Fischer demanded changes to the rules that were already existing…the same rules that he himself had become a champion under…
Fischer was, at the same time, a brilliant chess player and an incredible asshole. It’s just a shame that the second interfered with the first.
As Wikipedia puts it:
Fischer had three simple demands: (1) that draws don’t count; (2) that a 9-9 tie go to the champion; and (3) that otherwise, play would continue until 10 games are won. This differed from the traditional rules in a number of ways. Draws always counted 1/2 point. 24 games were played until someone scored 12-1/2. But 12-12 ties went to the champion.
There were other demands Fischer made not related to gameplay per se, but not unreasonable either. He wanted, for example, that everyone’s head be uncovered when entering the game room proper. Considering the stealthy deceit of Soviet agents at the time, it was a perfectly reasonable thing to ask. Chess was a huge — huge — deal to the Soviets, and there is no reason to believe that they would not have brought their intelligence services to bear. Nor was there any reason to believe they would not cheat.
The Soviets, of course, wanted to keep things status quo (since the rules had been designed by FIDE to accomodate them in the first place). The USCF balked at backing Fischer, and Fischer bolted. It is important to keep in mind that Soviet influence on FIDE was far stronger than US influence on the UN’s Security Council. It was the Soviet Chess Federation that padded FIDE with its puppets, and it never hesitated to pull on the strings.
ETA:
Seeing the Wiki propaganda, I would just say that the reason Fischer wanted these changes was not to prolong the tournament, but to shorten it. The incentive for draws would be removed, and everybody knew that Fischer was an aggressive attacking player, while Karpov was a meak defensive player (albeit a good one.) Karpov would have wanted to play for draws against Fischer, but Fischer would never have accepted them unless his position was a loss.
Sorry, chaps! :o
I realise that Fischer could easily have made such a claim - I meant that there was no evidence for it, was there?
Captain Amazing covered World Champions pretty well (also Capablanca was appointed as an Honorary Cuban Diplomat; Botvinnik explored computer chess programs; Spassky moved to France), but I know a lot of grandmasters and while they spend a lot of time practising chess, they lead pretty sensible lives. The only sense in which they are abnormal is that they are pretty intelligent (Kasparov is a contributing Editor to the Wall Street Journal)…
For some of the English GMs:
Adams is a millionaire and gets all-paid invites to top events
Short is a millionaire and has a family life in Greece
Nunn is a millionaire, has won the World Chess Solving championship several times and writes excellent books
Chandler is a millionaire and ran the British Chess Magazine for many years
Hennigan is a millionaire and sponsored a team in the UK National League
I don’t agree.
Fischer made some pretty revolting statements.
Capablanca, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik and Anand were/are also brilliant, but perfectly well-behaved.
Do you mean Reykjavik?
The mental telepathy is probably a reference to Karpov-Korchnoi in Bagio City, where Karpov hired a bloke (a ‘parapsychologist’) to sit in the front row and stare at Korchnoi.
There’s no evidence of telepathy, but who wants anyone staring at you for hours at a time.
I couldn’t remember that game, so checked the match here. No Fischer-Spassky game ended with just a couple of pawns left. :eek:
I couldn’t find a reference to this anywhere (Wikipedia gives 2 hours 20 minutes as the longest ‘chess think’).
It is inconceivable that a strong player, let alone a world-class one, wouldn’t know whose move it was. (When a master gives a simultaneous display against 25 opponents, he can tell who has excitedly moved before they should.)
I wouldn’t call (3) a simple demand. It means that Karpov could only win if he reached a 10-8 (or better) victory.
Winning by two clear games is more than Fischer had to do (he won if he reached 12.5-11.5).
Also a general problem with only counting wins is that the match can go on a long time.
The later World Championship match Karpov-Kasparov was only first to 6 wins - it overran by months and was eventually abandoned.
Fischer was perfectly reasonable to complain about the Champion having a 1 game advantage when he was the Challenger. But it was hard to back him in demanding a two game advantage as soon as he became Champion.
As I said, the changes would have dramatically extended the match, not shortened it.
I wouldn’t describe Fischer as an ‘aggressive attacking’ player. He was a brilliant all-round player with excellent endgame technique. He was perfectly happy to exchange an attacking position for an endgame advantage.
Tal was ‘aggressive’ :eek: and now Shirov and Morozevich are. 
Karpov was not a meek defensive player. He was a fantastic player (and very hard to beat). He would not have ‘played for draws’ with White, for sure.
It can be very difficult to understand players like Petrosian, Karpov (and Kramnik repeatedly playing the Berlin defence against Kasparov).
