I am a musician and chessplayer, not a psychologist, but Fischer, accroding to me, was just one angry, angry fellow.
He was mad he had no father growing up....and his mother was politically too active to take good care of him....He was angry!
And this anger manifested in many ways...
That's all I know. Whether the psychologists want to call it this or that, I don't care. His anger is evident.
Sports_Suck_2014 Wrote:
Anyone who is " sure " that Karpov would have beaten Fischer in 75 is simply showing their ignorance of chess ...
Anyone who is "sure" that Fischer is the greatest of all time is simply showing their ignorance of chess...
I rather believe in a National master Red than a non-master. BTW in this thread a FIDE master said Fischer would of won and Kasparov said Fischer would won in 1975. Maybe you can explain why two masters and world champion Kasparov thought Fischer would of won in 1975 but you think Karpov would beat Fischer.
rdecredico Wrote:
Fischer love/revisionism is right up there with Regan love/revisionism.
If there are two more mythologized fools of the past 60 years of USA history I have yet to hear of them.
The long and sordid history of American white-washing history is the genre to which Fischer now belongs.
I do however wonder how he would feel about the Millionaire Chess?
hahahahaha
See, reality is that Fischer fucked chess over for himself. His bullshit antics CHASED AWAY sponsors. His interviews on television and other media outlets ended up making him out to be the real lunatic he was. By revealing his actual mental condition (which was kept under the radar [previously by the chess community, which is small) people ended up taking a look at the history of mental issues associated with chess cahmpions.
And they went away and took their money elsewhere, to things such as football, which exploded in the 1980's due to large media influence and commercialization efforts. Even ridiculous things such as rock climbing took off and outdoor activities took off with successful marketing efforts and became large business opportunities.
But all Fisher did was show large instituions that chess was not a good place to invest. Kasparov put the last nail in that coffin.
But you don't like knowing this fact apparently and instead prefer the marketing aspects that you have purchased and idolized instead?
If a real charismatic person with even remotely normal personality and behaviors would have won in 1972 things would have been significantly better for the chess world. If Spassky had won, and had the same media push behind him, things would have been so much better.
That dude had class. Fischer, just an ass.
In 1992 they were willing to pay Fischer 5 million dollars to play chess with Spassky and another five million dollars to play Judith Polgar and Kasparov never was offer that much.
Sports_Suck_2014 Wrote:
Anyone who is " sure " that Karpov would have beaten Fischer in 75 is simply showing their ignorance of chess ...
Anyone who is "sure" that Fischer is the greatest of all time is simply showing their ignorance of chess...
I rather believe in a National master Red than a non-master. BTW in this thread a FIDE master said Fischer would of won and Kasparov said Fischer would won in 1975. Maybe you can explain why two masters and world champion Kasparov thought Fischer would of won in 1975 but you think Karpov would beat Fischer.
I read Kasparov's book on Fischer and he wrote he believed Karpov would have won in 75. Not that it means anything really. They didn't play so NO ONE knows for sure. But Kasparov did write he thought Karpov would have won. Peace
Spassky also thought Fischer would have won in 1975. It is all speculation, of course...no one can know for sure.
Fischer was a brilliant, angry man.
He wasn't just angry, he was a real nutter. And an unpleasant human being. But he could really play some chess. As far as being brilliant? He was a brilliant chess player. His other ideas where ignorant at best.
Sports_Suck_2014 Wrote:
Anyone who is " sure " that Karpov would have beaten Fischer in 75 is simply showing their ignorance of chess ...
Anyone who is "sure" that Fischer is the greatest of all time is simply showing their ignorance of chess...
I rather believe in a National master Red than a non-master. BTW in this thread a FIDE master said Fischer would of won and Kasparov said Fischer would won in 1975. Maybe you can explain why two masters and world champion Kasparov thought Fischer would of won in 1975 but you think Karpov would beat Fischer.
Ho hum... I never said Karpov would have won in 1975. I explicitly said I gave a slight advantage to Fischer in 1975 and Karpov in 1978 in one of my first posts on this topic...I even went into detail about how Karpov's lack of endurance in his youth would have been the deciding factor.
What I was pointing out in the above post is that Reb's 'sureness' that Fischer is the greatest of all time is just as irrational as the person who is 'sure" Karpov would have beaten Fischer in 75. In other words, Reb had no good arguement in pointing out that the person who is 'sure' that Karpov would have won because Reb himself was being just as irrational as the person he was degrading. I'm pretty sure Reb understood my point because he never responded, nor has he made any more comments like that.
Fischer was the sitting champion in 1975, had achieved the highest rating of all time (to that point), as well as the highest performance ratings against Taimanov and Larsen.
Furthermore, Reb was a contemporary of Fischer, though a few years younger. We all studied his games.
Karpov, on the other hand, was still rather young, and later admitted he would have been the underdog in 1975.
There is nothing irrational about that.
Reb was a punk kid when Fischer was at the top.
