"To Stick or Not to Stick" - That is Bobby Fischer's Question

Over the years there have probably been many times where one has to stick with one's principals and risk losing all; And at times, lose all.  In the case of the 16 Game Match of 1961 between Bobby Fischer vs Samuel Reshevsky, Bobby had to do just that.  The following is an account of the match (an article on Fischer) by Ralph Ginzburg in Harper's:

In a second highly publicized incident, just last summer, Bobby forfeited a sixteen- game, cross-country match to Reshevsky, because the twelfth game of the series was set for 11:00 A.M., an hour that Bobby regarded as uncivil for playing chess. Explaining this to me, he said that the match had originally been scheduled for play at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles on Sunday, August 13, at 1:30 in the afternoon. At ten that morning, he received a phone call from the referee of the game saying that playing time had been moved up to eleven. This, he said, was to accommodate the wishes of the principal patron of the series, Mrs. Jacqueline Piatigorsky, who wanted to be sure the game would be over in time for her to attend a concert to be given that night by her husband, cellist Gregor Piatigorsky. Bobby refused to play at that early hour and cited a clause in his playing contract which stated that playing time had to be acceptable to him. When Bobby failed to show up, the Los Angeles referee announced the game a forfeiture in favor of Reshevsky. The score of the series up to then had been tied at 5 1/2 games each. The forfeiture put Reshevsky ahead, 6 1/2 to 5 1/2.
The next game was to be played in New York four days later. Fischer refused to continue the series unless the forfeiture were first overruled. No one at the New York offices of the American Chess Foundation, sponsor of the series, was in favor of the decision of the Los Angeles referee and it was almost certain that in due time the forfeiture would be overruled. But Chess Foundation officials resented a threat to quit. "Fischer is holding a gun to our heads," the president, Walter Fried, told the New York Times.
When playing time for the thirteenth game arrived, the Chess Foundation had not yet overruled the forfeiture and Fischer did not show up for the game. The entire series was then declared a victory by default for Reshevsky and the trophy and prize money were awarded him. "There was no other course we could take consistent with our responsibility and our self respect," Fried said later. Bobby told me that in each of these cases he was merely "defending" his "principles." It is this rigid adherence to principle-to the point of self destruction-that seems to characterize almost all of his difficulties.

In an interview with Reshevsky that was conducted a few years before his death, he gives details of the game. According to Sammy, when the game was adjourned, Fischer had no doubt of the victory and declared that he would win. Reshevsky stayed up a 'little bit that night' and found the way to draw. The next day Fischer was disappointed.
Reshevsky says that this incident was the reason Fischer quit. This supposedly broke his spirit. When the interviewer raised the objection that Fischer was a great fighter, Sammy said: "Well it is something to declare that you will win but it is completely different when you say that you will and then get a draw."

A diagram of the full and final game (Round 11) can be seen at: www.chess.com/blog/Reshevskys_Revenge

Ha! What an American genius!

Fischer should have sued for breach of contract , plain and simple . He was in the right in this incident . 

What is not to admire about Bobby? I just wish other children knew what the word "principle" meant so that people wouldn't keep referring to them as brats and crybabies whenever they don't get their way

If Trysts and Reb ever one day agree on something then I know the very fabric of existence is collapsing.

I must admit that I have completely underestimated Bobby's contribution to daycare centers

So let me get this straight. The person paying for the event had no right to move a single game ahead by two and a half hours? And then Fischer cancelled the whole match because of this and he was "entirely correct"? In any other sporting event the players can usually accommodate a single schedule change. Maybe only divas throw a fit and cancel the whole thing. 

Or were you just joking, Estragon?

trysts, come on... what sporting event is ever moved forward 2 and a half hours THE DAY OF THE EVENT? With the players being notified ONE HOUR before they are supposed to start playing?

Tennis. They sit there all day sometimes waiting to play. 

Aah, but they know in advance those are the rules.

And they know during which time window they may have to play. It's not like play is supposed to start at 11.30am, but then they randomly decide to call 2 guys at 6am and tell them they have to play at 7.

They hadn't told Fischer that the game would be played at some not-quite-certain time during that day: they gave him a specific time, and I assume he planned accordingly.

But it's a single schedule change, fdar. The other person was going to have to do the same thing or be forfeited for that game. She was sponsoring the whole match. What kind of professional would be such a brat about it? 

There was a clause in the contract saying that playing time had to be acceptable to Fischer, so clearly that was important to him.

Suppose the original proposal had been for the match to start at 11.30am. Wouldn't Fischer have had every right to turn down the offer for a match on the grounds that he doesn't like to play that early?

It just seems odd that Fischer is not made fun of for this. The same behaviour occurred in the world championship match. I remember the Anand-Topalov match(I think I did a thread about it), and everyone hated Topalov because he didn't say anything. But Fischer's behaviour is "correct". You chess players are hard to predict

Certainly not, Fischer was a jerk in general and probably on that occasion in particular too, but even jerks can have the law and the ethics on their side. It is even possible that he spent 11 am - 2 pm in his hotel room idly.

We are not saying that Fischer had a right to choose his playing time whatsoever, but that he had the right to enforce a contract he signed. His attitude, however "diva" it may seem, is justified on that case.

Personally I agree with NM reb and Estragon, even though I think Fischer as a human being eventually deteriorated into a world-class loser, and that's putting it very mildly compared to what I really think of him as a person.

To most folks who don't know that much about this incident or haven't thought it out carefully, it looks like someone chickened out with a tie score. I'm not saying that's what I believe, but it's not surprising that some people may assume that's what happened. If Fischer had been winning the match when he quit there would probably be far fewer doubts about his motives. 

And if memory serves me correctly he did sue, didn't he?

I think both parties involved were unreasonable but this made me laugh.

Fischer should have woke up and played chess. You find some gal who'll pay you thousands of dollars to push some pawns across a board, asking you to wake up at 11:00AM isn't unreasonable in the least.

I may not have liked the way GM Fischer behaved in many of his situations, but I agree that once a legal contract is in hand, one has every right to enforce it. It does not matter what the terms of the contract states, this is irrelevant. In this specific case, the reason for a time change by the patron is also irrelevant, since it is specified in the contract that he must agree to the change.

It would be interesting to find out how this matter was "settled", as I suspect some offering must have been given to him not to proceed legally. Did it actually go to court?

In my readings about Fischer, there were a great many times when he was on the opposite end of this transaction ie. he had a contract in hand, and refused to carry out his end of the agreement.

Fischer is continually being bad mouthed when most of the time he was in the right. He had a contract saying he had to approve of the time change. In most of his disputes before and after this incident he was in the right according to his friend and colleague GM Larry Evans.

His friend thought he was right? Settled then!