Originally posted by nonnymoose
If you are in a tournament -- like the situation you describe -- you are "trying to win the tournament".
Originally posted by mixo
I don't think Kasparov would like to be compared with Fischer. The latter was insane. Besides, as professionals, their career and income depends on winning. For me RHP is just a hobby so I don't mind the ...[text shortened]... kull about the place. Maybe those champions would do the same on RHP with no money at stake?
I didn't say 'tournament'; I said 'games'.
Fischer won his first two candidates matches in 1971 by the score of 6-0. He won a US Championship by the score of 11-0 (and 3 points or more ahead of the field, if memory serves). He did not need such a wide margin of victory to win those matches and tournaments. He could have been merciful at the end, coasting home with a few quick draws, secure in the knowledge that nobody could catch up to his score. But that was not his style. He played to crush his opponents, regardless of tournament or match standing.
Even 'casual' games were serious for Fischer. My book of Fischer's complete games records some blitz encounters with GM Reuben Fine. In one game, Fischer opened with the Evans' Gambit and just destroyed Fine in a mere 18 moves. In a casual game!
"Mercy" is a word that is not in Fischer's vocabulary.
Same goes for Alekhine. As John Hillery said, "He was not satisfied by winning the tournament with a small margin, but played every game with a fierce will to win." Alekhine was one ruthless SOB, even when it came to simuls. He would play blindfold simuls without losing a game.
Kasparov, in
My Great Predecessors said that he models his style on the play of Tal, Alekhine and Fischer. As far as chess play goes, he not only does not mind comparing himself with Fischer, but emulates him.