Bobby Fischer dead

[AL_DA_GREAT]

get a list of the share holders that have more than 1% of stock in all the major media countries.

 

[philippe]

i leave that up to you, after all i'm not the one defending a nutter theory.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

i leave that up to you, after all i'm not the one defending a nutter theory.

Well if you do you will realise that there are a lot more than 1% Jewish which is the avrage in the swedish population. In sweden they own 2 out of 4 of swedens largest newspaper and our 4 bigest tv station (as majority shareholders) not to mention that there are many more companies that they own or influence.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I have no mixed feelings.

To each his own. Might I add that I practically live of chess these days, so the topic is more important to me than many others here.

He was a hateful, paranoid, anti-semitic bigot.

I can agree with all of that except for the bigot part.

Maybe he was a genius and a winner at chess, but he was a failure as a human being.

I can agree on that as well, but that doesn't mean that I can't relate to such a person in an empathic way.
[He was clearly mentally disturbed, but that hardly gives him a pass.]
Considering the serious nature of schizophrenia, I think it does.

He never sought help. And passed it up even when people went out of their way to give it to him.

I don't know who you are referring to here.

I can be quite forgiving of the 'crazy genius' who makes major contributions to humanity. But this guy played chess, he didn't cure diseases, he didn't reinvent the wheel.

Of course, if that is your standard, quite a lot of human activity is worthless.

If he had never lived, America simply wouldn't have had a decade long stretch of actual interest in competitive chess. Not exactly changing anybody's world.

For those you participate in such an activity, it can actually mean one hell of a difference.

And its more than debatable just how good he was. He never played Karpov or Kasparov, perhaps the two most dominating players of the second half of the 20th century. He in fact went out of his way to avoid playing Karpov. Sure he dominated Spassky at a very young age, but there is no undying crown for one hit wonders.

Except that he didn't dominate Spassky at "a very young age", it is indeed true that international chess was a bit in decline when Fischer rose to ascendancy. But we should be careful to belittle his achievements too much as well, as there is no doubt about that the level of his play was consistently very high and he might have kept his title for quite some years.

You mean, that he was a chess phenom? But, as brief as his mature career was, he proved the sort of champion the chess world thought was lost since the demise of Alekhine: the all-conquering, almost unbeatable champion.

Except for the irony of bringing forth Alekhine, the real vicious nazi among chessplayers, the description of him as all-conquering is quite misleading to say the least, remember that Fischer did not play a single game as world champion. It is speculative to use such a comparison, as far as I can see.
Also. When I refuse to call Fischer a genius, I do so because I also emphasize the creative component. For a player of Fischer's enormous strength, he was not very innovative. When playing through his games, you usually will find that there are with just a few exceptions few new strategical ideas to be found in them, he wins thanks to his energy, his virtually flawless tactical abilities (he hardly ever made any blunders) and an excellent endgame technique. Compared to the above mentioned Alekhine, who virtually was the opening theory in his day, or Botvinnik who changed our whole concept on chess in general and a number of openings in particular, I am not so impressed.
I might also add that quite a few of us prefer the "dull" type of champion Botvinnik or Karpov represents to "eccentric" people like Alekhine or Fischer

EDIT: some comments in this thread call for a clearer explanation of his renouncing of American citizenship, which happened in this decade after the US government decided to pursue him wherever he could be. Link.

Good point.

 

[Sofista]

Except for the irony of bringing forth Alekhine, the real vicious nazi among chessplayers, the description of him as all-conquering is quite misleading to say the least, remember that Fischer did not play a single game as world champion. It is speculative to use such a comparison, as far as I can see.

Heh, I mentioned Alekhine as the last one chronologically in the golden triad which he forms with Lasker and Capa, all of which were considered absolutely dominant during their reign (although I'm aware that by the end of the 30's time was catching up with Alekhine). (Also, if one extends the "he didn't harm anyone" argument to Fischer, why not to Alekhine?).
To the point: in the years before Reykjavik, he was more or less unstoppable, and the campaign culminated in the all-too-famous crushing victories over the rest of the world elite which suggests he was in that very league, as opposed to a Botvinnik who honestly called himself "primus inter pares".

