 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.63.130.193
In Reply to: RE: people who make movies have agendas. Accuracy suffers posted by Jazz Inmate on October 02, 2011 at 15:07:30
It is incredibly naive to present Fischer as almost the greatest chess player who ever lived - there is nothing to support that position. While he was undeniably capable, even brilliant, he also failed to reach any level of performance that would qualify him as such. Sure enough, he won the title, but only once, and against an admittedly not too strong an opponent. He never defended it against truly serious contenders, people like Karpov. It is often said that anyone can win Tour de France, but only few can do it several times. Whether Fischer's one time was a fluke, a pinnacle of his career, or just another milestone on his march to the chess Olympus - we shall never know, and certainly some of this achievements were brilliant, but for one reason or another, he failed to do what the truly great players do. His purported greatness was never truly tested.America needed a winner, and it's got it... nothing's wrong with that. Some also got a precious gift - a self-hating, anti-Semitic Jew - scuff legends are made off.
Edits: 10/02/11Follow Ups:
you can't seem to get anything right about him. What has become painfully obvious is your ignorance on the subject.
were above and beyond anything I've ever witnessed in any type of competition and totally uncalled for.
"I'd like to own a squadron of tanks"
Like I said - he possibly had what it takes to become a champion... but he let it go. That was his decision.
only one of its own could win. Fisher changed that.
He was an anti-Semite, a Holocaust denier, and a general asshole. No denying that. He also continues to be considered the greatest of all chess players by his peers.
nt
How Fischer and Karpov handled Spassky. Just a couple of years apart, so the comparison is not totally ridiculous.
It is ridiculous to compare champions from different eras since each new generation builds their game on the lessons learned from the previous generation. One can only compare where a particular player stood amongst his peers in his or her time. In that regard Bobby Fischer was in a league of one. If you look at what he did and the context and conditions in which he did it he clearly is in a league of one. He was a freak among freaks. That he "freaked out" after hitting the top says nothing about what he was in terms of talent up until that point.
What Bobby Fischer did would be comparable for a highschool quarterback from Iceland jumping into the college ranks and then going on to the NFL and breaking all the single season records for passing. If that were to happen there would be a good argument that such a person was the best quarterback ever. Even if this imaginary person walked away from the game after a couple years and made no mark on any of the career records for quarterbacks in the NFL.
nt
nt
Some were actually far greater. No one is denying him his chess skills, but it makes little sense to blow them out of proportion. Certainly he was a super-hero in the US, don't forget that part. He earned the title once, against a weak opponent, but never defended it against stronger ones, so we will never know his true potential. Like I said - who remembers every one-time T-de-F winner? Achievement, yes... super-achievement - no.
For a reasonable stretch of time. What more could he do? He could have played longer but couldn't due to his mental illness (somethhing you are apparently rather naive about). Cheers.
"Widely considered a "chess legend",[1][2] at age 13 Fischer won a "brilliancy" that became known as The Game of the Century. Starting at age 14, he played in eight United States Championships, winning each by at least a point. At 15½, he became both the youngest grandmaster and the youngest candidate for the World Championship up until that time. He won the 1963–64 U.S. Championship 11–0, the only perfect score in the history of the tournament. In the early 1970s he became the most dominant player in modern history—winning the 1970 Interzonal by a record 3½-point margin and winning 20 consecutive games, including two unprecedented 6–0 sweeps in the Candidates Matches. According to research by Jeff Sonas, in 1971 Fischer had separated himself from the rest of the world by a larger margin of playing skill than any player since the 1870s.[3] He became the first official World Chess Federation (Fédération Internationale des Échecs) (FIDE) number one rated chess player in July 1971, and his 54 total months at number one is the third longest of all time."
This does not even consider the context in which he achieved this status. A loner from NY competing against a Soviet super system with practically unlimited resources designed to build super chess players
.
