Forums

Fischer vs Karpov '75 and the future of chess...

Sort:
raul72
raul72
Apr 26, 2011
0
#61
fyy0r wrote:
Reb wrote:

I believe there are many lies told about Fischer today and in the future it will only get worse. I have been reading about Fischer over 3 decades and today am hesitant to believe anything new I read about him that I never heard before... especially if its completely new and negative. He made many powerful enemies with his hate filled tirades/interviews and I dont doubt even for a moment that they will do all they can ( fair and foul ) to destroy everything they can about him.....

It's definately possible. On the good side of things Frank Brady does try to do him some justice by burying myths. I just don't like his storytelling when he claims to know what Bobby Fischer is doing or thinking and then describes it in detail like he's standing next to Fischer 24/7 and can read his mind. When his paragraphs start with "Regina said in an interview" or "Fischer wrote", it makes good sense. But when the author goes on this fluffy storytelling nonsense I am disappointed.

But dont you think he gets this information from the mother or Fischer's sister or a family member---a teacher? Writers just dont make this stuff up. You give me the impression you dont read a lot of biogrphies. You know if Brady had to say ---Regina said in an interview everytime he disclosed an interesting story about Fischer---he wouldnt sell any books---and Regina said this and Regina said that ad nauseum. I'm sure Brady discloses any and all writings of Fischer in his books.

If he didnt, give us an example.

raul72
raul72
Apr 26, 2011
0
#62
uhohspaghettio wrote:

It doesn't matter if there's a slight grain of truth in them raul72. Biographies are notorious for meaningless but allegorical anecdotes and the author trying to gain third-hand information and pass it on with his own bias and make it fit nicely with the rest of the book as well as making trivial and meaningless things seem dramatic. That's the big problem with biographies, and in fact it's the uninitiated who don't read biographies regularly that are much more likely to fall for that type of crap.

Fischer was a kid who like puzzles, mazes and magic. He was pretty much like every other kid in America. I have no trouble accepting that---it pretty much describes me as a child.

You can take your "Biographies are notorious for meaningless but allegorical anecdotes..." and shove that kind of talk up where the sun dont shine!

fyy0r
fyy0r
Apr 26, 2011
0
#63
raul72 wrote:
fyy0r wrote:
Reb wrote:

I believe there are many lies told about Fischer today and in the future it will only get worse. I have been reading about Fischer over 3 decades and today am hesitant to believe anything new I read about him that I never heard before... especially if its completely new and negative. He made many powerful enemies with his hate filled tirades/interviews and I dont doubt even for a moment that they will do all they can ( fair and foul ) to destroy everything they can about him.....

It's definately possible. On the good side of things Frank Brady does try to do him some justice by burying myths. I just don't like his storytelling when he claims to know what Bobby Fischer is doing or thinking and then describes it in detail like he's standing next to Fischer 24/7 and can read his mind. When his paragraphs start with "Regina said in an interview" or "Fischer wrote", it makes good sense. But when the author goes on this fluffy storytelling nonsense I am disappointed.

But dont you think he gets this information from the mother or Fischer's sister or a family member---a teacher? Writers just dont make this stuff up. You give me the impression you dont read a lot of biogrphies. You know if Brady had to say ---Regina said in an interview everytime he disclosed an interesting story about Fischer---he wouldnt sell any books---and Regina said this and Regina said that ad nauseum. I'm sure Brady discloses any and all writings of Fischer in his books.

If he didnt, give us an example.

The fact itself is FINE.  But I don't like it when an author embellishes information that is based on fact.  Don't like this:

embellish [ɪmˈbɛlɪʃ]vb (tr)

1. to improve or beautify by adding detail or ornament; adorn
2. to make (a story) more interesting by adding detail 
3. (Music, other) to provide (a melody, part, etc.) with ornaments
.
You can enjoy it, but I'd rather hear straight facts and not the authors attempt at artistic touch when it comes to embellishing those facts on Bobby Fischer.  If I want to read an authors creativity I will read fiction.
fyy0r
fyy0r
Apr 26, 2011
0
#64

With all this said, "Endgame" by Frank Brady is still a good read and I recommend it to any Bobby Fischer fan.

raul72
raul72
Apr 26, 2011
0
#65
fyy0r wrote:
raul72 wrote:
fyy0r wrote:
Reb wrote:

I believe there are many lies told about Fischer today and in the future it will only get worse. I have been reading about Fischer over 3 decades and today am hesitant to believe anything new I read about him that I never heard before... especially if its completely new and negative. He made many powerful enemies with his hate filled tirades/interviews and I dont doubt even for a moment that they will do all they can ( fair and foul ) to destroy everything they can about him.....

