Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Bobby fischer was anti-zionist, not anti-semitic

Zionists love to say that anti-zionists (a political idea) are anti-semitic (a racist idea). But the concept is completely false. Bobby Fisher was anti-zionist, and despised US and Israels terrorist policies against the Palestinians and the Arab countries. But that is a political position. I would rather say a very respectful political position. But that has nothing to do with the fact of being Jewish, like Bobby's own mother and part of his family was. Bobby Fischer was not a racist at all, whatsoever. So please, Wikipedia editors, STOP denigrating Bobby Fisher because of your Zionist ideas, and start respecting him for what he was; the greatest chess player that ever was.

Fischer's statements were not limited to terrorist policies, nor to political positions of any kind. He railed against "Jews" (his word) controlling the banks, controlling the courts, controlling the media, conspiring to steal from him, etc. He was heard doing it in person on live radio interviews, where his language was so vulgar that his interviewers had to warn him lest they have to stop broadcasting.

It is true, at least once, that he mentioned torture of Palestinians by Israel, but to say that his statements were only political is ludicrous. There is nothing whatever wrong in asserting that Fischer hated Jews -- he said it often enough -- and if that qualifies as anti-Semitic, then the shoe fits. I do NOT know if he regarded the Jews as a "race", so I am not saying that HE thought of this as racist. I am saying it was not just "a political idea". It sounded to me like he may not have known, and likely didn't care, whether they were a race, he just hated "them".

Keep in mind that, for all Fischer's brilliance on the chessboard and reputed high IQ, he quit high school as soon as he legally could, and never finished. He did not have the benefit of a broad education beyond the age of 16, and I've read that he wasn't paying much attention to general schoolwork several years before that.

Ralphcook (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, I would have rather read you quote the entire sentence of Bobby Fisher's declarations, and also the right interpretation of what Bobby Fisher meant. For you to quote "Jews" does not mean a anything. Please quote the entire sentence, the context of the sentence, and the meaning of his thinking. I have also heard in interviews saying "Jew" etc., but it was put in a sentence containing the expression "jewish ring leaders" or other context or reference, and you know very well, he refers to powerful organizerd zionists leaders within AIPAC or other zionist organizations, or other zionist people of power.

Second, for you to suggest that Bobby Fischer was uneducated and did not know the diference, or would not care about the difference between jewish race and jewish religion, it's not just a absurd concept, it mostly shows a complete ignorance of Bobby Fisher's true Alma Matter. Feel like he felt, understand what he went through, and you will just start to understan Bobby Fischer.

I think the issue is that he was accused of anti-semitism (tantamount to being accused of eating babies some might say) but the article is correct to point it out factually imo. Fair-minded people may feel it is bound to be 'political', however expressed: I for example detest Icelanders (let's say), but who would care? But that's for fair-minded discussion, not an encyclopaedia entry. I think the article is fine in this area. Hakluyt bean (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't choose to be born a Anglican, and I no longer regard myself as being an Anglican as I do not attend church nor subscribe to Christian dogma. If Anglicans were dropping bombs on Palestinian people, without good reason, I'd be against the Anglicans, I'd be saying "Those damned @#$% Anglicans!", and the fact that I was born and baptized as an Anglican would have absolutely no relevance to my political views on Anglicans, as I am no longer one of them. So why is Fischer's genetic heritage always mentioned in connection with his political views? Was he seen in any synagogue within the last few decades? It is illogical and irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.42.216 (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Find a flattering picture, please!

Bobby Fisher was a great champion and a hero to many. It is unfortunate bordering on sadistic to have this picture of him as a very old man when he was deeply lost to his mental illness. Like other greats who have succumbed to disease we don't remember them in the downward spiral, but at their triumphant moment. Michael Jordan slam dunking, JFK or MLK giving a great speech. No one would put the isolated frame of the Zapruder film where his head snaps back as the basic photo for a Kennedy biography.

Therefore I respectfully request that someone who knows all the ins an outs of Wikipedia please find a nice picture of the handsome young Bobby Fisher in his prime and affix it to this otherwise reasonable bio.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.220.203 (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Zionists hate Bobby Fisher. That is why Wikipedia editors will put him down. Wikipedia = Ziopedia

Wikipedia uses free images whenever possible, often taken by a wikipedian editor and therefore free of copyright concerns. If you have an image that you own the rights to that is better, perhaps you might give up some of your rights so it can be on the Bobby Fischer page. 86.42.111.78 (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The picture is up for deletion on Commons so we may have to use a fair use one anyway soon. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever replaced the picture with the current one!

