No. From what I said, Fischer wanted the rules to be changed because they would be better for chess. The Soviet chess cabal had dominated FIDE for many, many years. The communists did not care about what was good for chess; they cared about what was good for themselves. They liked draws because they had practised drawing for a generation. That was how they cooperated amongst each other to infiltrate, permeate, and dominate qualifying tournaments and candidates matches. But even when doing this, Fischer had gone through them like they were bowling pins. The notion that he was afraid of losing to Karpov is simply ridiculous.
In Kasparov’s own words:
“Despite his short stay at the top there is little to debate about the chess of Bobby Fischer. He changed the game in a way that hadn’t been seen since the late 19th century. The gap between Mr. Fischer and his contemporaries was the largest ever. He singlehandedly revitalized a game that had been stagnating under the control of the Communists of the Soviet sports hierarchy.”
Suggesting rules changes to the game’s governing body is an entirely reasonable thing to do. Refusing to play unless the governing body implements those changes is, in my view, not reasonable - I think the appropriate word is “petulant”.
Bobby Fischer is a loon who’s let his ego get in the way of his talent. One of many such, unfortunately.
That is an outrageous lie. Fischer did not have an ego. As he said himself, “When I have White, I win because I’m White; when I have Black, I win because I’m Fischer.” Those are not the words of an egoist, but of an artist. He gave deference to the game — to the aesthetic.
Errr… huh? Close that bottle of White-Out on your desk, Lib. Fisher may have been a fantastic chess player (for all I know, the best that ever lived), but I don’t think you’ll find too many people disagreeing with the notion that he is an egocentric bastard. As well as a complete anti-Semitic loonie.
If he “gave deference to the game”, he would have played it, instead of quibbling over the tournament rules.
How can he be anti-Semitic? He is Jewish. And he did play the game. He won it by their unfair and ancient rules. As champion, he offered a way to make the game better. He did not refuse to play chess; he refused to play Sovietism.
I don’t care if your father was King Solomon and your mother was Mary of Nazareth, if you say shit like in the quote below, you’re a fucking loonie, and yes, an anti-Semite.
Yeah, he’s quite the charmer all right.
As for that sort of logic: what about the notion that Adolf Hitler was 25% Jewish? Surely, a nice boy like that can’t grow up to be an anti-Semite!
Holy crap, Lib, have you not read anything written about or said by Fischer during the last 20-odd years? We’re not talking one “hatchet-job” article, we’re talking multiple articles by respected journalists over the course of decades. We’re not talking about a few slip-ups by Fischer, we’re talking about several calculated anti-Semitic tirades. The comments Fischer made about September 11 on Philippine were reported not just in The Atlantic but in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Are all these sources lying? Even the opinion piece written by Kasparov and linked to in the GD thread alluded to Fischer’s anti-Semitism. Is Kasparov a partisan hack as well?
Look, I know Fischer was a great chess player. He’s also a human being with all too human (and many would say close to inhuman) failings. Recognizing his failings as a person does not mean that we discount his success as a chess player; but, at the same time, no serious discussion of Fischer can discount what can only be described as his descent into madness, just as no serious discussion of Morphy can be complete without his withdrawal from the game and self-imposed isolation.
Nobody plays chess (or football, baseball, basketball, etc.) well enough to put them beyond all reproach. Not Bobby Fischer, not Pete Rose, not anybody. That is the story of Fischer in a nutshell. It is a tragedy what happened to Fischer, yes, but that doesn’t mean he is inculpable.
All right, a quick google action tells me I was perpetuating an Urban Legend there. So scratch the Hitler comment. Point still stands: if you talk like Fisher, you’re an anti-Semite. Period.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
In Kasparov’s own words:
“Despite his short stay at the top there is little to debate about the chess of Bobby Fischer. He changed the game in a way that hadn’t been seen since the late 19th century. The gap between Mr. Fischer and his contemporaries was the largest ever. He singlehandedly revitalized a game that had been stagnating under the control of the Communists of the Soviet sports hierarchy.”[/QUIOTE]
All true. It still doesn’t change the fact that Kasparov, Anand, and Krammnik are better chess players than Fischer.
LOL! You have got to be joking, right? :dubious:
Let’s try that again…
All true. It still doesn’t change the fact that Kasparov, Anand, and Krammnik are better chess player than Fischer.
LOL! You have got to be joking, right? :dubious:
Look, I understand that Fischer has said some weird shit. I mean, we’re talking about a man whose mother chained herself to the White House fence when he was a child. But great artists say weird shit all the time. Fischer was driven to madness by myopic politicians in the USCF and FIDE who abandoned and disrespected him when he needed them most. And now he is being used once again, this time by politicians in government. But for a bit of insight and the teeniest smidgin of vision 30 years ago, we would have more of his breathtaking masterpieces to enjoy. Can you not find it in your hearts to cut him the least bit of slack?
I’d be willing to cut him some slack. Just not enough to cover for that “Death to the US”-shite and such.
No one’s denying that Fischer has talent - immense talent. That’s why it’s a shame that his behaviour has prevented him from exercising it to its fullest extent.
You can believe that, but I highly doubt it. I know you dismiss The Atlantic article, but it and other sources note that even in the 1960’s Fischer was already complaining about there being “too many Jews in chess.” He almost pulled out of the 1972 championship match–the one thing he’d always wanted to do in the chess world–with Spassky, and had to be talked back into it by Henry Kissenger, of all people. The signs were there long before “myopic politicians” in the US chess world (IMHO) decided they’d had enough.
Hasn’t he been already? If Fischer had never picked up a chess piece in his life, would anybody be defending him?
The most surreal part of this little discussion is that Liberal is Fischer’s defender here. In his linked post, Liberal details how he and his compatriots drafted a letter promising, basically, to suck Fischer’s dick non stop for the remainder of his life, if he would only return to active play. Insurance, stipend, generous salary, recognition as champion, all for playing chess. His response to Liberal’s offer?
Somehow, Liberal seems to think this was something other than Fischer spitting in their faces, and that they should have sent the money.
If he crapped in a box and mailed it to you, would you proudly display it on your mantle? I can understand admiring his chess, but as a person, he seems to be pretty damn low on character.
Salvador Dali said weird shit. Fischer says alternately hateful and flat-out tinfoil-hat paranoit shit.
Besides “great artist” does not immunize from consequences of our words and actions.
If he suffers actual mental illness he needs help and attention from a support network of family and friends and from trained health professionals. The Federations are not there for that purpose.
If he doesn’t, acting out like this because stick-in-the-mud political bureaucrats will not see things your way is suggestive of a serious problem with emotional maturity.
Emotional maturity? Why is that relevant? There have been artists who cut off their own body parts. It is about the art, the incomparable aesthetic. As far as the 10 grand to open the letter, I don’t blame him a bit for that request. Suppose you received a letter from an organization that not only had failed you, but had humiliated you, disowned you, and ignored the fact that you were its very foundation, and that you were the reason it went from obscurity and financial struggle to popularity and financial success. You might be suspicious about its contents. What is it? An invoice? A condemnation? A threat of some kind? He should have demanded $20,000.