ELO Office 8.0 deutsch serial key or number
ELO Office 8.0 deutsch serial key or number
Learn how SAP Crystal Solutions can help you meet your business challenges
a. Crystal solutions
What are SAP Crystal Solutions?
Products which are branded “SAP Crystal” are software tools used for data analysis and data reporting. Current products include: Crystal Reports, Crystal Server, Crystal Reports for Visual Studio, Crystal Reports for Eclipse, Crystal Reports Viewer, Crystal Reports for Enterprise, >Crystal Reports for SAP Business One and Crystal Dashboard Design.
What do they do?
* SAP Crystal Reports allows a report designer to bring data in from various sources to create a document where the data is formatted into a design of their choosing, such as an invoice, sales or operational report, marketing letter or some sort of analytic.
* SAP Crystal Server provides a platform through which you can share documents (such as SAP Crystal Reports files) with end users. With Crystal Server you can schedule reports to be pushed out to recipients as PDF email attachments, or access the reports securely and refresh the data entering parameters using a browser or mobile app (download the free app from Apple App Store: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/sap-businessobjects-mobile/id441208302 or from Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sap.mobi).
* Single case for SAP Crystal Reports 2020 gives you access, in English, to our customer support engineers via an online ticketing process and is valid during 12 months from the date of your purchase for a single issue. There is no software to download or install. Single case for SAP Crystal Reports 2020 cannot be used for Crystal Server, Crystal Reports for Enterprise, or older versions of Crystal Reports. Single case for SAP Crystal Reports 2020 cannot also be used for product errors or third party issues.
* SAP Crystal Reports for Visual Studio and SAP Crystal Reports for Eclipse are free add-ons for developers using .NET and Java respectively to embed reporting capabilities into their applications.
* SAP Crystal Reports Viewer is a free desktop application (Windows or Mac) allowing recipients of Crystal Reports files (.rpt file extension) to open the document and interact with the data saved with the file, including search, drill-down, print and export – but not refresh.
* SAP Crystal Reports for Enterprise is an edition of report designer which uses a meta layer for data sources (a universe) for report design. The software for Crystal Reports for Enterprise is included with Crystal Server, Edge or BOE and the installation requires a Crystal Reports keycode of the same version as the BI Platform (see table for version information).
* SAP Crystal Reports for SAP Business One allows users of SAP Business One to create pixel perfect reports and dashboards by connecting exclusively the SAP Business One data model with the Crystal Reports environment. You can launch Crystal reports and dashboards directly from SAP Business One. If you want to connect to additional data sources including SAP Business One data sources, you will need to acquire SAP Crystal Reports 2020.
Where can I find a Crystal solution overview?
You can download the Crystal Solution technical summary: https://www.sapstore.com/medias/SAP-Crystal-Solutions-summary.pdf
you can download the Crystal Solution business summary: https://www.sapstore.com/medias/SAP-Crystal-Solutions-Business-Goals.pdf
You can download the Crystal Solution cost summary: https://www.sapstore.com/medias/SAP-Crystal-Solutions-costs.pdf
You can download the pixel-perfect reports summary: https://www.sapstore.com/medias/SAP-Crystal-Solutions-Pixel-perfect-reports.pdf
Where can I download a Crystal solution overview in other languages then English?
Spanish, French, German, Portuguese and Chinese versions are available here: https://www.crystalreports.com/whatis/#lp-pom-block-1187
You can download the Crystal Solution whitepaper: https://www.sapstore.com/medias/BI-Whitepaper-Meeting-the-Challenges-of-BI-for-Small-Enterprises.pdf
What other Crystal solution materials are available for download?
We offer documents like product availability matrix or installation, administration and user guides at: https://www.crystalreports.com/documents/
How do Crystal Reports and Crystal Server work together?
Start with Crystal Reports to create a report. Crystal Server distributes reports by pushing reports out, for example as a scheduled email attachment. Crystal Server also provides a portal for end users to access content securely via browser or mobile app to view, enter parameters, refresh and print or export a report.
What can Crystal Reports and Crystal Server do for me?
If you need to understand your business; if you need the data for an action plan; if you want to provide information on an aspect of your business, then the analytic capabilities of Crystal Reports will be valuable to you. Once you have created a highly formatted, print-ready report, chances are that others want to use the report too. Crystal Server provides the ability to distribute the report to end users.
Who typically uses SAP Crystal Solutions?
People who use Crystal Reports are usually those who use data a lot in their day-to-day role, such as Database Administrators, IT, Finance, Accounting, and Business Power Users. The people who log on to the portal provided by Crystal Server to access pre-built content are usually end users, business users, and management; in other words, consumers of reports who want answers to business question already asked on their behalf (by those who created the report with Crystal Reports).
Do you have some use case scenarios?
You can view summary videos for these hypothetical use-cases: grocery store, car dealership, manufacturer, small office, mobile worker, government entity.
Who makes Crystal Reports?
Starting with Quick Reports for Windows 1.0 in 1992, the makers of versions of Crystal Reports have been Crystal Services (from 1992), Seagate Software (1994), Crystal Decisions (2000), Business Objects (2003) and now SAP (2008).
How many people are using Crystal products?
More than 1.000.000 users worldwide are using Crystal products on a regular, ongoing basis.
What is the history of Crystal solutions?
You can find more details out the last 30 years here: https://www.crystalreports.com/history/
b. Licensing
What are the different licenses?
* Crystal Reports 2020, Named User License: The desktop products, Crystal Reports and Crystal Dashboard Design, are each sold on a Named User License basis; one unique license is required for each person using the software. That individual as the Named User License holder may install the software to any number of computers (including concurrently), any number of times for their exclusive use with a valid, non-expiring license code; a Named User License cannot be shared with another individual.
* Crystal Server 2020 licensing. Crystal Server has two types of license: Named User License (NUL) and Concurrent Access License (CAL). Licensing determines access to the interfaces where documents are shared, available for viewing: BI Launch Pad, SAP Mobile BI app. Crystal Server 2020 1 NUL includes a single license of the content creation tool Crystal Reports 2020. Note: CAL includes Publishing, a feature where the data in a report is unique for each recipient (such as invoices and statements). Publishing to an unlimited number of unique recipients is included with Crystal Server 2020 CAL.
What is included in the Crystal Server 1 NUL License?
The SAP Crystal Server 1 NUL license includes 1 named user license of SAP Crystal Server 2020 and 1 license of SAP Crystal Reports 2020. It also comes with support for mobile access on iOS devices. The 1 named user license (1 NUL) allows usage by a single, specific individual user only.
Where can I watch a video about licensing options?
Crystal Server Licensing options (video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcbJtHxIdFg
What are the minimum and maximums for Crystal Server 2020 licensing?
Crystal Server 2020 deployments require 1 NUL as a minimum. Purchased separately from NUL, CAL is added to a NUL deployment. Crystal Server 2020 NUL can be added together up to a maximum of 100 NUL. Crystal Server 2020 CAL is sold in increments of 5 and can be scaled up to 50 CAL.
Where can I get detailed information on Crystal Solutions licensing?
Crystal Solutions licensing is explained here: https://www.sapstore.com/medias/SAP-Crystal-Solutions-Licensing-Whitepaper-v16.pdf
What are the SAP Software Usage rights?
* Software usage rights (see pages 31 - 33 for Crystal): https://assets.cdn.sap.com/agreements/product-use-and-support-terms/sur/sap-software-use-rights-english-v1-2018.pdf
* BusinessObjects Software Clickwrap Agreement (US, English): https://assets.cdn.sap.com/agreements/general-terms-and-conditions/sap-businessobjects-software-clickwrap-agreement-us-english-v7-2011.pdf
c. Product versions
How are Crystal Reports versions named?
Crystal Reports included version numbering with the product name up to Crystal Reports Xi (version 11). Subsequent versions include the year of release with the product name; Crystal Reports 2008 is version 12, Crystal Reports 2011 is version 14.0, Crystal Reports 2013 is version 14.1, Crystal Reports 2016 is version 14.2, and Crystal Reports 2020 is version 14.3. All versions of Crystal Reports designer are 'Developer' editions. The last version which had Standard, Professional and Developer editions was Crystal Reports Xi. The Standard and Professional editions were discontinued with the release of Crystal Reports 2008. Crystal Reports Xi Developer edition remains available and does everything that Standard and Pro could do - and more.
What is version 13 of Crystal Reports?
Crystal Reports for Visual Studio and Crystal Reports for Eclipse share the designation of version 13 of the Crystal Reports product family. These are tools available for developers to create basic reports and to embed a Crystal Reports engine to run report files (.rpt format) in an application they have developed using a Crystal Reports software development kit (SDK). The version numbering for these free downloads of the SDK and runtime are version 13.
What versions of Crystal Reports are officially supported by SAP?
Crystal Reports for Visual Studio, Crystal Reports for Eclipse, Crystal Reports for Enterprise, as well as Crystal Server 2016, Crystal Server 2020, Crystal Reports 2016 and Crystal Reports 2020.
What version of Crystal Reports works with my version of Crystal Server or SAP BusinessObjects Business Intelligence Platform?
| SAP Crystal Reports | SAP Crystal Server | SAP BusinessObjects Business Intelligence Platform |
| 2008 (version 12) | 2008 | XI 3.1 |
| 2011 (version 14.0) | 2011 | 4.0 |
| 2013 (version 14.1) | 2013 | 4.1 |
| 2016 (version 14.2) | 2016 | 4.2 |
| 2020 (version 14.3) | 2020 | 4.3 |
These are the combinations tested and supported by SAP. Products needs to be at the same Support Pack level. For example: Crystal Reports 2020 with Support Pack 00, is supported with SAP BusinessObjects Business Intelligence Platform 4.3 with Support Pack 00
What versions of Crystal Reports are available through the SAP Store?
Crystal Reports Xi R2* (version 11.5), Crystal Reports 2008* (version 12.1), Crystal Reports 2011* (version 14.0), Crystal Reports 2013 (version 14.1), Crystal Reports 2016 (version 14.2), and Crystal Reports 2020 (version 14.3) are available from the SAP Store: http://www.sapstore.com, or from Amazon in various markets. View Crystal Solutions comparison document here.
* Although still available for legacy customers, these versions are no longer supported
Product | Version | Link to add to an SAP Store cart | Officially compatible with | Release date | End of support | Notes |
Crystal Reports 2020 | 14.3 | https://www.sapstore.com/cart/add/checkoutV2/99043-v1 | Windows 10, 8.1 | 12 June 2020 | 30 June 2027 | Product Availability Matrix |
Crystal Reports 2016 | 14.2 | https://www.sapstore.com/cart/add/checkoutV2/99043-full | Windows 10, 8.1, 7 | 08 March 2016 | 31 December 2024 | Product Availability Matrix |
Crystal Reports 2013 | 14.1 | https://www.sapstore.com/cart/add/checkoutV2/61086 | Windows 10, 8.1, 7 | 29 August 2013 | 31 December 2020 | Product Availability Matrix |
Crystal Reports 2011 | 14.0 | https://www.sapstore.com/cart/add/checkoutV2/61088 | Windows 10, 8.1, 8, 7, Vista, XP | 26 November 2011 | 31 December 2017 | Product Availability Matrix |
Crystal Reports 2008 | 12.x | https://www.sapstore.com/cart/add/checkoutV2/61090 | Windows 8.1, 8, 7, Vista | 06 October 2008 | 31 December 2018 | Supported Platforms |
Crystal Reports Xi R2 (2005) | 11.5 | https://www.sapstore.com/cart/add/checkoutV2/60050v | Windows 7, Vista, XP | 24 November 2005 | 30 June 2011 | Supported Platforms |
d. Languages
What languages are supported?
The Crystal Reports 2020 User Interface is localized into these languages: English, French, German, Japanese, Spanish, Simplified Chinese, Italian, Dutch, Russian, Korean, Traditional Chinese, Portuguese, Swedish, Polish, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish, Thai, Czech, Hungarian, Slovakian, Turkish, Romanian, Slovenian.