Much, much better! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.177.193 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 January 2008

To be fair, this picture is not much better - he is now a grinning little kid which does not do justice to the seriousness of his life and his expertise. I know of a suitable alternative. It is at www.chessgames.com on his profile page and shows him a little older, maybe early twenties, completely absorbed in the thinking of a chess game. It would be perfect here. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.197.190 (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Asperger Syndrome

Could he have had Asperger's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.23.221 (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Bobby Fischer had Asperger's Syndrome because he was much more eccentric than anybody I've ever met who has Asperger's Syndrome. I think Bobby Fischer was actually an autistic savant, like the "Rain Man". Marknagel (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he was the classic genius / borderline schizophrenic. This is a fairly common occurance and he seemed to topple off the sanity wagon at some point in his life. He reminds me of Vincent Van Gogh, who likely had the same condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.220.203 (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw a biography about Bobby Fischer on the Biography Channel in 2006 (shown in Ireland/UK), a colleague of his said in an interview (he briefly appeared in the last 10-15 minutes of the documentary) that Bobby had Asperger's syndrome (AS) and it explained his reclusive behavior, obsessiveness and difficult personality i.e. a conspicuous lack of empathy. Though this may have been opinion, and not based on any official diagnosis. I watched the biography three times to make sure I did not misunderstood what was said. I agree that he may have had AS. He did not have autism, I believe he began to speak at a normal age as a child(?).

The unique feature that distinguishes AS from Schizophrenia are obsessional interests (his mother brought him to see a psychiatrist because of his chess obsession, she was told not to worry). Frequently, the AS genius is supreme autodidact.[1] and savant skills also occur [2] just as in autism. Lastly, people with AS are frequently (~30% in Finland)[3] misdiagnosed with Schizophrenia. See:

Ruth, M. & Ryan, M.D., 1992. Treatment-Resistant Chronic Mental Illness: Is It Asperger's Syndrome? Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 43, 807-81.

Adults With Asperger Disorder Misdiagnosed as Schizophrenic. Lawrence Perlman, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 2000, Vol 31, No. 2, 221-225

--Diamonddavej (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Prof. Roy Grinker speculated that Bobby Fischer and Vincent van Gogh may have both been on the autistic spectrum (giving reasons for this speculation) in his recently published book "Unstrange minds: remapping the world of autism".

I couldn't help noticing that in the media coverage screened tonight Fischer was shown complaining about the brightness of the lighting in some kind of press conference; I'd say that was due to sensory hypersensitivity that is a common feature of autism. I believe Fischer was known to have complained about sensory issues throughout his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.42.216 (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

All this speculation is not very useful - if someone can cite a reliable source, then it should be added. If not, then not. There has been a lot of jabber about how he was "insane", too, and maybe so; but statements about mental illness or autism in the article would need to satisfy WP:V. Speculation from respected authors on autism who didn't diagnose Fischer medically don't merit inclusion, either. Tempshill (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

He certainly was not insane, but there must be some reason for his difference. I believe it's AS, since he was obsessive, reclusive but yet brilliant at his main interest. I've also seen people who knew him come on TV and say that he used to enjoy lining up yoghurt pots, and grouping them according to their colour. This to me is a sign of an autistic spectrum disorder, together with his social difficulties and obsessive, brilliant mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.23.221 (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia has an entire article about dead famous people diagnosed posthumously (not medically) with AS, by AS and autism experts, but someone has asserted that in Fischer's specific case, speculation from autism experts does not merit a mention. So why should we treat Fischer differently than Newton, Einstein, Cavendish, Glenn Gould etc and all those other dead famous people speculated about by AS experts?

I could go on to mention that the Wikipedia describes one well-known "autistic" autism advocate as being diagnosed with autism, while the article makes no mention anywhere that this person's formal official diagnosis was called into question in way back in 1996 in a detailed investigation by a journalist which was broadcast by the government-owned broadcaster in that person's home-country. One could argue that well-argued diagnostic speculation by a genuine expert can be more credible than a questionable official diagnosis, with regard to the autistic spectrum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.42.216 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Being officially diagnosed with high functioning autism and having extensive experience of others with autism and Asperger's syndrome through running support groups since 1996, I have good grounds to insist that Bobby Fischer's behavior is completely inconsistent with both AS and autism. He does seem a textbook case of paranoid personality disorder, perhaps culminating in full-blown paranoid schizophrenia later in life.

