Trying to understand is not a crime

Trying to understand is not a crime

patheticendgame
patheticendgame
Aug 6, 2008, 12:00 AM |
1 | Other

"There just ain't no pity. No, no, no, in the naked city, yeahNew York City." (excerpt from a blues Bobby was singing several years ago)

 

Not going in the emotional area is difficult, as most of us are deeply human. Destroying a living legend is not appropriate, even if it isn't the real intention. Even if Fischer did it -involuntarily- by himself, the question remains to know if he still was "Fischer" when he did it (glorifying 2001...as a weapon against USA) : probably not. Cunfusing the destiny of a whole people with one's self and one's deep need of revenge cannot be a sign of sanity. Suprisingly, that's exactly what H. Kissinger asked him to do before the 72 world championship : "your country is above your personal interests".

Other world ch. were great : Karpov-Korchnoï in 78 (5-2..., at one point of the title, then : 5-3.. 5-4.. 5-5 !!..., " Korchnoï, the lonely knight, crumbling the score like we do for a mountain, "the artist against the computer"...) but 1972 meant much more : making the chess and its symbolism available to the awareness of a planet, and this made the difference for ever. (I'm aware to speak here as a 'has been', but I don't care)

Interpreting recent History is a temptation. Now we are in the process of climate changes ; another context is taking place. But in a Nabokov's book of the 19th century (The Luzhin Defence), a crook says to a young chess prodigy : "Be brilliant, as long as you can be"...After the movie about John Nash ("A beautiful mind"), a theory emerged again, telling us than above IQ of 170, the risk of "schizo" and paranoia is important. A strong emotional structure is needed to keep the mind in a sane evolution. During the "cold war", you got to defend your country against any possible or probable enemy. So told Kissinger to Fischer : "beat them". Who was "them" ? Russian government, russian chess players, the whole thing totally confused in one supermatch happening... in Iceland.

Interview of Boris Spassky in 2002 is very interesting because the guy remained very strong when he made the distinction between all tournaments and the worldchampionship : "In a tournament, you can sometimes take pleasure. When you fight for The Title, you have to kill your enemy". Surprisingly again, he was speaking the same language as B. fischer did a long time ago : "Chess is war on the board"..."the purpose is to crush opponents' mind". We get here the language of cold war. This is different of what happened before and what will happen in the chess world in the near future. Lasker predicted the end of the game by the frequency of draws. It's not turning like that (random chess, chess in space, four opponents' chess, against the computer...). It seems that even with the classical game, the "personality" of each opening gives a way for anyone to develop a capacity to recognize and improve positions. 1500 years ago, the rook was an elephant, the Queen was moving like the King. Rules change. Castling, "prise en passant", etc. Somehow, the 1972 event made all this available for any educated man connected with media. Cold war and the particular Fischers' personality originated and confirmed "hypermodern" chess. Noble game. Generating friendship. Explaining why violence has to be firmly conducted. We cannot request much more. 

More from patheticendgame
What are we looking for ??

What are we looking for ??