Arabic*, Hebrew*, Ukrainian*, Kazakh*
* Only supported in Crystal Reports DHTML Viewer, when using Internet Explorer and Firefox
g. Product maintenance
Is There a Support/Maintenance Program for Crystal Reports (Desktop Products)?
There is no maintenance or software assurance program, customers move to new versions by buying a discounted upgrade license. There is no phone-line support for Desktop products, they are supported via our free online forum. On the community pages, create a free account and post a new discussion to the forum. There, one of our developers will respond and direct you to the best resource for a fix.
When customers have a technical issue, they can make use of these resources:
For Crystal Reports: Crystal Reports User Guides: https://help.sap.com/viewer/p/SAP_CRYSTAL_REPORTS
Crystal Reports Tutorials: Official Product Tutorials – SAP Crystal Reports 2011 / 2013: http://scn.sap.com/docs/DOC-8514
Free Technical help: SAP Crystal Reports Community – how to ask a Question: https://www.sap.com/community/about/questions-and-answers.html
For Visual Studio .NET SDK: SAP Crystal Reports, version for Visual Studio: https://answers.sap.com/tags/01200615320800001270
For Eclipse SDK: SAP Crystal Reports, version for Eclipse: http://www.sap.com/product/analytics/crystal-reports-eclipse.html
For Crystal Reports (report design): https://answers.sap.com/tags/01200314690800000341
I have Crystal Server 2008/2011/2013/2016 licenses under maintenance. Can I upgrade to Crystal Server 2020 at no extra cost?
Yes. You can upgrade your licenses of Crystal Server under your maintenance agreement through the SAP Support Portal (S-User login required). The license type and quantity, as well as the functionality, of your maintained version is preserved when you upgrade to the latest version. Any new features of the new version, such as bundled copy of Crystal Reports 2020 for NUL or unlimited publishing and mobile access for CAL, are not included (except for Crystal Server 2016 1 NUL); a purchase will be required to attain new features of Crystal Server 2020. For details refer to the tables on pages 14 and 15 of the Crystal Solutions licensing document, or read this summary blog: https://blogs.sap.com/2020/04/26/sap-crystal-server-2013-2016-important-product-information/.
1. FACTS
2. BUY
a. Free versions
What SAP Crystal Solutions products are available for free?
SAP Crystal Reports Viewer 2020, SAP Crystal Reports for Visual Studio and SAP Crystal Reports for Eclipse are available as free downloads.
* SAP Crystal Reports Viewer 2020: https://www.sap.com/cmp/td/sap-crystal-reports-viewer-trial.html
* SAP Crystal Reports for Visual Studio: https://www.sap.com/cmp/td/sap-crystal-reports-visual-studio-trial.html
* SAP Crystal Reports for Eclipse: https://www.sap.com/cmp/td/sap-crystal-reports-eclipse-trial.html
d. Discounts
What discounts are available?
* There is a discount for volume based on the quantity of items purchased per transaction. For example, if you buy a quantity of two to nine licenses of Crystal Reports through the SAP Store, a volume discount of 10% is applied at the checkout (including a mix of Crystal Reports versions and new and upgrade options), 15% for a quantity of 10 to 49, 25% for 50 plus.
* There is a discount for the purchase of Crystal Reports 2020 as an upgrade from an earlier version of Crystal Reports (see next section).
* Limited offers which may be available to you, depending on territory, are shown through this site: https://www.crystalreports.com/offers/
Does the Order Come with Media?
Physical Media is no longer available. All orders are Electronic Software Delivery (ESD).
a. Crystal solutions installation
Are you having trouble installing the software?
Installation and set-up video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtWI263qKCk&feature=youtu.be
Crystal Reports Installation Instructions (simplified): https://blogs.sap.com/?p=137952
If your download does not match the files in that instruction, please initiate a chat with www.crystalreports.com or www.sapstore.com or contact your vendor.
If you are still experiencing difficulties, please follow this guide: http://help.sap.com/businessobject/product_guides/cr2013/en/cr13sp3_cr_installgd_en.pdf
If you are still experiencing the INS00140 Error after following the above guides, it can be a conflict with third party software that uses the same .dll name for keycode decryption. Please follow these steps:
* Search the machine for all local instances of “Cryptocme2.dll” (to see what other software may be using it)
* Rename the *.dll extension of the identified cryptocme2.dll files, using *.OLD (for example)
* Reboot machine
* Log on as Admin account
* Run the installation again and it should pass the keycode check
* Rename cryptocme2.old files back to cryptocme2.dll
3. USE
4. HELP
a. Ask your own question
Where can I ask a question for technical support?
You can post your question to the SAP Community for free here: https://answers.sap.com/questions/ask.html
I want help with the purchase process or have a question about an order I made through the SAP Store. Who do I get in touch with?
You can reach out to the SAP Store team through the Contact Us widget on the side of the screen on the site: https://www.sapstore.com/
I have a question not covered here. How do I get in touch with someone?
Best is to use customercare@sap.com
Table of contents
1. FACTS
a. Crystal solutions
b. Licensing
c. Product versions
d. Languages
e. Service packs
f. Compatibility
g. Product maintenance
h. Support levels
i. Crystal for developers
1. FACTS
a. Crystal solutions
b. Licensing
c. Product versions
d. Languages
e. Service packs
f. Compatibility
g. Product maintenance
h. Support levels
i. Crystal for developers
2. BUY
a. Free versions
b. Trial versions
c. Purchases on SAP Store, amazon, Alibaba or Flipkart
d. Discounts
e. Upgrades
f. End user license agreement (EULA)
3. USE
a. Crystal solutions installation
b. Lost license keys
c. Videos and Tutorials
d. Common error messages
e. Knowledge base articles (KBA)
4. HELP
a. Ask your own question
b. Talk to a product expert
c. Talk to a reporting expert
d. Talk to a license and upgrade expert
To access the FAQ details, please use your desktop computer.
Stay Connected
↑ Back to table of contents
↑ Back to table of contents
↑ Back to table of contents
↑ Back to table of contents
↑ Back to table of contents
↑ Back to table of contents
↑ Back to table of contents
↑ Back to table of contents
↑ Back to table of contents
3. USE
a. Crystal solutions installation
b. Lost license keys and registration
c. 'How to' Guides
d. Videos and Tutorials
e. Common error messages
f. Knowledge base articles (KBA)
g. Tips and Tricks
4. HELP
a. Ask your own question
b. Talk to a product expert
c. Talk to a reporting expert
d. Talk to a license and upgrade expert
e. Helpful links
f. Strategic direction
g. Tips and tricks
Is it possible to edit the SQL generated by Crystal Reports?
When you build a query, Crystal Reports automatically generates the SQL (Structured Query Language) that corresponds to the query and saves it as a Crystal SQL Command object. The SQL statement generated by crystal reports cannot be edited, but it can be viewed. In the Query Panel, click View SQL. The SQL dialog box appears. It contains the SQL that constitutes your query. Use this option when you want to check the SQL as you create a query.
When creating a report, can you use your own SQL statements?
You can create your own SQL query by using the tool “SAP Crystal SQL Designer”. There you can insert your own SQL statement. It will be saved as a .qry file. To use it in a report, select the “Crystal SQL Statement” button instead of using the “Database” button. To maintain optimum report processing speeds, avoid using formulas (whether Crystal or Basic syntax) within record selection formulas. Instead, replace the original formula with an equivalent SQL Expression field, and then incorporate the SQL Expression field into your record selection formula.
How do I find the version of a Crystal Reports .rpt file?
When you have the report open in Crystal Reports, navigate through this menu path: Report / Performance Information / Report Definition. The 'File Format Schema' shows the version number (click here to see version information). Crystal Reports for Visual Studio is version 13.x, Visual Studio 2008 is 10.5, Visual Studio 2005 is 10.2.
What chart types are available?
You can find the list of available chart types here: https://www.sapstore.com/medias/SAP-Crystal-Solutions-Chart-types.pdf
Where can I find the complete user guide for SAP Crystal Reports 2020?
You can find the user guide in various languages here:https://help.sap.com/viewer/dfc124becfa845ffa91b1e717b20e3ec/2020/en-US
Frequently Asked Questions
Get into the details of the products and access all you
need to know about the Crystal solutions.
SAP Crystal Solutions
The secure and market-proven Analytics and Reporting solution for your PC starts at 495 USD per user.
How is your experience with this page?
e. Service packs
Where can I find more information about available service packs?
All information related to service packs are available here: https://www.crystalreports.com/download/
↑ Back to table of contents
f. Compatibility
Is Crystal Reports backwards compatible?
Yes. You can open reports created with earlier versions, such as Crystal Reports 9 and higher with the later versions, such as Crystal Reports 2020. Any changes or new reports you create with Crystal Reports 2020, can only be saved as a version 14.3 .rpt file. It is also worth noting that data connections will need to updated to use 64-bit data connections: https://www.crystalreports.com/datasources/
Can I use an old report with Crystal Server 2020?
It is recommended to migrate the report to be the same version as Crystal Server. Do this by opening the .rpt file with Crystal Reports 2020, updating the data connection to 64-bit, then save. The report will save as a 14.3 version .rpt file. You may want to ‘Save As’ and rename the copy to archive the document in the original, older version until all content has been migrated to your satisfaction.
Can I use a Crystal Reports 2020 report with Crystal Server 2016?
It is recommended you use Crystal Reports 2016 to create/modify reports run through Crystal Server 2016, especially because Crystal Reports 2020 uses 64-bit data connections, previous versions of Crystal Reports are 32-bit applications.
Can I use Crystal Reports 2020 to edit a report which is run through a legacy application?
Maybe. If your application uses a Crystal Reports runtime engine of version 13, then you can probably use Crystal Reports 2020 for report design with updated 64-bit data connections. If your application uses an earlier version of Crystal Reports runtime, then it is recommended to use the same version of Crystal Reports as the designer to match for compatibility. It is best to check with the developer of the application for their recommendation.
How are versions of Crystal Reports different?
Click on this link to view a comparison document: https://www.sapstore.com/medias/SAP-Crystal-Comparisons-of-Features-by-Version-XI-2016-.pdf
Can Crystal Reports 2020 be installed to a virtual environment?
Yes, see page 9 of the Crystal Reports 2020 PAM for details. Please ensure the installation is compliant with the Named User License agreement wherever the software is installed.
What data sources can Crystal Reports 2020 report from?
For the full range of data sources and the connections you can use, you can refer to the Crystal Reports 2020 supported data sources document: https://www.crystalreports.com/datasources/
Is there a 64-bit Version?
Yes, Crystal Reports 2020 is a 64-bit native application. All other previous versions of Crystal Reports available through the SAP Store are 32-bit applications.
What are the hardware specs for SAP Crystal Reports 2020?
Minimum Client Hardware Requirements:
- Processor: Dual core 64-bit CPU.
- Memory: 2 GB RAM.
- Disk space: Default Installation English only (2 GB) / All languages (4GB).
- Screen resolution of [1024] x [768] is recommended. Note that touch screen interactions are not supported.
Operating System Requirements:
- MS Windows 10, 8.1.
- MS Windows Server 2019, 2016, 2012 R2.
Minimum System Requirements:
- SAP Crystal Reports 2020 requires a 64-bit Windows operating system
What are the hardware specs for SAP Crystal Server 2020?
Minimum Server Hardware Requirements:
- Processor: 2.0 GHz dual-core 64 bit CPU.
- Memory: 16 GB RAM memory.
- Disk space: Default Installation English only (30+ GB) / All Languages (30+ GB).
Operating System Requirements:
- MS Windows Server: 2019, 2016, 2012 R2.