The off-topic remarks by 124.169.42.216 above probably refer to Donna Williams. Journalists are not diagnostic experts, and it's entirely justified that Wikipeda omits that 1996 character assassination of her. Any further discussion on this should be moved to that article's talk page.

McDutchie (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

After reading chapters 2 and 3 of the book "Bobby Ficher goes to war" by Edmonds and Eidinow, I don't have the slightest doubt that Fischer was autistic. There is much interesting information about Fischer's childhood in chapter 2, including why his mother took him to a child psychiatric division of a hospital (nothing resembling schizophrenia or psychosis or paranoia, but what appears to have been very typical Asperger behaviour). One important difference between autism/Asperger syndrome and other conditions such as schizophrenia and personality disorders is that all autists behave in the way that is characteristic of the condition right from early childhood. Another characteristic of autism that is different from some other conditions is that typically it is inherited and autistic characteristics can be found in one or more family members. "Bobby Fisher goes to war" describes Fischer's mother as an exceptional mind and a strong, socially jarring personality who was clearly a lot like her son. There's no way in the world that anyone can argue that Fisher was a normal person who went mad at some point during adulthood. It appears that he was very different from childhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.252.79 (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Left-handed?

Sorry if this seems too trivial a matter at this time, but I'd like to know if this rumour is true. Many geniuses were left-handed, which I think is interesting.

Is It Really Necessary...

...to have 9 separate sources to tell us that he died on January 17th 2008 from kidney failure at the age of 64? It's pretty much undisputed fact so it can be argued that no sources are really needed, 1 is probably good enough to satisfy guidelines, 2 if we really want to get pedantic over verifiability. Given that all the cites appear to be reliable sources I don't think that including them all for cross checking is really that vital... 124.183.180.198 (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it is not really necessary, but it is no tragedy either. Most of those are obituaries and thus mini-biographies that act to support some of the other assertions in the text, even if not explicitly cited as such. As a guideliness, I would recommend trimming the heap back by no more than 30%. Anyway, some will, in time, go dead and be excised.--Tastesoon (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Part of that was due to constant changing of the date from 1/17 to 1/18 and back again. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the less accurate sources could be weeded out; several of the obituaries claim he died in hospital; did he truly die at home? Does this come from Icelandic language sources?217.42.13.38 (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia Section

• Second "Is it really necessary" to have a one-item Trivia section saying that he was 64 at death and a chess board has 64 squares? I'm deleting that on the grounds of, "So what?" 74.134.100.173 (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Revise - since someone protected the page, I can't make the edit and don't want to log in right now. Anyone else want to take the "Trivia" out? 74.134.100.173 (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you and I've taken it out. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

From the Philadelphia Inquirer: We redirected links from archive.org copies of our stories to our own hosted Philly.com copies, 21 January 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckrewson (talk • contribs) 16:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We can't use Bill Wall's geocities pages as reliable sources. They aren't solid enough to serve as the sole source for any statement, and we must also be careful not to cite someone else who is relying solely on Wall's pages as a source. His pages can be a good source of possibilities to research, or to put in External links as long as they are not relied upon as a source. Quale (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed a goecites cite, not sure if this was the one you were refereing too. Also removed some unsourced quotes in regards to his anti-semitism. Can we provide RS for that material?TIA --Tom 18:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing anti-semetic quotes for Fischer is very easy. The problem is the Streisand business. vividseats.com is not a reliable source for this material. Quale (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Did he learn Icelandic?

The treatment of his life in Iceland is short (as was his time there) - I wondered if he learned the Icelandic language. I probably wondered this because of the note that he called the radio station for the interview while he lived there. If anybody knows, please add. (BTW, thanks to whoever improved the line in the intro by changing the statement he was "Icelandic", which was jarring.) Tempshill (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

According to an interview with a second hand bookseller he used to hang out with he did not try to learn Icelandic (didn't really need to since most Icelanders speak English) but read a lot of russian chess books. Unfortunately this was on Icelandic television and can't really be used as a source but hopefully it helps. When he called the radio station he almost certainly spoke English. Óli Gneisti (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There's an online article about this here which can certainly be used as a source. Last time I was at that bookshop Fischer was there too. I remember wondering what he was looking for since most of the books there are in Icelandic. According to that article he was into Russian chess books and old American comics. The bookseller says Fischer sometimes fell asleep in the store and sometimes helped him organzing book stacks. Haukur (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting story about Fischer involves the Icelandic language and is found in Profile of a Prodigy. He spoke on the phone with the Icelandic-speaking child of a friend and was able to repeat what she said well enough for it to be translated -- this is certainly an unusual ability, consistent with his remarkable memory. He also did very well in Spanish in high school. I would guess that he managed to pick up a lot of Icelandic.--Jrm2007 (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Fisher died 2008.01.17

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1870892220080119

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.243.14 (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The cause of Bobby Fischer's mental disorder

The article needs a serious section of why Fischer became disturbed. In a forum I've written a bit on the subject [4] but we need some published RS for this article.

