Bobby Fischer Goes Again On A Crazy King Walk Against Short Game 5/8
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 фев 2018
- Plenty or rumours emerged ever since these games between Fischer and Short took place. Whether this was the Legendary Fischer or not, be prepared to see once again a bizarre opening choice by Fischer. Was Fischer a risky type of player or just crazy?
Note: Please consider donating if you enjoy the content of this channel.
www.paypal.me/GMTheChessPuzzler 
Игры
I think he wants to get players out of their comfort zone , not to memorise but to play chess.
Exactly 💯
He has said 1000 times that memorization is what he hates in the game.
Lol
His concept of Fischer random has merit.
99% of chess games are the same. Fischer takes the king for a walk and uses the extra power, frees up space, and catches his opposition off guard. Supremacy.
“If the king doesn’t lead, how can he expect his subordinates to follow?”
I can believe this is fischer due to the evolved style he's playing totally unconventional total genius
Totally bro.
Agreed
Then you think Fischer was lying when he said he'd never played online?
@@GraemeCree I'm not sure
@@RubyMarkLindMilly Are you sure that I wasn't the Fake Fischer, playing without the benefit of an engine? Technically you're not sure.
Tal was a crazy player, but this fantom Fischer was just mad. I bet those would be some mind bending games if Tal played with Fischer from 2000s
I appreciate how Bobby Fischer wanted to break convention in the world of chess. He claimed he hated chess due to the stale nature of strict moves, most of which he memorized. Apparently he wanted to break convention and test opponents with his unpredictable patterns.
I actually get Fischer’s POV when it comes to chess. I was very active in chess when I was around 4-6th grade. I learned chess by learning the pieces’ moves and thats about it. I didnt learn from books or anything online. Hell, I didnt even know about chess openings. I didnt even know there was a name for Scholar’s Mate since I just learned it when someone did it to me. I just went in raw and rough af but thats why I was so hooked to it. I felt like I was discovering tactics and tricks on my own.
Those two years that I was really active made me a great young player (I even won our school’s little chess competition). Right now tho, Im really struggling. Not only I wasnt active on chess for about 12 years, everyone just knows basic principles that I didnt learn when I was younger. I have a really weak mid game right now, which was my strongest point back then since I was more flexible compared to now.
Was Fischer trying to show he disapproved of opening theory by playing like this perhaps?
he dislikes the immense emphasis on theory. says people play too much like robots and its killing the spirit of the game.
so yea, probably lol
Well, first of all, you would need to prove that it was him.
@@thedude5853 people interact like robots today too
Michael Wright who else in the world could smash short like this while at the same time exercising contempt for opening theory
@@logant44 an engine? Maybe but I think engines back then were not that strong, a human gm could have easily defeated it I agree it was Fischer
I agree that mr Fischer thought the game of chess had become a predictable set of moves based on predetermined theory. His play was likely conceived to thwart convention and challenge opponents concepts of tradition.
This wasn't Fischer, it was an engine. The game was played online and Fischer himself was asked if he played this game and he said no. Fischer hated chess in his later years and this story had been debunked. Also, I'd like to thank the late, great Bobby Fischer for speaking out against the terrorists in Washington DC.
@@myhatmygandhi6217 when he said "I hate chess" he meant he hated what it had become. At least I think that's pretty clear.
Fischer was a genius that played chess..not all grandmaster's are genius's
@Jim G: One wonders at what other activity Fischer could be considered a genius.
@@apointofinterest8574 well he actually was tested and scored a genius level IQ..he had an eidetic memory..he learned Russian pretty easily from reading chess magazines..and genetically speaking it ran in the genes..his biological father was a PhD physicist from Russia..and his mom was pretty smart too.
He is the legend of chess. Great vid!
Compliments to the narrator for his analysis! Great game!
I had seen these games, but had not seen your thoughts about them. Thank you - they were wonderful!
Anybody that has seen Cowboy bebop, the old guy in the chess episode is totally Bobby Fischer. Haha
Concise and clear analysis. Nice vid.
That was an awesome game.
Thank you so much for this video!
Is there any way you can please do a similar analysis of the last game (game 8) of this 8-game match between "Fischer and Short" ?
Thank you again.
If you covered all 8 games cam you give a link to them? E.g., I'm having trouble finding game 3
Extraordinarily game !! Gutsy
Really love these weird opennings
Great . Thank you sir.
Bobby said unequivocally it wasn’t him. Good enough for me.