You even went so far in one post as to ignore the fact that he *was* in fact the world champion. "One of many?" not even close. One of a very few who are true contenders for the mythical title of greatest or best ever. the fact that he is even in the conversation, and he is in the converstaion for those who know the subject and are not overtaken by their personal hatred for tha man, speaks volumes for his talent given that he walked awy from the game at age 29. In his short time in the game on an international level he achieved a degree of superiority that no other chess player has ever enjoyed in the history of the game. That certainly makes him one of if not the best ever and one of if not the greatest ever. You conveniently ignored that fact while making a bizarre "case" out of his time as the top rated player only being the third longest. Aside form the fact that his stay at the top was cut off by his choice to walk away from the game, that you would cite this as your case for Bobby Fisher being unexceptional is indeed bizarre.
Also you have been harping on about his impact beyond the game itself. His impact was pretty obvious. He was bigger than the game ever was or probably ever will be. Fischer was regarded by many as the most famous man on earth when he won the world championship. The championship itself was the lead story each night over Watergate. It was watched by millions of people. The popularity of chess in the United Stetes skyrocketed because of Fischer. How many people do you think know who Anand is these days? whether or not you can see past your hatred for the guy, he was bigger than the game itself. That is rare. While Anand seems to be a nicer guy than Fischer I somehow don't see anyone making a documentary of any interest on him or any other players. And nothing in the history of the game comes close to being the international event that the Spassky/ Fischer championship was. Kasparov/ Big Blue was a distant distant second. Fischer's win over Spassky was a big deal and had a substantial impact on the collective state of mind of the American people.
I feel a wounded pride in your writing, something akin to the Sputnik affair. While I understand these sentiments, they do not, by themselves, elevate the event to any new height. It would be silly to claim Fischer did not have talent... it is every bit as silly to blow it out of proportion, as you are doing. It really doesn't matter whether he left the sport at 29 or 79, what matters is his achievement, the biggest of which was one world title. Spectacular, to be sure... but far from unique. As far as being an international event, I would dare say Karpov/Korchnoi match was at least as attention-grabbing. Making an event by being an asshole is one thing. Defending the title against a couple of world's best would had been far more impressive. We all know what he choose.
Edits: 10/04/11
> > I feel a wounded pride in your writing, something akin to the Sputnik affair.> >
You are feeling something that simply isn't there.
> > While I understand these sentiments, they do not, by themselves, elevate the event to any new height.> >
There are no sentiments involved. What I said about the impact of that match is fact not personal sentiment.
> > It would be silly to claim Fischer did not have talent... it is every bit as silly to blow it out of proportion, as you are doing.> >
I merely cut and pasted actual facts. I am not blowing anything out of proportion. OTOH you have been way over the top in your dismissiveness of the guy.
> > It really doesn't matter whether he left the sport at 29 or 79, what matters is his achievement, the biggest of which was one world title.> >
Actually it matters a great deal. And while his championship is a big achievement his record for the highest margin of top ranking is arguably a greater achievment. His 20 game win streak was unique and very much off the map.
> > Spectacular, to be sure... but far from unique.> >
It was all those other things I cited that were *in fact* unique and supportive of the argument that he was the best ever.
> > As far as being an international event, I would dare say Karpov/Korchnoi match was at least as attention-grabbing.> >
You would be plainly wrong.
> > Making an event by being an asshole is one thing.> >
That isn't what made the Fischer Spassky championship match an event.
> > Defending the title against a couple of world's best would had been far more impressive. We all know what he choose.> >
Clearly the guy made a lot of bad choices in life to say the least. But just because the guy was an asshole, and he was, doesn't diminish the impact he and the match he played with Spassky had on The U.S. the world and the world of chess. Bobby Fischer was at one point one of the most famous persons on earth. Some say he was at one point THE most famous person on earth. Karpov? Korchnoi? Anand?
Fischer was bigger than chess. He was an enigma. And yes, he was an asshole. But he and the match with Spassky made for a very interesting documentary. That is the real point.
A US-centric point of view.
It was world wide news. Perhpas it was down played in the Soviet Union since it was not what the powers that be wanted and the results obviously were less than favorable. Perhaps yours is a some what USSR centric perspective. Where were you when this match was played?
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]