- Linux: SUSE x86_64 SLES 12,15 / Red Hat x86_64 EL 7.7, 8 / Oracle Linux 7.2, 7.5, 7.7
Minimum System Requirements:
- Browsers: IE 11 / Chromium Edge / Firefox ESR 60.x, 68.x / Safari 11-13 / Google Chrome
- For details: see the Supported Platforms for BI Platform 4.3, the technology Crystal Server 2020 is based on: https://support.sap.com/content/dam/launchpad/en_us/pam/pam-essentials/SBOP_BI_43.pdf
↑ Back to table of contents
h. Support levels
What Support is there available for Crystal Server?
For all customers of Crystal Server under maintenance who require technical support, please contact the SAP Customer Interaction Center at 1-800-677-7271 or service@sap.com. The SAP Service Marketplace portal can be found at https://support.sap.com/home.html. Please note an S-User ID and password will be required to access support. S-User IDs are only available with a valid Maintenance and Support Contact. If this has been lost or you did not purchase maintenance and support initially: please escalate with your vendor as they will need to be involved in order to achieve a proper resolution.
Where can I get support for my product?
If you have purchased Crystal Server and have a current maintenance agreement, you can access the SAP Service Marketplace to create a support ticket for an engineer to work with you to resolve the problem: https://support.sap.com
Also available for customers under maintenance and also through the SAP Service Marketplace is 'Ask an Expert Peer' for up to 20 questions a month can be asked for 1:1 consultation with an SAP partner at no extra charge: https://support.sap.com/en/my-support/product-support/ask-expert-peer.html
You can access free support through the SAP Community: https://www.sap.com/community/topic/crystal-reports.html
Can I buy support for a specific case? (currently unavailable)
* When Crystal Reports 2016 or Crystal Reports 2020 customers have a technical issue, they can make use of this paid resource: single case for SAP Crystal Reports. Your purchase of single case for SAP Crystal Reports gives you access, in English, to our customer support engineers via an online ticketing process and is valid for one full year from the date of your purchase, excluding weekend, for the single issue. There is no software to download or install. It can be bought here: https://www.crystalreports.com/singlecase/
You can purchase single case for SAP Crystal Reports through the online store (for supported versions only) in North America (USD), UK (GBP), Germany (EUR), France (EUR), and APJ.
When is support ending for the different versions?
* Crystal Reports 2020: 31 December 2027
* Crystal Reports 2016: 31 December 2022
* Crystal Reports 2013: 31 December 2018
* Crystal Reports 2011: 31 December 2015
* Crystal Reports 2008: 31 December 2015
* Crystal Reports Xi R2 (2005): 30 June 2011
↑ Back to table of contents
i. Crystal for developers
What is Available for a Customer Developing a Custom Application?
Crystal Report runtime is free for internal use, and as for what version you run, we strongly suggest using the latest version to ensure compatibility. Make sure your version of CR matches your version of Visual Studio or if the application is JAVA based use the version for Eclipse.
* SAP Crystal Reports, version for Visual Studio: https://www.crystalreports.com/crystal-reports-visual-studio/
* SAP Crystal Reports, version for Eclipse: https://www.crystalreports.com/crystal-reports-eclipse/
* SAP Crystal Reports .NET SDK Developer Guide: https://help.sap.com/viewer/0d6684e153174710b8b2eb114bb7f843/SP21/en-US/a2cb609cfb6949b6a67b2effe32a347e.html
What is Crystal Reports, Developer edition?
Up until Crystal Reports 2008 (version 12), there were three different editions of Crystal Reports available: Standard, Professional and Developer. All three editions function as fully-featured designers and also use the same software; keycodes determine the type of license and unlock the software accordingly:
* Standard = only connects to Excel and Access data sources
* Professional = same as above, also unrestricted data connectivity
* Developer = same as above, also runtime license
In summary, there is no runtime licensing with any editions other than Crystal Reports Developer. There is only one edition of Crystal Reports 2008, Crystal Reports 2011, Crystal Reports 2013, Crystal Reports 2016, and Crystal Reports 2020 – they are all Developer editions.
Crystal Reports Software Development Kits (SDKs) and runtime are available as free downloads for Crystal Reports for Visual Studio and Crystal Reports for Eclipse
I want to develop an application with Crystal Reports for Visual Studio for use within my company. Is it still free?
Yes. The downloads of the SDK and the runtime software are free. The runtime license for an internally developed and internally deployed application is also free for desktop (thick) or server (thin) client deployments.
A contractor developed the app with Crystal Reports for Visual Studio for our company, is the runtime still free?
Yes, if a contractor developed a one-off application for your company exclusively, this counts as an internal deployment.
I want to develop a desktop application I will sell to external customers. Is this free too?
Yes, the Crystal Reports for Visual Studio runtime is free for thick client applications for external deployments, including for commercial use.
When do I need to sell a license of Crystal Reports with my application for runtime licensing?
If you develop an application which uses the Crystal Reports for Visual Studio or Crystal Reports for Eclipse runtime engine in a server-based application deployed to your external customers’ server(s), then each customer will need a license of Crystal Reports 2020 (or Crystal Reports 2016, Crystal Reports 2013 or Crystal Reports 2011) for the required runtime license.
Can I bundle licenses of Crystal Reports with my external, server-based application for runtime license?
Yes, you can consider becoming an OEM partner (especially if you wanted a version of Crystal Reports designer restricted to use only your data source).
What's the fine print on Crystal runtime licensing?
Refer to this document for more information on Crystal Solutions licensing, especially the table at the bottom of page 4.
Where's the supported platform information for Crystal Reports for Visual Studio?
Click on this link to view the Product Availability Matrix (PAM) for Crystal Reports for Visual Studio
Where's the supported platform information for Crystal Reports for Eclipse?
Click on this link to view the Product Availability Matrix (PAM) for Crystal Reports for Eclipse
I have a web application running PHP. What have you got for me?
We offer SDKs and runtime for .NET and Java only.
↑ Back to table of contents
b. Access to free trials
What SAP Crystal Solutions products are available for a free trial?
SAP Crystal Reports 2020 is available for a 30-day trial, SAP Crystal Server 2020 has a 60-day trial.
* SAP Crystal Reports 2020: https://www.sap.com/cmp/td/sap-crystal-reports-trial.html
* SAP Crystal Server 2020: https://www.sap.com/cmp/td/sap-crystal-server-trial.html
What’s the difference between a trial and what I would install in production?
Aside from price, the length of time you can use the software for is the only functional difference between a free trial and paid production installations; temporary use with a trial, or non-expiring with a production installation. There is no limitation to functionality and there is no use of a watermark when using Crystal Reports software with a temporary or production license.
Can I convert a trial into a production installation?
Yes, you already have the full software installed, you just need to unlock its continuous use by removing the temporary key and replacing it with your non-expiring production code in the Help>License Manager menu.
How do I get started with a trial?
You can use this video to help you get started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VMSNNsEhw8. The temporary key will count down from the date of installation.
↑ Back to table of contents
c. Purchases on SAP Store, amazon, or Alibaba
Buy Crystal Solutions (Crystal Reports, Crystal Server) on the SAP Store
SAP Store: https://www.sapstore.com/
Steps to purchase Crystal Solutions from the SAP Store
Crystal Reports: https://www.sapstore.com/medias/SAP-Crystal-Reports-Step-by-Step-SAP-Store-purchase.pdf
Crystal Server: https://www.sapstore.com/medias/SAP-Crystal-Server-Step-by-Step-SAP-Store-purchase.pdf
Buying Crystal Reports on 3rd party marketplaces
amazon US: https://www.amazon.com/sap
amazon UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/sap
amazon Germany: https://www.amazon.de/sap
amazon France: https://www.amazon.fr/sap
amazon Italy:
PMC
Mathias Franz
1Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
Emily McLean
1Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
Jenny Tung
1Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
2Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
3Duke University Population Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA
Jeanne Altmann
4Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
Susan C. Alberts
1Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
Abstract
Linear dominance hierarchies, which are common in social animals, can profoundly influence access to limited resources, reproductive opportunities and health. In spite of their importance, the mechanisms that govern the dynamics of such hierarchies remain unclear. Two hypotheses explain how linear hierarchies might emerge and change over time. The ‘prior attributes hypothesis’ posits that individual differences in fighting ability directly determine dominance ranks. By contrast, the ‘social dynamics hypothesis’ posits that dominance ranks emerge from social self-organization dynamics such as winner and loser effects. While the prior attributes hypothesis is well supported in the literature, current support for the social dynamics hypothesis is limited to experimental studies that artificially eliminate or minimize individual differences in fighting abilities. Here, we present the first evidence supporting the social dynamics hypothesis in a wild population. Specifically, we test for winner and loser effects on male hierarchy dynamics in wild baboons, using a novel statistical approach based on the Elo rating method for cardinal rank assignment, which enables the detection of winner and loser effects in uncontrolled group settings. Our results demonstrate (i) the presence of winner and loser effects, and (ii) that individual susceptibility to such effects may have a genetic basis. Taken together, our results show that both social self-organization dynamics and prior attributes can combine to influence hierarchy dynamics even when agonistic interactions are strongly influenced by differences in individual attributes. We hypothesize that, despite variation in individual attributes, winner and loser effects exist (i) because these effects could be particularly beneficial when fighting abilities in other group members change over time, and (ii) because the coevolution of prior attributes and winner and loser effects maintains a balance of both effects.
1. Background
How do linear dominance hierarchies arise and what determines the positions of individuals in these hierarchies? These questions are central to our understanding of the evolution of social behaviour because dominance hierarchies, which are common in social animals (e.g. [1–6]), can profoundly influence access to limited resources, and can also influence health and reproduction [7–10]. In addition, it has been suggested that studying the development of linear hierarchies in animals might generate a better understanding of the dynamics of hierarchy formation in humans [11]. However, the proximate mechanisms underlying hierarchy formation are still poorly understood.
Two primary hypotheses propose proximate explanations for how linear hierarchies emerge and change over time. The ‘prior attributes hypothesis’ posits that individual differences in traits such as body size, fighting ability, personality (e.g. boldness) or social attributes (e.g. family background) directly predict dominance ranks [12], and that individual dominance relationships will be purely based on dyad-level differences in individual attributes. The ‘social dynamics hypothesis’ posits that hierarchy formation is based on social processes that go beyond the dyad level. For example, ‘winner and loser effects’ describe the phenomenon in which winners tend to become more likely to win in subsequent encounters, and losers tend to become more likely to lose [13–16]. Importantly, wins and losses change not only the chances of winning against the current opponent, but also affect the chances of winning against other individuals. Because of this far-reaching impact, winner and loser effects can generate linear dominance hierarchies via self-organization dynamics, even in the absence of individual differences in ‘prior attributes’ [17–20]. However, the two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. Even when individual attributes influence the outcome of agonistic interactions, social self-organization dynamics might contribute to the establishment of and change in dominance ranks during an individual's lifetime, and thus play an important role in influencing individual fitness.
While several studies have demonstrated that self-organizing social processes can indeed contribute to hierarchy dynamics (e.g. [11,21]), they have generally relied on experimental designs that artificially eliminate or minimize individual differences in fighting abilities (e.g. by matching age or body size among opponents). This approach can increase the power to detect an impact of non-dyadic social dynamics on hierarchy dynamics, but leaves unclear whether and to what extent such social dynamics shape hierarchy dynamics under natural conditions, where differences between competing individuals in fighting abilities may be small or large.
