Bobby Ficsher was the best  chess master ever to live but does that make the fact that he was at times a very crude and hurtfull person ok.

please feel free to post your opinion on this.

No, of course it doesn't excuse his behavior. To be blunt here, Bobby Fischer was a vile human being. Chess, as great a game as it is, is not that important in the overall scheme of things. Bobby Fischer was an amazing Chess player but so what? He (Fischer) did not ave lives, did not come up with a cure for cancer, did not solve the middle east peace crisis. All he did was play Chess. That is ok, but when one is as arrogant as he was they deserve no accolades or any respect. I also think that despite his arrogance (on the surface) deep down inside he was a bit of a coward. How else does one explain the endless mind games he liked to play with opponents. If your better at chess, then simply prove it at the chess board instead of resorting to childish tactics. Again, he wouldn't admit it, but I believe he didn't defend his title in 1975 because he was afraid of losing and his ego could not handle a loss. So instead he came up with a list of conditions that no one could possibly agree to (and he knew it) and when FIDE didn't agree with all his terms, well, that gave him the excuse he was looking for.

Great chess player... awful human being.

 

 

 

I have no respect for that wretched man, I really don't see how he accomplished anything in life!

owenscowens wrote: I have no respect for that wretched man, I really don't see how he accomplished anything in life!

---

 What he accomplished !?!

 He was the best chess player that ever lived, thats what he accomplished!

He deserves at least some respect for his work!

Many think that the same traits that allowed him to become such a wretched man made it possible for him to dominate the chess world.  He was anti-social, devoted, and obsessive.  While many of these people argue that he only became a horrible person with the sick thoughts in his later years, if you look at interviews even before he became the champ, he was always an arrogant, uneducated, punk.  Other than his chess ability, and perhaps because of it, I don't think he ever had any redeeming qualities.

cosmin wrote: owenscowens wrote: I have no respect for that wretched man, I really don't see how he accomplished anything in life!

---

 What he accomplished !?!

 He was the best chess player that ever lived, thats what he accomplished!

He deserves at least some respect for his work!

---

 You answered a question that wasn't asked or implied.  Look at the post you responded to again.  Many people are eager to defend Fischer on this site, especially when they get to ignore the intention of the opposing point of view.

I think it's hard for the general public to seperate Fischer the person from Fischer the chess player.  A lot of people theorize that the same genius that propelled him to chess greatness was the same genius that contributed to Fischer's downward spiral.  As silentfilmstar pointed out, perhaps because of these qualities, Fischer was able to succeed in chess.  I don't know one way or the other, but I think the chessplaying world by and large doesn't defend his comments or his actions, but are able to applaud his prowess on the board.  After all, his abilities are expressed in chess notation, which isn't coloured by politics or race.

 

My take on it was that what Fischer needed was professional care, not persecution.  Regardless of what he said, it was clear that something was wrong and from early on.

Who are you guys to judge anyone's opinion, persception of the world and thoughts? Oh, sorry I forgot you were an almighty perfect being holding the truth about anything. Does any of you deserve any respect for anything? What have you guys accomplished? If you did accomplish something, are you really that sure that it's a big thing? Are you sure it's important? Think again. He probably did more in this world than any of you, and that's even if he did nothing at all.

I am not eager to defend him because I think he was a good chess player, or for what ever reason you might want to attribute to my post. I will defend him because you are nothing to decide who is good or bad, let alone condemn a dead man. Everything is subjective, and your opinion holds no value.

You might or might not agree with him, you might say his opinion are not reflecting yours, but you are no one to say that his opinion are not the good ones.

Since his death there was probably 20 threads a day about him, and in each of them someone would bring his lousy mouth to call him a coward, a bad man, and any other word passing through their mind because they take the high morality ground.