It's definately possible. On the good side of things Frank Brady does try to do him some justice by burying myths. I just don't like his storytelling when he claims to know what Bobby Fischer is doing or thinking and then describes it in detail like he's standing next to Fischer 24/7 and can read his mind. When his paragraphs start with "Regina said in an interview" or "Fischer wrote", it makes good sense. But when the author goes on this fluffy storytelling nonsense I am disappointed.

But dont you think he gets this information from the mother or Fischer's sister or a family member---a teacher? Writers just dont make this stuff up. You give me the impression you dont read a lot of biogrphies. You know if Brady had to say ---Regina said in an interview everytime he disclosed an interesting story about Fischer---he wouldnt sell any books---and Regina said this and Regina said that ad nauseum. I'm sure Brady discloses any and all writings of Fischer in his books.

If he didnt, give us an example.

The fact itself is FINE. But I don't like it when an author embellishes information that is based on fact. Don't like this:

embellish [ɪmˈbɛlɪʃ]vb (tr)

1. to improve or beautify by adding detail or ornament; adorn
2. to make (a story) more interesting by adding detail
3. (Music, other) to provide (a melody, part, etc.) with ornaments
.
You can enjoy it, but I'd rather hear straight facts and not the authors attempt at artistic touch when it comes to embellishing those facts on Bobby Fischer. If I want to read an authors creativity I will read fiction.

Lets lay our cards on the table and talk frankly. I can understand why you are not a professional author. Your biography of Bobby would sell about 15 or 20 copies.

 

When I said give us an example---I was hoping you would give us an example right out of the book, not start reading definitions out of a dictionary.

Everyone embellishes chess stories---even chess players are not going to read dull chess stories." Fischer liked puzzles." Dullsville! My god man, you have to have some imagination in your writing---were talking chess!

Name a biography you like and lets see how much imagination and embellishment the author put in to it. What book do you like---doesnt have to be chess.

__vxD_mAte
__vxD_mAte
Closed: Inactive
Apr 26, 2011
0
#66

Ever since he was young Fischer liked to play Chess, he took great pleasure in outsmarting his opponents because he was able to use his favourite word - "dumbass".

fyy0r
fyy0r
Apr 26, 2011
0
#67
raul72 wrote:
fyy0r wrote:
raul72 wrote:
fyy0r wrote:
Reb wrote:

I believe there are many lies told about Fischer today and in the future it will only get worse. I have been reading about Fischer over 3 decades and today am hesitant to believe anything new I read about him that I never heard before... especially if its completely new and negative. He made many powerful enemies with his hate filled tirades/interviews and I dont doubt even for a moment that they will do all they can ( fair and foul ) to destroy everything they can about him.....

It's definately possible. On the good side of things Frank Brady does try to do him some justice by burying myths. I just don't like his storytelling when he claims to know what Bobby Fischer is doing or thinking and then describes it in detail like he's standing next to Fischer 24/7 and can read his mind. When his paragraphs start with "Regina said in an interview" or "Fischer wrote", it makes good sense. But when the author goes on this fluffy storytelling nonsense I am disappointed.

But dont you think he gets this information from the mother or Fischer's sister or a family member---a teacher? Writers just dont make this stuff up. You give me the impression you dont read a lot of biogrphies. You know if Brady had to say ---Regina said in an interview everytime he disclosed an interesting story about Fischer---he wouldnt sell any books---and Regina said this and Regina said that ad nauseum. I'm sure Brady discloses any and all writings of Fischer in his books.

If he didnt, give us an example.

The fact itself is FINE. But I don't like it when an author embellishes information that is based on fact. Don't like this:

embellish [ɪmˈbɛlɪʃ]vb (tr)

1. to improve or beautify by adding detail or ornament; adorn
2. to make (a story) more interesting by adding detail
3. (Music, other) to provide (a melody, part, etc.) with ornaments
.
You can enjoy it, but I'd rather hear straight facts and not the authors attempt at artistic touch when it comes to embellishing those facts on Bobby Fischer. If I want to read an authors creativity I will read fiction.

