Bobby Fischer interview

@PCoderch
This was before the world championship. he pushed for the win but never ever got a win. if he were like you said playing for draw every game he would have 5 draws and that would say they were pretty equal. And there is no good reason anyway. when you are playing for a win in chess you gotta know the risks. anything else would just be stupid

@TheSchandorff Most games between granmasters end in draws. Fischer could have played safe and draw the games he lost and win in the overral score, but he chose to play risky to win instead of drawing and lost. This is not hard to understand. I don't get why you guys can't understand this simple concept. Anyways, this is my last time addressing this issue. I am tired of arguing this.

Then within context he we was weaker, because he lost. Often there are strong players who lose to weaker ones, because they blunder. They might be higher rated or a generally stronger player, but blunders are what makes a weaker player. So in a game where a generally stronger player loses to a generally weaker one, the stronger player was actually weaker because of the blunder, *within that game*. One either wins or loses or draws. Hypothetical "could've won IF xxx" means nothing.

@peepeeland No, let me explain this to you in a way your brain can understand. Suppose Fischer and Spassky played a championship of 25 games. Fischer wins8 games loses 3 and ties the next 5. If he keeps tying games by playing safe, he will win. But instead, he chooses to play ultra risky and loses the next 9 games giving the win to Spassky. He could have won by staying on the defensive and never making risky moves, but he wanted to win spectacularly instead of by points so he loses.

@PCoderch Strength is determined statistically by the no. of win/loss/draw over a period of time. If I beat a 2500 player but lose to a 1200 player, my play strength would be somewhere inbetween. However, if judging strength by knowledge of only single games, I would be thought to play less than 1200 or greater than 2500. So ON A PER GAME BASIS, strength is determined by play, not long term stats. So rationalization with long term stats, can't be used to make a player "stronger" for lost games.

@peepeeland The thing is that Fischer would have had a better win/draw/loss ratio than Spassy if he played safer and didn't make risky moves. He made risky moves whilst Spassky made safe moves, thus Spassky achieved a better win/draw/loss ratio than Fischer. This is what you don't understand. When Fischer decided to finally play safer against Spassky, he achieved a better win/draw/loss ratio and took the World championship. Fischer was always the better player.

@PCoderch WOULD HAVE had better xxx *IF* xxx. That's hypothetical. I do get what you're saying, but it's just silly to say one is stronger, even if they lose. That's ego talking and not rational thinking. One may have beautiful games and generally stronger play, but if one loses, they are weaker for the lost games. Nothing can change that.

@peepeeland He is the stronger player, but he loses because he pressed for the win by being ultra risky with his moves, instead of winning by just tying games ad nauseum and having a superior overral score..

@PCoderch Think of it this way: If you beat me 5 times in a row, would you not argue that you're the stronger player? Or does it make sense for me to go and bring my record of highly ranked wins to rationalize that I'm actually the better player, even though I lost to you? I don't care if I'm the world's highest ranked player. If you beat me- FOR THOSE GAMES- you played better, and are therefore the better player. FOR THOSE GAMES.

@peepeeland I'll just let it go. It's not that important to me.