Bobby Fischer on Women in Chess

Sort:
valyar
TheGrobe wrote:

Who got a platform because he was a great chess player.  It's a shame what he used the platform for, and to argue that his very public views should be beyond reproach because he's a chess player as opposed to a politician is ridiculous.


 Did he really use this platform to practical ends? Or seek it? I did not know this about him. Or was it really like paparazzi's shooting photos in his backyard?

TheGrobe
valyar wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:

Who got a platform because he was a great chess player.  It's a shame what he used the platform for, and to argue that his very public views should be beyond reproach because he's a chess player as opposed to a politician is ridiculous.


 Did he really use this platform to practical ends? Or seek it? I did not know this about him. Or was it really like paparazzi's shooting photos in his backyard?


You mean was he dragged kicking and screaming to the radio studio? 

TheGrobe
richie_and_oprah wrote:

OJ Simpson won the Heisman trophy and set the all-time single season mark for yardage gained as a running back.  And he was a decent downfield blocker in the passing game and very selfless when he played special teams at USC.

It always upsets me when people talk about OJ and don't bring this up.  They take one incident and use this to judge him.  Is this really fair?

 

Also, Mussolini was nice to his cat.


Let's not forget Phil Spector. 

breakfight
Kupov wrote:

I really don't see how you can argue this point.

Fischer was made famous for being a chess player, but he is also well known for being an eccentric bigot/racist.


 The point I am arguing is that his views had nothing to do with his chess playing abilities. Fischer was a chess player who happened to be a mysogynist and a bigot, not the other way around.

It doesn't matter whether or not we approve of his views because Fischer was never under the obligation to hold politically correct views.

valyar
TheGrobe wrote: I don't think that it was made public via any prying -- he was very much on record.

 Well, there are things legal and unethical. We asked for his opinion. He obliged. And now some want to sac him for this. Distasteful, to say the least, by my book. 

Kupov
richie_and_oprah wrote:

OJ Simpson won the Heisman trophy and set the all-time single season NFL mark for yardage gained as a running back.  And he was a decent downfield blocker in the passing game and very selfless when he played special teams at USC.

It always upsets me when people talk about OJ and don't bring this up.  They take one incident and use this to judge him.  Is this really fair?

 

Also, Mussolini was nice to his cat.


Terrible analogy. OJ Simpson is a murderer.

Would you care to directly reply to my earlier posts please?

valyar
richie_and_oprah wrote:

Sacrificng for others is heroic if it makes sense to do it.  Otherwise it is called being a martyr, or something even less, which is not always so heroic.

Some people sacrfice for others when it is not neccessary at all and that is usually considered foolishness or fanatical.


I am afraid you are confusing heroic with stupid or criminal. For example, killing people is criminal, not heroic. But killing murderers is heroic, when you risk your life doing it. Eating a hundred onions in a minute is stupid. But flying to the moon is heroic. Although there are always people who say they do not care about any of this.

Kupov

That's a shame because I really destroyed your argument with my last post!

TheGrobe

Reductio ad absurdum, hyperbole, call it what you will it's an apt analogy that highlights the problem with justifying ones actions based on other unrelated
accomplishments.

Fischer's political views don't diminish his accomplishments on the board, but neither do his accomplishments on the board justify his very public hatred.

Kupov

I don't think that very many people have claimed that his accomplishments on the board are what justify his views.

TheGrobe

Justify might be too strong a word, but I've definitely seen tendencies towards either side of that argument in this thread.

Niven42

Many of Bobby Fischer's comments throughout the years were misinterpreted; I believe they were meant to be sarcastic.  I say this because I have a friend, who (like Bobby) was very good at Chess, and was also possessed with a very strange, sarcastic, sense of humor.  Sometimes, this is the only way that particularly quirky, highly-intelligent (some people would label them "nerds") people can deal with sensitive issues - focusing on the absurd aspect of them rather than treating them sensitively.

Kupov

I think that everything about your post is wrong.

arthurdavidbert
Politicalmusic wrote:

Calm down Kupov!  lol.  Agree to disagree with some... lol. 


