Bobby Fischer
Sort:
Oct 10, 2007
0
#42
Certainly he has a right to express his opinions, however worthless they may be, but I don't recall his freedom of speech, which I assume is a guaranteed freedom in Iceland, being stifled. Every person in a free country, who criticizes Fischer for how he utilizes that freedom, has that same freedom.
According to jewish protocols if one's mother is jewish then they are jewish. The "right of return" in Israel only requires that one of your grandparents were jewish I believe. Its all very confusing to me and a very "loaded" subject.
Reb wrote: According to jewish protocols if one's mother is jewish then they are jewish. The "right of return" in Israel only requires that one of your grandparents were jewish I believe. Its all very confusing to me and a very "loaded" subject.
Israel deliberately uses the Nazi definition of Jewishness for the purpose of expedited immigration and naturalization, and also allows in people who can prove they are being persecuted for being Jewish even if they have no Jewish ancestry. The thinking goes that if you're Jewish enough to be hated for it, you're Jewish enough to be protected.
Oct 16, 2007
0
#45
flash wrote:
Growing up without a father and mentally superior to schoolmates,
Being a prodigy in chess does NOT make him mentally superior to his schoolmates. I know, as chess players, we tend to think that it means we are smarter, so naturally, I player of Fischer's caliber would be a true genius, right? Has anyone actually seen evidence of him being of above average intelligence? Gifted in a particular way? Yes. Smarter than his classmates? I don't see the proof.
Oct 16, 2007
0
#46
jona004 wrote:I don't think he's nuts, well not with an IQ of 180+. He just holds views that repulse some people. Whether you agree with him or not, his views won't kill anyone. It's the people that may act on his views that are nuts.
Where did you get the IQ of 180+? And how do you equate a high IQ with mental stability? They are in no way synonymous.
What's most interesting about Fischer's persecution is that I believe that if he had said the same things against different groups he would not be under attack for it. Let's say he targeted Iranians and Mormons for example, we wouldnt even be having this conversation imo.
Reb wrote: What's most interesting about Fischer's persecution is that I believe that if he had said the same things against different groups he would not be under attack for it. Let's say he targeted Iranians and Mormons for example, we wouldnt even be having this conversation imo.
I agree, but only partly. Some groups (Iranians and Mormons included) are sufficiently unpopular that it's safe to criticise them collectively and not be called a racist (or religionist, or whatever), even if the commentary is in fact racist.
The particular issue with Jews is that he promotes a widespread stereotype, one of secret Jewish control of the economy, courts, etc. The equivalent would be calling all Mormons polygamous child rapists, or calling all Iranians bloodthirsty religious fanatics. (Just so there's no confusion here, I know that neither accusation is true.)
There are also plenty of other groups he would get in trouble for attacking. Imagine, for example, what would have happened had he blamed all of his personal troubles on black people. And of course, he really has said some very unpleasant things about women.
The very reaction(s) to Fischer's outbursts give more credibility to his claims imo than if those he attacks would just ignore him. Everyone also condemned and mocked him when he was claiming the Russians were cheating in chess. He has been vindicated since then , even by some of those he accused.
Reb wrote: The very reaction(s) to Fischer's outbursts give more credibility to his claims imo than if those he attacks would just ignore him. Everyone also condemned and mocked him when he was claiming the Russians were cheating in chess. He has been vindicated since then , even by some of those he accused.
Vindicated? So all Russians really do cheat at chess?
I agree that responding to his criticisms is generally a bad idea, but I understand why people feel compelled to respond to them nonetheless.
All? Its the way they played back then "as a team" against non soviets......play short bloodless draws with your "comrades" while doing all you can to beat everyone else. This certainly is a form of cheating and should be stopped. However, in their defense I will say they were probably "just following orders". Is that an acceptable defense?
Angry_John wrote:
But I've got that "BF teached Chess" lying around here someplace. I bought it in the late '70s and hope to finish it someday. Nyuk.
My Father had that one lying around. The german title refered to it being a "programmed" chess course (due the way the puzzles were constructed and build upon each other, i suppose). I started reading it around age 8 but actually finished it age 18 (due to some friend who notoriously whiped the floor with me). My friend still beats me (actually, he's a member here), but the book really was much fun to read (Well, for me. It's one of two chessbooks i have, the other one being "My System". I'll be sixty before i finish THAT one, i suppose).
I don't know if "puzzle book" is entirely correct (in the sense that it sounds like "just" a collection of puzzles), because the puzzles where grouped around themes, often repeating a slightly varied situation to the one before and thus "explaining" why the pieces should stand in a specific way or how to exploit a specific situation.
I don't know if that's typical for a puzzle book, but I remember being totaly blown by the fact that here was a guy explaining quite complex things to me without actually writing one word (apart from: "checkmate in 2")<- probably standard experience for many ppl. here, but I found it really fascinating
ephyfe wrote: think he's nuts, well not with an IQ of 180+. He just holds views that repulse some people. Whether you agree with him or not, his views won't kill anyone. It's the people that may act on his views that are nuts.
Although I certainly don't think his views are accurate, I think he has a right to his views and to say what he feels. I worry today that there are too many 'word police' out there. Only if his comments go far enough to incite a riot or cause some other sort of dangerous situation should he get into trouble. People can decide for themselves if his opinions have any merit. Fisher is opinionated about political issues and is unusally unconcerned about the stir his comments bring. But I like freedom of speech and I worry that it's being stiffled these days.
I think every person should be granted the highest possible degree of personal freedom UNLESS they use that freedom in a way that harms other ppl. or limits their freedom in an unacceptable way.