Here we test whether social dynamics influence male hierarchy dynamics in wild baboons, which exhibit linear dominance hierarchies in combination with pronounced inter-individual differences in traits that are known to influence dominance rank [7,22]. Studying social self-organization dynamics in natural conditions is particularly challenging because of the need for appropriate analytical tools that can deal with the lack of experimental control [23]. To address this challenge, we developed a novel statistical method that focuses on detecting winner and loser effects. Specifically, we extended the Elo rating method [24–26], which was originally developed for the calculation of cardinal dominance ranks. Our extensions of this method allowed us to overcome the key problem that temporal changes in individual attributes can generate behavioural patterns that are also expected for winner and loser effects. For instance, a focal individual that experiences a growth-related increase in fighting ability might start to win and then keep winning against individuals to whom it previously lost, simply because it was growing physically. In this case, the initial win would predict subsequent wins, but there would be no causal effect of winning per se; rather, changes in wins and losses would be entirely caused by growth-related changes in fighting ability. In the case of a true winner effect, the same temporal pattern of wins and losses would emerge: an unexpected win would increase future winning chances. This example shows that simply documenting a measurable impact of wins and losses on future wins and losses is necessary but not sufficient to identify winner and loser effects under natural conditions. Our method allows us to overcome this problem by analysing temporal variation in the impact of wins and losses on future wins and losses, and determining whether temporal changes in the effects of winning and losing can be attributed to variation in winner and loser effects, and not to changes in prior attributes (see §2c(i)).
In addition, we aimed to investigate whether an individual's genetic background can influence winner and loser effects. In our study population, variance in genetic background arises from natural admixture between this population of primarily yellow baboons (Papio cynocephalus) and neighbouring populations of anubis baboons (P. anubis) [27–29]. Yellow and anubis baboons interbreed freely at all known zones of contact, show little evidence of dysgenesis, and produce viable and fertile offspring [28–30]. However, these taxa are morphologically distinct [27,31], and previous work on our population found evidence that males with more anubis admixture have higher mating success [32]. The possibility that genetic variation might affect a suite of traits associated with male agonistic behaviour led us to hypothesize that ancestry might influence winner and loser effects.
2. Material and methods
(a) Analytical framework for identifying winner and loser effects
To assess systematic variability in the extent to which winning and losing predicts future wins and losses, we developed a novel statistical modelling approach that is based on the Elo rating method [24–26]. This method is particularly suitable for our purpose because it tracks changes in winning probabilities for all dyads in a group of individuals. Extensions of the original method allowed us to analyse variation in the impact of wins and losses on future wins and losses while controlling for (i) variation in winning probabilities among dyads and (ii) temporal variation of winning probabilities within dyads. In the following section, we first briefly describe the original Elo rating method to provide context for our approach. Second, we describe our extensions of the Elo rating method. The core of our extensions is a change in the assumption that the central parameter ‘k’ of the Elo rating method is a constant: we allow k to vary depending on other variables such as aggression intensity.
(i) The Elo rating method
The Elo rating method was originally developed for calculating cardinal dominance ranks and tracking changes in these ranks over time. In the Elo rating method cardinal dominance ranks are measured by the so-called Elo scores, where higher Elo scores indicate more dominant individuals. The method assumes that the difference in Elo scores between two individuals predicts the probability of each of them winning an agonistic encounter with the other. This means that by tracking outcomes of dominance interactions, the method automatically tracks changes in expected winning probabilities among all dyads of individuals.
Specifically, Elo scores are updated at each observed dominance interaction between two individuals, such that the winner receives a ‘winner's bonus’, which increases their Elo score, and the loser pays a ‘loser's tax’, which decreases their Elo score. The absolute amount of the winner's bonus and the loser's tax are equal to each other, and depend on two quantities: (i) the predicted probability that the winner wins (prior to the encounter) and (ii) a predefined constant k (see details below).
Similar to previous studies [24–26], we assumed that given the Elo scores EloA and EloB of two individuals A and B, the probability pA that A wins is given by a sigmoid function:
The Elo rating method evaluates in consecutive order all observed agonistic interactions. For each interaction, it reassigns Elo scores for all individuals. All individuals C who do not participate in an interaction i are assigned the Elo score of their previous interaction (EloC,i = EloC,i−1). By contrast, the two individuals who interact, A and B, receive new Elo scores: the winners receive a winner's bonus and losers pay an equivalent loser's tax. Specifically, if in an interaction i individual A wins against B with a predicted probability pA,i then new Elo scores EloA,i and EloB,i are given by
and
Thus, the absolute values of the winner's bonus and the loser's tax are identical because k is a constant. Generally, Elo scores do not change much if the observed outcome was highly expected (i.e. when pA,i is close to 1) and Elo scores change maximally when the outcome was very unexpected (i.e. when pA,i is close to 0). This model makes intuitive sense: expected outcomes indicate that the assigned Elo scores captured the current dominance relationship well, and therefore do not need extensive updating, whereas unexpected outcomes indicate that the assigned Elo scores did not capture the current dominance relationship well, and therefore need updating. The implemented winner's bonus and loser's tax are based on the assumption that current outcomes are predictive of future outcomes (i.e. that winners tend to keep winning and losers tend to keep losing).
The constant k determines the maximum amount of change in Elo scores following a single encounter. When k is set to a small value, single outcomes generally have only a small impact on changes in Elo scores. Small values of k thus assume that single wins and losses are not very predictive of future wins and losses. When k is set to larger values, single outcomes tend to have larger impacts on changes in Elo scores, which implies that single wins and losses should be more predictive of future wins and losses. However, the most appropriate value of k for a given dataset is usually unknown.
Taken together, the structures of equations (2.2) and (2.3) show that Elo scores are updated based on two assumptions: that the impact of wins and losses on future wins and losses (i) varies with the previously predicted chance of winning and (ii) does not vary with any other variable (because k is assumed to be a constant).
(ii) Extensions of the Elo rating method
In our extensions of the Elo rating method, we relaxed the assumption that k is a constant. We allowed k to vary depending on other variables, such as individual attributes or aggression intensity. As a consequence, the impact of wins and losses on future wins and losses can now vary as a function of other variables. In addition, if k varies among individuals the winner's bonus and the loser's tax within an interaction can now differ. Moreover, for a given winning probability the winners' bonus and the losers' tax can vary over time, e.g. due to temporal changes in aggression intensity.
In our implementation, we aimed to preserve the main property of the Elo rating method that only winners receive a ‘bonus’ and only losers pay a ‘tax’. This requires that k is a positive real number. For that purpose, we modelled k as the response variable of a linear model passed through a logarithmic link function. Thus, for each interaction i with winner A and loser B, and for a set of n predictor variables x1, x2 ,…, xn, and associated coefficients β0, β1 ,…, βn, the new Elo scores are now given by
and
In an additional extension to the original Elo rating method, we used maximum-likelihood fitting to (i) generate estimates of a given set of coefficients β0, β1 ,…, βn and (ii) test for the significance of individual predictor variables using likelihood ratio tests. Maximum-likelihood fitting is possible because the likelihood of the observed data (i.e. the result of agonistic encounters) can be calculated, given a set of model parameter estimates (i.e. β0, β1 ,…, βn). Specifically, equation (2.1) gives, for each observed agonistic encounter i, the predicted probability pA,i that the winner A wins (and the loser B loses). Thus, the overall log-likelihood logLall of the model is given by
and is maximized by a set of parameter estimates that most consistently predicts wins and losses in our dataset.
(b) Data collection
To implement our extensions of the Elo method, we used data on agonistic interactions collected between 1996 and 2011 by the Amboseli Baboon Research Project. Agonistic data consisted of 15 917 observations of decided dyadic agonistic encounters among 152 adult males living in five distinct social groups [33]. These data were collected two to three times per week in each group during 5–6 h visits. Each visit included a full group census to record individual membership, identification of peri-ovulatory females, and a record of the outcomes of all observed agonistic interactions and of observed injuries. Agonistic data were collected ad libitum [34] while observers were conducting random-order focal animal sampling on all adult females and juveniles in a given social group. This approach ensured that observers continually moved to new locations within the group in a random order, observing all animals on a regular rotating basis. Thus, our procedure for data collection eliminated the possibility that observers spent more time watching particular subsets of the social group, or moved in a biased manner through the group, detecting only the most dramatic events.
We used data only on decided dyadic encounters, which occurred when a clear winner and loser could be identified. These included three different types of encounters: (i) encounters in which the winner gave only aggressive gestures and the loser gave only submissive gestures, (ii) encounters in which the loser gave submissive gestures and the winner gave no aggressive or submissive gestures, and (iii) encounters in which neither individual gave aggressive or submissive gestures but the winner clearly spatially displaced the loser.
(c) Data analysis and implementation of our extensions to the Elo method
First, we confirmed that the Elo rating method captures known patterns of dominance relationships among male baboons. We observed that in 97.5% of all interactions, the Elo scores correctly predicted the outcome direction (i.e. cases in which the winner had a higher Elo score). This result confirms the existence of linear dominance hierarchies in male baboons and the suitability of using the Elo rating method for calculating cardinal ranks. In addition, the relationship between age and Elo scores is consistent with the pattern reported in previous studies: with increasing age young males tend to rise in dominance rank, but rank subsequently tends to decline as individuals age pass their prime and senesce (figure 1; electronic supplementary material, figure S2).
Relationship between age, Elo score and genetic hybrid score (which measures degree of anubis background; see main text). Plotted values are based on all observed agonistic interactions. See the electronic supplementary material, figure S2 for more detailed illustrations for different groups and time periods. (Online version in colour.)
Second, documenting winner and loser effects in a natural setting fundamentally depends on ruling out the possibility that temporal variation in the impact of wins and losses on future wins and losses can be attributed to variation in prior attributes, a possible alternative to the ‘social dynamics’ hypothesis. Our approach to this problem relied on the observation that winner and loser effects should be generally stronger when aggression intensity is higher (e.g. because outcomes of more aggressive interactions contain more reliable information on an individual's relative fighting ability [19,25]). To rule out prior attributes as an explanation for any increase in winner and loser effects when aggression intensity was high, we focused on variation in aggression intensity that was environmentally induced (e.g. that resulted from variation in the availability of mates). If variation in environmentally induced aggression intensity predicted variation in the impact of wins and losses on future wins and losses, winner and loser effects would be implicated rather than prior attributes.
Therefore, the main aim of our analysis was to test whether variation in environmentally induced aggression intensity predicted variation in k, which captures the impact of winning and losing on future wins and losses. Because our observational data did not include a direct measure of variation in environmentally induced aggression intensity, our analysis involved two steps (see flowchart in electronic supplementary material, figure S1). As described in the following section, we first performed an analysis to estimate an index of environmentally induced aggression intensity. In our main analysis, we then used this index, among other variables, as a predictor of k (see section after next, ‘Statistical analysis of agonistic data’).
(i) Estimation of environmentally induced aggression intensity
We expected that environmentally induced aggression intensity would vary between observation days because the competitive regime that males experience—and hence aggression intensity—should change with the number of adult males and the number of peri-ovulatory females in the group. To quantify this relationship, we used the occurrence of injuries as an indicator of the level of severe aggression. We then estimated an aggression intensity index based on the number of adult males and the presence and number of peri-ovulatory females in a group on a given day.
To do so, we ran a Poisson regression using a logarithmic link function to estimate how the number of males and peri-ovulatory females affected injury risk to males. We modelled the observed number of injuries in adult males in a given group, for a given day, as the response variable (n = 4383 group-days in all; 151 with reported injuries). We used three predictor variables: the number of adult males, the presence of peri-ovulatory females (coded as 0 and 1) and the number of peri-ovulatory females (ordinal). We included both the presence and number of peri-ovulatory females to take into account the possibility that injury rate could increase with the presence of peri-ovulatory females, but then decrease with an increasing number of peri-ovulatory females (due to reduced competition). Because we wanted to estimate injury rate per encounter, we included the number of agonistic interactions among adult males as an offset in the model. We conducted our statistical analysis in R [35] using the function ‘glm’. We used the estimated model parameters to calculate an aggression intensity index ad for each observation day d:
where nm,d is the number of adult males, efd indicates the presence of peri-ovulatory females and nef,d is the number of peri-ovulatory females on day d. This index can be interpreted as the expected number of injuries resulting from each agonistic interaction in a group on a given day. More specifically, this index captures variation in number of injuries that is explained by environmental variation (i.e. variation in number of males and presence and number of peri-ovulatory females). The estimated coefficients (equation (2.7)) essentially indicate that injuries are more likely when more males compete over fewer peri-ovulatory females.
