Fischer said all the games of the 1984-1985 Karpov - Kasparov match were arranged. This is more than theory, he was saying they didn't play a single move of those games.
Of course it was ok to be upset about the prearranged draws and losses, especially in '62. IIRC some of those players even admitted to it years later.
The Russians and The Patriots have something in common and a long history of it.
"I studied that first Karpov-Kasparov match for a year and a half before i cracked it, what they were doing, and discovered that it was all prearranged move-by-move. There's no doubt of it in my mind."
Radio Interview, June 27 1999
"Karpov, Kasparov, Korchnoi have absolutely destroyed chess by their immoral, unethical, prearranged games. These guys are really the lowest dogs around, and if people knew the truth about them, they would be held in more contempt than Ben Johnson, the runner, and they're going to know the truth when I do this book!"
Press Conference, September 1 1992
"I was going to do a book about the first prearranged Karpov-Kasparov match, '84-'85. But the God-damn Jews have stolen my entire file on that."
Radio Interview, January 27 2002
"Kasparov is a gangster, he is a disgrace to chess, he is a disgrace to the human race. He is not something Russia should be proud of. He should join Khodorkovsky in prison. He has committed a terrible fraud with all these prearranged games and matches."
Radio Interview, May 15 2005
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer
Fischer said all the games of the 1984-1985 Karpov - Kasparov match were arranged. This is more than theory, he was saying they didn't play a single move of those games.
Of course it was ok to be upset about the prearranged draws and losses, especially in '62. IIRC some of those players even admitted to it years later.
The Russians and The Patriots have something in common and a long history of it.
For years, every time they won big, I wondered just how much was legitimate.
Funnily, for the first time in years after that game a few weeks ago, I googled "cheating patriots" and guess what came up lol.
The more people speak bad of Fischer, the more I know he was right. Time to put down the western mask of hypocrisy.
Brilliant logic. lol.
Explain me why it isn't. Do you think it is good to follow the dumb masses, or that the fact that many people think one thing automaticaly means it's a good or right thing?
All I see is people going all in against Fischer because he was too different and liked to use his own brain for bad or for good. Would not bow down to anyone.
Come back when you have such a troubled youth and subsequent life - let's see your perfectly sane reaction to everything, your jaw-dropping social skills and all that stuff...
Talkin' out of our asses aren't we, Fischer haters?
Not sure the correlation between following the masses and Fischer's borderline retarded beliefs. I would also wager that my childhood was at least as bad as Fischer's, possibly worse(not sure how this correlates to anything, anyways). Since when does "using your own brain" translate to being a racist, sexist, anti-semitic bigot who openly supported about as whack a religious organization as possible(all religious organizations are a joke, but the loonies that Fischer gave money to were psychotic), not to mention his idiotic tirades at the end of his life(yes, those evil Jew bankers are destroying the world Bobby, so let's rejoice the death of innocents on 9/11, nice logic dumbass).
"I studied that first Karpov-Kasparov match for a year and a half before i cracked it, what they were doing, and discovered that it was all prearranged move-by-move. There's no doubt of it in my mind."
Radio Interview, June 27 1999
"Karpov, Kasparov, Korchnoi have absolutely destroyed chess by their immoral, unethical, prearranged games. These guys are really the lowest dogs around, and if people knew the truth about them, they would be held in more contempt than Ben Johnson, the runner, and they're going to know the truth when I do this book!"
Press Conference, September 1 1992
"I was going to do a book about the first prearranged Karpov-Kasparov match, '84-'85. But the God-damn Jews have stolen my entire file on that."
Radio Interview, January 27 2002
"Kasparov is a gangster, he is a disgrace to chess, he is a disgrace to the human race. He is not something Russia should be proud of. He should join Khodorkovsky in prison. He has committed a terrible fraud with all these prearranged games and matches."
Radio Interview, May 15 2005
That's actually close but that's not really what I'm looking for. He didn't say every game until the very end was fixed move by move, until resignation. If he said that then yes I would agree he was just crazy because that would be a ridiculous conspiracy. As it stands he seems to just be complaining about the opening theory.
For very high levels in chess, and this is something that people uninitated in chess won't know, it's often a guessing game between what goes on over the board and what was drawn up on a theory before the match. An outsider looking on is thinking "what in the pre-arranged, what the fixed huh? what sort of mad raving is that!?" but the person who knows how chess works at that level realizes he may have a point. Unfortunately we can't ask him to clarify it now but I wonder why you decide to think the worst. It's a fact that he was writing that book that explained what he meant and that they took all of those personal things and he couldn't finish it.
It's true though that there are times when he almost seemed to play into the narrative, to pose himself as the raving lunatic about the zionists etc. when I don't believe he was crazy.
Also I agree about Kasparov being bad for chess. He's completely the opposite to every view I hold.
Fischer knew the difference between opening theory (which he called "theory") and prearranged. The only other time I know of him using the word prearranged was when talking about the prearranged draws in '62 by which he meant the result of the game was decided before it began.
"Prearranged move-by-move" doesn't sound like he was talking about opening theory to me. You wonder why I think the worst, but to me it is not ambiguous.
The US government was ridiculous in how they treated Fischer IMO, and I sympathize in that respect, but by the end of his life I think Fischer believed a lot of unreasonable things.
Fischer said all the games of the 1984-1985 Karpov - Kasparov match were arranged. This is more than theory, he was saying they didn't play a single move of those games.
