Bobby fischer is still the best chess player in the world!

Bobby Fischer became a household name and inspired a renewed interest in chess among the general public, the media, and advertisers. Would today's top player be courted by a car company to star in a TV commercial? 

"did anyone after Fischer dominate the chess world as much as he did in the late 1960s/early 1970s"

How did he dominate the chess world in the late 60s? At the end of 1968 a big poll among GMs ranked him as the third best player, after Spassky and Petrosian. He also had a 0-5 score against Spassky after the first games of his last event before retiring...

"Kasparov's early world championship matches against Karpov dragged on endlessly"

Yes, the first one did, but that was against Karpov, who Fischer refused to play, and Kasparov was in his early 20s. How did Fischer do in his early 20s against the top Soviets?

"even after claiming the title from he always had Karpov close behind him"

Karpov was a great player though, much stronger than Taimanov and Larsen.

DelusionalFischerFan Wrote:
"believe it or not there is an afterlife no matter if you're an atheist"

Bawker Wrote:
Prove it. Go there, then send us a message from the other side!"

DelusionalFischerFan Wrote:
"if God permits me to do that so there will be no more test,it's a test from god to believe in Him or not,cause we hadn't been exist before we were born,that's the proof that God exists"

Hmm... I would think that an all powerful, all knowing being would be above such childlike behavior like "testing" his imperfect created beings.  I've got it!  He created a race of imperfect beings, then tests them and punishes them for being imperfect!  Brilliant!

Or, like every other religion that's existed for millenia, it's a bunch of fantasy and imaginary friends.  Yep... that sounds more reasonable.   I'm going for door #2 please... Atheism, rationality, self determination... thank you!

How do you know I'm not on the other side right now?

How do I (or you) know anything at all?

Sensory input, experiential memory, and deductive logic.

For that reason it's my opinion that it's impossible to "know" anything at all. Sensory imput can be inaccurate, memory isn't always faithful, and logic... Well, you know how in Harry Potter, there are certain buildings that have had spells cast on them, causing muggles looking in their general direction to automatically look around them without knowing it, thus making them invisible to muggles? I think it's possible that similar mechanisms could be present in logic - in other words, our understanding of logic is limited by the capabilities of the human brain. Of course, the keyword is "possible," and I think a statement of certainty either way (logic is faulty or logic is not faulty) would be... illogical.

Then we are all lost and there's no point in trying to learn or accomplish anything.

I personally choose the alternative (to your Platonic and Kantian world view) of objectivist metaphysics and epistemology, not only because it validates my existence as a rational being, but also because it appears to work in the real world and agree with observed phenomenon (empiricism).

I reject your irrational assault on the validity of my sensory and mental faculties!

You implied that we are imperfect beings (through invoking your "God"), not I.  I personally believe that we are as perfect as we can be in this stage of our evolution, considering our nature as physical beings.

And if it works for you, that's great. I'm not really interested in addressing the timeless questions of purpose, meaning, etc. I learn because it seems to be necessary in the present world, and because I find it generally enjoyable. And on a theoretical level, I don't think the question of whether there is sense or purpose in the existence of something has bearing on whether or not it actually exists.

By the way, I think when it comes to personal philophies, the theoretical and practical are two completely different things. In theory, solipsism in not falsifiable, but in reality (assuming there is a reality, which is not completely different from how we perceive it, yada yada), I think any socially functional subjectivist makes assumptions about what reality is.

The theoretical is FALSE if it is not practical.

I hear it all the time... "It's a great theory, but doesn't work well in practice" (example: Communism).  No... it's only a "great" theory if it actually WORKS in practice.  To try and say that the theoretical world and the practical world can differ, yet both be valid somehow is a logical FALLACY... a fallacy that MUST be eliminated from human philosophy if we are to ever achieve an enlightened, rational civilization.

Well, as an example someone might think it's possible (again, keyword) that the world only exists in his mind, yet act as if he believes that it does not. It might suggest that the strength of his conviction is not particularly strong, but that has nothing to do with whether the idea itself is right or wrong.

In my opinion, the idea that something must be shown to "work" in order to be true assumes that everything that is true is demonstrable. In law the burden of proof usually lies with one of the two parties, and if that party is unable to provide sufficient proof then his case is compromised, but that does not necessarily mean that the event he was required to prove never happened. This is an instance of practical considerations overriding what could be called theoretical, since by the time of the trial it's impossible to know for sure what truly happened.

You are confusing opinion and belief with demonstrable reality.  Eyewitness testimony with actual occurence.

I am thinking, therefore I exist.  I exist within a framework (cosmos, or universe) that has a very specific, measurable set of properties.  I, along with every other being and object within this universe, have a specific and measurable nature.  The fact that any of these assertions is even seriously questioned or debated show just how far the once vaunted science of philosophy has fallen!

However, I am not surprised in the least... as the nature of man at this stage of our evolution is to control and dominate other men.  There is no better way to control a being than to deceive him/her into using his/her mind against itself.  Undermining our concepts of reality and its nature (through religion and subjective philosophies) as the first step.  Make us doubt that existence EXISTS and has a specific nature.  The second step is to make us doubt our thinking ability and logical processes.  Accomplish both, and you can get a man to do any irrational, horrific, perverse act you demand...  I offer up terrorist acts and government sanctioned human rights abuses as evidence.

P.S. Everything that is true IS demonstrable.  The definition of truth is assertion that is in harmony/agreement with REALITY.  If it can't be demonstrated in reality, then it is not truth... only allegation.

How do you then prove that everything that is real is demonstrable? And what is the proof behind the axiom "I think therefore I am?" and your assertion about human nature? Moreover, isn't it a fallacy (and an oft-cited one in all sorts of arguments) to look at whether the implications of an idea are good or bad, or useful or not useful, to determine whether the idea itself is true (or possible)?

I recognize that neither of us is going to change our philosophical views, so please do not be offended or surprised if I don't respond after this. Discussions of philosophy often make me tired, as they probably should.

Ok... my final response, because I didn't see this post before I made my last one. To use a classic court case as an example: It is not demonstrable beyond a shadow of a doubt that OJ Simpson killed Nicole Brown. It is not demonstrable that he did. Does that then mean that neither is true? 

Greetings Earthlings of the 3rd millennium.

snafu.

I am not going to convince either of you, as your minds are set and you believe you are right.

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe that they are free".

I will say this, however, to any "bystanders" that might be watching this exchange with an open mind.  If you cannot trust your senses and your minds, then what CAN you place your trust in?  A "God"?  Which one of the thousands humans have invented?  Governmental or communal authority?  Which one?  Tradition?  On what basis?

Trust in yourself and the conclusions your mind will reach about reality, and chart your own destiny... or choose a master to be enslaved to.  There is no third option!