Lets lay our cards on the table and talk frankly. I can understand why you are not a professional author. Your biography of Bobby would sell about 15 or 20 copies.

 

When I said give us an example---I was hoping you would give us an example right out of the book, not start reading definitions out of a dictionary.

Everyone embellishes chess stories---even chess players are not going to read dull chess stories." Fischer liked puzzles." Dullsville! My god man, you have to have some imagination in your writing---were talking chess!

Name a biography you like and lets see how much imagination and embellishment the author put in to it. What book do you like---doesnt have to be chess.

Raul you are so boring!  I exposed your tricks a page or two back.  What I talk about right now with reference to this authors writing is my opinion.  It appears others (like uhohspaghettio) support my opinion.  Try as you might, but it will always be my opinion.  Enjoy your fairy tales.  Maybe Frank Brady's next Bobby Fischer book will describe how he tripped a rock and scraped his knee on his way to the book store.

 

As for biographies, I much prefer autobiographies that aren't ghost written.

dannyhume
dannyhume
Apr 26, 2011
0
#68

Fledgling Bobby Jimmy, in the sunrise years of his post-uterine apocalyptic becoming, affixed euphorically to the chessic plastic phalluses as his means of conquering both the inorganic and organic adversaries that presented themselves upon the plaid surface, oft syllogizing of their donkey-esque acerebral inadequacies in glory of his academic subjugation.

fyy0r
fyy0r
Apr 26, 2011
0
#69
dannyhume wrote:

Fledgling Bobby Jimmy, in the sunrise years of his post-uterine apocalyptic becoming, affixed euphorically to the chessic plastic phalluses as his means of conquering both the inorganic and organic adversaries that presented themselves upon the plaid surface, oft syllogizing of their donkey-esque acerebral inadequacies in glory of his academic subjugation.

Hahahahaha!!!  Nice

raul72
raul72
Apr 26, 2011
0
#70
fyy0r wrote:
raul72 wrote:
fyy0r wrote:
raul72 wrote:
fyy0r wrote:
Reb wrote:

I believe there are many lies told about Fischer today and in the future it will only get worse. I have been reading about Fischer over 3 decades and today am hesitant to believe anything new I read about him that I never heard before... especially if its completely new and negative. He made many powerful enemies with his hate filled tirades/interviews and I dont doubt even for a moment that they will do all they can ( fair and foul ) to destroy everything they can about him.....

It's definately possible. On the good side of things Frank Brady does try to do him some justice by burying myths. I just don't like his storytelling when he claims to know what Bobby Fischer is doing or thinking and then describes it in detail like he's standing next to Fischer 24/7 and can read his mind. When his paragraphs start with "Regina said in an interview" or "Fischer wrote", it makes good sense. But when the author goes on this fluffy storytelling nonsense I am disappointed.

But dont you think he gets this information from the mother or Fischer's sister or a family member---a teacher? Writers just dont make this stuff up. You give me the impression you dont read a lot of biogrphies. You know if Brady had to say ---Regina said in an interview everytime he disclosed an interesting story about Fischer---he wouldnt sell any books---and Regina said this and Regina said that ad nauseum. I'm sure Brady discloses any and all writings of Fischer in his books.

If he didnt, give us an example.

The fact itself is FINE. But I don't like it when an author embellishes information that is based on fact. Don't like this:

embellish [ɪmˈbɛlɪʃ]vb (tr)

1. to improve or beautify by adding detail or ornament; adorn
2. to make (a story) more interesting by adding detail
3. (Music, other) to provide (a melody, part, etc.) with ornaments
.
You can enjoy it, but I'd rather hear straight facts and not the authors attempt at artistic touch when it comes to embellishing those facts on Bobby Fischer. If I want to read an authors creativity I will read fiction.

Lets lay our cards on the table and talk frankly. I can understand why you are not a professional author. Your biography of Bobby would sell about 15 or 20 copies.

 

When I said give us an example---I was hoping you would give us an example right out of the book, not start reading definitions out of a dictionary.

