the site is not be about politics or religion.
but alas, humans always get back to the basics, don't they ( sigh ).
The truth about Dr. Frank Brady and Fischer
Sort:
Steve Jobs was a similar poorly-socialized, genius-monomaniac like Fischer. People cut them both huge amounts of slack.
When Jobs got pancreatic cancer, he futzed around with alternative medicine, because he knew better than everyone else, and may have paid for it with his life.
We wonder if Jobs was a sociopath, just as we wonder if Fischer was a paranoid madman.
ipcress12 wrote:
Steve Jobs was a similar poorly-socialized, genius-monomaniac like Fischer. People cut them both huge amounts of slack.
When Jobs got pancreatic cancer, he futzed around with alternative medicine, because he knew better than everyone else, and may have paid for it with his life.
We wonder if Jobs was a sociopath, just as we wonder if Fischer was a paranoid madman.
Ludicrous comparison.
Pancreatic cancer is a death sentence.
Fischer was a raving lunatic.
doppelgangsterII wrote:
ipcress12 wrote:
When Jobs got pancreatic cancer, he futzed around with alternative medicine, because he knew better than everyone else, and may have paid for it with his life.
Job's statement -
"The doctors told me this was almost certainly a type of cancer that is incurable, and that I should expect to live no longer than three to six months. My doctor advised me to go home and get my affairs in order, which is doctor’s code for prepare to die."
Jobs far outlived his doctors’ initial prognosis, but the reality is that islet cell neuroendocrine tumors are malignant, which means they’re fatal for 90% of patients if left untreated.
dopple: It's not that cut-and-dried. And if you knew much about Jobs, you wouldn't take anything he said at face-value.
In October 2003, Jobs was diagnosed with cancer,[211] and in mid-2004, he announced to his employees that he had a cancerous tumor in his pancreas.[212] The prognosis for pancreatic cancer is usually very poor;[213] Jobs stated that he had a rare, far less aggressive type known as islet cell neuroendocrine tumor.[212] Despite his diagnosis, Jobs resisted his doctors' recommendations for medical intervention for nine months,[180] instead consuming a pseudo-medicine diet in an attempt to thwart the disease. According to Harvard researcher Ramzi Amri, his choice of alternative treatment "led to an unnecessarily early death."[211] Cancer researcher and alternative medicine critic David Gorski "disagreed with Amri's assessment," stating, "My best guess was that Jobs probably only modestly decreased his chances of survival, if that."[214] Barrie R. Cassileth, the chief of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's integrative medicine department,[215] said "Jobs s faith in alternative medicine likely cost him his life.... He had the only kind of pancreatic cancer that is treatable and curable.... He essentially committed suicide."[216] According to Jobs's biographer, Walter Isaacson, "for nine months he refused to undergo surgery for his pancreatic cancer a decision he later regretted as his health declined."[217] "Instead, he tried a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbal remedies, and other treatments he found online, and even consulted a psychic. He was also influenced by a doctor who ran a clinic that advised juice fasts, bowel cleansings and other unproven approaches, before finally having surgery in July 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs
ipcress12 -
Thanks. That was informative and new info to me.
Nonetheless, comparing him to Fischer's demented condition is too much of a reach for me. Jobs did chalk up a productive life albeit he was apparently not so likeable as a person. Fischer...? Not so much productivity-wise and likeability much less so even than Jobs.
Dec 16, 2014
0
#88
Dopple. While I find your take on Fischer's well documented latent psychosis articulate but unoriginal (whether a former "fanboy" or not) your use of of biographical material, which is of the Author's discretion ( meaning, his/her own petsonal opinions openly disclosed, anecdotes etc) or taking bits of scripture an total disconnect...in theory, context or connotation.
What can be gleaned from all the fluff, is just an narcissism for some kind of "discovery".
No question Fischer was psychologically a sicker person than Jobs, but he was a more honest and decent person overall. Jobs was a ruthless, deceitful terror.
Still I find comparisons between the two interesting.
Both were missing their real father. Both were fanatically driven to be the best at whatever cost to their wholeness. Both succeeded at a global level. Both had their faults overlooked and catered to. Both sought spiritual meaning in fringe groups. Both sought physical healing in fringe modalities. Both left much psychological carnage behind them.
And both made their mark as legends.
ipcress12 wrote:
And both made their mark as legends.
One thing that is undisputable, Fischer the chess player had the absolute respect of his peers. I think as much as anything I'm angry at him for shutting it down as soon as he reached the top and secondarily because he became so consumed with hatred towards the rest of the world.
A human quality that cannot be admired.
ipcress12 wrote:
fab: I'd agree Fischer had problems and said so in earlier comments, but whether we call that insanity or madness, as robbie insists Brady does although Brady never has, is another question.
It is in the title of a book which bears Dr. Bradys name. You have made a truth claim, that the publishers influenced the title, fabricated the offensive clause and inserted it, the evidence which you have used to substantiate the claim is a mere supposition, that being that publishers sometimes do this. The fact of the matter is that Brady must have been consulted and at least acquiesced to the inclusion of the clause, 'to the edge of madness', for which there is not a shred of empirical medical evidence. Proof of this can be determined from the responses to this thread and i list them.
1. Fischer was mad because its generally accepted that he was mad - logical fallacy
2. Fischer was mad because I say he was mad - logical fallacy
3. Fischer was mad because he held irrational beliefs - in itself not an indication of madness, many people hold irrational beliefs and are considerer perfectly sane. The superstitious by way of example.
4. anecdotal 'evidence', from third party's, for example Fischer walked about his room ranting against the Jews. We can then consign the entire population of Gazza to the sanatorium for same 'madness'.