(ii) Statistical analysis of agonistic data
To test the hypothesis that winner and loser effects influenced the outcomes of dominance interactions in the baboons, the main predictor variable in our analysis was the aggression intensity index for the group-day of a given agonistic encounter. Specifically, we predicted that more intense aggression would produce a larger winner's bonus and larger loser's tax, which should result in a positive relationship between the value of the aggression intensity index and the response variable k.
We also included four additional predictors: (i) the outcome of an encounter (scored 1 for a win and 0 for a loss), which allowed k to differ for winners and losers; (ii) the degree of anubis ancestry for each individual (i.e. the individual's ‘genetic hybrid score’), which was previously estimated based on genotype data from 14 microsatellite markers [28,29,36] and which allowed us to test for possible effects of genetic background on interaction outcomes; (iii) each individual's age (in years), because age is known to affect competitive ability in male baboons [7,22]; and (iv) the number of days ‘inactive’ (i.e. the number of days since the last observed agonistic encounter involving a given individual), which controlled for variation in the frequency with which males engaged in agonistic interactions (note that this variable was only calculated for residents; for immigrants this variable was set to 0).
We also tested all pairwise interactions of the encounter outcome (win or loss, for each individual) with the other four predictors listed above (aggression intensity index, genetic hybrid score, age and days inactive). These interactions allowed us to test whether these predictors had different effects for winners and losers. Finally, we tested an interaction between the aggression intensity index and hybrid score. This additional interaction was included to investigate the possibility that the relationship between k and competitive context depends on the level of a male's anubis ancestry.
Likelihood calculations were performed separately for each of the five social groups that we studied, and log-likelihood values for each group were summed to obtain the overall log-likelihood for the whole dataset. For all males in all social groups, initial Elo scores were set to zero. This initial value also applied to males who immigrated into the social group at some time during the study period. In addition, individuals who left the group for more than 90 days and then returned to the same group were treated as new immigrants, and their Elo score was set to zero at time of immigration. To avoid any biased Elo scores for immigrants, after each updating of Elo scores we centred all Elo scores of current group members to a mean of zero. This procedure ensured that immigrants were always assigned the average Elo score of the group, but it did not affect the relative ranking of individuals or their predicted winning probabilities.
For the analysis of each group, the first 100 encounters were set as a burn-in period. In all of these encounters values of k were kept at 100; encounters in the burn-in period were excluded from the likelihood calculation. Maximum-likelihood fitting was performed using the function ‘optim’ in the statistical software R [35]. We used likelihood ratio tests to calculate p-values for each predictor variable. To implement likelihood ratio tests, we used a χ2-test with the test statistic D, which is twice the difference in log-likelihoods of the corresponding null model (where the respective parameter was removed) and the full model containing all parameters. Calculations of p-values were initially performed for the full model specified above. Final p-values were calculated after removing non-significant interactions from the model. A variable was assumed to be significant if the corresponding p-value fell below a threshold of 0.05.
3. Results
Our results provide clear evidence of the existence of winner and loser effects in wild male baboons. As predicted, we found a significant positive relationship between the aggression intensity index and the value of k (table 1; figures 2a and 3). Therefore, changes in Elo scores—the winner's bonus and the loser's tax—were larger when aggression intensity was higher. In other words, the impact of winning and losing on future wins and losses increased with increasing environmentally induced aggression intensity.
Illustration of the estimated effects on k of (a) aggression intensity, (b) genetic hybrid score (which measures degree of anubis background) and (c) the interaction between age and the outcome of the agonistic interaction, which determines how strongly winning and losing predicts the outcome of future interactions. All depicted effects are calculated for the mean values of all other predictor variables. (Online version in colour.)
Illustration of the predicted effects on k of aggression intensity, genetic hybrid score, interaction outcome and age, which determines the impact of winning and losing on the outcome of future interactions. Plotted values correspond to all observed agonistic interactions. Aggression intensity index categories correspond to values (a,c) below and (b,d) above the mean. The colour coding illustrates the effect of anubis background; hybrid scores vary continuously. The negative effect of age is more pronounced for (a,b) winners compared with (c,d) losers. Finally, the contrast between (a) and (c) versus (b) and (d) illustrates how values of k increase with increasing aggression intensity. (Online version in colour.)
By relaxing the assumption that k is a constant and allowing k to vary, our extensions of the Elo method allowed us to identify several intriguing sources of variance in k (table 1). Most surprisingly, we found that, compared with more yellow-like individuals, more anubis-like individuals had significantly lower values of k (table 1; figures 2b and 3). That is, individuals with more anubis background experienced smaller winner's bonuses and smaller loser's taxes.
table 1.
Variables that explain variation in the parameter k, which determines how strongly winning and losing predicts the outcome of future interactions.
| parameter | coefficient | Da | p-valueb |
|---|---|---|---|
| (intercept) | 4.939 | 667.2 | <0.001 |
| aggression intensity index | 14.949 | 4.3 | 0.040 |
| genetic hybrid score | −0.558 | 19.4 | <0.001 |
| contest outcome | 0.255 | 8.0 | 0.005 |
| age | −0.020 | 2.2 | 0.138 |
| days inactive | 0.006 | 5.4 | 0.020 |
| age : contest outcome | −0.035 | 20.0 | <0.001 |
In addition, the interaction between age and encounter outcome was also a significant predictor of k. Specifically, k-values for both winners and losers were lower for older males, but k-values for winners declined more quickly with age than k-values for losers (figures 2c and 3). This provides clear evidence of how the winner's bonus and the loser's tax can differ when we remove the assumption of the original Elo method that k is constant. As a consequence, for the youngest adult males, winning affected the future chance of winning more than losing affected the future chance of losing. The opposite pattern occurred for older individuals.
Finally, we also found that individuals who had not interacted for a long time tended to require more pronounced updating of their Elo scores. Specifically, we found a positive effect on k of the number of days since the last observed agonistic encounter involving a given individual. This is consistent with the idea that Elo scores become out-dated over time.
4. Discussion
The potential importance of self-organization processes in generating linear dominance hierarchies has been supported by theoretical and experimental studies [11,14,15,17–20,37]. In this study, we showed that such self-organization processes are also relevant for natural populations in which individuals profoundly differ in fighting abilities. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that winner and loser effects influence male hierarchy dynamics in wild baboons. The novel statistical method we developed allowed us to quantify variation in the impact of wins and losses on future wins and losses in uncontrolled group settings. We found that the magnitude of these effects was positively correlated with environmentally induced aggression intensity—that is, the effects increase in magnitude when female reproductive availability becomes low relative to male availability (figures 2a and 3), providing strong support for the hypothesis that social self-organizing dynamics play a role in natural groups of wild primates. Furthermore, our approach allowed us to identify additional predictors that explained variation in the impact of wins and losses on future wins and losses, providing further information on agonistic behavioural strategies in our population, and allowing us to formulate novel hypotheses regarding the evolution of winner and loser effects.
Our finding that ancestry affected the impact of winning and losing on future winning chances (figures 2b and 3) indicates effects of genetic background on this phenotype. This effect of genetic background could in principle arise if more anubis-like individuals experienced more short-term fluctuations in their fighting ability (which would reduce the consistency of winning and losing patterns). In this case, prior attribute differences would explain the effects of genetic background. However, the observed genetic background effect is also consistent with genetically determined differences in winner and loser effects between yellow and anubis baboons.
Previous studies in this population revealed effects of ancestry on age at maturation and male mating success [32,36]: more anubis-like males matured earlier and were more likely to participate in consortships with peri-ovulatory females. Tung et al. [32] suggested that more anubis-like males might employ more effective mating strategies, such as more effective coalition formation or higher rates of aggression in agonistic interactions. Although our analysis was not designed to specifically test these hypotheses, our results are more consistent with the coalition hypothesis. If more anubis-like males compete more aggressively for access to peri-ovulatory females, then we would have expected to observe larger winner and loser effects with high levels of anubis genetic ancestry. However, we found the opposite effect, suggesting that more anubis-like males deploy a less aggressive agonistic strategy in dyadic interactions. Recent findings from phylogenetic comparative analyses on male coalitions in mammals suggest that reduced competition intensity might facilitate coalition formation through increased levels of tolerance among males [38,39]. A less aggressive agonistic strategy in more anubis-like males, which is consistent with our results, might allow these males to engage in more effective coalition formation.
Importantly, however, the effect of genetic background we detected could be a direct or an indirect genetic effect. A direct effect would be implicated if the individual's own genetic background affected its own response to winning and losing, for instance by affecting how aggressive an agonistic strategy it uses, as posited above. Alternatively, the genetic effect could be indirect; that is, the individual's genetic background could affect the response of other animals to its wins and losses, which in turn could affect its chances of winning and losing future encounters. For instance, if something about the hybrid morphology—for instance darker coat, somewhat more stocky appearance [27]—resulted in opponents seeing these animals as less predictable than the more common yellow phenotype, this behavioural uncertainty could produce a lower estimated k-value for the hybrid animals. Detectably hybrid animals currently constitute about 25–30% of the Amboseli population [27,29], indicating that they are certainly familiar to all members of the study population. This example highlights the fact that social behavioural phenotypes can depend on both direct and indirect genetic effects [40–42]. Differentiating these effects is beyond the scope of this paper, but would potentially be amenable to quantitative genetic approaches using the ‘animal model’ to investigate individual variation in k, given a well-linked and large enough pedigree [43,44].
In addition to demonstrating the existence of winner and loser effects and identifying predictors of the intensity of these effects, our analysis allowed us to gain some insight into the mechanisms underlying winner and loser effects in male baboons. One potential mechanism would be a change in fighting ability resulting from injury [15]. This mechanism is consistent with our result showing that the impact of wins and losses on future wins and losses increased with increasing aggression intensity (assayed by injury rates). However, while changes in fighting ability from injuries could produce loser effects (because injuries are likely to reduce fighting ability), they should not generate winner effects (because injuries are unlikely to result in increased fighting ability). Our results indicate that increased aggression intensity leads to a similar increase in both winner effects and loser effects (the interaction between the aggression intensity index and encounter outcome was not significant; p = 0.33; electronic supplementary material, table S1). This finding demonstrates the existence of other mechanisms that do not include changes in actual fighting abilities. Such a mechanism probably involves changes in perceived fighting ability, which then modulate future agonistic behaviour and associated winning probabilities [14,37,45].
We also found that an interaction between age and encounter outcome significantly affected the impact of winning and losing on future winning chances (figures 2c and 3). This interaction effect could be explained by the prior attributes hypothesis, in the absence of any winner and loser effects. Specifically, it could be explained by a situation in which growth- and ageing-related changes in fighting ability determine individual dominance ranks. For instance, younger males generally experience a growth-related increase in fighting ability (which is consistent with their quickly rising Elo scores; figure 1). For such males, unexpected winning events would be more likely to reflect true changes in fighting ability than unexpected losing events. As a consequence, losing events should have a relatively weak impact on the future chances of winning, whereas winning experiences should have a relatively strong impact on the future winning chances, without the need to invoke winner and loser effects. The opposite pattern is expected for older individuals, who tend to decline in fighting ability. The combination of both opposing patterns could lead to the interaction effect that we observed between age and encounter outcome.