Everyone embellishes chess stories---even chess players are not going to read dull chess stories." Fischer liked puzzles." Dullsville! My god man, you have to have some imagination in your writing---were talking chess!

Name a biography you like and lets see how much imagination and embellishment the author put in to it. What book do you like---doesnt have to be chess.

Raul you are so boring! I exposed your tricks a page or two back. What I talk about right now with reference to this authors writing is my opinion. It appears others (like uhohspaghettio) support my opinion. Try as you might, but it will always be my opinion. Enjoy your fairy tales. Maybe Frank Brady's next Bobby Fischer book will describe how he tripped a rock and scraped his knee on his way to the book store.

 

As for biographies, I much prefer autobiographies that aren't ghost written.

I didnt realize until this very moment just how dumb you really are. Do you really think Spaghettio agreeing with you is something to brag about---you are truly worse than stupid.

fyy0r
fyy0r
Apr 26, 2011
0
#71
raul72 wrote:
fyy0r wrote:
raul72 wrote:
fyy0r wrote:
raul72 wrote:
fyy0r wrote:
Reb wrote:

I believe there are many lies told about Fischer today and in the future it will only get worse. I have been reading about Fischer over 3 decades and today am hesitant to believe anything new I read about him that I never heard before... especially if its completely new and negative. He made many powerful enemies with his hate filled tirades/interviews and I dont doubt even for a moment that they will do all they can ( fair and foul ) to destroy everything they can about him.....

It's definately possible. On the good side of things Frank Brady does try to do him some justice by burying myths. I just don't like his storytelling when he claims to know what Bobby Fischer is doing or thinking and then describes it in detail like he's standing next to Fischer 24/7 and can read his mind. When his paragraphs start with "Regina said in an interview" or "Fischer wrote", it makes good sense. But when the author goes on this fluffy storytelling nonsense I am disappointed.

But dont you think he gets this information from the mother or Fischer's sister or a family member---a teacher? Writers just dont make this stuff up. You give me the impression you dont read a lot of biogrphies. You know if Brady had to say ---Regina said in an interview everytime he disclosed an interesting story about Fischer---he wouldnt sell any books---and Regina said this and Regina said that ad nauseum. I'm sure Brady discloses any and all writings of Fischer in his books.

If he didnt, give us an example.

The fact itself is FINE. But I don't like it when an author embellishes information that is based on fact. Don't like this:

embellish [ɪmˈbɛlɪʃ]vb (tr)

1. to improve or beautify by adding detail or ornament; adorn
2. to make (a story) more interesting by adding detail
3. (Music, other) to provide (a melody, part, etc.) with ornaments
.
You can enjoy it, but I'd rather hear straight facts and not the authors attempt at artistic touch when it comes to embellishing those facts on Bobby Fischer. If I want to read an authors creativity I will read fiction.

Lets lay our cards on the table and talk frankly. I can understand why you are not a professional author. Your biography of Bobby would sell about 15 or 20 copies.

 

When I said give us an example---I was hoping you would give us an example right out of the book, not start reading definitions out of a dictionary.

Everyone embellishes chess stories---even chess players are not going to read dull chess stories." Fischer liked puzzles." Dullsville! My god man, you have to have some imagination in your writing---were talking chess!

Name a biography you like and lets see how much imagination and embellishment the author put in to it. What book do you like---doesnt have to be chess.

Raul you are so boring! I exposed your tricks a page or two back. What I talk about right now with reference to this authors writing is my opinion. It appears others (like uhohspaghettio) support my opinion. Try as you might, but it will always be my opinion. Enjoy your fairy tales. Maybe Frank Brady's next Bobby Fischer book will describe how he tripped a rock and scraped his knee on his way to the book store.

 

As for biographies, I much prefer autobiographies that aren't ghost written.

I didnt realize until this very moment just how dumb you really are. Do you really think Spaghettio agreeing with you is something to brag about---you are truly worse than stupid.

Hahahaha! If you ever need to know more Fischer facts, let me know.

goldendog
goldendog
Apr 26, 2011
0
#72

Top 5 things overheard in the park (while raul72 was strolling through)

5) "Even for a squirrel you're pretty stupid."

4) "You kids know nothing about hopscotch!"

3) "What a dumb tree."

2) "Hey! You call that a baby?"