Some say it was a computer. But what program in 2001 played like that? The transitions from the middle to endgame are human...no doubt in my mind.
The chess computer programs were actually quite strong at that time. One has to consider in here that the time controls were actually not so tight; it was not a rapid game or faster if I got it right. So if one runs a chess computer program he was actually able to get a vast amount of computing power on each move even if he had used an average computer system at that time.
How do you want judge that the transitions are "human like" or how do you want to distinguish a "human like transition into an endgame" from a "computer like transition into an endgame"? If a transition into an endgame position is beneficial for the computer program and if the transition is actually the same thing what a typical human player or grandmaster would have done he computer program chooses the same "style of play" in that case. That does not prove anything.
could we possibly be talking about a mixture of both just in case this was not Fischer?
@@martinmartin6300 I'm guessing you haven't programmed a code? The computing speed required to get the moves Fischer came up with is immense. The processing power in 2001 is not even remotely close to what it is today. And even stockfish has a tough time coming up with such moves. Worth mentioning, the bandwidth in 2001 wasn't good enough to transmit these kind of moves over the internet in such a short amount of time.
Don't forget, those were blitz games. So no computer was capable of doing that at that time.
@@PornobrillenAli they were bullet games, even faster...no computer, for sure...
BRAVO BOBBY!!! R.I.P.
great instruction
I guess Bobby would have said something if someone else was really playing. Bobby was not shy about speaking out!!
Beautiful game. Agree with Saikat
I thought Nigel Short denied he played Fischer in these games. It was on Finegold's channel.
If it was a computer program...the developer will claim it...imagine beating Nigel Short 8-0! The developer will take advantage of it, like when Fritz3 defeat Kasparov once..So It does not make any sense it has to be Bobby Fischer! And today in ICC the handler will be very proud to announce it and play with other GM's as well!
Also, a computer program wouldn't make such absurd, unseen choices and openings.
No I don't think it is pc, because splayed se moves it shouldn't
@@ELVIS1975T it is still possible to make some initial absurd (but not blunders) moves manually and then turn on a strong engine.
Two things I can see here: putting the other you out of their comfort zone and also I can see Fischer doing this JUST to make it a challenge.
fischer random!
This is my favorite chess game. Such galaxy brain moves.
I'm assuming not very many people could've beaten Short 8-0 back then. So I thinks it's probably BF
I think it was Fischer
I try several time to open like fisher. a disaster each time...
I’ve had quite a bit of success with it, 13/20 wins in 3 minute games. What I notice is white starts conventionally then pauses and wastes time when you do your second queen move. Some players attack, which is when Ive lost. Mostly they carry on development and trying to dominate the middle, pausing each time as you make the crazy king moves. By the third move some play quick like ‘this Guy is chucking the game’ others lose more time. I’d say most of the games I win, loads of pieces come off the board before black is well up positionally and white resigns, or white blunders (a lot) and misses knights and bishops controlling the centre from the outside, sweeping diagonals etc even misses hanging major pieces. At least in a three minute game. The piece structure is quite difficult to break down as white if black watches out for whites bishops. I have found, anyway.
Fischer was a genius who discovered the dark truth and paid with his life
i know judit pulsar had a friendship with bobby and played a lot of speed chess with bobby. she claims she never won a single game against bobby. she never claimed that bobby ever played these types of openings against her. i don't believe nigel short was playing against bobby. does anyone know the time controls that nigel was playing in these games ?
In an interview, FISHER said he never played online! He never played vs Nigel Short online...
now that's interesting X Y Z. .. can I plz ask you to direct me to a link?
Why do you care what some dude named Fisher has to say about these matches?
@@GMThechesspuzzler Susan Polgar said she played many blitz games with Fischer in the nineties when he went in exile in Hungary. When asked about the results she chose not to answer to respect Fischer's privacy. Susan Polgar can certainly assert better than anyone the level of Fischer's chess blitz playing in his latter years. Ask her if you can or someone who witnessed those games, her sisters for example.
@@user-bb1hj2lg2s - it wasn't an answer that only Fischer would know, because Short knew the answer when he asked.
So?
It should be a requirement to have tea and crumpets ready before watching.
Awesome
Seems like a very safe assumption
7:39 i think knight c5 takes pawn
bobby said he never played short online
Source?
Fischer *did* verify whether or not he played Short, he called it "bullshit".
Source?
Lol he didnt verify anything
Susan Polgar said she played many blitz games with Fischer in the nineties when he went in exile in Hungary. When asked about the results she chose not to answer out of respect for Fischer's privacy. Susan Polgar can certainly assert better than anyone else Fischer's blitz playing level in his latter years. Ask her if you can or anybody who witnessed those games.