I think there is a huge difference between being "opinionated" ("Opinions are like arseholes <- everybody got one", know that one?) and spreading hatred. Purpose, for example could be used as a criterion.
If someone, for example, repeats "I hate Muslims" all the time, he may be an arse, but hardly the next Goebbels.
If on the other hand someone takes pains to convince ppl. that muslims are dangerous, that they will "get us if we don't get them first", that Islam is a Religion stimulating acts of violence, that they are largely criminals, stink, spread infectious deseases and are hardly worth being called humans
<- then it's not difficult to tell that he is not just "speaking his mind"
And then I think that something should be done about it before it actually does become very dangerous to express dissent.
(Not that I think that Fisher is a propagandist, but just to make the point that there are actually reasons to put constraints on someones freedom of speech if he misuses it. )
I agree that one should not go "opinion-policing", but how would you actually try to prevent someone from spreading hatred, who claims to just "speak his mind"?
And if (far fetched example, I know, but it is not mine) his comments actually DO incite a riot, how do you prove that they did? Do you ask all rioteers wether or not they were commanded by BF to go Jewbashing?
BTW: Freedom of speach also grants ppl. the right to say that BF's comments are an outrage and that his opinions stink.
BTW2: How exactly does an 180+ IQ prevent someone from going nuts?
Oct 17, 2007
0
#54
TheMightyAlienDwarf:
"BTW2: How exactly does an 180+ IQ prevent someone from going nuts?"
He's so smart he's able to convince himself that it's everybody else that is nuts and not him.
Reb wrote: All? Its the way they played back then "as a team" against non soviets......play short bloodless draws with your "comrades" while doing all you can to beat everyone else. This certainly is a form of cheating and should be stopped. However, in their defense I will say they were probably "just following orders". Is that an acceptable defense?
I don't find it acceptable, but my point is that Fischer's accusations have gradually grown beyond collaborative cheating by the Soviet team.
What bothers me about your comment is the implication that one shouldn't question Bobby Fischer's accusations, since they'll turn out to be right anyway. He can prove that there was cheating in competition, and maybe he'll even prove that Jews control the world (and devote most of their energies to spying on one Robert Fischer and stealing his possessions), but how is he going to prove that women are stupid? :)
There is an old American Indian ( I believe) saying that says we shouldnt judge another man until we have walked a mile in his moccasins. Fischer has been persecuted and has been treated very badly. His anger and outbursts are directed towards those he sees as responsible. Are they? I dont know really but neither do you. I can say if someone confiscated all my personal belongings and auctioned them off (even family photos I hear) I would do more than just say bad things about them. I dont like the things he says about Americans either, but I believe he is referring to the govt and not all American citizens. I could be wrong but thats my belief.
What ever happened to Bobby's relationship with Judit Polgar? I heard several years ago he was living in Hungary (before and after his rematch with Spassky of which Spassky remarked "it was a great chess master against a has been") and working with Judit, sparring with her as it were. It was even rumored that he wanted a shot at Kasparov there for a short time. It was also during this time that I believe he developed the "Fischer Clock" that actually added time to your time as you completed moves, allowing that no one would ever lose due to time if you could move fast enough.
No one seems to have mentioned any of these adventures.
Oct 17, 2007
0
#58
EEShelton wrote: jona004 wrote:I don't think he's nuts, well not with an IQ of 180+. He just holds views that repulse some people. Whether you agree with him or not, his views won't kill anyone. It's the people that may act on his views that are nuts.
Where did you get the IQ of 180+? And how do you equate a high IQ with mental stability? They are in no way synonymous.
I've read this in a couple of places, though i'm not sure where.
Oct 17, 2007
0
#59
I'm writing strictly from memory, since I feel lazy, so caveat emptor.
Fischer's well-known IQ score of 180 came from the actual results of an IQ test he took in elementary school.
Fischer spent some time in Hungary at the Polgars place. He mainly associated with Susan who admits she played him at chess but has been disingenuous in providing details, though she hinted that she scored quite satisfactorily against Fischer. Sophia expressed that she, well, didn't care for Fischer. I don't believe Judit was there that much at that time, best I can remember.
The Soviets were indeed in collusion and many of the players from that era have said as much. Not only in collusion against western players, but even within their own system. Chess was more than a game and more than a sport. It was a symbol and those were difficult times. Both Fischer and Spassky showed great courage in the match that culminated from the Cold War.
I greatly admire that Fischer.
Reading the transcripts form Fisher's radio interviews made my skin crawl. To think that such a gifted, hard working individual who had earned the respect and admiration of his countrymen, his peers and his followers, given a world-stage to say whatever he pleased, chose to subject his listeners to his personal invectives, to me, demonstrated a severe lack of character. Enough so to negate, for me, whatever good he had done in the past. While I still admire his games, I've lost all respect for the man.
Oct 22, 2007
0
#60
The reason for a person's ethnicity to be traced to the mother was the much greater certitude of her being the parent than the father. This was especially true during invasions and conquests. At one time, for example, there were many Hittite biological fathers in non-Hittite communities. Fischer's mother was Jewish. His biological father, not old man Fischer, was also Jewish. The reference to Kazak Judaism, probably was meant to be the Khazars, whose elite were the main converts. The idea that Jews of today are largely their descendants is mistaken, although of course preferred by those who oppose Israel, as well as a few others.
Although I certainly don't think his views are accurate, I think he has a right to his views and to say what he feels. I worry today that there are too many 'word police' out there. Only if his comments go far enough to incite a riot or cause some other sort of dangerous situation should he get into trouble. People can decide for themselves if his opinions have any merit. Fisher is opinionated about political issues and is unusally unconcerned about the stir his comments bring. But I like freedom of speech and I worry that it's being stiffled these days.