Also. When I refuse to call Fischer a genius, I do so because I also emphasize the creative component. For a player of Fischer's enormous strength, he was not very innovative. When playing through his games, you usually will find that there are with just a few exceptions few new strategical ideas to be found in them, he wins thanks to his energy, his virtually flawless tactical abilities (he hardly ever made any blunders) and an excellent endgame technique. Compared to the above mentioned Alekhine, who virtually was the opening theory in his day, or Botvinnik who changed our whole concept on chess in general and a number of openings in particular, I am not so impressed.
I might also add that quite a few of us prefer the "dull" type of champion Botvinnik or Karpov represents to "eccentric" people like Alekhine or Fischer

I absolutely agree on the personal level, people like Euwe or Lasker would surely be on top of the list of chess legends I'd drink a coffee with.
But on the style issue, h'm, I'd appeal for an exception for the flawless instead of the artist (in the romantic sense of the creative genius). I have mentioned Capablanca earlier, and will call his name again as a player who was rather an immaculate technician instead of a revolutionary. And Fischer was (cfr Watson's "Secrets of modern chess strategy", which I feel short-changes somewhat the old masters but is indeed deep and thought-provoking) responsible for a new developement in chess preparation, that is, he studied his schemes - admittedly specialised, idiosyncratic ones - to an unprecedented extent.
Which is still nothing, because mine is an aesthetic point: subtracting from Fischer because his play didn't radically depart from the vulgata of his times - nay, he quoted Tarrasch as one of his chess heroes - is like criticising, oh I don't know, Jane Austen because she didn't turn the novel form upsode down, or David and Canova for their reverence for classic art. Chess is (also) art to me, as for the vast majority of chessites, but has an advantage over the other arts: it is measurable and logically viable for analisys, meaning that greatness in the field is supported by solid numbers and achievements. And Fischer's, see above, had the numbers indeed.
Anyway, Gens una sumus

 

[Richard Cribb]

Heh, I mentioned Alekhine as the last one chronologically in the golden triad which he forms with Lasker and Capa, all of which were considered absolutely dominant during their reign (although I'm aware that by the end of the 30's time was catching up with Alekhine).

OK, read what you wrote yourself once again: during their reign. And then go on to consider how absolutely "dominant" Fischer was during his...
That said, it was also a bit easier to be "absolutely dominant" at a time when you could handpick your opponents for title matches (playing Janowski and Marshall instead of Rubinstein or Maroczy, for instance) or play about one tournament a year to remain undefeated for a long period.
Be careful here, I am not denigrating Lasker or Capablanca; they were truly great players, but it is doubtful to compare them with more modern players regarding this.

(Also, if one extends the "he didn't harm anyone" argument to Fischer, why not to Alekhine?).

Because Alekhine was an active collaborator with the most vicious tyranny the world ever saw, and did nothing when Jewish chessmaster like for instance Landau or Przepiorka perished in death camps (Check out what people like Bernstein, Najdorf or Tartakower though about this issue). That together with writing those herostratically famour articles and playing in Nazi propaganda tournaments puts him in another league. And as far as I know, there was nothing wrong with Alekhine's mental health.

To the point: in the years before Reykjavik, he was more or less unstoppable, and the campaign culminated in the all-too-famous crushing victories over the rest of the world elite which suggests he was in that very league,

Again, that is not very precise.
Fischer was only more and less "unstoppable" in one interzonal and three short candidate matches before winning the championship in the time span of about two years.. In the late sixties he did not win any great tournaments. Of course, he might have been the dominant figure after that as well had he chose to play, but he might as well have lost to Karpov in '75.
In short, it will be purely speculations.

as opposed to a Botvinnik who honestly called himself "primus inter pares".

And when did he do that?
I think that if this little side event called the WW2 hadn't happened, Botvinnik would have been just as dominant during the whole 40's. He surely would have beaten Alekhine in their scheduled match, and can't see anybody who could have touched him for that decade. Also please keep in mind that Botvinnik was basically an amateur. When he met Bronstein, who usually should be an easy match for him, in 51 he hadn't played nor studied any serious chess for a couple of years.

I absolutely agree on the personal level, people like Euwe or Lasker would surely be on top of the list of chess legends I'd drink a coffee with.

Good to hear.

But on the style issue, h'm, I'd appeal for an exception for the flawless instead of the artist (in the romantic sense of the creative genius). I have mentioned Capablanca earlier, and will call his name again as a player who was rather an immaculate technician instead of a revolutionary.

Botvinnik was always my chess idol, and I hardly think there was anything romantic about him. As a matter of fact, I find more romance, mythology and genius raves in the Fischer camp.

And Fischer was (cfr Watson's "Secrets of modern chess strategy", which I feel short-changes somewhat the old masters but is indeed deep and thought-provoking) responsible for a new developement in chess preparation, that is, he studied his schemes - admittedly specialised, idiosyncratic ones - to an unprecedented extent.

