And Reb, , I'm not saying you are not patriotic, but I would love to hear how sending 20k to a country who attacked us instead of keeping it in America just because you want a better product is patriotic! In my opinion, it is Japanese auto makers who *caused* the big three to decline. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon for a while and US cars stopped selling as well, and therefore the quality suffered. I agree totally that Toyotas and Hondas are top-notch vehicles that are extremely reliable, but at what cost to American auto-workers?
That is absurd. GM was paying three retirees for every guy who was actually working. And the guy who was actually working was often making in excess of $35 an hour. The quality of a product does not suffer because of a drop in demand; rather, quite the opposite. It is the producer's duty to appeal to the consumer, not t'other way 'round.
Furthermore, Japanese auto makers have many production facilities in the U.S. particularly the southeast. So, you are supporting American workers by purchasing Japanese vehicles.
I am from Michigan and drive a Ford F150, but am sick to death of hearing about all the victims of the inevitable collapse of Chrysler and GM.
Could I be supporting American workers by buying a Honda in Portugal ?! That would be a nice plus if so ! I hope I dont shatter any stereotypes here but I have never owned a pick up. I did have one hell of a time getting that gun rack to fit in the Honda Accord though !
I became so disgusted with Fischer that I gave away my copy of "60 Memorable Games." Since then I have focused on games of Alekhine and Capablanca. But, in the end, as time passes, I expect I will have to reacquire "60 Memorable Games" (doubtlessly at an exorbitant price).
Hard to say if Alekhine was any better a person than Fischer. But I like both players chess games.
Ah yes, Bobby Fischer the player...but Bobby Fischer wasn't a player. He was a forfeiter. He was a guy who lived 20 years out in the wilderness until apparently there were bills to pay and he came back to play another "world championship match" 20 years after the fact.
Why am I so pissed at the guy? Because I was a young player waiting for that renaissance which his presence promised...and which never came. To me he was like Paul Morphy (another guy with half a career)...and a guy who died in his bathtub (as Fischer might as well have done).
well if you think that he was like morphy then you should sympathise with poor fellow instead of abusing him!!
He was only like Morphy in that he failed to live up to his promise. But Morphy didn't publish broadsides far and wide espousing views nuttier than a pecan farm (even though he apparently was none too sound upstairs). "Poor fellows" don't say they're gonna round up half a million people and exterminate them when they come to power.
Fischer and Hitler? Well, the comparison may not be appropriate, but for the sake of argument, just imagine that Hitler was the greatest chess player ever [and set aside the fact that Kasparov really was, haha]. I say we would and should admire his chess games.
I agree with those who simply insist that we make a DISTINCTION, e.g. "Hitler" the chessplayer was the greatest of all time; as a human being, one of the worst.
This is the sort of thing that I've found to be an abiding fault in the chess community (and I've found the same thing with math geeks too): the notion that their pastime is so above everything else that they are willing to overlook the most egregious behavior of anyone proficient in it.
So, let's see...if Hitler was the greatest player ever...on the down side, he was reponsible for the deaths of 50 million people, but...to his credit, he was good at shoving a few chunks of wood around a board. Now, a lot of chess nuts would no doubt find this pretty close to balancing...and that's the kind of attitude that I've grown fed up with over the years.
It's just a board game, folks--and that doesn't excuse a dirtbag from being a dirtbag.
Why do people insist on not reading the thread title? Bobby Fischer, the Player, not the man. As a chess player he was amazing. As a man, he was flawed. End of story. No-one's saying chess ability makes you a good person or excuses anything. People are just saying "well he was an amazing chessplayer, and that is not affected by any racism".
Tonydal, it's not an issue of balancing; it's a matter of distinguishing. I'm not saying he had ANY excuses for being a dirtbag or whatever he was personally, so don't put that view on me. I don't know if your generalization about the chess community is correct or not, but I'm definitely not "overlooking" Fischer's faults. He was a horrible person. (Shall I copy and paste that a hundred times before you realize that ... I think Fischer was a horrible person?) I used the Hitler example to make the point that I'd admire his games if he played great ones -- that's just giving credit where it's due. (This isn't quite the same thing, I know, but I actually do admire some of Karl Marx's games, even though one could argue his views led to some serious human suffering too.)
What's this about our pastime being "above" anything? You're really setting up the old straw man here. It just so happens that on a chess site, people want to talk mostly about chess, not morality (uh, except when it comes to cheating, I guess). And there's no problem if on the philosophy/morality sites, they'd prefer to focus on Fischer's negative moral traits rather than on his great record on the white side of the Exchange Ruy.
The sad thing about Fischer is that he could have been Chess' biggest promoter. Gary Kasparov was a big booster of chess when he was World Champion. Fischer had he kept playing would've advanced chess as no man ever could. He could've been the Michael Jordon of Chess. While he was a genius on the chessboard, I think he was more obsessed with getting to be World Champion, rather than being in love with chess itself. If he really loved playing chess he never would have left the game.
If you are interested right now, you can buy the book at Amazon.com from $11 paperback edition 1972, a selected and fully annotated book by Fisher from $27 US and upward for a hard cover edition.
Link: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=my+60+memorable+games
fischer didnt love chess?! what are u talking about! how can he be better at it than everyone else in the world without loving it?! i think he loved chess far more than anyone else! far more than natural and/or advisable, infact! he left everything and devoted his whole life to chess...which might infact have been the cause of his madness!
Fischer not only loved chess he was obsessed by it. However once he became champion he had achieved his goal. Not uncommon among athletes--Borg quit at the top of his game and Lendl did as well. Many ball players keep hanging on for the money but look at how many Olympic athletes quit at the top --Bruce Jenner comes to mind.
Being gifted in any sphere is not enough to be a decent human being. It's also not enough to wildly condemn we do not know on any level. They do say there is a fine line between genius and insanity.
Fischer sacrificed everything for chess, even his sanity. Anyone who can say he didnt love the game doesnt have a clue.
You, I respect.
Fisher to me is the third greatest player of all time here are my personal top five
1. Garry Kasprov for getting a rating of 2851
2. Veslin Topalov for getting a rating of 2813
3. Bobby Ficher
4. Anand
5. Vladamir Kramink
What's this about our pastime being "above" anything? You're really setting up the old straw man here.
I wish I was. But it's something I've noticed about the chess community for a long time. I'm afraid years of experience in having to deal with that attitude have brought the somewhat distasteful truth of it home to me.
tonydal,
You did quote what I said as an example of "the sort of thing ..." that shows chessplayers think their pastime is so far "above" everything else. Set aside the generalization you make for a second -- I suppose we can still disagree about that later -- and tell me why what I said is just that "sort of thing." I made a distinction, and I NEVER said anything about chess being "above" anything else. You gotta connect the dots for me, or else disconnect my statement from your complaint.
OK, good call ("I was really drunk at the time"--Pink Floyd). I suppose maybe what I object to is this whole topic...since after all the title kinda Begs the Question (uh-oh--more stuff from a seminar). Who's gonna seriously argue that Fischer was a patz or something?--I mean, come on. So if you (ie, the OP) really want to promote your topic, why not bring up R Byrne--Fischer...or 11-0...or 20-0? Instead of mentioning Fischer the man (which is only likely to curl one's whiskers and cause nausea in lab rats).
Why so vindictive Tony ?
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.