None. Though Hazel was close.
How many chess champs were nuts?
Sort:
It is spelled chestnuts not chessnuts, mike.
In all fairness to the idea of, either judging anyone without just cause and to give the upmost creedance to the idea..."there is a fine line between genius and insanity"... consider for a moment that, you have to be some what nuts (especially in the eyes of ones peers, without whom, this doesn't really have any merit anyway) to decide you are going to outsmart the entire world, of all things at a board game, and you are going to spend nearly all of your time, energy and resources making it happen. From this perspective, one could logically conclude, they are all nuts....
Fisher: Unbelievably great at chess. Yet unbelievably NUTS! I agree. Wasn't Alekhine a little crazy in the fact that all he did was play chess.
I'm sure there's a couple more.
nameno1had wrote:
In all fairness to the idea of, either judging anyone without just cause and to give the upmost creedance to the idea..."there is a fine line between genius and insanity"... consider for a moment that, you have to be some what nuts (especially in the eyes of ones peers, without whom, this doesn't really have any merit anyway) to decide you are going to outsmart the entire world, of all things at a board game, and you are going to spend nearly all of your time, energy and resources making it happen. From this perspective, one could logically conclude, they are all nuts....
Yeah I think you hit a homerun with that one.
Probably the craziest of all though are the ones who fall just short and nobody ever knows their name. At least the top 5 players of so make good money nowadays right?
I am not really sure about the top level players under the world champ, but I am sure they make plenty enough to continue to travel, enter tournaments, pay their coaches, and maintain their household's, if they even have one.
fischer wasnt directly crazy even he was very wierd
Steinitz ended up in an asylum.
Wasn't Morphy supposed to have wandered around New Orleans in the years before his death talking to imaginary people and so forth? He was never technically a 'champion' since he pre-dates any officially recognized world championship, but still . .
Achilles Frydman ran around buck naked in public.
There isn't enough room in the human head for brilliance and sanity.
Fischer, Morphy, Steinitz are the most famous chess nuts.
Notably sane were Lasker, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Spassky. You don't have to be nuts to be a great chess player. It helps to have other occupations on the side. Lasker had mathematics and philosophy, Capablanca had tennis, Botvinnik had electrical engineering, and Spassky had his appreciation of wine, women, and the finer things in life.
"Achilles Frydman ran around buck naked": If I'm not mistaken, this is one of the persistent tales debunked by E. Winter on his Web site.
Ricardo_Morro wrote:
"Achilles Frydman ran around buck naked": If I'm not mistaken, this is one of the persistent tales debunked by E. Winter on his Web site.
Thou art mistaken. The tale was about Paulino, not Achilles.
Ricardo_Morro wrote:
Fischer, Morphy, Steinitz are the most famous chess nuts.
Notably sane were Lasker, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Spassky. You don't have to be nuts to be a great chess player. It helps to have other occupations on the side. Lasker had mathematics and philosophy, Capablanca had tennis, Botvinnik had electrical engineering, and Spassky had his appreciation of wine, women, and the finer things in life.
With all due respect, I think it would be fair to say that Spassky could be considered nuts, on some level, if he was willing to put up with Fischer again, even just to play him one more time to save face. I personally wouldn't put up with a wack job, just to prove myself to anyone. I don't have time for anyone's nonsense, nor do I deserve having to put up with it.
nameno1had wrote:
Ricardo_Morro wrote:
Fischer, Morphy, Steinitz are the most famous chess nuts.
Notably sane were Lasker, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Spassky. You don't have to be nuts to be a great chess player. It helps to have other occupations on the side. Lasker had mathematics and philosophy, Capablanca had tennis, Botvinnik had electrical engineering, and Spassky had his appreciation of wine, women, and the finer things in life.
With all due respect, I think it would be fair to say that Spassky could be considered nuts, on some level, if he was willing to put up with Fischer again, even just to play him one more time to save face. I personally wouldn't put up with a wack job, just to prove myself to anyone. I don't have time for anyone's nonsense, nor do I deserve having to put up with it.
. . . but you have time to read and comment in forums lol.
dunce wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
Ricardo_Morro wrote:
Fischer, Morphy, Steinitz are the most famous chess nuts.
Notably sane were Lasker, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Spassky. You don't have to be nuts to be a great chess player. It helps to have other occupations on the side. Lasker had mathematics and philosophy, Capablanca had tennis, Botvinnik had electrical engineering, and Spassky had his appreciation of wine, women, and the finer things in life.
With all due respect, I think it would be fair to say that Spassky could be considered nuts, on some level, if he was willing to put up with Fischer again, even just to play him one more time to save face. I personally wouldn't put up with a wack job, just to prove myself to anyone. I don't have time for anyone's nonsense, nor do I deserve having to put up with it.
. . . but you have time to read and comment in forums lol.
Ok,ok...stop already....
I already have made it known, I would love to be as good as them, first of all.
Further more, the world tells me I can't possibly be a genius and that insanity isn't acceptable behavior... then it tells me there is a fine line between the two... after the fact, I find it difficult to keep my balance between the two...
and you think that, just the mere fact I spend gross amounts of time, in chess forums is the deciding factor...?
I think you need to look in the mirror.....lol
Jan 24, 2012
0
#19
In defence of Boris Spassky and the 2cnd Tournament against Fischer I would give Spassky the benefit of the doubt and say that the match was mainly done for money. Spassky had left the Soviet Union and had lost the benefits that he used to have ( a free apartment from the State and a monthly salary, etc ) so therefore he needed money. I believe it was that simple, we all need to eat.
Jan 24, 2012
0
#20
@ cabadenwurt It was the 2nd match not a tnmt. Most players probably don't fault Spassky for playing in a war zone where genocide was being committed, although he is just as guilty as Fischer, but at least he didn't spit on diplomatic messages from France telling him not to play there and didn't gloat about 911. He wasn't anti-semitic either, so as a person he's probably way more popular than Fischer.
There was another forum about this 2nd match being held in Belgrade and to my surprise many chessplayers don't find anything wrong with holding chess events in UN sanctioned war zones, after all it wasn't Fischer and Spassky who started the war or committed genocide right? So what's the problem? At least this was their attitude, not mine.
As for the original topic here are some innaresting links
http://amog.com/entertainment/celebrity/craziest-brilliant-chess-grandmasters-time/
http://weaksquare.blogspot.com/2009/10/fruits-and-nuts.html
Fisher was