5.various ad hominems and personal remarks - unworthy of serious comment
No one here has provided even a shred of credible evidence despite being asked numerous times to do so. Dr. Frank Brady certainly never knew Fischer later in his life, despite what Batgirl and others have claimed and probably based his entire biography on third hand accounts.
He has proven that he is willing to 'sell out', his friends and bow to the dictates of publishers regardless of the consequences or the imagery that is projected as a direct consequence. In this regard he has betrayed Robert Fischer.
He is nothing more than a gossip columnist and should take up a post as an agony aunt for the New York Post, may the lord have mercy on his soul!
Publishers, not the author, are responsible for the financing, the printing, the distribution and the marketing of a book. A publisher might ask the author's opinion on the title and the cover and what goes on it, but at the end of the day the publisher, not the author, decides. Now stop being ridiculous.
Darth_Algar wrote:
Publishers, not the author, are responsible for the financing, the printing, the distribution and the marketing of a book. A publisher might ask the author's opinion on the title and the cover and what goes on it, but at the end of the day the publisher, not the author, decides. Now stop being ridiculous.
Its irrelevant how much influence Brady had, the book bears his name and he is directly responsible for its contents of which the title is an integral part. Your seeking to distance Brady from it is touching, but hardly convincing. As for being ridiculous, you will not feel offended when i dismiss those words nonchalantly and skip gleefully and merrily upon my way and ask that you refrain from offering me personal advice in the future for I remain capable of rational thought, despite your protestations.
robbie_1969 wrote:
Darth_Algar wrote:
Publishers, not the author, are responsible for the financing, the printing, the distribution and the marketing of a book. A publisher might ask the author's opinion on the title and the cover and what goes on it, but at the end of the day the publisher, not the author, decides. Now stop being ridiculous.
Its irrelevant how much influence Brady had, the book bears his name and he is directly responsible for its contents of which the title is an integral part. Your seeking to distance Brady from it is touching, but hardly convincing. As for being ridiculous, you will not feel offended when i dismiss those words nonchalantly and skip gleefully and merrily upon my way and ask that you refrain from offering me personal advice in the future for I remain capable of rational thought, despite your protestations.
The title is not an integral part of the contents. A subtitle or cover blub is much less so. Your refusal to read the contents of that book because of a trival subtitle/cover blurb is ridiculous, irrational (despite your protestations) and, as one poster earlier noted, anti-intellectual.
"anecdotal 'evidence', from third party's, for example Fischer walked about his room ranting against the Jews. We can then consign the entire population of Gazza to the sanatorium for same 'madness'"
Hardly. The description of Fischer's behaviour was just one of many examples, from someone who liked Fischer and had an in general positive view of him as a person. No person, while being well, living in Gaza or not, goes up before dawn and yells to himself about various "threats" while others in vain try to sleep. And few would doubt such stories, they are all in line with his general behaviour the last decades of his life, his many radio interviews etc.
NotAllowedTo wrote:
doppelgangsterII wrote:
Had look thru several of your earlier comments to know how to take your remark. I reckon I properly concluded it was meant to be a putdown, because you are apparently a Fischer fanboy.
I feel sorry for adults who get internet-ized and start dividing people into haters or fanboys. It may work until you're 12 or 14, but then?
Then? As long as the SSI checks keep coming in it can continue indefinetly. And often does.
"Why do I never hear anything bad about Kasparov?"
You must have read very little about Kasparov...
robbie_1969 wrote:
No one here has provided even a shred of credible evidence despite being asked numerous times to do so. Dr. Frank Brady certainly never knew Fischer later in his life, despite what Batgirl and others have claimed and probably based his entire biography on third hand accounts.
No one here has provided even a shred of credible evidence despite being asked numerous times to do so. Dr. Frank Brady certainly never knew Fischer later in his life, despite what Batgirl and others have claimed and probably based his entire biography on third hand accounts.
Good god Man! Who is on trial here? Is it Fischer or Brady? You are the one accusing Brady so it is up to YOU to prove your point. Your point seems to be that you won't read his books. Job done. Anything more will actually require you to pick up more than a dust jacket.
Was Fischer mad? Probably yes. So what? Is there some reason that a chess player needs to be a perfect individual. Is your self-worth or you as a person in any way connected to Fischer's character?
Brady illustrates Fischer's internal conflict quite well whether from personal or third party interviews. Because Fischer railed against jews and you admire Fischer does not make the rest of us think you are Rudolf Hess.
Why start a debate if your mind is made up? Is it so the rest of the forum can substantiate your opinions?
fabelhaft wrote:
"Why do I never hear anything bad about Kasparov?"
You must have read very little about Kasparov...
Maybe because you are in a Fischer thread. I believe anyone can start a topic.
Nothing like a good glass of superficiality
Had look thru several of your earlier comments to know how to take your remark. I reckon I properly concluded it was meant to be a putdown, because you are apparently a Fischer fanboy. I tend to go the fanboy route myself, usually eventually ending up disillusioned. Hung on with Lance Armstrong till the bitter end, Obama, John McEnroe, even OJ Simpson once upon a time. And now, Carlsen. Reality usually brings me around in the end. Keeping my fingers crossed with Carlsen.
I agree with some of your sentiments. If I was Native American I'd consider the US Gov't an occupation gov't where anything goes to get my land back. Palestinians same thing. But on the other hand, it has always been thus. Might is right. Navaho no friend of the Hopi. Shoshone no friend of the Souix, Crow, or Blackfeet. The big dog gets to make the rules. None of it changes the fact Fischer was a whack job who couldn't play the game (I don't mean chess) worth a damn.