Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: How Kortchnoi could have remained in the FIDE top 100 list (O/T)

Author: Bob Durrett

Date: 08:18:50 01/07/04

Go up one level in this thread


On January 07, 2004 at 09:50:39, Mark R. Anderson wrote:

>On January 07, 2004 at 08:44:36, J. C. Boco wrote:
>
>>Korchnoi continues to play even though his rating keeps dropping.
>>
>>I respect him more than any other player.
>
>I agree, I respect the "old lion" greatly also, including his aggressive play.
>Yes, he keeps playing.  Bless him, he's the real "Energizer Bunny."  Look at
>Fischer, who complained for years that the Russians did not play enough when
>they were world champs, and then when HE won, he did not play one single game in
>competition.  What a hypocrite!  I totally do not respect him (even beyond his
>offensive, anti-semitic, paranoid rants).
>
>Above all, to say that Fischer is still rated as 2780 is completely ludicrous!
>Any of the top players now would thrash him completely with little difficulty.
>Chess theory, especially the openings, have changed much in the last 30+ years.
>Also, Fischer is much older and has not played competitive chess for 32 years.
>That's a h*** of a long layoff for a world-class player!  When he beat Spassky
>(who is a nice person, which Fischer can't claim), Spassky himself at that time
>had just gone out of the top 100, and even that was 12 years ago.  Fischer's
>so-called "rating" of 2780 puts him at the level of Kramnik.  Can anyone here
>really even entertain a fleeting thought that the Fischer of right now would put
>up serious resistence against Kramnik?  And that's what ratings are supposed to
>reflect .... a player's current strength, not how they played more than 30 years
>ago.  By FIDE's logic, Muhammad Ali should be ranked #1 in boxing right now.
>
>FIDE should de-list players who have been inactive for 2 or 3 years, much less
>32.  To put a player inactive for 32 years as the #2 player in the world is an
>insult to current, competing, hard-working, world-class players, such as
>Kramnik, Anand, Shirov, Bareev, Svidler, etc.  They have demonstrated their
>great strength repeatedly and recently, not over 3 decades ago.  Well, sorry,
>enough of that .... I grow weary of "Fischer worship" when he does not deserve
>it.  Fischer played many beautiful games, but that was 32-45 years ago.  Let's
>admire (in chess terms) people like Kasparov and Kramnik who continue to put
>their reputations on the line frequently, even against our beloved chess
>programs!
>
>Mark Anderson

In the main, I agree with you.  I doubt, however, that this is any kind of
hangup for the top players.  One is reminded of USCF's "life masters."  There is
nothing wrong with honorary titles and ratings.  His rating should be viewed as
honorary and not actual. No one knows his current playing strength.

If you wish to admire a GM, then you should admire Fischer.  A study of his
published games will chase away any doubts.  Admiring a GM for his chess does
not require admiring the GMs personality or idiosynchracies.

: )

Bob D.





This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.