However, while the effect of age and encounter outcome can be explained without winner and loser effects, our results are consistent with the idea that individuals use age information to flexibly adjust the strength of winner and loser effects. Theoretical work on the evolution of winner and loser effects has demonstrated that these effects can evolve when individuals are uncertain about their relative fighting ability, because outcomes of agonistic interactions provide new information about this quantity [37,46]. Notably, current work on winner and loser effects generally ignores the fact that the relative fighting abilities of individuals change over time (e.g. due to growth, ageing or changes in the composition of a social group). However, if relative fighting abilities change over time, information on relative fighting ability can become out-dated if it is not updated over time. As a consequence, competitors should be constantly prepared to revise their estimation of their relative fighting ability. They thus need to decide whether newly obtained information is reliable enough to support such a revision. An obvious (but potentially costly) solution to this problem is to gather more information through additional interactions. A less costly alternative would be to combine information on the outcome of a conflict with information on the age (or other characteristics) of the interacting individuals. Our results demonstrate that such a combination is indeed able to provide better predictions of the future chances of winning. Whether baboons use information about age to adjust winner and loser effects requires further investigation. However, more generally we hypothesize that the evolution of winner and loser effects should be accompanied by the evolution of behavioural strategies that dynamically adjust the strength of winner and loser effects. Such dynamic adjustments will have the effect of optimizing the estimation of relative individual fighting ability, which will increase the benefit–cost ratio of agonistic behaviour.
More generally, we expect that the evolution of linear dominance hierarchies is shaped by a coevolution of individual (prior) attributes and winner and loser effects that favours a combination of both. Theoretical work on the evolution of winner and loser effects assumed a fixed distribution of individual attributes that impact winning chances in addition to winner and loser effects [37,46]. However, if both individual attributes and winner and loser effects are heritable, then both could evolve simultaneously. We hypothesize that scenarios in which only individual attributes or only winner and loser effects determine hierarchy formation are not evolutionarily stable. If hierarchy formation is dominated by (heritable) individual attributes, then natural selection will reduce inter-individual variation in these attributes, which increases uncertainty in estimating relative fighting abilities [47], and therefore should facilitate the evolution of winner and loser effects [37,46]. However, these dynamics should not lead to a complete domination of winner and loser effects, because winner and loser effects tend to decrease the correlation between individual attributes and dominance rank, which would reduce selection on individual attributes. In addition, it is likely that additional factors, such as developmentally or environmentally determined variation in individual attributes, influence the balance between individual attributes and winner and loser effects.
Clearly, many open questions remain to be answered to achieve a better understanding of the evolution of winner and loser effects and linear dominance hierarchies. We hope that our proposed methodological advancement will motivate further development of our approach, which in turn will enable more studies on winner and loser effects in animals in natural settings. In addition, we emphasize the need for more formal theory that investigates (i) the evolution of behavioural strategies that implement temporally variable winner and loser effects, and (ii) the coevolution of prior attributes and winner and loser effects.
Acknowledgements
We thank two anonymous reviewers and Daniel van der Post for helpful suggestions and discussion. We thank the Kenya Wildlife Services, Institute of Primate Research, National Museums of Kenya, National Council for Science and Technology, members of the Amboseli-Longido pastoralist communities, Tortillis Camp, Ker & Downey Safaris, Air Kenya, and Safarilink for their cooperation and assistance in Kenya. Thanks also to R. S. Mututua, S. Sayialel, J. K. Warutere, V. Somen and T. Wango in Kenya, and to K. Pinc, N. Learn, L. Maryott and J. Gordon in the USA.
Ethics
This research was approved by the IACUC at Princeton University and at Duke University, and adhered to all the laws and guidelines of Kenya.
Competing interests
We declare we have no competing interests.
Funding
We gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation (most recently BCS 0323553, DEB 0846286, and IOS 0919200) and the National Institute on Aging (R01AG034513 and P01AG031719) for the majority of the data presented here. M.F. was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and by Duke University.
References
Bobby Fischer
Robert James Fischer (March 9, 1943 – January 17, 2008) was an American chess grandmaster and the eleventh World Chess Champion.
A chess prodigy, at age 13 he won a game which was dubbed "The Game of the Century". At age 14, he became the youngest ever U.S. Chess Champion, and at 15, he became both the youngest grandmaster (GM) up to that time and the youngest candidate for the World Championship. At age 20, Fischer won the 1963/64 US Championship with 11 wins in 11 games, the only perfect score in the history of the tournament. His book My 60 Memorable Games, published in 1969, is regarded as essential reading in chess literature. He won the 1970 Interzonal Tournament by a record 3½-point margin, and won 20 consecutive games, including two unprecedented 6–0 sweeps, in the Candidates Matches. In July 1971, he became the first official FIDE number-one-rated player. His Elo rating of 2785 the following year was 125 points ahead of World Champion Boris Spassky,[2] and is the largest rating gap ever recorded between the first and second rated players.[3] This rating stood as a record until 1990.
Fischer won the World Chess Championship in 1972, defeating Boris Spassky of the USSR, in a match held in Reykjavík, Iceland. Publicized as a Cold War confrontation between the US and USSR, it attracted more worldwide interest than any chess championship before or since. In 1975, Fischer refused to defend his title when an agreement could not be reached with FIDE, chess's international governing body, over one of the conditions for the match. Under FIDE rules, this resulted in Soviet GM Anatoly Karpov, who had won the qualifying Candidates' cycle, being named the new world champion by default.
After forfeiting his title as World Champion, Fischer became reclusive and sometimes erratic, disappearing from both competitive chess and the public eye. In 1992, he reemerged to win an unofficial rematch against Spassky. It was held in Yugoslavia, which was under a United Nationsembargo at the time. His participation led to a conflict with the US government, which warned Fischer that his participation in the match would violate an executive order imposing US sanctions on Yugoslavia. The US government ultimately issued a warrant for his arrest. After that, Fischer lived as an émigré. In 2004, he was arrested in Japan and held for several months for using a passport that had been revoked by the US government. Eventually, he was granted an Icelandic passport and citizenship by a special act of the Icelandic Althing, allowing him to live in Iceland until his death in 2008.
Fischer made numerous lasting contributions to chess. In the 1990s, he patented a modified chess timing system that added a time increment after each move, now a standard practice in top tournament and match play. He also invented Fischer random chess, also known as Chess960, a chess variant in which the initial position of the pieces is randomized to one of 960 possible positions.
Early years
Bobby Fischer was born at Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, on March 9, 1943.[4] His mother, Regina Wender Fischer, was a US citizen,[5][6] born in Switzerland; her parents were Polish Jews.[7][8] Raised in St. Louis, Missouri,[4] Regina became a teacher, registered nurse, and later a physician.[9]
After graduating from college in her teens, Regina traveled to Germany to visit her brother. It was there she met geneticist and future Nobel Prize winner Hermann Joseph Muller, who persuaded her to move to Moscow to study medicine. She enrolled at I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, where she met Hans-Gerhardt Fischer, also known as Gerardo Liebscher,[10] a German biophysicist, whom she married in November 1933.[11] In 1938, Hans-Gerhardt and Regina had a daughter, Joan Fischer. The reemergence of anti-Semitism under Stalin prompted Regina to go with Joan to Paris, where Regina became an English teacher. The threat of a German invasion led her and Joan to go to the United States in 1939. Regina and Hans-Gerhardt had already separated in Moscow, although they did not officially divorce until 1945.[11]
At the time of her son's birth, Regina was homeless[12] and shuttled to different jobs and schools around the country to support her family. She engaged in political activism, and raised both Bobby and Joan as a single parent.[13][14][15]
In 1949, the family moved to Manhattan[16] and the following year to Brooklyn, New York City, where she studied for her master's degree in nursing and subsequently began working in that field.[14]
Paul Nemenyi as Fischer's father
In 2002, Peter Nicholas and Clea Benson of The Philadelphia Inquirer published an investigative report backed by detailed and compelling evidence that indicated that Bobby Fischer's biological father was actually Paul Nemenyi.[15][17][18] Nemenyi, a Hungarian mathematician and physicist of Jewish heritage, was considered an expert in fluid and applied mechanics. Benson and Nicholas continued their work and gathered additional evidence in court records, personal interviews, and even a summary of the FBI investigation written by J. Edgar Hoover, which confirmed their earlier conclusions.[19]
Throughout the 1950s, the FBI investigated Regina and her circle for her alleged communist sympathies, as well as her time living in Moscow.[20] FBI files note that Hans-Gerhardt Fischer never entered the United States, while recording that Nemenyi took a keen interest in Fischer's upbringing.[17][21][22] Not only were Regina and Nemenyi reported to have had an affair in 1942, but Nemenyi made monthly child support payments to Regina and paid for Bobby's schooling until his own death in 1952.[23] In addition, Nicholas and Benson found letters by Nemenyi's first son, Peter, identifying Bobby Fischer as his brother.[citation needed]
Chess beginnings
In March 1949, 6-year-old Bobby and his sister Joan learned how to play chess using the instructions from a set bought at a candy store.[24] When Joan lost interest in chess and Regina did not have time to play, Fischer was left to play many of his first games against himself.[25] When the family vacationed at Patchogue, Long Island, New York, that summer, Bobby found a book of old chess games and studied it intensely.[26]
In 1950, the family moved to Brooklyn, first to an apartment at the corner of Union Street and Franklin Avenue, and later to a two-bedroom apartment at 560 Lincoln Place.[27] It was there that "Fischer soon became so engrossed in the game that Regina feared he was spending too much time alone".[14] As a result, on November 14, 1950, Regina sent a postcard to the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, seeking to place an ad inquiring whether other children of Bobby's age might be interested in playing chess with him. The paper rejected her ad, because no one could figure out how to classify it, but forwarded her inquiry to Hermann Helms, the "Dean of American Chess", who told her that MasterMax Pavey, former Scottish champion, would be giving a simultaneous exhibition on January 17, 1951.[28][29] Fischer played in the exhibition. Although he held on for 15 minutes, drawing a crowd of onlookers, he eventually lost to the chess master.[30]
One of the spectators was Brooklyn Chess Club President,[31]Carmine Nigro, an American chess expert of near master strength and an instructor.[32] Nigro was so impressed with Fischer's play[31] that he introduced him to the club and began teaching him.[33][34][35] Fischer noted of his time with Nigro:[36] "Mr. Nigro was possibly not the best player in the world, but he was a very good teacher. Meeting him was probably a decisive factor in my going ahead with chess."