I must admit that I find Watson both on a personal level and as a chess theorist quite annoying. Intelligent, yes; thought-provoking, in a sense yes, but what you quote here is typical.He is prone to pomposity and exaggerations.
As far as I can see, Fischer was just one of the best exponents for the Soviet School of chess, and many others did the same thing, they only lacked Fischer's complete devotion (most chesmasters have families and othe rinterests beside their occupation, Fischer lived an breathed chess. Again, who is the romantic figure?) to the game.

Which is still nothing, because mine is an aesthetic point: subtracting from Fischer because his play didn't radically depart from the vulgata of his times - nay, he quoted Tarrasch as one of his chess heroes - is like criticising, oh I don't know, Jane Austen because she didn't turn the novel form upsode down, or David and Canova for their reverence for classic art.

First of all, I think it is an odd thing to say that one is criticizing somebody by not calling them geniuses. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not being a genius.
Secondly, practically any sane chessplayer would admire Tarrasch; but he was in fact quite innovative. Just one case in point since I am a bit in time trouble (how typical of a chessplayer!); the Tarrasch variation. And Jane Austen? How many great female novelist was it at that time?

Chess is (also) art to me, as for the vast majority of chessites, but has an advantage over the other arts: it is measurable and logically viable for analisys, meaning that greatness in the field is supported by solid numbers and achievements. And Fischer's, see above, had the numbers indeed.

Now you almost sound like Botvinnik...
But anyway, one does not discuss tastes, and you argue well and honest, in addition to be knowledgeable about the topic (quite a rare thing in OT, actually) , so if Fischer is your brand of whisky, just stick to him. I have a healthy respect for him myself, and sometimes use his games in lectures. I could without difficulty compile quite a long list of his games which I appreciate, some of them for their cretivity. But still, I am afraid that for me he is a bit on the short side for being somebody special for me as a chess player, I stick to the patriarch.

Anyway, Gens una sumus

Gens una sumus indeed, my friend

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

No I am just saying that they are very overrepresented in the media industry and politics.

Yes.

That means that they control our country.

Ummm...no. Though I'd be delighted for you to tell me how one automatically equals the other. You seem to be missing a few points in your 'dot-connecting' exercise.

Of course, if that is your standard, quite a lot of human activity is worthless.

Except that's not actually what I said. Or even remotely implied. I am simply more forgiving of the rather extreme 'flaws' of your 'crazy-genius' persona when they make meaningful contributions to humanity. I am not saying that everyone should make these contributions. Or that your activities are worthless if you don't. Just that 'cancer-curer' that hates Jews is gonna get a bit more respect from me than 'table tennis savant' that hates jews. Not that hate in either case is ok. Just that in one case, the positives of their contributions far outweigh the negatives of their bigotry.

As for the rest, I'll admit that he probably did have a significant impact for people, Americans especially, who decided to make chess a major part of their lives. (or influenced many to take it up as a hobby or professionally) And yeah, his early domination in tournaments was unheard of for quite a while. But he still never played the best two players of the last 30 years. So i think the jury is open on just how good he was or wasn't.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Except that's not actually what I said. Or even remotely implied. I am simply more forgiving of the rather extreme 'flaws' of your 'crazy-genius' persona when they make meaningful contributions to humanity. I am not saying that everyone should make these contributions. Or that your activities are worthless if you don't. Just that 'cancer-curer' that hates Jews is gonna get a bit more respect from me than 'table tennis savant' that hates jews. Not that hate in either case is ok. Just that in one case, the positives of their contributions far outweigh the negatives of their bigotry.

Then I can just conclude that you have a moral code I find strange.
The only thing that makes me forgiving regarding such statements are mental illnesses, and my point was exactly that Fischer was suffering from one such of a serious character. Apart from that, I think that every sane individual should be held to exactly the same standard regarding political opinions and actions of a harmful character disregarding excellence in anything else.

As for the rest, I'll admit that he probably did have a significant impact for people, Americans especially, who decided to make chess a major part of their lives. (or influenced many to take it up as a hobby or professionally) And yeah, his early domination in tournaments was unheard of for quite a while. But he still never played the best two players of the last 30 years. So i think the jury is open on just how good he was or wasn't.

As you can see I am somewhere in the middle between Sofista and yourself on this one. In my opinon the match against Karpov and him was a very open one. So your last sentence is a fair statement.