Author: Vikrant Malvankar
Date: 22:52:16 10/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 2004 at 16:21:47, chandler yergin wrote: >On October 15, 2004 at 14:49:11, Jorge Pichard wrote: > >>Bobby Fischer would have fought this game to the bitter end. > >We know he's a Schizophrenic too. >Money never meant much to him, that's why he lived in Poverty for decades. >Peter has a wife, and a life, He is selfish like Kramnik and Kasparov and plays for money. He can never be a true Chess Lover like both of them. >and will be the next World Champion! sorry he will be beaten by Kasparov. He is not that good. Kramnik is not playing well. I could say that even after his first game where he won with black. > >> >>http://www.chessbase.com/games/2004/wcc12.htm > >Why take needless chances? The possibility of blunder? >There are very good practical reasons why Peter offered a Draw. >$$$$$$$$$$ Money money and money. Fisher was truely great when he looked at every game in isolation and faught till the end he knew winning and losing does not matter as long as he gets the satisfaction out of the game. My last comment may be wrong, winning may have mattered to him but he was a true chess lover. What today's GMs do is learning every variations by rote and Fisher thought it does not show the natural ability of the player.(maybe thats why he left the chessworld or is dead for chessworld). he promoted FR chess which is truely great. >The mark of Winner is knowing when to hold em, and when to fold em. >There are old Pilots and bold pilots, but NO old, bold Pilots. He is a true enemy of chess game.(winning is not everything, fighting spirit is not displayed here.) Regards Vikrant
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.