Nigro hosted Fischer's first chess tournament at his home in 1952.[37] In the summer of 1955, Fischer, then 12 years old, joined the Manhattan Chess Club.[38][39] Fischer's relationship with Nigro lasted until 1956, when Nigro moved away.[40][41]
The Hawthorne Chess Club
In June 1956, Fischer began attending the Hawthorne Chess Club, based in master John "Jack" W. Collins' home.[42] Collins taught chess to children, and has been described as Fischer's teacher,[43][44] but Collins himself suggested that he did not actually teach Fischer,[45] and the relationship might be more accurately described as one of mentorship.[46]
Fischer played thousands of blitz and offhand games with Collins and other strong players, studied the books in Collins' large chess library, and ate almost as many dinners at Collins' home as his own.[47][48][49]
Young champion
On the tenth national rating list of the United States Chess Federation (USCF), published on May 20, 1956, Fischer's rating was 1726,[50] more than 900 points below top-rated Samuel Reshevsky (2663).[51] His playing strength increased rapidly that year.[52]
In March 1956, the Log Cabin Chess Club of West Orange, New Jersey (based in the home of the club's eccentric multi-millionaire founder and patron Elliot Forry Laucks) took Fischer on a tour to Cuba, where he gave a 12-board simultaneous exhibition at Havana's Capablanca Chess Club, winning ten games and drawing two.[53][54] On this tour the club played a series of matches against other clubs. Fischer played , behind International Master Norman Whitaker. Whitaker and Fischer were the leading scorers for the club, each scoring 5½ points out of 7 games.[55]
In July 1956, Fischer won the US Junior Chess Championship, scoring 8½/10 at Philadelphia to become the youngest-ever Junior Champion at age 13.[56][57] At the 1956 US Open Chess Championship in Oklahoma City, he scored 8½/12 to tie for 4th–8th places, with Arthur Bisguier winning.[58] In the first Canadian Open Chess Championship at Montreal 1956, he scored 7/10 to tie for 8th–12th places, with Larry Evans winning.[59] In November, Fischer played in the 1956 Eastern States Open Championship in Washington, D.C., tying for second with William Lombardy, Nicholas Rossolimo, and Arthur Feuerstein, with Hans Berliner taking first by a half-point.[60]
Fischer accepted an invitation to play in the Third Lessing J. Rosenwald Trophy Tournament in New York City (1956), a premier tournament limited to the 12 players considered the best in the US.[61] Although Fischer's rating was not among the top 12 in the country, he received entry by special consideration. Playing against top opposition, the 13-year-old Fischer could only score 4½/11, tying for 8th–9th place.[62] Yet he won the [63] for his game against International Master Donald Byrne,[61] in which Fischer sacrificed his queen to unleash an unstoppable attack. Hans Kmoch called it "The Game of the Century",[64] writing: "The following game, a stunning masterpiece of play performed by a boy of 13 against a formidable opponent, matches the finest on record in the history of chess prodigies".[65][66] According to Frank Brady, "'The Game of the Century' has been talked about, analyzed, and admired for more than fifty years, and it will probably be a part of the canon of chess for many years to come."[67] "In reflecting on his game a while after it occurred, Bobby was refreshingly modest: 'I just made the moves I thought were best. I was just lucky.'"[68]
In 1957, Fischer played a two-game match against former World Champion Max Euwe at New York, losing ½–1½.[69][70][71] On the USCF's eleventh national rating list, published on May 5, 1957, Fischer was rated 2231—over 500 points higher than his rating a year before.[72] This made him the country's youngest ever chess master up to that point.[73] In July, he successfully defended his US Junior title, scoring 8½/9 at San Francisco.[74] As a result of his strong tournament results, Fischer's rating went up to 2298, "making him among the top ten active players in the country".[75] In August, he scored 10/12 at the US Open Chess Championship in Cleveland, winning on tie-breaking points over Arthur Bisguier.[76][77] This made Fischer the youngest ever US Open Champion.[78][79] He won the New Jersey Open Championship, scoring 6½/7.[80] He then defeated the young Filipino master Rodolfo Tan Cardoso 6–2 in a New York match sponsored by Pepsi-Cola.[81][82]
Wins first US title
Based on Fischer's rating and strong results, the USCF invited him to play in the 1957/58 US Championship.[83] The tournament included such luminaries as six-time US champion Samuel Reshevsky, defending US champion Arthur Bisguier, and William Lombardy, who in August had won the World Junior Championship.[84] Bisguier predicted that Fischer would "finish slightly over the center mark".[84][85] Despite all the predictions to the contrary, Fischer scored eight wins and five draws to win the tournament by a one-point margin, with 10½/13.[86][87] Still two months shy of his 15th birthday, Fischer became the youngest ever US champion.[88] Since the championship that year was also the US Zonal Championship, Fischer's victory earned him the title of International Master.[89][90] Fischer's victory in the US Championship sent his rating up to 2626, making him the second highest rated player in the United States, behind only Reshevsky (2713),[91] and qualified him to participate in the 1958 Portorož Interzonal, the next step toward challenging the World Champion.[81]
Grandmaster, candidate, author
Bobby wanted to go to Moscow. At his pleading, "Regina wrote directly to the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, requesting an invitation for Bobby to participate in the World Youth and Student Festival. The reply—affirmative—came too late for him to go."[92] Regina did not have the money to pay the airfare, but in the following year Fischer was invited onto the game show I've Got a Secret, where, thanks to Regina's efforts, the producers of the show arranged two round-trip tickets to the Soviet Union.[93][94]
Once in Russia, Fischer was invited by the Soviet Union to Moscow,[95] where International Master Lev Abramov would serve as a guide to Bobby and his sister, Joan.[96] Upon arrival, Fischer immediately demanded that he be taken to the Moscow Central Chess Club,[97] where he played speed chess with "two young Soviet masters", Evgeni Vasiukov and Alexander Nikitin,[98] winning every game.[97] Chess author V. I. Linder writes about the impression Fischer gave grandmaster Vladimir Alatortsev when he played blitz against the Soviet masters: "Back in 1958, in the Central Chess Club, Vladimir Alatortsev saw a tall, angular 15-year-old youth, who in blitz games, crushed almost everyone who crossed his path… Alatortsev was no exception, losing all three games. He was astonished by the play of the young American Robert Fischer, his fantastic self-confidence, amazing chess erudition and simply brilliant play! On arriving home, Vladimir said in admiration to his wife: 'This is the future world champion!'"[99]
Fischer demanded to play against Mikhail Botvinnik, the reigning World Champion. When told that this was impossible, Fischer asked to play Paul Keres. "Finally, Tigran Petrosian was, on a semi-official basis, summoned to the club …" where he played speed games with Fischer, winning the majority.[100] "When Bobby discovered that he wasn't going to play any formal games … he went into a not-so-silent rage",[101] saying he was fed up "with these Russian pigs",[102] which angered the Soviets who saw Fischer as their honored guest. It was then that the Yugoslavian chess officials offered to take in Fischer and Joan as early guests to the Interzonal. Fischer took them up on the offer, arriving in Yugoslavia to play two short training matches against masters Dragoljub Janošević and Milan Matulović.[103] Fischer drew both games against Janošević and then defeated Matulović in Belgrade by 2½–1½.[104]
At Portorož, Fischer was accompanied by Lombardy.[105][106] The top six finishers in the Interzonal would qualify for the Candidates Tournament.[107] Most observers doubted that a 15-year-old with no international experience could finish among the six qualifiers at the Interzonal, but Fischer told journalist Miro Radoicic, "I can draw with the grandmasters, and there are half-a-dozen in the tournament I reckon to beat."[108][a] Despite some bumps in the road and a problematic start, Fischer succeeded in his plan: after a strong finish, he ended up with 12/20 (+6−2=12) to tie for 5th–6th.[110] The Soviet grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed,
In the struggle at the board this youth, almost still a child, showed himself to be a full-fledged fighter, demonstrating amazing composure, precise calculation and devilish resourcefulness. I was especially struck not even by his extensive opening knowledge, but his striving everywhere to seek new paths. In Fischer's play an enormous talent was noticeable, and in addition one sensed an enormous amount of work on the study of chess.[111]
Soviet grandmaster David Bronstein said of Fischer's time in Portorož: "It was interesting for me to observe Fischer, but for a long time I couldn't understand why this 15-year-old boy played chess so well".[112] Fischer became the youngest person ever to qualify for the Candidates and the youngest ever grandmaster at 15 years, 6 months, 1 day.[b] "By then everyone knew we had a genius on our hands."[114]
Before the Candidates' Tournament, Fischer won the 1958/59 US Championship (scoring 8½/11).[115] He tied for third (with Borislav Ivkov) in Mar del Plata (scoring 10/14), a half-point behind Luděk Pachman and Miguel Najdorf.[116] He tied for 4th–6th in Santiago (scoring 7½/12) behind Ivkov, Pachman, and Herman Pilnik.[117]
At the Zürich International Tournament, spring 1959, Fischer finished a point behind future World Champion Mikhail Tal and a half-point behind Yugoslavian grandmaster Svetozar Gligorić.[118][119][120]
Although Fischer had ended his formal education at age 16, dropping out of Erasmus Hall High School in Brooklyn, he subsequently taught himself several foreign languages so he could read foreign chess periodicals.[121] According to Latvian chess master Alexander Koblencs, even he and Tal could not match the commitment that Fischer had made to chess. Recalling a conversation from the tournament: "'Tell me, Bobby,' Tal continued, 'what do you think of the playing style of Larissa Volpert?' 'She's too cautious. But you have another girl, Dmitrieva. Her games do appeal to me!' Here we were left literally open-mouthed in astonishment. Misha and I have looked at thousands of games, but it never even occurred to us to study the games of our women players. How could we find the time for this?! Yet Bobby, it turns out, had found the time!'"[122]
Until late 1959, Fischer "had dressed atrociously for a champion, appearing at the most august and distinguished national and international events in sweaters and corduroys."[123] Now, encouraged by Pal Benko to dress more smartly, Fischer "began buying suits from all over the world, hand-tailored and made to order."[124][125] He told journalist Ralph Ginzburg that he had 17 hand-tailored suits and that all of his shirts and shoes were handmade.[126]
At the age of 16, Fischer finished equal fifth out of eight at the 1959 Candidates Tournament in Bled/Zagreb/Belgrade, Yugoslavia,[127] scoring 12½/28. He was outclassed by tournament winner Tal, who won all four of their individual games.[128] That year, Fischer released his first book of collected games: Bobby Fischer's Games of Chess, published by Simon & Schuster.[129]
Drops out of school
Fischer's interest in chess became more important than schoolwork, to the point that "by the time he reached the fourth grade, he'd been in and out of six schools."[130] In 1952, Regina got Bobby a scholarship (based on his chess talent and "astronomically high IQ") to Brooklyn Community Woodward.[131][c] Fischer later attended Erasmus Hall High School at the same time as Barbra Streisand and Neil Diamond.[133][134] In 1959, its student council awarded him a gold medal for his chess achievements.[135][136] The same year, Fischer dropped out of high school when he turned 16, the earliest he could legally do so.[137][138] He later explained to Ralph Ginzburg, "You don't learn anything in school."[139][140]
When Fischer was 16, his mother moved out of their apartment to pursue medical training. Her friend Joan Rodker, who had met Regina when the two were "idealistic communists" living in Moscow in the 1930s, believes that Fischer resented his mother for being mostly absent as a mother, a communist activist and an admirer of the Soviet Union and that this led to his hatred for the Soviet Union. In letters to Rodker, Fischer's mother states her desire to pursue her own "obsession" of training in medicine and writes that her son would have to live in their Brooklyn apartment without her: "It sounds terrible to leave a 16-year-old to his own devices, but he is probably happier that way".[6] The apartment was on the edge of Bedford-Stuyvesant, a neighborhood that had one of the highest homicide and general crime rates in New York City.[141] Despite the alienation from her son, Regina, in 1960, protested the practices of the American Chess Foundation[142] and staged a five-hour protest in front of the White House, urging President Dwight D. Eisenhower to send an American team to that year's chess Olympiad (set for Leipzig, East Germany, behind the Iron Curtain) and to help support the team financially.[18]
US Championships
Fischer played in eight US Championships, winning all of them,[143][144] by at least a one-point margin.[145] His results were:[143][146][147]
Fischer missed the 1961/62 Championship (he was preparing for the 1962 Interzonal), and there was no 1964/65 event.[157] In his eight US Chess Championships, Fischer lost only three games; to Edmar Mednis in the 1962/63 event, and in consecutive rounds to Samuel Reshevsky, and Robert Byrne in the 1965 championship, culminating in a total score of 74/90 (61 wins, 26 draws, 3 losses).[158]
Olympiads
Fischer refused to play in the 1958 Munich Olympiad when his demand to play ahead of Samuel Reshevsky was rejected.[159] Some sources claim that 15-year-old Fischer was unable to arrange leave from attending high school.[160] Fischer later represented the United States on first board at four Men's Chess Olympiads, winning two individual Silver and one individual Bronze medals:[161]
Out of four Men's Chess Olympiads, Fischer scored +40−7=18, for 49/65: 75.4%.[167][168] In 1966, Fischer narrowly missed the individual gold medal, scoring 88.23% to World Champion Tigran Petrosian's 88.46%. He played four games more than Petrosian, faced stiffer opposition,[169] and would have won the gold if he had accepted Florin Gheorghiu's draw offer, rather than declining it and suffering his only loss.[170]
At the 1962 Varna Olympiad, Fischer predicted that he would defeat Argentinian GM Miguel Najdorf in 25 moves. Fischer actually did it in 24, becoming the only player to beat Najdorf in the tournament.[171] Ironically, Najdorf lost the game while employing the very opening variation named after him: the Sicilian Najdorf.[172]
Fischer had planned to play for the US at the 1968 Lugano Olympiad, but backed out when he saw the poor playing conditions.[173] Both former World Champion Tigran Petrosian and Belgian-American International Master George Koltanowski, the leader of the American team that year, felt that Fischer was justified in not participating in the Olympiad.[174] According to Lombardy, Fischer's non-participation was due to Reshevsky's refusal to yield first board.[175]
1960–61
In 1960, Fischer tied for first place with Soviet star Boris Spassky at the strong Mar del Plata Tournament in Argentina, winning by a two-point margin, scoring 13½/15 (+13−1=1),[176][177] ahead of David Bronstein.[178] Fischer lost only to Spassky; this was the start of their lifelong friendship.[179]
Fischer experienced the only failure in his competitive career[180] at the Buenos Aires Tournament (1960), finishing with 8½/19 (+3−5=11), far behind winners Viktor Korchnoi and Samuel Reshevsky with 13/19.[181] According to Larry Evans, Fischer's first sexual experience was with a girl to whom Evans introduced him during the tournament.[182][183] Pal Benko said that Fischer did horribly in the tournament "because he got caught up in women and sex. Afterwards, Fischer said he'd never mix women and chess together, and kept the promise."[184] Fischer concluded 1960 by winning a small tournament in Reykjavík with 4½/5,[185] and defeating Klaus Darga in an exhibition game in West Berlin.[186]
In 1961, Fischer started a 16-game match with Reshevsky, split between New York and Los Angeles.[187] Reshevsky, 32 years Fischer's senior, was considered the favorite, since he had far more match experience and had never lost a set match. After 11 games and a tie score (two wins apiece with seven draws), the match ended prematurely due to a scheduling dispute between Fischer and match organizer and sponsor Jacqueline Piatigorsky. Reshevsky was declared the winner, by default, and received the winner's share of the prize fund.[188]
Fischer was second in a super-class field, behind only former World Champion Tal, at Bled, 1961.[189] Yet, Fischer defeated Tal head-to-head for the first time in their individual game, scored 3½/4 against the Soviet contingent, and finished as the only unbeaten player, with 13½/19 (+8−0=11).[190][191]
1962: success, setback, accusations of collusion
Fischer won the 1962 Stockholm Interzonal by a 2½-point margin,[192] going undefeated, with 17½/22 (+13−0=9).[193][194] He was the first non-Soviet player to win an Interzonal since FIDE instituted the tournament in 1948.[195] Russian grandmaster Alexander Kotov said of Fischer:[196]
I have discussed Fischer's play with Max Euwe and Gideon Stahlberg. All of us, experienced 'tournament old-timers', were surprised by Fischer's endgame expertise. When a young player is good at attacking or at combinations, this is understandable, but a faultless endgame technique at the age of 19 is something rare. I can recall only one other player who at that age was equally skillful at endgames – Vasily Smyslov.