Are there any? The fact that he suffered the same mental fate of the other American champion, Paul Charles Morphy, picks my interest piques my interest of why literature on the subject is so scant, if there is any at all.

—Cesar Tort 20:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"piques my interest."Lestrade (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Thanks for the grammar correction! Spanish is my native language :) Cesar Tort 21:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide us a little peace of details, some references (eg. full medical analyses, who/where/when examined Fisher's mental behavior and diagnosis) about metioned "mental disorder". Bobby lived and worked in Yugoslavia more than a year (July, 23th 1992 - August, 2nd 1993). Nobody who had a contact with him didn't notice some unusually behavior or much worse, that he have some "mental disorder".

Ref: a man who spent all that time with Bobby, recently published a book (in Serbian), Vladan Dinić: Fišer, kralj šaha (Fischer, The king of the chess), Novosti, Belgrade, Serbia, 2008, ISBN 9788674461334. So, this "mental disorder story" is a bunch of crap.--Dejvas (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Top Board"

"Top board" as used in this article and in Paul Keres, for instance, would have a different meaning I think to when used in the article Graveyard chess. It's not used in the Chess article at all and as I'm no chess aficionado I'd like its meaning to come through in this article at least. OR, is it for Wiktionary to cover?<?br> --User:Brenont (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

When a team plays directly against another team, usually the best player on each team is on "board 1", or "top board". That probably should be explained in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 22:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Last words

According to this article, Magnús Skúlason was with Fischer at the end and reported that his last words were that nothing helps as much against suffering as the human touch. Haukur (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone's now put this into the article as a direct quote, citing the same source. The problem is that the source gives the quote in Icelandic while Fischer certainly spoke them in English. So what we have is a back-translation offered as if it were the original words. Ideas to fix this? Haukur (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I can say with certainty that his last words were, exactly: "Nothing eases pain like a human touch." There was a English speaking friend with him when he died who reported these exact words. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.197.190 (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Another Fischer-Karpov Source

I know some of the posters to this page continued to claim that the 2006 match I had arranged between Karpov and Fischer was "unsourced" and therefore never really fully underway. Grandmaster Susan Polgar said the match was real, with the $15,000,000 purse having been secured, in her quote in the Saturday, January 19, 2007 issue of the Philadelphia Inquirer:

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080119_Fischer_started_reign_with_a_win_in_Phila_.html

This was compiled by no fewer than 3 reporters that exhaustively researched this article within the 36 hours of Fischer's death.

FYI.

GothicChessInventor (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

64

It is interesting that he died at 64, and there are 64 squared on a chess board.

It seems to me we're going to be fighting a never-ending battle if we want to keep this piece of trivia out of the article. Is it maybe worth discussing if we can include it, and if so, the best way of doing so? It has been mentioned in reliable sources, such as this piece in The Guardian newspaper. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

By the Gregorian calendar (a good approximation of the mean tropical year), Fischer died at age 64.861017. Closer to 65, isn't it? Billbrock (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

daughter

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/crosswords/chess/19fischer.html This article mentions that he has a daughter born in 2000, now living in the Philippines. Does anyone know more about this? I think it would make an interesting addition to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.172.167 (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Soviet vs US

The match was widely publicized as a Cold War battle because it pitted a single American against a subsidized Soviet chess hegemony

