He's saying that the argument about "ignoring the bad" doesn't fly with him - "especially when that bad is really, really, really ugly hatred toward other people."
which I take to mean it had a bearing on the decision. Shrug.
Captain Pompous out.
It's alright. Everybody is wrong sometimes.
Gosh, that's sad... I mean, I was okay with the reasoning that you didn't go with Fischerrandom because Chess 960 was already standardized or whatever, but to actually admit that his "really, really, really ugly hatred toward other people" had a bearing on the decision is pretty terrible.
It shows that it is actually a kindof spiteful, revenge-motivated action.
And the Fischer-Hitler syllogism (yes I know you deny it a sentence later but that's sloppy - you clearly made the comparison) is the lowest kind of emotional argumentation possible. (you know who else hated the Jews?? kindof a thing, as if to obliquely remind us that "we're dealing with an antisemite here, guys, the worst thing in the world!")
I dunno - I thought that it wouldn't involve a persons viewpoints whatsoever. It is more just about recognising authorship.
He didn't compare Fischer to Hitler at all; he compared the argument pattern of "Fischer codified the rules and was an important figure, let's have it named after him" to the argument pattern of "Hitler codified the [law which got the audobahn built] and was an important figure, let's have it named after him". And to be fair, it's the exact same argument pattern. He wasn't at all saying that Fischer = Hitler; he didn't say anything against that either, until you reach the next sentence where he clearly denies that move, probably because people like you are going to be so quick to draw that fallacy.
Recognising authorship? Please, if we're going to say that Fischer authored Chess960, we'd also be commiting ourselves to saying that Teddy Roosevelt authored modern American Football; actually I'd be more inclined to say the latter. Shuffle chess was already around, and even if it wasn't, chess was, so this logical next step in the change isn't something that it took some unique artistic sight of Fischer to come up with. An eight-year-old could have come up with it, and I know of a few kids who more or less actually have.
Furthermore, Fischer could quite reasonably be compared to Hitler. He is quoted as idolising Hitler, so the comparison is not so unreasonable. Furthermore, if you look at his anti-semitic statements, you can clearly see that he hated Jews probably even more than Hitler did and at least at comparable levels. The man clearly was going somewhat insane. And when yo see that, for instance, he praised the September 11th terrorist attacks, it's not unreasonable at all to not want his name connected to a service which you're offering.
there were 3 reasons i stated for choosing 960 over fischer-random. one of them was because of the legacy stuff. someone said we deserve to preserve his legacy. i'm saying he that i don't feel strongly compelled to immortalize someone who devoted the last years of his life to anti-semitism. it's certainly not considered "revenge" to not applaud a hater. and it isn't revisionist history to say what i've said: that he wasn't the core inventor of the concept of shuffle chess (he just modified it to limit the positions); that fischer-random (or is it fischerrandom or fischer random?) is cubmersome; that fischer was a great chess player and beyond that was a downright terrible person. i'd actually argue that any idea of whitewashing his past is the revisionist attempt. does that make me judgemental? sure. and i have no problem judging people who spread hatred.
with that as a personal backdrop on how i feel about fischer, and the fact that the world has already decide on 960 (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3827), and 960 is easier to pronounce/say/spell, and that he was only tangential to the invention... i think my decision is pretty logical.
the only reason i brought it up again was that some people feel like i should use chess.com as some sort of platform go against the grain and save fischer's reputation or something. i was simply explaining why i don't feel any inclination to do that.
BOLDED LOL JESUS CHRIST LOL.
I'm not going to contest your decision to name it "chess960", however that being said. Do you really have so little sympathy for the mentally ill?
If you look at Hitler's position towards Jews it was undoubtedly founded in contempt. However, he did not advocate killing them until very late, in the midst of WWII. Prior to this he had sought other "solutions" to the "Jewish problem" (hence the term "final solution") including, most notably, forced relocations. (Actually there isn't a paper trail even linking Hitler to the "Final Solution", though we can be nearly 100% that he at least approved of it anyway, though I've heard people (and not just Holocaust deniers) make arguments against that - I wasn't convinced at all, but they're out there). Furthermore, Hitler's reasons for antagonism of the Jews, especially publicly, were largely political. Now, this is really really bad.
But let's look at what Fischer said. He denied the Holocaust (not actually that big a deal in the scope of things). He said that he wanted to "expose Jews for the... murderers they are" (also not so bad in the scheme of things). He believed that there were massive numbers of Jews in the U.S. many times the number that there actually are in the entire world, and he furthermore believed in vast Jewish conspiracies which were controlling world governments and for some reason specifically targetting him. But the most damning thing is his written statements of "Death to the Jews. Just kill the [expletive]" and "It's time to start randomly killing Jews".