Fischer's victory made him a favorite for the Candidates Tournament in Curaçao.[197][198] Yet, despite his result in the Interzonal, Fischer only finished fourth out of eight with 14/27 (+8−7=12),[199] far behind Tigran Petrosian (17½/27), Efim Geller, and Paul Keres (both 17/27).[200] Tal fell very ill during the tournament, and had to withdraw before completion. Fischer, a friend of Tal, was the only contestant who visited him in the hospital.[201]
Accuses Soviets of collusion
Following his failure in the 1962 Candidates,[d] Fischer asserted in a Sports Illustrated article,[203] that three of the five Soviet players (Tigran Petrosian, Paul Keres, and Efim Geller) had a prearranged agreement to quickly draw their games against each other in order to conserve their energy for playing against Fischer. It is generally thought that this accusation is correct.[204][205] Fischer stated that he would never again participate in a Candidates' tournament, since the format, combined with the alleged collusion, made it impossible for a non-Soviet player to win. Following Fischer's article, FIDE, in late 1962, voted to implement a radical reform of the playoff system, replacing the Candidates' tournament with a format of one-on-one knockout matches; the format that Fischer would dominate in 1971.[205][206]
Fischer defeated Bent Larsen in a summer 1962 exhibition game in Copenhagen for Danish TV. Later that year, Fischer beat Bogdan Śliwa in a team match against Poland in Warsaw.[207]
In the 1962/63 US Championship, Fischer lost to Edmar Mednis in round one. It was his first loss ever in a US Championship. Bisguier was in excellent form, and Fischer caught up to him only at the end. Tied at 7–3, the two met in the final round. Bisguier stood well in the middlegame, but blundered, handing Fischer his fifth consecutive US championship.[208]
Semi-retirement in the mid-1960s
Influenced by ill will over the aborted 1961 match against Reshevsky, Fischer declined an invitation to play in the 1963 Piatigorsky Cup tournament in Los Angeles, which had a world-class field.[208] He instead played in the Western Open in Bay City, Michigan, which he won with 7½/8.[209][210] In August–September 1963, Fischer won the New York State Championship at Poughkeepsie, with 7/7, his first perfect score,[211] ahead of Arthur Bisguier and James Sherwin.[212]
In the 1963/64 US Championship, Fischer achieved his second perfect score, this time against the top-ranked chess players in the country.[153][208] This result brought Fischer heightened fame, including a profile in Life magazine.[213]Sports Illustrated diagrammed each of the 11 games in its article, "The Amazing Victory Streak of Bobby Fischer".[214] Such extensive chess coverage was groundbreaking for the top American sports magazine. His 11–0 win in the 1963/64 Championship is the only perfect score in the history of the tournament,[215] and one of about ten perfect scores in high-level chess tournaments ever.[216][217][218]David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld called it "the most remarkable achievement of this kind".[216] Fischer recalls:[219] "Motivated by my lopsided result (11–0!), Dr. [Hans] Kmoch congratulated [Larry] Evans (the runner up) on 'winning' the tournament… and then he congratulated me on 'winning the exhibition'."
Fischer's 21-move victory against Robert Byrne won the brilliancy prize for the tournament. Byrne wrote:
The culminating combination is of such depth that, even at the very moment at which I resigned, both grandmasters who were commenting on the play for the spectators in a separate room believed I had a won game![220]
International Master Anthony Saidy recalled his last round encounter with the undefeated Fischer:[221]
Going into the final game I certainly did not expect to upset Fischer. I hardly knew the opening but played simply, and he went along with the scenario, opting for a N-v-B [i.e., Knight vs. Bishop] endgame with a minimal edge. In the corridor, Evans said to me, "Good. Show him we're not all children."
At adjournment, Saidy saw a way to force a draw, yet "sealed a different, wrong move", and lost.[221] "Chess publications around the world wrote of the unparalleled achievement. Only Bent Larsen, always a Fischer detractor, was unimpressed: 'Fischer was playing against children'".[222]
Fischer, eligible as US Champion, decided against his participation in the 1964 Amsterdam Interzonal, taking himself out of the 1966 World Championship cycle,[223] even after FIDE changed the format of the eight-player Candidates Tournament from a round-robin to a series of knockout matches, which eliminated the possibility of collusion.[213] Instead, Fischer embarked on a tour of the United States and Canada from February through May, playing a simultaneous exhibition, and giving a lecture in each of more than 40 cities.[224] He had a 94% winning percentage over more than 2,000 games.[224] Fischer declined an invitation to play for the US in the 1964 Olympiad in Tel Aviv.[225]
Successful return
Fischer wanted to play in the Capablanca Memorial Tournament in Havana in August and September 1965.[226] Since the State Department refused to endorse Fischer's passport as valid for visiting Cuba,[227] he proposed, and the tournament officials and players accepted, a unique arrangement: Fischer played his moves from a room at the Marshall Chess Club, which were then transmitted by teleprinter to Cuba.[228][229][230][231] Luděk Pachman observed that Fischer "was handicapped by the longer playing session resulting from the time wasted in transmitting the moves, and that is one reason why he lost to three of his chief rivals."[232] The tournament was an "ordeal" for Fischer, who had to endure eight-hour and sometimes even twelve-hour playing sessions.[233] Despite the handicap, Fischer tied for second through fourth places, with 15/21 (+12−3=6),[234] behind former World Champion Vasily Smyslov, whom Fischer defeated in their individual game.[232] The tournament received extensive media coverage.[235][227]
In December, Fischer won his seventh US Championship (1965), with the score of 8½/11 (+8−2=1),[236] despite losing to Robert Byrne and Reshevsky in the eighth and ninth rounds.[237][238] Fischer also reconciled with Mrs. Piatigorsky, accepting an invitation to the very strong second Piatigorsky Cup (1966) tournament in Santa Monica. Fischer began disastrously and after eight rounds was tied for last with 3/8. He then staged a strong comeback, scoring 7/8 in the next eight rounds. In the end, World Chess Championship finalist Boris Spassky edged him out by a half point, scoring 11½/18 to Fischer's 11/18 (+7−3=8).[239][240]
Now aged 23, Fischer would win every match or tournament he completed for the rest of his life.[241]
Fischer won the US Championship (1966/67) for the eighth and final time, ceding only three draws (+8−0=3),[242][243] In March–April and August–September, Fischer won strong tournaments at Monte Carlo, with 7/9 (+6−1=2),[244] and Skopje, with 13½/17 (+12−2=3).[245][246] In the Philippines, Fischer played nine exhibition games against master opponents, scoring 8½/9.[247]
Withdrawal while leading Interzonal
Fischer's win in the 1966/67 US Championship qualified him for the next World Championship cycle.[236]
At the 1967 Interzonal, held at Sousse, Tunisia, Fischer scored 8½ points in the first 10 games, to lead the field. His observance of the Worldwide Church of God's seventh-day Sabbath was honored by the organizers, but deprived Fischer of several rest days, which led to a scheduling dispute,[248] causing Fischer to forfeit two games in protest and later withdraw, eliminating himself from the 1969 World Championship cycle.[249] Communications difficulties with the highly inexperienced local organizers were also a significant factor, since Fischer knew little French and the organizers had very limited English. No one in Tunisian chess had previous experience running an event of this stature.[250]
Since Fischer had completed fewer than half of his scheduled games, all of his results were annulled, meaning players who had played Fischer had those games cancelled, and the scores nullified from the official tournament record.[206]
Second semi-retirement
In 1968, Fischer won tournaments at Netanya, with 11½/13 (+10−0=3),[251] and Vinkovci, with 11/13 (+9−0=4),[252] by large margins.[253] Fischer then stopped playing for the next 18 months, except for a win against Anthony Saidy in a 1969 New York Metropolitan League team match.[254][255] That year, Fischer (assisted by grandmaster Larry Evans) released his second book of collected games: My 60 Memorable Games, published by Simon & Schuster.[256] The book "was an immediate success".[257]
1969–1972: World Champion
In 1970, Fischer began a new effort to become World Champion. His dramatic march toward the title made him a household name and made chess front-page news for a time. He won the title in 1972, but forfeited it three years later.
Road to the World Championship
The 1969 US Championship was also a zonal qualifier, with the top three finishers advancing to the Interzonal. Fischer, however, had sat out the US Championship because of disagreements about the tournament's format and prize fund. Benko, one of the three qualifiers, agreed to give up his spot in the Interzonal in order to give Fischer another shot at the World Championship; Lombardy, who would have been "next in line" after Benko, did the same.[258][259][260][261][262][263]
In 1970 and 1971, Fischer "dominated his contemporaries to an extent never seen before or since".[264]
Before the Interzonal, in March and April 1970, the world's best players competed in the USSR vs. Rest of the World
What’s New in the ELO Office 8.0 deutsch serial key or number?
Screen Shot
System Requirements for ELO Office 8.0 deutsch serial key or number
- First, download the ELO Office 8.0 deutsch serial key or number
-
You can download its setup from given links:
ELO Office 8.0 deutsch serial key or number & Key Download
ELO Office 8.0 deutsch serial key or number& for Laptop
ELO Office 8.0 deutsch serial key or number
About Author
