
my bet is Geller himself wouldn't even make a claim like that


anyway..lists aside
i can make an argument that all of The Soviet Champions from Botvinnik through Spassky were simply products of the Soviet State which coddled chess players and gave them every opportunity to gel ..
Fischer lived basically in poverty and yet rose to defeat the entire Soviet Chess Machine

i think its impossible to ignor that fact when considering the greatest of their times

US Vs. USSR Regards
Steve

[spacious_mind]

Rating him 12 on what I listed is as far as I can place him on an "all time great" list. Fischer put himself to the top of any 1 year list or 2 year list because of his fantastic spurt after loosing the Candidates in 1966. Would you rate Lebron higher than Jordan because he has now won two in a row? I guess some would but I would not.

Sorry Nick
but its hard to take seriously any list that places Efim Geller higher then Fischer
Efim Geller?
Cmon ..be honest
you are the Captain of a Chess team and your gonna tell me you would rather have Geller on your Team rather then Fischer?
i can just see that...
Hhmmm .lets see ..Fischer ..Geller...Fischer...Geller
gee this is a tough one..
ill go with Geller

i guess you did that because Geller is one of the few GM's with a plus score against Fischer
my guess is that if you asked any GM of Fischer's day...any...if they thought Geller deserves to be listed higher then Fischer on an "all-time greats" list they would probably dial 911 and call in an emergency
my bet is Geller himself wouldn't even make a claim like that


anyway..lists aside
i can make an argument that all of The Soviet Champions from Botvinnik through Spassky were simply products of the Soviet State which coddled chess players and gave them every opportunity to gel ..
Fischer lived basically in poverty and yet rose to defeat the entire Soviet Chess Machine

i think its impossible to ignor that fact when considering the greatest of their times

US Vs. USSR Regards
Steve

Based on his results against Fischer I would No seriously as life time work I would. Geller has excellent results against almost every top player or former world champion. As Fischer between 68 and 72 no I wouldn't. I think the last time they played was in in 67 and Geller beat him.

Regards
Nick

[spacious_mind]

Steve,

PS back to dedicated's. If you and I had to play for the Hiarcs Cup of dedicated computers. And you got to pick first between two computers whose ratings are:

+4 = 2 - 5

Would you pick the plus 4 or minus 5?

Regards,

[spacious_mind]

anyway..lists aside
i can make an argument that all of The Soviet Champions from Botvinnik through Spassky were simply products of the Soviet State which coddled chess players and gave them every opportunity to gel ..
Fischer lived basically in poverty and yet rose to defeat the entire Soviet Chess Machine

i think its impossible to ignor that fact when considering the greatest of their times

US Vs. USSR Regards
Steve

You could say that but in all honesty we don't know the whole story behind this other than what we were told in newspapers and on the news.

Poverty is hard to compare. No one in the U.S. lived in poverty as compared to how they lived in Russia.

In the early 90's a few months after the borders opened I went on a business trip to Lithuania by car, because having to stop on the way in Poland. I can tell you as a fact because I have seen it, not just on this trip but also on previous business trips that I had in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and East Germany before the borders were opened, that relatively speaking the Polish, Romanians, Bulgarians and East Germans, lived like paupers compared to Western Europe or USA but like King's compared to what I saw on my trip to how the Russians lived as I drove through the countryside to get to Lithuania and saw their stores which were all almost empty of goods or produce compared to what we see here. Even Lithuania looked better than my Russia experience.

So it may be that celebrities received a better standard of living but to compare a Moskvitch car to a Ford is still something that is a million miles apart. To get better food and a better place to live over there compares to nothing to the food selection even the poorest person in the United States enjoys and neither do the living conditions.

I don't think that we have the ability to make this kind of comparison because we were not there.

Best regards,

[Steve B]

Steve,

PS back to dedicated's. If you and I had to play for the Hiarcs Cup of dedicated computers. And you got to pick first between two computers whose ratings are:

+4 = 2 - 5

Would you pick the plus 4 or minus 5?

Regards,

Ahhh the Geller + life time score Vs Fischer
i think it was +5 -3 =2
hmmm
i would go with the Computer that had a Fischer(Bronstein ) clock option

Regards
Steve

[spacious_mind]

Steve,

PS back to dedicated's. If you and I had to play for the Hiarcs Cup of dedicated computers. And you got to pick first between two computers whose ratings are:

+4 = 2 - 5

Would you pick the plus 4 or minus 5?

Regards,

Ahhh the Geller + life time score Vs Fischer
i think it was +5 -3 =2
hmmm
i would go with the Computer that had a Fischer(Bronstein ) clock option

Regards
Steve

Not trying to give Fischer less than he deserves so Bobby Fischer's Chess Games by Wade and O'Connell I see 4 wins for Fischer

Arghhh I see it. Game 143 is indexed under Efim but was actually a Sidney Geller so Steve is correct +5 - 3 = 2 it is!

Best regards,

[Steve B]

Steve,

PS back to dedicated's. If you and I had to play for the Hiarcs Cup of dedicated computers. And you got to pick first between two computers whose ratings are:

+4 = 2 - 5

Would you pick the plus 4 or minus 5?