This is just a test of the "quote" function, but I think women are great; nature nurture or whatever.Cool And a test of inserting emotion............Smile

Niven42

Just watched the trailer for "Bobby Fischer Live" (film) and all I can say is, wow - this says it better than I ever could.  Worth watching!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y699HhJjBqk

Kupov

That trailer is a joke.

RussMTL
Kupov wrote:
tonydal wrote:
Kupov wrote:
Politicalmusic wrote:
Kupov wrote:

Fischer sacrificed literally everything in his life for his art. He deserves a lot of leniency when judging his character.


No, he doesn't. He deserves less leniency. He used all 187 IQ points to become a Jewish Nazi. And he may have done everything for "his art"...but he didn't do any of it for chess. His only concern throughout his life was himself; if he ever did anything that ended up benefiting the rest of us, it was purely unintentional.


You are a normal (I assume), well adjusted human being.

Fischer was not. It is pretty absurd for you to judge someone like this without being able to understand him at a very basic level.


Something is absurd or it isn't, I would suggest.

Judging someone's political statements IS fair game. One does not get a "get out of jail free" card for making hate speech whether one is not well-adjusted, self-loathing, or otherwise, IMHO.

Is there a Sacrifice-O-Meter once has to submit oneself to so as to be cleared to judge someone's character? I'm sure -- for example -- garden-variety war criminals can disconnect themselves from doing things that most people would consider normal like pursuing one's studies, expanding one's social connections, etc. from time to time. Big deal. They can be judged by folks on their perceived criminality as part of political discourse and legal debate. Fair game.

In the cases of Alekhine and Fischer, you have individuals whose obvious chess talents do not obscure their controversial political stances. Alekhine's alleged collaboration with Nazism is an oft-debated issue in chess history. Fischer? His public pronouncements on Filipino radio represent a lightning rod in chess (e.g. the USCF stripping his membership).

Their relative grips upon generally-accepted ranges of sanity and defensible behaviour is a separate issue for me. So is someone's level of sacrifice in becoming great in chess. It's immaterial to me if an individual calling for ethnic cleansing can mate in three. Take one's pocket chess set along when entering an approved mental health facility and get help if need be for goodness sake! LOL

Observers can empathize with disturbed individuals in their plight without absolving themselves from taking a stand against what is wrong. 

Yes, that's subjective but that is what the real world is when people roll out of bed, wrong side or not.

Russ

Politicalmusic
tonydal wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
valyar wrote:

...

I thought this was settled in the thread by now. I disagree. Chess is a part of human culture. Advancing it benefits entire humanity. Fischer advanced chess and, therefore, the entire humanity. He did not take medications to become "well-adjusted". Instead he stayed the pass. And let his mental health fail. Sacrificed himself. To benefit the entire humanity.

...

I think you vastly overstate the cultural relevance of a game.


! (to put it mildly...)


lol

valyar
tonydal wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
valyar wrote:

...

I thought this was settled in the thread by now. I disagree. Chess is a part of human culture. Advancing it benefits entire humanity. Fischer advanced chess and, therefore, the entire humanity. He did not take medications to become "well-adjusted". Instead he stayed the pass. And let his mental health fail. Sacrificed himself. To benefit the entire humanity.

...

I think you vastly overstate the cultural relevance of a game.


! (to put it mildly...)


 Hmm, that sounds sincere. Does NM stand for National Master? Why bother earning it if the game is such a waste of time? This title, it did not come in a gift card, did it? ;) 

breakfight
TheGrobe wrote:

Reductio ad absurdum, hyperbole, call it what you will it's an apt analogy that highlights the problem with justifying ones actions based on other unrelated
accomplishments.

Fischer's political views don't diminish his accomplishments on the board, but neither do his accomplishments on the board justify his very public hatred.


 Perhaps I should present my argument directly then.

There is nothing wrong with Bobby Fischer's presentation of his views. He was not a politician, he did not try to rally people into doing hate crimes. To say that Bobby Fischer shouldn't have said what he did is to say that he shouldn't have practiced his right to free speech.

Hence, I find your statement that he should have kept his political views out of his radio interviews to be absurd.