1) "It's great to be alive! Well, not that great."

polydiatonic
polydiatonic
Show your flair!
Apr 26, 2011
0
#73
fyy0r wrote:
raul72 wrote:
fyy0r wrote:
Reb wrote:

Has anyone read the book Endgame on Fischer's life ? I think I will soon add that one nto my collection....

Yes. It's decent, but there are some things that are bad about it. Frank Brady describes events in such detail sometimes that is completely unnecessary and untrue. Claiming to know what Fischer is thinking about when such and such happens for example. There's alot of "storytelling" language used that feels disingenuine sometimes. Like this for example:

"Six-year-old Bobby studied the maze. His effort lasted only a few
seconds. He lifted his stubby number-2 yellow pencil and began to trace
the route to a damsel imprisoned in a castle cell in the puzzle’s center.
To rescue her, the knight, armed with a lance, would have to determine
the proper starting point to get to the damsel, and then move her from the proper starting point to get to the damsel, and then move her from her prison to the concluding space without crossing a line. At First, Bobby entered the maze at the top right corner. Working his way hurriedly through the alleys, circles, roundabouts, and barriers, he found himself trapped in a dead end, deadlocked and defeated.

He quickly erased his work, put down his pencil, and studied the
problem before him, deciding that if he began the journey at a different
corner of the puzzle, he might gain access to the damsel’s cell. He let his
eyes examine each of the remaining starting-point possibilities—top
left, bottom left, and bottom right—and then, in a form of backward
reasoning, tracked the path from the princess to the knight. After
several minutes, he saw that there was one path and one path only that
led to the maiden—starting at bottom left. Now understanding the
maze’s algorithm, he took up his pencil again, cut though the Gordian
knot, and completed the task."

 

He couldn't have possibly been there to see that and there's no way it was described to him. Maybe someone offhand mentioned "He liked mazes when he was little", but that would be it. He's simply making it up to make the story sound more interesting. Me personally I don't think it's necessary.

Also, the second half of the book slows down a bit because it's about Fischer after his 1972 match when he "retired". Coupled with the storytelling fluff it kind of leaves something to be desired.

I'm not sure if it's better than "Profile Of A Prodigy" also by Frank Brady because I haven't read that, but it's decent nevertheless.

fyyor, Why dont you think Fischer's mother or sister could have told him about the maze. Thats exactly the way an itelligent kid would solve it. Dont you think Bobby like puzzle games, mazes etc.

 

Sometimes your explanations sound a little wacky!

Who remembers in detail a 6 year old completing a random maze!?  It sounds exactly the way an intelligent kid would solve it because it is made up!  I don't mean made up like Fischer wasn't able to do it, I mean the details were added and it wasn't necessary.  Here, I will re-write that passage for Brady in a more genuine and to the point tone:

"Bobby Fischer loved puzzles and mazes when he was younger."

 

BAM!

His book would be shorter... but better!  I don't want to hear the authors "flavor" storytelling

You might be right, but the fact is that you're guessing.   So, quit pretending that you know the truth behind the story.  If you really want to know send the author an email or something, assuming he's still around, and ask him.  It's called research. If the author didn't do research then he deserves all of the scorn that can be heaped upon him.  However if you've not done your research well then, you get the point. 

Recently I had a question about something GM Andy Soltis wrote in one of his books.  I started a thread about it and finally wrote him an email which he never replied to.  So then I wrote an email to IM Silman, who's on staff here and he answered the question in his weekly chess column here at chess.com.  That's how you do it, not just by slinging mud and hoping you're correct. 

fyy0r
fyy0r
Apr 26, 2011
0
#74
polydiatonic wrote:
fyy0r wrote:
raul72 wrote:
fyy0r wrote:
Reb wrote:

Has anyone read the book Endgame on Fischer's life ? I think I will soon add that one nto my collection....

Yes. It's decent, but there are some things that are bad about it. Frank Brady describes events in such detail sometimes that is completely unnecessary and untrue. Claiming to know what Fischer is thinking about when such and such happens for example. There's alot of "storytelling" language used that feels disingenuine sometimes. Like this for example:

"Six-year-old Bobby studied the maze. His effort lasted only a few
seconds. He lifted his stubby number-2 yellow pencil and began to trace
the route to a damsel imprisoned in a castle cell in the puzzle’s center.
To rescue her, the knight, armed with a lance, would have to determine
the proper starting point to get to the damsel, and then move her from the proper starting point to get to the damsel, and then move her from her prison to the concluding space without crossing a line. At First, Bobby entered the maze at the top right corner. Working his way hurriedly through the alleys, circles, roundabouts, and barriers, he found himself trapped in a dead end, deadlocked and defeated.