Regards,

Ahhh the Geller + life time score Vs Fischer
i think it was +5 -3 =2
hmmm
i would go with the Computer that had a Fischer(Bronstein ) clock option

Regards
Steve

Not trying to give Fischer less than he deserves so Bobby Fischer's Chess Games by Wade and O'Connell I see 4 wins for Fischer

Arghhh I see it. Game 143 is indexed under Efim but was actually a Sidney Geller so Steve is correct +5 - 3 = 2 it is!

Best regards,

now Sidney Geller i can agree was far better then Fischer


We can also look at highest Elo Achieved
Fischer Clocks(excuse the pun) in at close to 2800
also he was the highest rated player of all time when he toped the active lists
Geller never got out of the mid 2600's i think?

actually Euwe wrote a whole book about this exact subject
"Bobby Fischer-The Greatest?''
he drew no final conclusions but he did consider many players of the past
im looking hard but i dont see him mentioning Geller

Squinting Regards
Steve
P.S.oh wait he does mention Geller
he shows a game where Fischer wipes him off the board in 22 Moves

[spacious_mind]

Steve,

PS back to dedicated's. If you and I had to play for the Hiarcs Cup of dedicated computers. And you got to pick first between two computers whose ratings are:

+4 = 2 - 5

Would you pick the plus 4 or minus 5?

Regards,

Ahhh the Geller + life time score Vs Fischer
i think it was +5 -3 =2
hmmm
i would go with the Computer that had a Fischer(Bronstein ) clock option

Regards
Steve

Not trying to give Fischer less than he deserves so Bobby Fischer's Chess Games by Wade and O'Connell I see 4 wins for Fischer

Arghhh I see it. Game 143 is indexed under Efim but was actually a Sidney Geller so Steve is correct +5 - 3 = 2 it is!

Best regards,

now Sidney Geller i can agree was far better then Fischer


We can also look at highest Elo Achieved
Fischer Clocks in at over close to over 2800
Geller never got out of the 2600's i think?

actually Euwe wrote a whole book about this exact subject
"Bobby Fischer-The Greatest?''
he drew no final conclusions but he did consider many players of the past
im looking hard but i dont see him mentioning Geller
Squinting Regards
Steve

Euwe - Geller score is + 1 - 1 = 2 games

Looking at Warriors of the Mind:

Smyslov + 11 = 31 - 7
Petrosian + 6 = 33 - 2
Spassky + 6 = 22 - 9
Keres + 6 = 22 - 7
Tal + 6 = 22 - 6
Korchnoi + 6 = 15 - 12
Polugaevsky + 4 = 19 - 9
Bronstein + 5 = 15 - 5
Taimanov + 7 = 11 - 8
Stein + 7 = 10 - 1
Averbakh + 1 = 13 - 1
Botvinnik + 4 = 5 - 1
Boleslavsky + 3 = 4 - 3
Fischer + 5 = 2 - 3
Karpov + 1 = 5 - 2
Kotov + 3 = 3 - 1
Reshevsky +1 = 3 - 1
Kasparov +0 =3 -1

I mean how can you not take this guy seriously?

Regards
Nick

[Steve B]

Steve,

PS back to dedicated's. If you and I had to play for the Hiarcs Cup of dedicated computers. And you got to pick first between two computers whose ratings are:

+4 = 2 - 5

Would you pick the plus 4 or minus 5?

Regards,

Ahhh the Geller + life time score Vs Fischer
i think it was +5 -3 =2
hmmm
i would go with the Computer that had a Fischer(Bronstein ) clock option

Regards
Steve

Not trying to give Fischer less than he deserves so Bobby Fischer's Chess Games by Wade and O'Connell I see 4 wins for Fischer

Arghhh I see it. Game 143 is indexed under Efim but was actually a Sidney Geller so Steve is correct +5 - 3 = 2 it is!

Best regards,

now Sidney Geller i can agree was far better then Fischer


We can also look at highest Elo Achieved
Fischer Clocks in at over close to over 2800
Geller never got out of the 2600's i think?

actually Euwe wrote a whole book about this exact subject
"Bobby Fischer-The Greatest?''
he drew no final conclusions but he did consider many players of the past
im looking hard but i dont see him mentioning Geller
Squinting Regards
Steve

Euwe - Geller score is + 1 - 1 = 2 games

Looking at Warriors of the Mind:

Smyslov + 11 = 31 - 7
Petrosian + 6 = 33 - 2
Spassky + 6 = 22 - 9
Keres + 6 = 22 - 7
Tal + 6 = 22 - 6
Korchnoi + 6 = 15 - 12
Polugaevsky + 4 = 19 - 9
Bronstein + 5 = 15 - 5
Taimanov + 7 = 11 - 8
Stein + 7 = 10 - 1
Averbakh + 1 = 13 - 1
Botvinnik + 4 = 5 - 1
Boleslavsky + 3 = 4 - 3
Fischer + 5 = 2 - 3
Karpov + 1 = 5 - 2
Kotov + 3 = 3 - 1
Reshevsky +1 = 3 - 1
Kasparov +0 =3 -1

I mean how can you not take this guy seriously?

Regards
Nick

well im not saying Geller was not a great player
just that he does not deserve to be listed higher then Fischer on any serious list

Giving Geller His Due Regards
Steve