Bobby Fischer


Does anyone think Bobby would have lost against Deep Blue. Bobby is paranoid, but where does that paranoia cross with the truth? I trust a grandmaster more than myself as he is obviously far more intelligent than me and whilst some might be paranoia, you can bet they are still out to get him. Bobby was honest and not after money ...ever...it was always the principle. Bobby would have wiped Deep Blue off the chess board and why....Honesty! The money would not tempt him!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v86/THX-1138/too-many-happy-meals.jpg

Thx BenjaminTheBlue

reply

[deleted]

Bobby would have been too old to beat deep blue in 97, his strength would probably have been around 2550.

The Bobby from 1972 would have had a good chance at beating deep blue, assuming IBN were not cheating, then it would be impossible.

reply

I've posted my thoughts about relative styles as effectiveness in such a match. Bobby's talent was for brilliancy, he made surprising and "new" moves that challenged classical thinking about the game. He was a terrific evaluator and as such one might say he would have been able to circumvent the computer's programmed logic. Then again attackin/slashing styles do not tend to work well against machines which are generally more programmed towards slow defensive play and thus perfectly suited to counter risky gambit style offenses which often rely on some minor human error to work. So by that line a player like Karpov would be best suited to play IBM's machine.

As for the money, don't be fooled Bobby held out of the 1972 match until the pot was increased to record levels and as such is credited with starting the boom in GM pay that lasted into the 90's and has since subsided. Spassky in the 1968 cycle made something like $1400 for winning the title Fischer would not play until the pot was significantly increased. He also insisted on the event being televised and drawing television ratings and income (a decision he later regretted as he would demand that the cameras be removed because he felt "watched"). Fischer was a great player but he doesn't need to be held up as the virtuous boy genius of chess. He was a genius, a great player, and crazy, but he also liked the cash. Would he have taken a pay off to lose? No, too much ego. But I would say that of Kasparov too.

reply

[deleted]

quote "As for the money, don't be fooled Bobby held out of the 1972 match until the pot was increased to record levels and as such is credited with starting the boom in GM pay that lasted into the 90's and has since subsided"




Ahh but it was still about the principle. Bobby had no need for money as he had no other hobby or life outside chess. He just couldnt stand other people making more money at his expense. That is different than David Beckham who likes the finer things in life.

reply

I agree. The notion that Fischer was somehow above money and played only for love of the game is absurd.

Just die you cowardly filth - jag001

reply