He quickly erased his work, put down his pencil, and studied the
problem before him, deciding that if he began the journey at a different
corner of the puzzle, he might gain access to the damsel’s cell. He let his
eyes examine each of the remaining starting-point possibilities—top
left, bottom left, and bottom right—and then, in a form of backward
reasoning, tracked the path from the princess to the knight. After
several minutes, he saw that there was one path and one path only that
led to the maiden—starting at bottom left. Now understanding the
maze’s algorithm, he took up his pencil again, cut though the Gordian
knot, and completed the task."

 

He couldn't have possibly been there to see that and there's no way it was described to him. Maybe someone offhand mentioned "He liked mazes when he was little", but that would be it. He's simply making it up to make the story sound more interesting. Me personally I don't think it's necessary.

Also, the second half of the book slows down a bit because it's about Fischer after his 1972 match when he "retired". Coupled with the storytelling fluff it kind of leaves something to be desired.

I'm not sure if it's better than "Profile Of A Prodigy" also by Frank Brady because I haven't read that, but it's decent nevertheless.

fyyor, Why dont you think Fischer's mother or sister could have told him about the maze. Thats exactly the way an itelligent kid would solve it. Dont you think Bobby like puzzle games, mazes etc.

 

Sometimes your explanations sound a little wacky!

Who remembers in detail a 6 year old completing a random maze!?  It sounds exactly the way an intelligent kid would solve it because it is made up!  I don't mean made up like Fischer wasn't able to do it, I mean the details were added and it wasn't necessary.  Here, I will re-write that passage for Brady in a more genuine and to the point tone:

"Bobby Fischer loved puzzles and mazes when he was younger."

 

BAM!

His book would be shorter... but better!  I don't want to hear the authors "flavor" storytelling

You might be right, but the fact is that you're guessing.   So, quit pretending that you know the truth behind the story.  If you really want to know send the author an email or something, assuming he's still around, and ask him.  It's called research. If the author didn't do research then he deserves all of the scorn that can be heaped upon him.  However if you've not done your research well then, you get the point. 

Recently I had a question about something GM Andy Soltis wrote in one of his books.  I started a thread about it and finally wrote him an email which he never replied to.  So then I wrote an email to IM Silman, who's on staff here and he answered the question in his weekly chess column here at chess.com.  That's how you do it, not just by slinging mud and hoping you're correct. 

I'm not guessing at all.  I can tell instantly when he does it.  Here's how the author blends factual precise information with fancy artful storytelling based on generalizations.

"The  Brooklyn  Chess  Club,  established  just  after  the  Civil War,  was
one  of  the  most  prestigious  in  the  nation.  It  was  housed  in  the
impressive  and  stately  Brooklyn  Academy  of  Music, where  Enrico
Caruso and Geraldine Farrar had sung. The club had distinguished itself
by  competing  every  year  in  the  Metropolitan  Chess  League,  often
defeating dozens of clubs  throughout  the New York area. "

So far so good!  He states simple facts that can be verified.  Now the artful unneeded details the author is simply adding himself:

"The  neurons  of Bobby’s  brain  seemed  to  absorb  the  limitations  and
possibilities of each piece in any given position, storing them for future
reference. They remained there, tucked into his memory, deep within a
cave  of  abstract  thoughts:  information  and  ideas  about  pawns  and
squares  to  be  used,  discarded,  or  ignored—all  in  perfect  cadence  and
synchronicity."

Nonsense.

polydiatonic
polydiatonic
Show your flair!
Apr 26, 2011
0
#75
 

I'm not guessing at all.  I can tell instantly when he does it.  Here's how the author blends factual precise information with fancy artful storytelling based on generalizations.