On the other side, Hitler actually put these plans into action, but then he was politically far more genius and ambitious than Fischer and thus wanted to and was able to take control of a large company. The biggest redemption for Fischer in my eyes is that he was clearly losing his sanity.This doesn't actually make any of his statements or actions any better though, just makes them somewhat closer to excusable, though even with that, they're not anywhere close.
That's what my statement was based on. I stand by it, though I understand that there are many who would disagree with me, and find that to be completely reasonable.
I just feel sorry for Bobby's legacy. He deserved more.
Bobby Fischer's legacy is the beauty and quality of the games he left. They are also games infused with a clarity so strong that even a patzer like me can learn from them. 'Er spielt so einfach', as GM Suetin, Petrosian's second in the 1971 Candidates' Match, said - 'he plays so simply'. The contrast between Bobby Fischer's clear and beautiful style as chess player and the horrible nonsensical chaos which was, or became, the fact of Bobby Fischer-the-rest-of-him is very very sad. But it's sad, it's not an issue needing a call to action to defend him, especially not in a world-wide and major enterprise like chess.com. I think Erik's handling of this question is open, intelligent, thoughtful and absolutely right.
I agree too. Erik's correct.
I apologise for arguing vehemently on this. I was mistaken. It's alright - maybe I was sentimental and thought that I'd argue for Bobby (you know he'd want someone to, haha). But it's all good.
To pull a Cheater_1: "I RECAAAANT!!"
CHESS 960 it is.
Thanks. I'll have to try it at least once!!
Gothic Chess next please.
I think this is the first example of Godwin's Law I've seen on chess.com so far.
Umm doesn't anyone else find the last of Erik's arguments for using Chess 960 instead of Fischer Random 959/960 compelling. It's SOOO much easier to say! This extra syllable is also my theory for why chess is more popular than checkers (Clearly flawless reasoning).
It is not easy to understand life and the motivational drives behind one's action in later life. I guess it needs 50 to 60 years of living and experience to be more understanding.
One not needs to judge but rather to try to understand the behavior of others.
What if one of your family members go nuts?
His she/him to blame for it?
What if a chemical imbalance drives a person to say things that are absolutely unacceptable or act like that of a 9 year old?
Do you reject them for this?
In my book we should always acknowledge a person for her/his contribution was before their mental condition.
It is not an excuse but a mere fact.
What if you where separated from your father as I was at the age of 2 years old as Fischer was?
Do you have any clue on the profound bearing it has on your life? Unlikely.
Do not judge unless you have wore the shoes.
What is important is what a person contributed to our life as in chess Bobby Fisher did .
Unless someone has facts about his reasons for his outburts and irreverent position against USA and the Jews, I then say forget it.
And last but not least, I wish that anyone on this site stop and I mean stop comparing anyone to Hitler.
Including Bobby Fischer vs Hitler.
Do you realize what you are doing really or is it simply a lack of history knowledge about what Hitler did?
Bobby Fischer never killed anyone, not even one out of thousands if not millions of Jews under the Hitler banner.
He was a pussy voicing something that affected him.
He was revolted because of his past and not being all there said somethings that was reported as beeing out of place.
So again I say call it Fisher Random the 959 game and forget all of the cynical game conatioms as how it shoud be named.
Do you call me Paul or Paul 211 or Paul 7z. Who cares my name is Paul and my identity here is Paul 211 as Paul name was already used.
Yu tell us to forgive Fishcher but then you do the exact same thing to Hitler. Hitler had soem great accomplishments too. Most people forget that. I'm not saying that Hitler was an overall good influence on the world - he clearly was a very bad one. But not all of his actions are bad. I don't condemn Fischer as a bad person. Neither do I condemn Hitler as a bad person. I'm just not in a position to condemn people. However, I can quite easily and correctly condemn actions, regardless of who performed them. Hitler's actions against the Jews were wrong. So were Fischer's words.
Also, Hitler didn't actually kill Jews either, excepting casualties in WWI that really had nothing to do with them being Jews. He promoted their deaths, which is (debatably) just as (or nearly just as) reprehensible as killing them. Fischer promoted their deaths too, just not from a position of equivalent power.
I had to look up Godwin's Law. Interesting read.
Paul, sure Chess 959 is fine and indeed more logical considering my assumption that Chess 960 can't actually use the standard chess position, but there is no point in preaching this argument to Erik and chess.com when it would be almost idiotic to make up their own name for a variation of chess already established by the Chess governing body with a different name.
The world has decided on?
And who is the world?
Is the world correct in it`s assumption?
The plurality of the numbers almost never make a statement a reality that is an absolute truth.
No, but language has meaning because people agree on words and their meanings. Here the world is the people who hold tournaments of the game, including the Chesss960 World Championship. The world didn't assume that Chess960 is the game's name - it agreed that that was the name.
I love the 960 games..I have never heard of this before..Thanks for setting this up! Great fun..... Will we be able to play group challenges at 960 soon, or can we already do it somehow?
wer do u find the chess960 open seeks?
I'd also like to know this.