We don't need any assistance from other countries in determining who we embrace as Americans, but thanks for the offer.
Perhaps "claim" or "appropriate" would be a better term.
"Claim" or "appropriate" would only be valied terms if and only if the subject did not wish to be embraced.
In the Netherlands we still talk about Timman and Euwe ;).
Well, if Estragon so decides, they will be considered Americans as well.
We do not simply decide to claim a person as an American. THEY DO. Kamsky chose to become an American. Gelfand chose to be Isreli. Once this choice is made, said person IS an American, regardless of labe.
I think Fischer once said: Look at all I've done for the US. Nobody has single-handedly done more for the US image than me, I really believe this. When I won the World Championship in '72, the United States had an image of, you know, a football country, baseball country, but nobody thought of it as an intellectual country. I turned all that around single-handedly, right? But I was useful then because there was the Cold War, right? But now I'm not useful anymore, you see, the Cold War is over, and now they want to wipe me out, steal everything I have, put me in prison, and so on.
But than again he said this too: They're all weak, all women. They're stupid compared to men. They shouldn't play chess, you know. They're like beginners. They lose every single game against a man. There isn't a woman player in the world I can't give knight-odds to and still beat." -- Bobby Fischer
We don't need any assistance from other countries in determining who we embrace as Americans, but thanks for the offer.
Perhaps "claim" or "appropriate" would be a better term.
"Claim" or "appropriate" would only be valied terms if and only if the subject did not wish to be embraced.
If the wish to belong is the criterion, Fischer surely should not be considered an American player.
Well, certainly not after he left America and disavowed his citizenship.
This gets really confusing now. Fischer was always culturally American. He was also likely a self labeled American when he won the championship. Afterwards, he no longer wanted to be an American, but was still widely thought of as one.
Regardless, Fischer is really a strange case outside the scope of this discussion.
In the Netherlands we still talk about Timman and Euwe ;).
Well, if Estragon so decides, they will be considered Americans as well.
That's why we considder Giri Anish a complete Dutch person aswell and not as an immigrant :D.
http://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml?ina=1&country=USA
This list clearly shows that more than half of the US top 10 chess players are "mercenaries " from other countries. I would like to seen a team in the Olympiad that had enough "real Americans" on it so that the jokes would end about it being a " Russia B team " ( or any other country ) even if it meant worse results , which it probably would... I dont know if A Ramirez would be on such a team as I know too little about him. Was he born in the US and is perhaps of Cuban ( or South American ) heritage ? Anyone know ?
This point has merit, but I would contest that Nakamura and Seirawan do not qualify. Race is purely a cultural construction. Therfore, cultural origin is the sole determining factor.
I disagree since neither Seirawan nor Nakamura were already strong pro players when they came to the USA . As for Reshevsky, he wouldnt be on my USA team as he was too arrogant and a jerk ! He refused to play on the US team in several Olympiads simply because they wouldnt put him on board 1 ahead of Fischer = arrogant selfish jerk .
Well, I guess that someone needs to put a word for Reshevsky... Reshevsky played on the top board for the US team in 1955, and defeated the reigning world champion Botvinnik on that occasion. It's rather understandable that he didn't want to play second fiddle to teenage Fischer in 1960.
It doesnt matter what he wanted. By 1960 Fischer had established himself as the US Champion and he was superior to Reshevsky. The US team would have been much stronger with Reshevsky also playing but he was too selfish and egotistical to play second board. Recall that Fischer agreed to play 2nd board, behind Larsen, in the World vs USSR match and Fischer was probably already better than Larsen... I have read several stories about Reshevsky that clearly depicts him as an A$$ .
Well, I guess that someone needs to put a word for Reshevsky... Reshevsky played on the top board for the US team in 1955, and defeated the reigning world champion Botvinnik on that occasion. It's rather understandable that he didn't want to play second fiddle to teenage Fischer in 1960.
It doesnt matter what he wanted. By 1960 Fischer had established himself as the US Champion and he was superior to Reshevsky.
I don't think that we could claim that. Fischer was US champion but Reshevsky won the Buenos Aires tournament in 1960 ahead of him, and they tied in a match in 1961. Reshevsky was more experienced, also known to be strong in match play and probably belonged to the top board in 1960.
Look, Fischer won the US CHMP in 57,58,59 and 60 with Reshevsky playing in all of them. They drew 3 times and Fischer beat Reshevsky in one of them. In 1960 Reshevsky came only 5th and was 3 points behind Fischer ! Maybe he didnt want to play second fiddle but he was clearly second fiddle by 1960 to Fischer.
I think Fischer once said: Look at all I've done for the US. Nobody has single-handedly done more for the US image than me, I really believe this. When I won the World Championship in '72, the United States had an image of, you know, a football country, baseball country, but nobody thought of it as an intellectual country. I turned all that around single-handedly, right? But I was useful then because there was the Cold War, right? But now I'm not useful anymore, you see, the Cold War is over, and now they want to wipe me out, steal everything I have, put me in prison, and so on.
But than again he said this too: They're all weak, all women. They're stupid compared to men. They shouldn't play chess, you know. They're like beginners. They lose every single game against a man. There isn't a woman player in the world I can't give knight-odds to and still beat." -- Bobby Fischer
The "knight-odds" statement was probably true in the '70s.
What is "knight odds" btw? Like one player plays without knights?
One knight. It used to be a popular way of evening out the games between a player like Morphy and some hapless schmoe.
This one is supposed to be true, although of course I've no way to check on it. Given Capablanca's tournament and match record of only 35 losses to a total of 29 different opponents, there is certainly no mistaken ego here.
Capablanca was waiting in a train station in New York one day, with his coffee, danish, newspaper and chess set, when a man approached him. Gesturing at the chess set, he asked if Capa cared for a game. Always delighted to play, Capablanca immeditely set up the board, then removed his queen from the board, to even up the game. Annoyed, the man blurted out, "Why did you do that? You don't know me, I might beat you!" Unruffled, Capablanca replied, "Sir, if you could beat me, I would know you."
How can one mimic fischer, or any other GM? What they are trying to say is that he is born in Japan, he had Shri Lankan teacher, and yet he is american product.
But when we are already talking about products, best examples for that, well, maybe more project than product, are Gata Kamsy and Polgar sisters.
Why has no-one here yet made a blustering demand to see Nakamura's birth certificate? 
Because I'm assuming no one here is a birther. The same way not everyone in america believes 9/11 was a conspiracy 
.
Why has no-one here yet made a blustering demand to see Nakamura's birth certificate?
My guess would be because he isnt't US President ?
I already said that Nakamura is a bad example of what I was speaking. But I still found it strange to talk about living people as products!
But what you have just said is the argument I could not find until now. They are products. You invest in them so you can use them later. So you can use their success for your own needs. When I say you I mean nation - federation or government...
Like our Serbian soccer team. We invest in youth, than we let them play 2-3 games for national team, so clubs can sell them at higher price. So they go, and you never hear about them again.
People should not be a product of chess. You should play chess because you love it. And then you ask why so many draw games, why no one plays aggressive chess any more? Because every players is someones investition, and no one want to risk all that money just to play interesting chess game.
Yet, it's against human nature to not play intresting games, so we occasinally see even top-level players like Carlsen and Topalov experimenting with dubious moves in serious tournaments like Bilbao (Carlsen) and FIDE Candidates Matches (Topalov).
In the Netherlands we still talk about Timman and Euwe ;).