She propably beat him 8-0......:)
Fischer said he could beat any woman with knight odds. If he lost even one of these games it must have been soul crushing.
There has not only won, there has him pained,.Same in early times around 1969/72 with the complettly russuian Chess elite. All off them was pained from him, and punishment em all. incredible.. omg... "king ride again lol.." And the harmonic, he bring back the runner to baseline, and decid the game with an move there looks like has nothing to do. impossible.. to understod. Fisher was complettly crazy as end, he means when the players lost, the jude has the should lool.... there has hate on u, and imaging your pain on the board lool...
About 2 years ago when i was 13 i wrote my own engine after studying engines like deep blue and stockfish. Engines are amazing, very good players of chess but what they are not is perfect. They are fallible. Here i will post a full explanation of why(and how) stockfish could be beaten by a sufficiently intelligent player read on if you are interested:
Part 1, Why a tic tac toe engine will never be beaten: Interestingly tic tac toe engines and chess engines work in very similar ways, based off of LDT's or logical decision tree's a rudimentary form of AI. essentially they ask the question out of all the possible things I could do right now which one gives me the best result. Engines work by taking this question a little deeper. An engine at depth 1 asks, what is my best move. At depth 2, what is the best move considering my opponent's responses? At depth 3, what is the best move considering all the ways I could counter my opponent's responses to the move I'm about to play. This is mathematically represented by what's known as the minimax algorithm. In tic tac toe no game can be more than 9 moves long so the engine has to only look at maximum 9 moves ahead. In this manner tic tac toe can be easily solved by a chess engine. From the opponent's first move it already knows how the entire game will develop to either a win or a draw.
Part 2, The Fatal difference: Essentially game playing engines must know what the best move is. But how do you define "Best". In tic tac toe, its easy look 9 moves ahead and of you're winning its the best move. But since chess has more possible combinations than atoms in the universe this cannot be applied to chess. This is what makes a chess engine fallible, a fatal flaw in an otherwise logically godly machine. Since we cannot simply calulate to the end of the game, we must evaluate to some position and then evaluate how good that position is. These board evaluations are predetermined by humans, based on things like material difference or positional advantage, usually it's some combination of the two. Another fatal flaw is that the minimax algorithm assumes the other player will play like an engine.
Part 3 conclusion: this is why chess will always be beautiful, it cannot be solved. We can avoid the problem of board evaluation completely by coming up with an entirely new approach. Coding intelligence as NN's (neural networks). These NN's can be far more intelligent than a human(in a specific field as General AI hasn't been invented yet) and can evaluate much faster and can work tirelessly for as long as required. Combining the best parts of human intelligence with computer speed and efficiency, these bots will be the ones that truly dominate chess, not the minimax powered algorithms. We already see this happening with NN based approaches like alpha zero. In short, the best way to play isn't what the engine says it is what can be derived from sheer genius and creativity. This is why we see Fischer wipe the floor with regular GM's despite playing them playing the "best"(most recommended by the engine) move. We are on the brink of a revolution in chess. A shift from the logical calculating like a computer to the true brilliance and creativity of genius. The thing is most chess players don't know this yet but if you have read and understood this whole thing, now you do.
Thank you for explaining the inner workings of an engine!
Human-like neural networks are, indeed, the future.
@@user-ky1sk7kr6t indeed, the creativity of the human mind paired with the processing power of the computer is the perfect combination for chess.
I think Nigel's play is really weak .. so he just keeps loosing.
Anti meta Fischer
THIS IS NOT FISCHER...i wish people would stop pretending that it is.
Why not?
@@innosanto fischer said so
Source?
Fischer was right about a financially oppressive group of people. This is far more important than chess.
Wink wink. Yes indeed.
Seems like computer moves. He's playing like 25 moves ahead...
Back in those days computer was not that strong!
A lame horse. lol
Annoying
Can you speak a little slower please
I find that if you turn off 2x speed, the speech slows down
Fischer didn't play this game, he said so himself.
Absolutely zero evidence these games were played by Fischer.
I don’t understand next time use American subtitles. I don’t speak english. I speak American
How do you subtext something that is more of a noise than a language?
He doesn’t speak American he speaks British
Game is perfect. Voice is slow and awful. Dislike.
You have poor taste. The likes are overwhelming.
Voice is great
Perfect for dummys like me who need time to process