I remember watching GM Anderssen winning an apparently drawn game by just ‘manouvreing back and forth’. I said to GM Miles that it looked fairly easy to play that way. He laughed and said I (a FIDE Master) wasn’t strong enough to understand the effort Anderssen that put in. :eek:
I guess I don’t understand his demand that no one wear a hat. Who would wear a hat indoors in the 1970s, anyway? And if he was concerned about messages being sent by some kind of Hat Code, wouldn’t the KGB or whoever just switch to lapel pins, distinctive neckties or even hairstyles? Seems pretty damned paranoid to me.
You’re probably right - the story is apocryphal. And the guy who told me the story, an infinitely better chess player than I, I haven’t seen in years.
I put it forth because I thought it was funny, nothing more.
Regards,
Shodan
IMO, Fischer was mentally ill. Brilliant, but mentally ill–maybe only mentally unstable, but something was not “right”.
Anyway, I wandered in here to recommend the movie, Searching for Bobby Fischer which is quite good.
I would think anyone involved in a competitive game or sport with spectators in attendance would have to put up with exactly that.
It’s sad to see how mental illness so ravaged this brilliant man’s life. The international chess community bent over backwards to meet his increasingly bizarre demands. They finally refused to cave when his demands amounted to giving himself an unfair advantage over his opponent. Under the rules he won the title, there was an advantage given to the current champion, but that was a simple necessity due to the nature of the competition. Under his proposed first to 10 system, the only unfairness inherent in the competition is who gets white first. The champion, of course, would get that. However, the winner of the competition is the first to 10 wins. It shouldn’t matter if the score is 10-9 or 10-0.
I stated that Fischer’s odd behavior in his later life could be forgiven considering the chess brilliance he displayed in his younger days.
glee replied:
Considering Bobby Fischer’s declining mental state over the past three decades, should we really place that much weight on what he said during that time? I don’t think so.
Liberal’s posting concerning Bobby Fischer’s mental decline was well said:
Sad.
Bobby Fisher, Kiss my entire ass
I will gladly piss on bobby fishers grave
His comment after 9/11 secured his place in history to me. May he rot in Hell, if there is such a place.
I’ve heard that story, except that it was Paulsen who sat there for hours and only then expressed surprise on learning it was his move. This was in the pre-clocks era when men like Elijah Williams routinely sat for hours on end over a single move.
As to what is inconceivable, it’s inconceivable that a strong player would inadvertently capture one of his own pieces, and it’s inconceivable that a World Championship contender should have to ask the referee if it is legal to castle if your rook is attacked (ceteris paribus, it is), and it’s inconceivable that a respected master and long-established commentator should remark twice in the same game that Black’s best move was to castle when Black had earlier moved his king. However, all of these inconceivabilities are cited in a book I believe you have on your shelf, glee - The Complete Chess Addict.
I understand that by the 1970s the world championship was not the champion’s personal property (in the 1930s Alekhine made good and certain that Capablanca would not get a re-match) and the “revisionism” Liberal cites appears to be very widespread - also that FIDE did concede most of Fischer’s demands, and as to the most unreasonable of them, glee has ably addressed that already.
Just because I fear the Duck Cult, doesn’t mean they’re not out to get me!
Glee, with all due respect — and I realize that you are a FIDE master — I would hold your analysis of most chess positions to be reasonably sound, but your opinion of what is fair and what isn’t is just as open to challenge as anyone else’s. Yasser Seirawan, a FIDE grandmaster and, I believe, at the time a FIDE IM (international master) as well as Lev Alburt , at that time a FIDE grandmaster and recent defector to the US, both agreed with our group about the reasonableness of Fischer’s demands. They were both guests of ours, and I was priviledged to play a (brief) casual game with Lev as we waited for dinner to be served. (He crushed me, of course.)
If the challenger is ahead by 9-8, then he ought to have to win one more game to seal the championship. However, if the champion is behind by 8-9, then he too ought to have to win one more game to retain his title. These were not just rules that Fischer designed for himself. He designed them to unseat the Soviets from domination of FIDE. It was common knowledge (and Lev confirmed) that they cheated with regularity whenever they played important matches against foreign players.
The suggested rules cannot be compared one to one with the past rules involving draws. Draws were, as you are aware, just another tactic in the Soviet arsenal. Their players were trained (and told) to play for draws. That kept their ratings artificially high, and it forced others to play for wins because drawn matches fell to the champion. Fischer simply sought to eliminate that strategy. And no one will ever know whether it would have taken longer or shorter because it was never tried. And even besides, what the fuck. If it takes six months, so what. If the Soviets were in a hurry, they could play to win.
What was his comment?