Bobby Fischer - The Player, Not the Man

Off the main topic--longevity and best are two different sets of criteria. At his peak during various periods both Karpov and Fischer were unbeatable. Kasparov was not far behind. I think all three of these players played competition (at the time) the best in the World--rankings can be tricky, for instance Bareev was once rated #4 in rhe World without ever having won a major tournament. Fischer record up to his 1972 match is a streak that has not (and probably never will) be matched. Also Fischer tended to work alone with less resources than the other two (K and K)--personally I think he was the best ever (as a chess player)

Another interesting parallel is Fischer and Michael Jackson--both geniuses in the field but messed up in their personal life--much better comparison than the Fischer/Hitler one about 75 messages ago.

 You are only looking at Fischer last 2 or 3 years. After he won his first US Championship (1957) at age 14 he won EVERY event he played in in the US except 2 !  One of them was a second to Spassky in one and I forget the other. Many believe Fischer was already the best player in the world by age 20 but he didnt play a match for the title for another 9 years due to various "problems" some of which were of his own making, true. Fischer was trying to bring more money and better conditions for the top chess players and he managed to do that. Recall that when Spassky won the WC against Petrosian in 1969 Spassky got a sum of like $2000. !!  Thanks to Fischer they now play such matches for hundreds of thousands and even winners of Open tournaments get more than Spassky got for winning the world championship.

MAN OH MAN do I like your style.  We FOR sure need another Alekhine, another Tal, another Fischer.  Although there are some serious attacking players out there (Kamsky, Tate, and Naka to name a few), I'm not sure there is really anyone who breathes FIRE onto the board, and has (forgive the term) absolute brass balls. 

It is my belief that computers and chess software have taken a lot of the passion out of the game because of the cool, calculating lines they produce. Very seldomly do we see a move made purely for psychological reasons, or an odd continuation with 34 different outcomes but only one or two correct replies. It is for this reason that I concentrate on games from the 1800s to about 1970; 1990 on the outside. Sure, there were prepared lines in these times, but they weren't run through Rybka or Fritz yet, and there was still magic to them. 

The GM draw is pathetic.  A few years back I remember there was a tournament held where nobody could claim a draw until AFTER move 30 - what a difference!  There were very few actual draws, and a LOT of fighting chess.  Something like this needs to be put in place or chess will become the boring sport everyone else already thinks it is.

Thanks for all your replies :).

Short GM draws are a crime, ( should be anyway ! ) . In Dortmund there have already been several draws in 20 moves or less ! I wonder how many 20 move draws Fischer gave in his entire career ?! I imagine not as many as there will be in Dortmund alone.

You got that right, buddy!  Gaining 1/2 a point is now part of the strategy, not an actual draw!  While I *DO* realize that top-level players are more likely to draw than others, simply because of their superior knowledge and calculation abilities, I *still* say that if they were forced to play at least 30 moves before conceding a draw, the games would simply have to be more interesting.

Another idea I heard from a buddy of mine is to make draws worth ZERO, or even -1, at the tournament level.  It's an interesting concept - I'm sure it's flawed somehow, but *something* has to be done to revive fighting chess.  Right?

One idea I like and have seen used is to use most victories as tie break criteria, if still tied then most victories with black. In a 5 round event you have 2 players with 4-1 and one did it with 4 wins and a loss, the other did it with 3 wins and 2 draws then the guy who won 4 games wins on tiebreak. ( however, I think head to head result should be first criteria when two are tied, then wins and then black wins...... ) Sponsors pay out a lot of money to have events like Dortmund and the sponsoring chess federations. They should punish players who have short draws too often by simply not inviting them back.....

-1 points for a draw? When it's a drawn position, then you have to resign as fast as you can!

Yes, your point is a good one and well taken, but until there are actual rules in place to discourage this type of behavior, the GMs are not going to stop doing it.  FIDE needs to rethink some things and experiment with some changes.  I like the 40 move suggestion above - that would FOR SURE end the GM draw. 

Hey, if a game is drawn, it's drawn, I get that.  But even at the top level, blunders are made, and there is *NO* guarantee that both players will actually see the "drawish" line down to the move, 100% correctly.  One wrong step and a 2600 level player will demolish his or her opponent - which is what chess IS!

 Whoa... Hang on here.

Did I just see a chess-Candyland comparison???

Don't make me go Fred Waitzkin all over you. Lol

Seriously, though, as a big sports fan, I can tell you that the last thing I ever want to know about is an athlete's personal life. Same with musicians, politicians, or any other person "in the public eye". I hate the fact that our culture is obsessed with delving into the personal lives of others - famous or not.

I don't care what kind of person Fischer was, or what kind of person Mike Tyson was, or what kinds of indiscretions Jimmy Page took part in or didn't take part in during his heyday with Led Zeppelin... None of that has anything to do with anybody's talent at being a musician, an athlete, or a chess player. Since those are the things that I "know" those people for, those are the relevant details to me.

I don't think it's right for anyone to judge someone else's behavior, beliefs, attitudes, etc. when the only "facts" we have about them are the things that the media chooses to report about them. In our culture, judgment is reserved for a court of law, and the presentation of evidence is a part of that process. Note that hearsay (i.e.: "evidence" that is not directly from the source) is not admissable, but I partially digress...

If anyone posting here actually knew Bobby Fischer personally, then I'm certain they have an opinion about him as a man. Whatever that opinion is, they have a right to it because they knew him as a man and not merely as a chess player.

But for all those who only "know" Bobby Fischer the chess player, what gives you the right to judge his character? Some public comments he has made from time to time? Please... For all anybody here knows, he could have been making the kinds of comments he made just for kicks - to see what kind of reaction he got.

But then, of course, we would all judge him for getting his kicks in "sick" or "weird" ways, wouldn't we???

Ridiculous.

Fischer was a great chess player. That's what I know about him. I never met him or interacted with him in any way except through his games, which live on forever as gems of chess instruction. I neither know nor care about what he was like outside of the chess world.

You, sir, just put the biggest smile on my face.  *claps*

Tonydal wrote:

No, I'm not a heeb (if that's what you're asking).

When I bring my barf bag for Fischer's comments, I'll be sure to include one for you, too.  It's amazing to me that you could condemn Fischer for the same view that you hold.

But to make a point--publish some games of yours that have a content approaching Fischer's skill, and I will treat you the same.  I'll admire your play and not your bias.  I'll take what I can use of your talent and leave the rest to others.  Perhaps, now you can understand what we are all talking about--we could all be abused by the press if it intruded into our lives as much as it did to Bobby.  And I excuse no prejudices; not from you, not from Fischer.  But I do understand the difference between the public and the private side of people.  And if Fischer had the extenuating circumstance of probable mental illness, I wonder:what is your excuse?

Should Marshall really be among those men? Didn't Capablanca regularly beat Marshall with comparative ease?

And where are Kasparov and Karpov in that list? Surely they are also in a different league to Marshall. Not saying Marshall wasn't great, but he wasn't in the same league as those other players.

I was just using these as examples of great players from the past, whom most people don't know what their personalities were like, but just know how great their chess games were because it is from a time long long ago. Fischer though mentally unbalanced outside of the chess world, will probably be remembered only for his greatness on the chess board 100 years from now. Years have a way of remembering good things & blocking out the bad.

I have a tinfoil hat here.  You want it?

Time for his movie on his entire life.

Whoops (Aspberger's claims another victim).

Yeah.  Look at Hitler.

People who compare Fischer to Hitler are really nuts imo. Making mountains out of mole hills . 

I hope that wasn't addressed at me.  That certainly wasn't my intent.

I do! (I've read whole books about it).