I don't really understand how people can have such strong emotions about a fella' they never met. How do you hate a guy you've never spoken with?
Oh, wait...sorry, I know people have an easier time hating faceless foes.
why hate on fischer?
Sort:
Dec 22, 2009
0
#23
I dont think it's coincidence that often the most miserable of personalities achieve "greatness".
Fischer is polarizing, he made it that way his whole life. Either you were on his side or not. Kasparov is only polarizing within the GM community. His public face has always been pretty well contained.
Dec 22, 2009
0
#24
tonydal wrote:
electricpawn wrote:
I was in fifth grade when Fischer won the world championship. All the guys in my class immediately took up chess. We played during lunch every day. Our local club attracted over 100 people a week.
After about a year we all lost interest in chess. Not surprising for young boys. By the time I returned to chess in the 1980's, the local club was only drawing 6 or 8 people per week.
You have to wonder how much more popular chess in the US would be today if Fischer had defended his title and the momentum of the Fischer boom had continued.
This certainly accounts for quite a bit of my irritation about Bobby.
Same. Being a child of the Karpov era meant absolutely zero interest in chess amongst my peers. Chess was a depression era game played against your Grandparents on Sundays :)
bigpoison wrote:
I don't really understand how people can have such strong emotions about a fella' they never met. How do you hate a guy you've never spoken with?
Oh, wait...sorry, I know people have an easier time hating faceless foes.
Nice world you live in, bigpoison. I don't have to talk to Hitler, or Dick Cheney to have strong emotions for the public decisions they've made.
Tryst, hate is a wasted emotion.
It is a nice world, despite the cold and snow, I appreciate it.
Hate is like a cancer, it will eventually devour its host .... but comparing Fischer to Hitler is itself a sure sign that someone doesnt have both oars in the water imo.
Dec 22, 2009
0
#28
tryst wrote:
bigpoison wrote:
I don't really understand how people can have such strong emotions about a fella' they never met. How do you hate a guy you've never spoken with?
Oh, wait...sorry, I know people have an easier time hating faceless foes.
Nice world you live in, bigpoison. I don't have to talk to Hitler, or Dick Cheney to have strong emotions for the public decisions they've made.
If I took the time to get emotional about all the injust public decisions throughout the totality of human history I would be incapable of living.
nimzo5 wrote:
tryst wrote:
bigpoison wrote:
I don't really understand how people can have such strong emotions about a fella' they never met. How do you hate a guy you've never spoken with?
Oh, wait...sorry, I know people have an easier time hating faceless foes.
Nice world you live in, bigpoison. I don't have to talk to Hitler, or Dick Cheney to have strong emotions for the public decisions they've made.
If I took the time to get emotional about all the injust public decisions throughout the totality of human history I would be incapable of living.
"Throughout the totality of human history" is a bit much to ask bigghandi. What is your point, bigjesus?
ilikeflags wrote:
hitler kinda exists in an overtly exclusive group. even dropping dick cheney's name in the same sentence as hitler's is totally irresponsible. you're hard pressed to find many that would rival hitler's evil-ness in modern history. probably stalin. some might say milosevic but that's a stretch. there are more, but it's a very short list.
G Yagoda , Stalin, Hitler, Mao and maybe a few I cant think of, or dont know, fit well together, a very exclusive group to say the least.
ilikeflags wrote:
hitler kinda exists in an overtly exclusive group. even dropping dick cheney's name in the same sentence as hitler's is totally irresponsible. you're hard pressed to find many that would rival hitler's evil-ness in modern history. probably stalin. some might say milosevic but that's a stretch. there are more, but it's a very short list.
Mao. Pol Pot.
Reb wrote:
Hate is like a cancer, it will eventually devour its host .... but comparing Fischer to Hitler is itself a sure sign that someone doesnt have both oars in the water imo.