Anyone else feel the above section is misleading? It isn't mentioned in any of the other articles about this match. And although the Soviets dominated chess prior to Fischer the match was between two people, not Fischer vs the Soviets. It's not as if Boris Spassky was cheating ang getting help from this subsidised Soviet chess hegemony (at least as far as I'm aware). Besides that, even the subsidised part seems unnecessarily POV. The Soviet Union was a coimmunist country yes and they had various programmes where they supported people in various fields to try and make them the best in the world. But it's not as if Fischer was (as far as I'm aware) the son of a struggling immigrant who worked his butt off while Fischer himself worked as well meanwhile finding just enough time in his incredibly busy live to play chess and just enough money to make it. He took part in champsionships, won prize money, presumuably got sponsorship from various people etc. I don't think there is any need to go into details about capitalism vs communisim here. How about we just settle on what most other articles (e.g. World Chess Championship 1972) say perhaps something like "an American player against a Soviet player, with Soviet players having dominated world chess prior to Fischer". If people really want to make this about American vs Soviet chess development, then it shouldn't refer to Fischer as simply a single individual either. Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Nil. First of all, Fischer didn't just play Spasski. In order to play the World Championship match, he had to qualify by playing a lot of the Soviets during the interzonal tournament and he had to beat the Soviet players Taimanov and Petrosian in matches. Secondly, it has been very well documented that every major Soviet chess player was obliged to help Spasski in his preparation for this match. Read Russians vs Fischer (a misleading title because guys like Tal, Keres and Petrosian were not Russians of course, but a very interesting book anyway!); it contains long, detailed assessments of Fischer's playing style and personality, strengths and weaknesses, opening systems etc. written before the match by most of the leading Soviet players. Of course at the board Spasski was on his own, but it is no exaggeration to say that the knowledge and research of the entire Soviet chess system was available to him - even if he was too lazy to use it, and rather played tennis. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, raised this two days ago, now archived, when according to the article Fischer was pitted against no less than the entire Soviet system, period.

The current sudden new fact doesn't stand up on its face. The idea that it was widely publicized as a Cold War battle for such a chess geek reason is deeply fishy, and to not qualify "widely" as meaning "widely in the US" is what I believe is called systematic bias. "[B]ecause it pitted" is also problematic as it endorses rather than reports the alleged "single american pitted against soviet hegemony" publicity rather than endorsing it. And all of this needs to be sourced.

You should have kept reading down the article, No One, to where it says

Fischer's win was a momentous victory for the United States during the time of the Cold War: the iconoclastic American almost single-handedly defeating the mighty Soviet chess establishment that had dominated world chess for the past quarter-century.

Just screams non-neutral point of view, does it not? No accreditation of this POV, no sources given. 86.42.113.244 (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fischer and Streisand friendship?

Re "Bobby Fischer attended Erasmus Hall High School together with Barbra Streisand, and they were good friends there."

I checked Factiva and Lexis-Nexis for all languages and all dates. I found dozens of reliable newspaper and magazine sources linking Fischer and Streisand with Erasmus Hall High School. As for citing the fact that they were both friends, well, that's more tricky. I found this article (my emphasis in bold), but it's an op-ed column. I suspect that most editors here will object to using it as a citation:

"Streisand spent so much time in the Clinton White House, in fact, that even The New York Times was once moved to write: “On a clear day in Washington you can see Barbra Streisand forever.” Streisand was born into a modest family in Brooklyn, and almost from the get-go saw show business as a way to escape her background. At Erasmus Hall High School, she sang in the school choir with Neil Diamond and also made friends with the future chess champion Bobby Fischer. Rather than go to college, she took work as a nightclub singer, took the second “a” out of birth name, Barbara, to make herself more distinctive, and quickly made her mark at a gay bar in Greenwich Village. She has been something of a gay icon ever since – as lampooned in the 1996 Kevin Kline movie In& Out, where the protagonist’s homosexuality is betrayed by his love of all things Barbra. ---Andrew Gumbel, "The way she is," The Independent, EDITORIAL & OPINION, 5 May 2007.

Hope that helps, J Readings (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"They used to swap MAD comics, and, it is reported, Barbra had a crush on the future champion. Friends said they looked good together: even their noses matched."

p263 The Even More Complete Chess Addict, Mike Fox & Richard James (1993) Faber & Faber. (Book dedicated 'To Bobby - May he never cease to amaze us')

Ewen (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this is all rumor, fantasy, and hearsay until Streisand herself makes a statement.Lestrade (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

No, not really. I don't see why Streisand is the only person who could confirm this. It would be good to find Fox & James' sources but it seems clear that the two were friends at least, according to other students there at the time. Ewen (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem clear to me. Streisand's testimony is necessary in this matter. "Other students" will not know if the two were friends.Lestrade (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