"The  Brooklyn  Chess  Club,  established  just  after  the  Civil War,  was
one  of  the  most  prestigious  in  the  nation.  It  was  housed  in  the
impressive  and  stately  Brooklyn  Academy  of  Music, where  Enrico
Caruso and Geraldine Farrar had sung. The club had distinguished itself
by  competing  every  year  in  the  Metropolitan  Chess  League,  often
defeating dozens of clubs  throughout  the New York area. "

So far so good!  He states simple facts that can be verified.  Now the artful unneeded details the author is simply adding himself:

"The  neurons  of Bobby’s  brain  seemed  to  absorb  the  limitations  and
possibilities of each piece in any given position, storing them for future
reference. They remained there, tucked into his memory, deep within a
cave  of  abstract  thoughts:  information  and  ideas  about  pawns  and
squares  to  be  used,  discarded,  or  ignored—all  in  perfect  cadence  and
synchronicity."

Nonsense.

There is nothing wrong with that paragraph.  The operative word is "SEEMED".  This allows him artistic/poetic latitude and is a clear indicator that he is not speaking objectively but subjectively.  This is a question of style.  CLEARLY there is no decption here.  The author is not claiming to actually know what is going on in RJF's mind.  The author is saying what it SEEMED like.   If you don't like that style that's fine but it's a perfectly acceptable way of writing.  

To wit:  It SEEMS that you have an ax to grind, that perhaps  you are working through some unresolved issues that you had with a high school english teacher who didn't approve of the way you expressed yourself with the written word.  Also, your neurons are firing in a highly coordinated pattern with great ferocity giving you a feeling of certitude leading you to believe that you're actually correct about your conclusions when, to the calmer more rational mind, clearly you are not.

fyy0r
fyy0r
Apr 26, 2011
0
#76

Most of the last 2 pages has been me trying to explain it to thick headed raul72.  It's really not THAT big of a deal to me, it was simply something I didn't care for.  But when you talk to raul, any little thing will be blown up because that's what he's like, he likes to argue.

Regardless, you SEEM to be OK with that style of writing.  Which is fine, that's your opinion.  I'm sure it's clear by now what my position is on it.  As mentioned before, I did enjoy the book and recommend it to anyone interested in Bobby Fischer.

TheOldReb
NM TheOldReb
Show your flair!
Apr 27, 2011
0
#77

You guys need to go outside ...  Wink

polydiatonic
polydiatonic
Show your flair!
Apr 27, 2011
0
#78

hehe, it's just been way to calm since Taking this board was made to "walk the plank".

jesterville
jesterville
Apr 27, 2011
0
#79

...does Charlie Sheen come to mind?

...or maybe Bipolar?

jesterville
jesterville
Apr 27, 2011
0
#80
jesterville wrote:

I posted #23 because I could not explain the following-

1. Why was Spassky so accomodating to Fischer, when it was clear that Fischer was not reciprocating?

2. Why did'nt Spassky just accept the forfeit?

3. How could Fischer, not having beaten Spassky in any of their previous 5 encounters, defeated Spassky so convincingly, even forfeiting one game?

If this bothers you then the Kramnik/ Kasparov match must bother you even more ?  It should if you are consistent with your reasoning. First Kramnik loses a match to shirov in which the winner was to face Kasparov. In that match Kramnik could not win a single game to Shirov who has a terrible record against Kasparov. Not only does Shirov get cheated out of his shot at Kasparov but Kramnik gets a shot and Kasparov cant win a single game against an opponent who just failed to win a game in a match with Shirov, whom I believe had never beaten Kasparov ?! Add to this the fact that even though trailing Kramnik in the match Kasparov gives Kramnik 2 short draws with the white pieces !  Its clear , to me anyway, Kasparov was NOT trying to win the match with Kramnik.......

As for Fischer never even coming close to beating Spassky in their first 5 encounters thats simply not true. Have you looked at those games ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes Reb,

There were games in that match, as well as the matches of Kasparov vs Karpov, that seemed "odd". I am not certain whether it is only "not seeing what a GM sees", or something "afoot". Even Carlsen refusing to play in the Candidates can be looked at as odd (he has been given the oppotunity to become the youngest WCC and yet turned it down)...some claim that his friendship with Anand has been his real reason ( not wanting to face a friend for the WCC)...knowing very well that he will have plenty of oppotunities to do so.

...or maybe we read too much into these things?

...and the part of Fischer not even coming close...that was just part of my concocted storey.Laughing