 

 

I think the guy was mentally ill to begin with. I have concluded that he must have had a brain similar to those who have Autism, or something of the sort. Autistic people generally have one skill that is far greater than that of a "normal" person. Chess was obviously Fischer's. Autistic people are also rather unsocialable. They also can behave indentically to the way Fischer did, though their behavior isn't usually as "extreme". Scientific geniuses Newton and Einstein were both Autistic. Einstein also behaved erratically; Newton did not until he was much older and close to death. I really do think Fischer needed help that he did not receive.

Do any of you know whether he was diagnosed with anything?

Manipulated wrote:

Who are you guys to judge anyone's opinion, persception of the world and thoughts? Oh, sorry I forgot you were an almighty perfect being holding the truth about anything. Does any of you deserve any respect for anything? What have you guys accomplished? If you did accomplish something, are you really that sure that it's a big thing? Are you sure it's important? Think again. He probably did more in this world than any of you, and that's even if he did nothing at all.

I am not eager to defend him because I think he was a good chess player, or for what ever reason you might want to attribute to my post. I will defend him because you are nothing to decide who is good or bad, let alone condemn a dead man. Everything is subjective, and your opinion holds no value.

You might or might not agree with him, you might say his opinion are not reflecting yours, but you are no one to say that his opinion are not the good ones.

Since his death there was probably 20 threads a day about him, and in each of them someone would bring his lousy mouth to call him a coward, a bad man, and any other word passing through their mind because they take the high morality ground.

 

 

---

 A rational person must judge the opinions of others.  Each person must make his own criteria for what makes a good person.  Without evaluating a person for his ideas and actions, how does one evaluate anything?  If a man's opinion is that stealing from his neighbor is okay, I lose respect for him.  If a man feels that honesty is important, even when not easy, I gain respect for him.  This is the way of the world.  

owenscowens wrote: Do any of you know whether he was diagnosed with anything?

---

I do not think he was ever diagnosed with anything although your theory on him being autistic seems very plausible. And that would explain his outbursts and obsession with chess so, i also think he was autistic. If he was autistic that would make all these people that say he is a horrible person seem stupid. Because he would not be able to stop his unacceptable behavior.

Mental illness, being just like any other illness, does not excuse all bad behavior. Bobby I am sure had "good" days and "bad" days. I am sure if he had been diagnosed and properly medicated would have had more good days than bad. However, even if Bobby had increased good days from 50% to 90%, it still would mean he would have 10% bad days.

I would like to think positively. Bobby had several well publicized emotional bad days and that is what he will be remembered for mostly and that is unfortunate. Bobby, even though he was a genius, still like the rest of us, a human being that needs forgiveness every once in a while.

I think he stared into the Abyss long enough. RIP.

fischerfan is a child (b. 1995), not someone who as a German civilian in 1945 would have been marched into the death camps by General Eisenhower so that he would never be able to say either that the Holocaust was made up or that he did not know about it. I was trained in history. It is necessary to know how to use sources, not just list them. An award winning antigun book used fake sources. The sources were checked and the award had to be taken back. Oliver Stone used fake sources to document his movie "Nixon." Fake sources here means they either did not exist or did not say what was claimed. Sources must be examined and checked, not accepted at face value. Liars and anti-Semites often simply want to get off by being called anti-Semites. Then they will claim the content of what they say was not challenged. They inhabit the extreme left and the extreme right. Fischer was an idiosyncratic nut.

"It is necessary to know how to use sources, not just list them."

 

Precisely. It's also necessary to do your homework and do it well so you can evaluate those sources with some degree of understanding and discernment.

The problem is the users of the sources and their aims. It is not to learn more, but, as I said, to get off. They get pleasure from hateful lying. That is why they organize and create sources that are liars. They get individual pleasure and group reinforcement. The creation of false information results in profits. The extreme leftist Noam Chomsky has worked and published with the extreme right in the Holocaust denial industry in North America and Europe.

There's a Holocaust denial industry?  Do you mean a concerted effort for personal gain?  Where does this profit come from?

Profits for Holocaust denial come from the sale of publications. There is also oil money available from the undefeated allies of Hitler who were participating in the events of that time.

That's a slimey business if it exists. Thanks.