Fischer was the sitting champion in 1975, had achieved the highest rating of all time (to that point), as well as the highest performance ratings against Taimanov and Larsen.
Furthermore, Reb was a contemporary of Fischer, though a few years younger. We all studied his games.
Karpov, on the other hand, was still rather young, and later admitted he would have been the underdog in 1975.
There is nothing irrational about that.
The irrational part is being 'sure' he was the greatest of all time. Try to keep up.
Sports_Suck_2014 Wrote:
Anyone who is " sure " that Karpov would have beaten Fischer in 75 is simply showing their ignorance of chess ...
Anyone who is "sure" that Fischer is the greatest of all time is simply showing their ignorance of chess...
I rather believe in a National master Red than a non-master. BTW in this thread a FIDE master said Fischer would of won and Kasparov said Fischer would won in 1975. Maybe you can explain why two masters and world champion Kasparov thought Fischer would of won in 1975 but you think Karpov would beat Fischer.
Ho hum... I never said Karpov would have won in 1975. I explicitly said I gave a slight advantage to Fischer in 1975 and Karpov in 1978 in one of my first posts on this topic...I even went into detail about how Karpov's lack of endurance in his youth would have been the deciding factor.
What I was pointing out in the above post is that Reb's 'sureness' that Fischer is the greatest of all time is just as irrational as the person who is 'sure" Karpov would have beaten Fischer in 75. In other words, Reb had no good arguement in pointing out that the person who is 'sure' that Karpov would have won because Reb himself was being just as irrational as the person he was degrading. I'm pretty sure Reb understood my point because he never responded, nor has he made any more comments like that.
I challenge you to point out any post of mine in which I have ever claimed that I " know " Fischer is the greatest of all time . Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension ?
Fischer was the sitting champion in 1975, had achieved the highest rating of all time (to that point), as well as the highest performance ratings against Taimanov and Larsen.
Furthermore, Reb was a contemporary of Fischer, though a few years younger. We all studied his games.
Karpov, on the other hand, was still rather young, and later admitted he would have been the underdog in 1975.
There is nothing irrational about that.
The irrational part is being 'sure' he was the greatest of all time. Try to keep up.
LOLZ, what a dolt.
"Furthermore, Reb was a contemporary of Fischer, though a few years younger. We all studied his games."
You mean you studied Reb's games, or Fischer's games? The way you wrote it sounds like you studied Reb's games....who is Reb?
Since I am one who considers Fischer the greatest player ever I will point out that I dont do so based ONLY on his one WC victory but also in the manner of his victory and dominance . He won 20 games straight against all GMs and won two candidates matches with perfect 6-0 scores . No other player has EVER accomplished such a feat in chess before or since Fischer . It is also likely that had he continued to play he would have become even stronger since he was 29 in 1972 and it seems most top players reach their peak in their 30s .
Here's one example. You not only consider Fischer the best on what he did, you even add in WHAT HE MIGHT HAVE DONE! Add to this that everytime someone gives factual information showing it's unlikely that Fischer is the greatest, you start saying, "end the hate", "stop hating". So one may infer that you are 'sure' Fischer is the greatest because you consider any rational arguement to the contrary as "haters hating."
Fischer was the sitting champion in 1975, had achieved the highest rating of all time (to that point), as well as the highest performance ratings against Taimanov and Larsen.
Furthermore, Reb was a contemporary of Fischer, though a few years younger. We all studied his games.
Karpov, on the other hand, was still rather young, and later admitted he would have been the underdog in 1975.
There is nothing irrational about that.
The irrational part is being 'sure' he was the greatest of all time. Try to keep up.
LOLZ, what a dolt.
How can I take seriously Pee-Wee Herman in drag with a fruit basket on his head?
SS~It's apparent that most of your quotes are unsuccessful attempts at litigating between your true opinion of Fischer & your need ta be "objective" in said comments. As stated. I don't buy it. Give it up.
Our opinion that Fischer is the All-time Greatest shouldn't be such an stretch...after all, who's your All-time great?
SS~It's apparent that most of your quotes are unsuccessful attempts at litigating between your true opinion of Fischer & your need ta be "objective" in said comments. As stated. I don't buy it. Give it up.
Our opinion that Fischer is the All-time Greatest shouldn't be such an stretch...after all, who's your All-time great?
People who come late to a topic should at least have the decency to read all the previous posts before criticising someone. Once again, I'll say Kasparov and Karpov are/were superior chessplayers to Fischer. However, I'm not going to repost the stats to prove my point. It should be obvious to any UNBIASED OBJECTIVE researcher.
If Fischer had sex with Karpov who would orgasm?
The answer to this question is obvious:
Your crude and bitter outlook on life hides someone insecure and in pain.
Any other answer would be catering to a muckraker.
But this hero worship of this petard is misguided.
Was that a typo or are you actually ignorant of the meaning of "hoist by one's own petard"?