Of course it was ok to be upset about the prearranged draws and losses, especially in '62. IIRC some of those players even admitted to it years later.
The Russians and The Patriots have something in common and a long history of it.
For years, every time they won big, I wondered just how much was legitimate.
Funnily, for the first time in years after that game a few weeks ago, I googled "cheating patriots" and guess what came up lol.
I was laughing at my girlfriends brother and law during on of those Superbowls when the patriots was losing as i am pretty good at predicting the winner. The all of the sudden the stinking patriots starting making a come back. At the time the world had no clue of their ethics. I had to take the football moron laughing at me like i knew nothing about football.
Sadly i think they staged everything from the AFC championship to now to keep everybody focused on them. Mainly to keep defense players commenting on them in way not to their liking. This way they control what sherman will say about them to some degree.
Thanks for the info on Kasparov and Karpov games.
"he seems to just be complaining about the opening theory"
Hardly, what he repeated time and again was that the entire matches were pre-arranged.
"Somebody should ask Kasparov about my charges, that his first match against Karpov was pre-arranged move by move. Somebody should ask him, record his answer when he answers it live, and then put this through a lie detector. You will see he is lying through his rotten teeth"
http://en.chessbase.com/post/i-m-finished-with-the-old-che-it-s-rotten-to-the-core-
Kasparov of course never denied that he was good at opening theory, just like Fischer when he was the best player in the world. This didn't mean that Fischer was "immoral and unethical" any more than Kasparov. Kasparov has written a lot about his games against Karpov, and referred to the extensive opening preparation. What was he supposed to lie about? There is nothing "pre-arranged" in two players following some previously played line until the novelty, just like in Fischer's day and today.
Eccentricity and madness have long been associated with genius level intelligence.
Being bat-shit crazy late in life doesn't mean Fischer was stupid. When combined with his complete domination of chess, if anything, his behavior is proof of his intellect.
Except for the fact that he was racist, anti-semitic, and a member of a cult-like radical religious group. Not exactly the epitome of intelligence. Sure geniuses often have outlier personalities due to an outlier intellect, but Fischer's beliefs were extremely illogical, and you can't be an illogical genius.
Of course you can. People do it all the time. You give too much credit to the human intellect / have a simplistic view of what intelligence is.
To say that a person can be an illogical genius is like saying it's possible to be a stupid genius. Both are just oxymorons.
Bro oxymorons are possible just like circular reasoning is.
Those who do not believe in magic will never find it.
You can be an illogical genius because you use no logic at all you just use creativity to dominate.
While being literally unpractical, unplanned, no timing, no logic period.
Just go with the flow, some people are like that.
So a is possible.
Secondly with the b example, it is possible to be a stupid genius,
You can know what the right thing to do is, and do the wrong thing like commit sin for example. (Even when you know you shouldn't or steal or whatever it may be.)
We can go on if you wish?
Why was this question even made up?
This +1
I bet you can have a 200+ IQ and still suck at chess because chess requires a very specific set of skills that have little to do with smartness.
This +1
Anyone can do anything if they simply believe.
Anyone can do anything if they simply believe.
What if I believe I can't believe it!? Does it tear a hole is space time?
Yes, and I'm the living proof!
But seriously, Chess is more about pattern recognition and memorization than raw intelligence.
Well, pattern recognition and memorization won't help you none against Houdini the chess engine. (Raw intelligence prevails.) (Well Houdini is dumb, I should say raw calculation.)
Simplicity is the ultimate complexity. (The basics trump all.)
Master these and you'll have your desire.
What am I talking about?
As much as Houdini is almost impossible to beat if you trained hard enough for years, it is not impossible.
Some people train.
Some people pray.
One looks at the world seeing it to believe it.
One looks at the world believing it to see it.
What you do, pray, train, hope, calculate, - Remember! All can prevail against all, it is not as much as the tool as it is also just as important as how well the tool is used.
Everything requires patience and balance, but remember, anything is possible.
Your brain has a few secrets that anyone can use to change life itself.
Anyone can do anything if they simply believe.
What if I believe I can't believe it!? Does it tear a hole is space time?
Are you trying to provoke a loop or something?
Keep it simple and sensibly, don't you think that if you believe you can't believe it, then your belief is just true, you can't believe it because you believe you can't, whatever you believe, you shall feel, what you feel you shall attract, why do you think people that fear things they somehow end up happening to them.
But anyways, good talking with you mate!
Yes, it's a paradox.
Yes, it's a paradox.
Only if you complicate it. Because it is a dependency.
If you keep it simple, it works fine.
Translate into: Whatever you believe you shall have.
So if you believe you can't believe in God.
You will believe there is no God or you will believe you do not believe in God. (That is just an example by the way.)
Try be like a child man, the more simply you can explain things the more you know about it.
Yes, it's a paradox.
It would only be a paradox if both statements were considered true.
Just poking fun at it.
I think it's a confusion of necessary and sufficient.
In some sense it's necessary to believe in things to have success, but believing by itself wont do anything for you.
The person who cures a difficult disease will have necessarily believed and worked hard, but not everyone who believed and worked hard will have cured that disease, for example.
leiph18 do you have quotes or at least secondary sources where he said that please?
I would be extremely grateful if you could supply them if you have them and completely take back what I said, if that is clearly what he said.