I found a Fischer interview that made him look like a decent guy. However, it's the billion other interviews that bear out a different point
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPlXC3M8hbg
Josh Waitzkin vs. Bobby Fishcer both at age 20. Who wins?
Sort:
Jul 29, 2013
0
#24
ab121705 wrote:
joshfischer1 wrote:
Okay, now I feel like I asked a stupid question.
Nah, it's a good question; I kind of wondered myself. Not all of us have time to keep up on this stuff.
Thanks
chessman1504 wrote:
I found a Fischer interview that made him look like a decent guy. However, it's the billion other interviews that bear out a different point
He was really brilliant which made it hard for him to relate to normal folks; plus he was spoiled and insulated from the real world; plus he was probably just somewhat of a jerk by nature. Maybe mentally ill.
Damn shame
What happened to Waitzkin? Well...
NOTE: To all staff, the above link does not support fees of any kind. It is meant solely as an educational tool from a NON-PROFIT organization.
sapientdust wrote:
Yeah, Fischer was a world-class asshole and eventually went batshit insane. But that doesn't change the fact that he was a much stronger player at 15 than Waitzkin would ever be.
If the question were about who was the better person, my answer would be Waitkin, of course, but saying the drastically inferior player would win (when you don't really believe it) just because you like them better is silly.
I acknowledge Fischer as being the better player. But I also acknowledge that every single thing that Waizkin has set his heart to finishing...he has actually succeeded. Name one other chess player who reached high IM status, holds a combined 21 National Championship titles, has several World Championships (Tai Chi mostly I believe), is training in a third discipline AND started a non-profit organization for the sole reason of promoting learning in everyone.
I will stand by this statement till I die: If Waitzkin ever bothered to bring his heart back to the board, there is a very good chance that not many would be able to stop him.
Josh would be humiliated by Fischer and likely wouldnt win a single game. This isnt even a serious question, its a joke .
joshfischer1 wrote:
Waitzkin was a good kid. I liked his personality.
Yeah, I liked Josh too. Too bad Bobby couldn't have had his personality
Jul 29, 2013
0
#32
NO Way. Waitzkin beats fischer. Waitzkin had the advantage of all the knowledge that fischer gave the chess world... that knowledge didn't exist in Fischer's time so his competition was inferior. It's like racing a car from the 80's against a car from the 50's.
Nicholas_Shannon80 wrote:
NO Way. Waitzkin beats fischer. Waitzkin had the advantage of all the knowledge that fischer gave the chess world... that knowledge didn't exist in Fischer's time so his competition was inferior. It's like racing a car from the 80's against a car from the 50's.
If I had a choice between Waitzkin and Capablanca, I'd choose Capablanca. And, if I had a choice between Capablanca and Fischer, I'd choose Fischer.
Fischer. Is this a trick question?
Victor-Servranckx wrote:
Who the hell is waitzkin? Just one many that had some talent but that did not make it and that turned to something else.. It happens all over the world and every day.
Probably one of the best chess instructors to learn from, at least for beginners. I know a few players that swear by his annotated games and thought processes.
Crabiano wrote:
Are you serious????? Or are you just another troll? To compare it to cars, if you must do that, it is more like racing an average car from the 80's against a brilliant car from the 50's.
There is no way that Waitzkin understood all the knowledge that Fischer had given to the chess world. If he had, then it would have been easy for him to make it to GM.
Bobby Fischer was 20 when he won the 1963 US championship with 11/11. This is much more impressive than anything Waitzkin ever achieved in chess. Waitzkin's only chance would be to win a game by default because Fischer didn't feel like wasting his time turning up.
Waitzkin achieved his goal and has been achieving them since. Better or not, you are wrong to say that Fischer has achieved more in chess. Fischer played purely for selfish reasons and made that publically known. Waitzkin has spread his knowledge and has helped thousands upon thousands of people realize their own dreams, on the board and off of it.
To me, that is a far greater achievement than any amount of chess championships.
Phylar wrote:
Probably one of the best chess instructors to learn from, at least for beginners. I know a few players that swear by his annotated games and thought processes.
Could you please tell me what you are smoking, sir? I urgently need some of it.
Crabiano wrote:
@Phylar,
I think you are underestimating the positive influence that Fischer had on chess in the United States and the rest of the western world.
He had a positive influence because of his image. I am in no way underestimating this as his contributions to chess are next to legendary. However, while he helped the game there is very little to no documentation that he helped the people that make the game what it is. I would argue that in total contribution to not the game of chess, but to the player of chess, that Josh Waitzkin has made more lengthy and healthy strides.
Anyway, this is a bunch of tosh. Fischer is dead, deceased, gone. What lives are his ideas and in some cases his spirit. To compare a living person to a dead one does a disservice to both as neither can step up and be right or wrong.
"But Waitzkin is still alive!"
Yes, and he could win the World Championships tomorrow for all the good it'd do in regards to this discussion and related topics. Fischer is Fischer. He is one of a few anomalies in history and unless some prodigy shows up and wrecks Fischer's record, he'll be consistently considered top of the food chain by many...regardless of the merits and achievements of those in our modern era.
pfren wrote:
Could you please tell me what you are smoking, sir? I urgently need some of it.
Are you consistently rude or does IM stand for Immature? We each are entitled to our own opinions. If you wish to insult me, at least follow through with the old 1-2 reasonable inclusion of facts or statements.
owltuna wrote:
"Probably one of the best chess instructors to learn from, at least for beginners. I know a few players that swear by his annotated games and thought processes."
Ok, I'll nibble at this bait. Is there even an outside chance you are conflating Josh Waitzkin with Yasser Seirawan?
No. I am speaking from experience. Because of how my thought process works, I often have a difficult time understanding things that others are easily able to conceptualize. Thus often basic things in subjects such as math and chemistry, must be explained to me a couple different ways. Even then it may take a little time for it to sink in. I swear by Waitzkin's way of instructing simply because he has been the only one which has been able to explain anything in a way I understand the first time around.
Are there others? Well sure, I don't doubt that. I have, however, not found anybody with the same ability.
Okay, now I feel like I asked a stupid question.
Nah, it's a good question; I kind of wondered myself. Not all of us have time to keep up on this stuff.