It's 204 if you count every possible square...

You are correct Bluefin! When I play a game of Chess, I count the center 4 Emeralds and the 12 surrounding Diamonds! In Camelot or Chivalry the number of squares I count? Well, that is my secret! Good skill to ALL of us and Merry Christmas!

If you count the small squares, which I believe the question is referring to. There are 64 Correct answer is 64. When you glance at the board, or play a game the first thing you see are the small squares. In a game you are focused on the pieces which are directly connected to the small squares. Can't make it any plainer than that.

I thought they meant playable squares. Isn't the total number of possible squares 204? sooooo, since that answer was not one of the choices...

u.have,squares,of,squres,etc..so.64..is.not..right

This championship has an odd feel to it as it seems there's only a new champion because Magnus has stepped aside. Kind of similar to Fischer although Magnus had many more defenses of his crown. But he's still the best player on the planet until someone can prove otherwise.

Seems appropriate as India is the home of chess and the youngest ever world champion.....also,a sign of the times perhaps.. too much interference from engines for my liking....chess is a human game not an abstract mathematical problem for machines..

If It was me I would play. As long as I am paid. If I lose oh well. I lose either way so I might as well lose going down trying.

New World Champion GUKESH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i predict gukesh 8-5

1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 + 4^2 + ... + 8^2

:TY1:

He did play "in secret" and in not so secret. Just not FIDE events. See Polgar.

Muhammad Ali did quit training for a long time. In fact he was stripped of his title and both his physical appearance and lack of sharpness were evident when he came back. The man who lost to Frazier the first time was not near the man who flattened Cleveland Williams.

We don't know why Fischer refused terms at least not precisely why. Speculation stated as fact is worthless. His requests were not that extreme as compared to previous champions, but he was denied those requests.

As mentioned before, Fischer had physiological problems stemming from his childhood, his mother and the fact his father (Hans-Gerhardt Fischer) was not his father, instead his father was statistician Peter Nemenyi.

Since he won his world championship in Iceland 1972 Bobby expanded his focus past chess. He may have studied chess also but he didn't play publicly. [source Endgame by Frank Brady.] (Probably didn't play in secret either but that's neigh impossible to prove.)

If Mohammed Ali or any other famous boxer won a championship then quit training for a long time, would the champ be likely to retain his title?

Fischer refused the terms because we he knew he COULDN'T agree. He gave up his title in 1972/3 when he didn't stay in Chess shape.

He preferred to be a petulant diva who refused FIDE's match conditions to being the guy who sat there and took his lumps.

Very good point

Old news

Well, this would be the first time, if he had played Karpov, that he would play someone younger than himself. His run to the championship in 1972 was astonishing. He literally crushed everyone. 6-0 vs Taimanov and Larsen and then 4 pt wins over former WC Petrosian and WC Spassky. Fischer had, as we now know, serious psychological problems. He had achieved what he wanted so much to achieve--the World Championship, breaking the Soviet monopoly. What really was there left to accomplish?

As for GOAT, that's difficult to say because the game changes and the total amount of knowledge has increased tremendously since the advent of computers. Fischer's play though, when analyzed by computers, is incredibly accurate. In My Great Predecessors: Fischer Volume IV by Garry Kasparov there are several passages that say things like "and the computer cannot improve on Fischer's play for the final 14 moves."

For me, the 5 greatest players of all time, and I'm not ranking them, are Capablanca, Botvinnik, Fischer, Kasparov and Carlsen. Of course, there are good arguments to include Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Alekhine, Karpov and perhaps Anand.

Great response!

But why didn't his competitive ego override his apprehensions? I wonder if he just couldn't handle the psychological pressure. It's one thing to get to the top and another thing to keep someone from knocking you off. He played with house money against Spassky who had the Soviet Union Cold War machine breathing down his neck. I bet if Spassky had emerged as the challenger he would have taken the match because he already knew he could beat Spassky. Maybe he beats Karpov, but maybe he doesn't. Didn't seem to really want to find out. He might be the most talented player ever but I don't think he can be considered the GOAT without ever defending his title. It's not fair to all the other champions who retained their champion status multiple times against the top challengers of their era.

Karpov was a challenge but probably not quite ready for Fischer. Korchnoi should have beaten Karpov if he hadn't, unbelievably, chose to play a Pirc in the deciding game in their first match. Not a good choice against Mr Solid.

It's true Fischer demanded too much, but other champions have in the past-all those Botvinnik rematches for the World Championship. Fischer was wary of Soviet collusion (players would intentionally draw against each other) and the power they used to manipulate FIDE.

Did he fear losing to Karpov and potentially losing his hero status in the chess world? His justification for not defending his title was bogus. Draws are a part of chess. He and Spassky played to 11 draws and he was still able to win the championship. He must have sensed Karpov presented enough of a challenge that those draws could be decisive enough to swing the outcome. But if all their games were draws, he still would have retained the title.