(A) Her testimony might not be reliable and (B) It's not impossible to notice that two people are friends, you know. Ewen (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Why don't we just use Ewen's citation from Fox & James? It's better than using the op-ed piece I found. J Readings (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fox and James don't provide any references or sources in their book though. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, where did The Independent's Andrew Gumbel get it? Where did Fox and James get it? Obviously somewhere...and not necessarily from each other. Couldn't one argue that the two source serve as cross-references for the sake of verifiability? J Readings (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the Fox & James ref as it's more detailed, though light-hearted. Maybe include Gumbel as well but it's only a passing note in a story about Streisand. It's frustrating that neither source have their own references but how deep should we dig? When does it become original research? Is this a terribly controversial issue that needs careful verification or just an interesting aside that lends colour to the story? Ewen (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fischer and Streisand Were NOT Friends

Source: Radio interview with Grandmaster Andrew Soltis and International Master John Watson:

http://webcast.chessclub.com/Watson/01_22_08/Watson_ChessTalk.html

Andrew said something to the effect of: "Fischer recollects some 'mousy girl' that he thinks he remembers was Barbara Streisand..." so I take it from that remark they were clearly not as close as is being supposed.

GothicChessInventor (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thanks for this. Interesting. The comment was made at minute 28:37 for those editors who want to listen to it for themselves. I'm not sure what to make of it. If it's true, as Soltis alleges, that every "[Barbara] Streisand autobiography (sic) says something about how they were friends and I think they were all wrong," then I'm not sure how to proceed. Perhaps someone can check a few of Streisand's biographies? If 3+ biographies say they were friends (on top of the sources we have now), and only one source says that they were wrong, isn't that putting undue weight on the Soltis source? I think that it would. J Readings (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, ask yourself who has what to gain by the reference. Fischer is not discredited in the least if he was a friend of Streisand, and it would not make sense to conceal a friendship. Another question to ask, is if the biographers are more of "groupies" writing something the person that is the subject of the study wants to see in print anyway. If so, even to a small extent, then it's no longer a question of which source has "undue weight", but which source is "most reliable." Lastly, since Fischer cannot be consulted directly, it makes sense to confer with a source as close to Fischer as possible. Clearly Andy Soltis fits this description perfectly. Also, bear in mind, Andy has no idea this question was being debated here, and he clearly has no alterior motive of any kind.

GothicChessInventor (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Andy Soltis had no ulterior motive.Lestrade (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Well, we appear to have reached an impasse. Without consulting the actual Streisand biographies and autobiographies, I'm not going to push this issue any further. I agree with Ewen that this little factoid makes for colorful reading in the article (and I believe we have enough sources to make that point already), but I'll withdraw the suggestion until I read the Streisand autobiography. If even she mentions the friendship, I think we would have more than enough to add the edit. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So much thought going into such a minor point! Still, such is the way of wikipedia... I'd not be surprised if both Fischer and Streisand downplayed the friendship, if friendship it was, in the light of Fischer's later anti-Jewish stance. Good luck with Babs' life story, J! Ewen (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

IQ

The statement that he had a high IQ is unsupported. IQ is a test measurement that is unrelated to chess. Parts of the test reflect vocabulary level, visual imagination, and other areas.Lestrade (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Sure, IQ and Chess ability are not the same thing, but the relationship between the two has been studied in depth and for many years. I can't think of a GM you'd exactly call stupid... Ewen (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen any studies in depth about the relation between IQ and chess. I took an IQ test in which the definitions of "syzygy" and "orrery" were assumed to be known. A chessplayer can be very good without having such knowledge. GMs aren't stupid with regard to chess. Their intelligence with regard to other matters, however, cannot be assumed.Lestrade (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

That was a badly designed IQ test! There's even a very basic test on facebook which is better designed than that - it didn't require any technical vocabulary anyway. Try this for an interesting discussion or do what I did and google, say, 'chess' 'IQ' and 'correlation'. Ewen (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fischer's iq was around 180. Googling it gives you a bunch of sites supporting it. It was also in most of Fischer's video documentaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.20.39 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal anecdotes

The following link may be of use to glean some additional information that could be used in this article: Fischer’s Roots in City Tangle With His Legacy.

