Bobby Fischer

Sort:
msoewulff
humble_apprentice wrote:

 

Hence the U.S. government had neither the right nor the moral ground to condemn Fischer for allegedly "breaching" U.N. sanctions.

 


I do not think anyone has the right or moral ground to condemn anyone for breaching meaningless U.N. sanctions. Nothing the U.N. ever does is binding in any way. They theoretically have the power to enforce their measures, but they never will. They have no real power.

Atos
msoewulff wrote:
humble_apprentice wrote:

 

Hence the U.S. government had neither the right nor the moral ground to condemn Fischer for allegedly "breaching" U.N. sanctions.

 


I do not think anyone has the right or moral ground to condemn anyone for breaching meaningless U.N. sanctions. Nothing the U.N. ever does is binding in any way. They theoretically have the power to enforce their measures, but they never will. They have no real power.


Yes, if someone doesn't have the power to blow me up they have no moral right to say anything. Really a genious philosophical argument, and I am impressed by the education that you are getting. However, the US as a nation decided to participate in those sanctions, so strictly speaking F. was in breach of US laws, not of UN sanctions.

TheGrobe

Why does every Fischer thread degenerate into armchair psychiatry foreign policy...?

Seriously, though, I think this thread has just lost its way.

themothman

What did Fischer know about Yugoslavia and what should be done, nothing, a war and a chess game are far from related.

Atos
TheGrobe wrote:

Why does every Fischer thread degenerate into armchair psychiatry foreign policy...?

Seriously, though, I think this thread has just lost its way.


 Well, I realize that the level of disccusion is not very high. However, if the public left it entirely to professional politicians to decide what should be done, the results would be... totalitarianism. It may not be that different with psychiatrists, if they had the absolute authority to decide who is sane and who is not, it wouldn't be long before they ruled the entire society.

ivandh

Fischer might have called for the match outside of Yugoslavia, or the U.S. could have not been such a prick.

Conflagration_Planet
Atos wrote:
woodshover wrote:
Atos wrote:

There is some evidence for a corelation between schizophrenia and intellectual talents. However, achieving a world class level in any intellectual field requires a sustained effort over the years and it is very unusual for a schizophrenic to accomplish this. I knew a schizophrenic who was a talented programer and could also speak a few languages, but I doubt that he will ever even a get a decent job in programming let alone be world class in the field. I have known another schizophrenic who speaks several languages and has shown talent for music but again she is nowhere near being a world-class musician or linguist. This despite the fact that the medication today is considerably more efficient than it used to be. Schizophrenia typically manifests itself at around 20 and it is not decisively proven whether the causes are genetic or environmental.


Tell that to John Nash, who did Field Medal worthy in mathematics. Then tell it to his son, who inherited both his talent, and his mental illness. 


 That it may in some cases run in the family again does not prove whether it is environmental or genetic. Someone being raised by a schizophrenic who is also a successful mathematician is likely to be strongly influenced by them. You cannot draw scientific conclusions from a few cases while ignoring the other cases that don't fit the bill.


 It's been proven to be genetic. Environmental factors DO influence whether it manifests itself or not, but the root cause is genetic. Abuse isn't always necessary. Nash had an almost ideal childhood. He also had two sons. One genius schizo, one not genius nor schizo. He is also far from the only example of genius mathematicians who also went schizo later on in their lives.

dannyhume
Atos wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:

Why does every Fischer thread degenerate into armchair psychiatry foreign policy...?

Seriously, though, I think this thread has just lost its way.


 Well, I realize that the level of disccusion is not very high. However, if the public left it entirely to professional politicians to decide what should be done, the results would be... totalitarianism. It may not be that different with psychiatrists, if they had the absolute authority to decide who is sane and who is not, it wouldn't be long before they ruled the entire society.


In the U.S., the judge decides who is legally insane.

ivandh
Fiveofswords wrote:

You can argue and argue about what humans beings are allowed to know about sanity without actually sitting in a class and writing papers and stuff. And maybe I should ask permission from a psychiatrist about whether my brother who is convinced he is an orange is actually sane and correct or not, but as thinking humans we cant help but have opinions about things...and it is the people, not psychiatrists ,who should chose to honor the dead. After all if you make some coin with bobby fisher then its not goign to be invisible to people who are not psychiatrists

And the legal/ethical question is much more simple. If fischer wanted to play chess matches he had plenty of opportunities. This thing in yugoslavia was not liek soem chance in a lifetime of course. And to me I tihnk its simply no question that if I must chose between personal desires or obeying some law which i may not understand or be well informed about, I will obey the law. Becuase I know that there is stuff that I simply do not understand.

If I do understand the law and think it is unethical, then maybe I will not obey...but fischer did not even try to make this point...if he wanted to then he should have openly accepted a trial.


In the same post you assert that as a layman you can understand psychiatry well enough to form your own opinion, then turn around and say that as a layman you cannot understand law and ethics well enough to form your own opinion.

At any rate, it is not a court's job to decide what is ethical, only what is legal.