Oops! I mentioned Hitler in this thread about Bobby "at least he wasn't a commie" Fischer. I should not have expected you to see that I wasn't comparing, dear Bobby, to Hitler, National Master Reb. My apologies
ilikeflags wrote:
hitler kinda exists in an overtly exclusive group. even dropping dick cheney's name in the same sentence as hitler's is totally irresponsible. you're hard pressed to find many that would rival hitler's evil-ness in modern history. probably stalin. some might say milosevic but that's a stretch. there are more, but it's a very short list.
QFT.
Some just can't resist indulging their own hatreds and bigotry, so they sling words like "nazi" around heedlessly.
Dec 22, 2009
0
#34
goldendog wrote:
ilikeflags wrote:
hitler kinda exists in an overtly exclusive group. even dropping dick cheney's name in the same sentence as hitler's is totally irresponsible. you're hard pressed to find many that would rival hitler's evil-ness in modern history. probably stalin. some might say milosevic but that's a stretch. there are more, but it's a very short list.
QFT.
Some just can't resist indulging their own hatreds and bigotry, so they sling words like "nazi" around heedlessly.
I hate pawn islands, but indulge in them frequently, I shall now call them nazi pawn islands.
tryst wrote:
nimzo5 wrote:
tryst wrote:
bigpoison wrote:
I don't really understand how people can have such strong emotions about a fella' they never met. How do you hate a guy you've never spoken with?
Oh, wait...sorry, I know people have an easier time hating faceless foes.
Nice world you live in, bigpoison. I don't have to talk to Hitler, or Dick Cheney to have strong emotions for the public decisions they've made.
If I took the time to get emotional about all the injust public decisions throughout the totality of human history I would be incapable of living.
"Throughout the totality of human history" is a bit much to ask bigghandi. What is your point, bigjesus?
I assume that you are referring to me with the "bigjesus" bit, even though I'm not hispanic. For my point, please see post #27.
Yes I was, bigpoison, referring to you, Ghandi, and Jesus when asking nimzo5 what the point was. Your point, I had already addressed above. The "hispanic" joke you made, was funny.
Dec 22, 2009
0
#37
tryst wrote:
Yes I was, bigpoison, referring to you, Ghandi, and Jesus when asking nimzo5 what the point was. Your point, I had already addressed above. The "hispanic" joke you made, was funny.
the point- If you are going to hate on Fischer, why not Alekhine? If you are going to hate on Cheney, why not add Eisenehower, Dulles and Kennedy to the list? The biggest emotion I get from hearing Cheney's name being mentioned is fear of being bored with tired arguments.
nimzo5 wrote:
tryst wrote:
Yes I was, bigpoison, referring to you, Ghandi, and Jesus when asking nimzo5 what the point was. Your point, I had already addressed above. The "hispanic" joke you made, was funny.
the point- If you are going to hate on Fischer, why not Alekhine? If you are going to hate on Cheney, why not add Eisenehower, Dulles and Kennedy to the list? The biggest emotion I get from hearing Cheney's name being mentioned is fear of being bored with tired arguments.
Sounds like you want equal time for everyone, nimzo5. What, are you a commie?
Absurd wrote:
Because being good at chess doesn't excuse anything.
I find it shocking that people still think that it does.
I agree. If he hadn't been good at chess, people would see him for what he was. Just another whack job bung hole.
I would like to know to what degree Fischer's rantings were attributable to his "madness" and what degree to his manipulative nature. I think his early life traumas (losing his father, conflict with his mother), were huge factors in his mental make-up.
This doesn't excuse his behaviour, but may give reasons why he was the way he was.
Fischer was an amazing player, but he was quite hateful, and would likely lynch many a minority folk if he wasn't so obsessed with chess and if he had enough social wit to gain additional white supremacist friends. If he wasn't good at chess, he'd be another Nazi or KKK or other genocide-promoting @$$hole member, plain and simple.
Plus, he was too much of a pansy to defend his title. He couldn't accept the fact that at some point, younger players who started playing years after he started would eventually surpass him and learn everything he knew plus more in a much faster time frame. That's simply a part of the game...new folks will be able to incorporate the lessons of old masters, but at a much earlier age and will be better than the old generation. It is like that in all competitions/sports. It is like that in many other areas of expertise as well.
