This thread wasn’t started for the pit and isn’t in the pit now. There is already a Fischer thread in the pit where such remarks can be posted.
Is this guy really that good? I mean is he like the Michael Schumacher of chess?
I only say because the way Liberal describes him he sounds more like a deity than a man. People have a way of overhyping things - so like did he really dominate so bad that he can be considered “the greatest of all time”?
But if we’re talking irrelevancies… how is the art at all relevant to the issue of whether he committed a crime by playing in Yugoslavia during the embargo? Whether he played phenomenally or poorly is irrelevant to the basic issue of whether the committed an offence.
I don’t see how we can do anything but haul this Looney into court. Otherwise we have created a ‘Chess Genius’ exception to the law.
Try him, convict him, sentence him, try to help him.
Salon article on Fischer. I believe it’s premium, so you have to either be a member, or watch a short ad.
It seems his mother warned him that his behavior would cause something like this eventually, right before she died.
It’s obviously difficult to compare players from different eras, for several reasons. However, I would say that Fischer at his peak was further ahead of his competitors than anyone in recent times. Kasparov has said as much himself.
To qualify for his title match with Spassky, Fischer had to win a series of interzonal and candidate matches. In this period, he had a streak of 20 consecutive victories, which is completely unheard of. He won the last 7 games of his interzonal, to qualify for the final candidates matches; he then beat Taimanov 6-0 and then Bent Larson 6-0, and won the first game against Petrosian, eventually winning 6.5-2.5. And these weren’t chumps he was beating, they were the top few grandmasters competing in the final qualifying tournament for the world championship match vs. Spassky.
For a quick comparison, when Kasparov went through his candidates matches in the early 80s, his scores were:
4 wins, 1 loss, 4 draws vs. Beliavsky
4+, 1-, 6= vs Korchnoi
4+, 9= vs Smyslov
And those are considered pretty dominating performances.
Fischer was good, real good. The best American chess player of all-time.
The best chess player of all-time is still playing competitive chess: Garry Kasparov! Word Champion for 15 years, with numerous title defenses. Highest ELO rating ever. His tournament record is unmatched; Winner of 15, and recently 10, straight GM tournaments in a row!
Kasparov is the guy that lost to the adding machine, right? 
Kasparov has never had to face Fischer in a match, so you can hardly count title wins as a factor in any comparison. And as far as ratings, the algorithm has changed, and so that’s not a fair comparison either.
Boy, she’s one to talk. As an old man, Fischer is still reeling from her melodramatic snit in Washington when she chained herself to the White House fence.
Again, I think it’s not so easy to compare the strengths of players from different times. If you’re saying that Kasparov 2002 would beat Fischer 1972 in a match, then I would probably agree. Kaspy probably wins just on opening knowledge alone.
I would also say that this is a poor way to compare them. Under this type of comparison, Steinitz probably isn’t in the top 200 players of all time. It’s like saying that every person alive with a math degree is a better mathematician than Newton, because he didn’t know epsilon-delta proofs or group theory. Such comparisons say more about the progression of the entire field than they do about individuals’ strength and contributions.
Perhaps she was speaking from experience, then?
Lib, I know you admire the man’s skills, but let’s face it-he needs serious help, not more people fawning all over him.
He’s not someone I would want to be friends with. That doesn’t take away from his ability to play chess. It’s just a fact. I can admire someone’s work, yet not admire the person himself.
Oh, I agree. I don’t think I fawn. But it isn’t like he’s another Hilter or Jackson either.
Of course not.
:eek:
Well, touche. Indeed I fawn.
That’s better. 