As I say before, Fischer did not need to break the law, but the law didn't need to be so restrictive.

ivandh

I still feel like, on the one hand, you are saying we have authority to talk about psychiatric matters, and then denying that we have authority to talk about legal matters. Like Atos, I think we should be able to talk about both, even if we understand neither.

Atos
ivandh wrote:

I still feel like, on the one hand, you are saying we have authority to talk about psychiatric matters, and then denying that we have authority to talk about legal matters. Like Atos, I think we should be able to talk about both, even if we understand neither.


 Of course, this is the old Aristotle:

Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic. Both alike are concerned with such things as come, more or less, within the general ken of all men and belong to no definite science. Accordingly all men make use, more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others. Ordinary people do this either at random or through practice and from acquired habit. (Rhetoric, I)

 

Although of course some of these men are better informed than others, but still it's not a definite science it seems.

slvnfernando

So the US govt told him not to play Chess in Yugoslavia? Huh! The leading Democracy in the world!!!!

electricpawn
slvnfernando wrote:
Schachgeek wrote:

Hardly think Fischer was a dangerous criminal of the same ilk as Hitler or Manson, more like Fischer would have been a political prisoner but that's beside the point. 

Obama has done some crazy stuff since being hired, and Obama DOES play chess so you never know.

In the meantime, it is possible to print your own US postage stamps with Fischer's picture on them. Go here to learn more:

http://photo.stamps.com/Store/learn-more/real/


It is a consolation to know that there are level headed Americans!

They call their only world Champion a criminal!  He beat Spassky at a time when the Western chess world pissed in their pants when they even thought of  the Soivet GMs. He did it all alone. It was a single man against the whole might of the Soiviet Chess Machine!

You call him a Criminal? Disgusting!


Level headed? He was banned from the site for cheating! 

jesterville

We can only speculate about "what ifs..."

The facts are, that Bobby Fischer could have been remembered as the greatest chess player ever lived....instead he will be remembered for the great many negative things that he did...and for those who feel that he was mentally ill...where is the proof? He made many wrong decisions, and did not care about anyone's feelings when he spoke in multiple interviews. As a chess player he had no equal...but as a man, he had no class...my dog has more manners than Bobby Fischer ever had.

ivandh
jesterville wrote:

We can only speculate about "what ifs..."

The facts are, that Bobby Fischer could have be remembered as the greatest chess player ever lived....instead he will be remembered for the great many negative things that he did...and for those who feel that he was mentally ill...where is the proof? He made many wrong decisions, and did not care about anyone's feelings when he spoke in multiple interviews. As a chess player he had no equal...but as a man, he had no class...my dog has more manners than Bobby Fischer ever had.


About that... you need to pick up after your dog.

ivandh

Most remarkable people have one or another thing that is odd or wrong with them. I would rather live with that - especially when it is just harmless ranting - than live without their brilliance.

chessroboto
jesterville wrote:

....instead he will be remembered for the great many negative things that he did...


Throughout the history of humanity, every hero is without dirt, and on occassion, one nation's hero is another nation's butcher.

The question is: What does your Bobby Fischer mean to you?

You can dismiss him as Topalov ignores Karmnik's existence, or you can glorify him as Kasparov had for Alekhine when he was still a young student of Botvinnik.

jesterville

No doubt he probably was "the greatest"...and I still marvel at his games (I have every one published). In fact he was one of my heroes growing up. But we cannot separate the good from the bad...the whole was Bobby...not just the chess player.

While I still play his games, and acknowledge that he was a genius of the 64 squares, he is also that same individual who was celebrating after 9/11...he is also that same individual who said all those crazy things over the airwaves...negative things not only about the U.S. government, but about Jews and Women etc. All those interviews are readily available on the net. Do we celebrate half of the man and ignore his negative attributes? No, I think not. We have to say that he was a great chess player(maybe the greatest), but we also have to say that he was certainly no role model. 

oscartheman

I don't think he's a good role model for young kids. I take that back.

 

He did some f****d up things, that's for sure, but he also did some GREAT things. If you disregard the bad things he did, you can look up to him, because he was *VERY* determined, and did something that was almost IMPOSSIBLE, beat the russians at their own game. That's inspirational!!

 

But he had a ego of the size of mount everest, nothing could ever satisfity it, for that i feel sorry for him. He did some messed up things. When he had like a ceremony for celebrate his chess win, many people came up just to see him, and what did he do?? Ran away!! I wish i had the newspaper article that said this, i don't really remember it for detail. He needed human contact, he loved attention too. But he wasn't very sociable... Poor bobby... He needed help, some real friends too. It's understandable that he did what he did, he must have been suffering badly, if he had good role models as a kid i think he would have been a much different, happier, higer-self-esteem person.

Id really give him a stamp, or coin, whatever really. I love bobby, he is one of the most charismatic persons ever, he is a legend...

jesterville

Sometimes we "hero worship", but sooner or later we realise that they are just like the rest of us...flaws and all.