In addition, I have known Joe Virovatz (referenced in the article) for some years, and would be willing to interview him, if the information gotten from that interview could be used to help the article. Not sure if such an interview would be allowed in this article, however. Maybe Wikinews? Petrosian2 (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews would be your best bet, yes. Haukur (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Feature Article

What needs to be done to get this article to the "Featured Article" level? I think it must be fairly close right now. Clerks. (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the criteria list. KyuuA4 (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Stewart Reuben reminiscences

There are more interesting anecdotes/memories of Fischer here, courtesy of Stewart Reuben - http://www.englishchess.org.uk/national/2008/fischer_jan08.htm . Brittle heaven (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Winning streak

I don't think it's necessary to name every player Fischer defeated in his winning streak, and it broke up the flow of the article too much for my liking. I think it should be cleaned up a bit if it's put back in:

Streak of 20 consecutive wins (no draw) against world top players

1970 Palma de Mallorca Interzonal Tournament

1 : Rubinetti,Jorge Albano ; 2 : Ulhmann,Wolfgang ; 3 : Taimanov,Mark  ; 4 : Suttles, Duncan ; 5 : Meching, Henrique ; 6 : Gligoric, Svettozar ; 7 : Oscar, Panno.

Should be Uhlmann & Mecking, and of course Panno is Oscar's family name. Billbrock (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC) No disrespect to Rubinetti and the genius from Canada, but these two very strong players are not in the class of the other world-class GMs. Billbrock (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

1971 Candidates matches

8.-13 : Taimanov, Mark ; 14.-19 : Larsen, Bent ; 20 : Petrosian, Tigran.

Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The game with Panno was basically a forfeit - Panno made no moves. Should that count? Bubba73 (talk), 14:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the game. Bubba73 (talk), 15:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the famous 1.c4 1-0. I believe it's normally included as Panno did come to the board and resign a few minutes before he would have been defaulted. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A thought. Maybe World records in chess would be a better place for it than this article? Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Steinitz had a 25-game winning streak. But Fischer's was in the interzonal tournament and candidates matches. Bubba73 (talk), 15:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the forfeit is not normally counted. Edmar Mednis ("How to beat Bobby Fischer") and Israel Horowitz ("From Morphy to Fischer") do not count it. Nor should it be. I mean think about it. Panno was protesting. He was not outplayed. I could have defeated him that day! Peter Ballard (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is listed as 20 games, it should be noted about the Panno game. Bubba73 (talk), 14:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

About Japan-section: two things that are without proper reference and wrong as far as I know

Hi! A) The maybe most important point about the actions in Japan is without proper reference! In the part about Japan in this wikipedia-article it says: "The passport, issued in 1997, had been revoked in 2003, although Fischer incorrectly asserted that it was still valid.[108]" The reference 108 that is given leads to the website http://www.bobby-fischer.net/embassy_of_the_united_states_revoves_passport.htm On that site Fischer's view on the events is given. The letter that is shown is there to prove that the revocation of the passport was not valid! Fischer himself stated in handwritten letters why: In regards to USA-law the person whose passport is being to be revoked must been given 4 weeks to answer first. (4 if I remember right.) The letter never reached Fischer! That's why the letter is shown on that website: 1. There is no address on the letter! 2. When the letter was provided to the Japanese court, it was provided as the original, but without envelope. I have never heard about a final decision about this matter. And you shouldn't forget the third thing Fischer wrote about that alleged revocation: Though given by the dates from the USA his passport was already revocated, he went to the USA-embassy when being in Switzerland to have added more blank pages to his passport: It was given to him! There were no assertions or discussion back then that his passport was revoked. As far as I remember Fischer wrote that his passport was for some time in the embassy, until they finished the adding of the pages. Then he returned another day and fetched it. B) In the part about Japan in this wikipedia-article it also says: "Fischer unsuccessfully requested German citizenship on the grounds that his late father, ..." Beside the fact that there is no source given in the article, the only thing that I heard back when Fischer was in Japanese jail, was a German official of the Innenministerium saying that 'no such request has been received so far'. (Wasn't it the Bundesminister himself saying that? As far as I remember it was him.) CONCLUSION: To A) "... incorrectly ..." has no source given and is even wrong as there was no final decision about this topic at all! B) No source is given.

(I wouldn'T wonder if he tried to request a German passport but wasn't given any, taking into regard the person being in charge of the Bundesinnenminsterium back then, who is widely known of misuse of his administrative powers. Going along the laws here in Germany there is no way a direct descendant form a German father wouldn't be given a passport: It's ex sanguis here. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.103.21 (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed that sentence about the revocation of the US-passport and the reference now. 212.23.103.88 (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this the mentioned ebay-auction? (In 2005, some of Fischer's belongings were auctioned on eBay)

Hi!