Fischer couldn't handle that he wouldn't always be the best, so he shortchanged the chess world with his abrupt retirement and tarnished his legacy with his crap social commentary which he thought was validated by his world championship in a board game. He shortchanged Karpov and indirectly shortchanged every player that came after him by refusing to be a part of the natural evolution of chess. He was a whiny poor fearful sportsman who ultimately couldn't lay it all on the line when it counted most, the way his successors were/are willing to do.
That being said, I admire the man for what he did OTB, what he accomplished on his own in a country without its share of dominant chess players, and against a dominant Soviet chess machine. Truly amazing, but that doesn't validate his ignorant bigotted genocidal views nor does it excuse him from defending his place against the #1 competitor, the way a true champ should.
It comes down to 2 quotes...
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulder of giants"
"You are not truly a champ until you defend it."
Fischer was a victim of the Soviet propaganda machine and the gullibility of his fellow Americans who did not come to his aid.
For almost half a century of Soviet domination of the world championship, it was the rule for the reigning champion to retain his title in a match that is drawn.
Even in boxing, the defending champion retains his world boxing title if a match is declared a draw.
That was the "rule" then. But when an American, Bobby Fischer, became world chess champion, the Soviets conducted a propanda campaign on the "fairness" of Fischer retaining his world title in a drawn match.
Fischer had proposed that the championship be conducted where only wins count. The first to win 10 games becomes world champion. However Fischer proposed that if the score reached a 9-9 tie, the champion retains his title. But the match continues until whoever gets 10 wins grabs the money for first.
The Soviets launched a vigorous "fairness" propaganda campaign accusing Fischer of being "unfair". The result? Fischer's 9-9 tie, the champion retains title, clause was junked by FIDE. The match was to be held on the terms of the first to win 10 games wins the title.
Fischer, naturally, refused to defend his title under the condition set by FIDE that dropped the practice for over 30 years that the champion retain his title in a tie.
That Soviet champions retained the title in a drawn match was considered fair but for an American champion like Fischer it was not fair to retain the title in a tie was a terrible injustice brought upon an American world chess champion.
Now for those who think that Fischer was not unjustly treated because he was an American, consider what happened after Karpov became champion by default.
If you think that Fischer was asking an unfair advantage, take a look at what happened when a Soviet champion, Anatoly Karpov defended his title by default: The Soviets made it in such a manner that whoever becomes the challenger, THE CHALLENGER HAS TO DEFEAT THE CHAMPION TWO (2) times to take the title.
Imagine that. To become champion the challenger has to defeat Karpov two (2) times.
And the silence of those who ganged up on Fischer was deafening in the light of Karpov's YOU HAVE TO BEAT ME TWO TIMES TO TAKE AWAY MY TITLE
No wonder Fischer became paranoid after the US and the rest of the world ganged up on him while nobody squawked when Karpov dictated that he has to be beaten twice to be dislodged as World champion.
Fischer had a long and bitter struggle against FIDE and the Soviets. For decades the Soviets had a monopoly on the world championship until Fischer arrived.
After becoming world champion, he was astonished and dismayed at the way US chess columnists swallowed the Soviet "fairness" propaganda and turned against him.
Deserted by his American friends who swallowed the Soviet propaganda about fairness, Fischer gave up in disgust.
You say Fischer was deserted by his American friends. If it weren't for American friends like Pal Benko who gave up his own spot in the interzonal Fischer would never have even gotten to play for the title. Everyone bent over backwards to get Fischer to play. During the '72 title match FIDE bent rules for him like crazy! Heck Fischer almost didn't go play for the title that year because it wasn't the exact way he wanted it to be.
Maybe everyone was just finally sick and tired of his schtick! I mean the great champs in all competitive events will play anyone, anywhere, and at anytime. If Fischer hadn't whined and cried his way into the previous interzonal and hadn't acted like such a spoiled brat at the '72 match, maybe, just maybe they might have listened to him.
And yes I love playing through Fischer's games.