Is this the mentioned ebay-auction?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8736084948

By the way, it was cancelled: "The seller ended the listing early and cancelled all bids." http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=8736084948

Sadly today there are no more picture on the ebay-servers. 2 days ago they were still there when I first visited the webpage. You could even read some cardbox-cards with moves, though of course it wasn't stated if they it were really written by Bobby Fischer himself.

I really should add some extension to my Firefox for proper automatic caging of all visited websites. It just happens to often that sites or pictures vanish from the net. ): *Sigh* (Firefox's caching really sucks, sadly. Presumably on purpose.)

212.23.103.21 (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Chronological order?

Any objections if I organised the materials from late 1950s to 1970 chronologically? There are sections on the US Championship and Olympiads which are out of place.

I'd put the summary of his US Championship results when the story reaches 1958 ('Fischer would go on to win the Championship in...') and briefly mention each event as it occurs in the chronological story. Similarly the Olympiads.

As it stands, the biography looks like the biographical chapters in Wade & O'Connell's book which successfully drew together key strands of his story, but made his development as a player and as a person difficult to follow.

Ewen (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd de-emphasise them. They are largely irrelevant compared to his achievements at World Championship level. I'd mention the US championships in a parenthesis after his first, and only mention Olympiad performances if and when they were so good that they indicated he had taken a further step up the world chess ladder. The article should focus on his World Championship cycles. The other stuff clutters the article. His full tournament record could be a table at the end, as an appendix. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't need Gothic Chess mentioned here

In this edit, someone with a known history of being very sympathetic to Gothic chess added a link to Gothic chess to this article. Not only was the information inaccurate (the references sources did not, in any way shape or form state that Ed Trice had really secured that money, only that he claimed to have the money), but was not a relevant part of Fischer's life.

If Fischer himself made public statements about this tournament, I would include it here. But Fischer never said anything public about Gothic Chess. This article should reflect Fischer's life, not be used to promote an obscure chess variant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Just to clarify (talk • contribs) 17:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, the same editor tried adding the pro-Gothic Chess propaganda to the article again in this edit, with the edit summary modified the "cite" format slightly, without addressing the issues I have brought up here on the talk page. So, again, why should this Wikipedia article be used to promote some obscure Chess variant? Just to clarify (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We now have an IP trying to add this content: [5] [6] [7]. Are we going to have to protect this page from being edited by IPs? Just to clarify (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to keep removing this material. It's reliably sourced, and as long as it's just a passing mention, it's not WP:UNDUE weight. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're the only regular editor who supports the content here. This has nothing to do with Fischer's life; Fischer never said anything public and did not seem to have any interest in this possible tournament. A number of other editors oppose the inclusion of this content: Ewen, Oli Filth, Billbrock, and J Readings (scroll to the bottom of this section). As I told you on the talk page, you're the only editor not directly involved with Gothic Chess who supports having this material here. Five other editors, including myself, oppose the content being here. Just to clarify (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Fischer did talk about this according the sources. Simply because Fischer -- a recluse to begin with -- never made a "public" pronouncement about the proposal doesn't matter; this is reliably sourced. Do we really need an endless lame edit war over this one sentence? -- Kendrick7^talk 17:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I those three editors mention were agreeing in response to what I wrote AFAICT-- that one sentence was fine here. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you think those three editors agree with you. Here is what they had to say on the issue last November: [8] [9] [10]. Also, Quale is opposed to the inclusion of this mention here: [11] and, more recently than last November: [12]. Just to clarify (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The most obvious answer is the sentence wasn't removed by any of them. It only disappeared in the shuffle after the subjects demise several months later. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It was removed by Billbrock, actually. And earlier versions of the mention were removed by Quale, Oli Filth, and, oh, Voorlandt. Just to clarify (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather the original content wasn't just edited back and deleted again ad nauseum because it fails to mention that the entire story is just Ed Trice's say-so, reported in a single article. It might be worth a mention but I'd like to see a caveat such as 'Ed Trice claimed...' if the story does get back in. Ewen (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify :), there is another article which is pretty much the same content again. I'm personally opposed to the content here, for the same reasons as Oli: I have seen Gothic Chess proponents try to add content to various Wikipedia articles time and time again, and am trying to counter that. I just don't see how all of this directly involved Bobby Fischer. The compromise I propose is to put this content on Ed Trice or Susan Polgar, since both of those people made known public comments about this proposed tournament back in 2006. And, if we do add the content, yes both articles do not say Trice had the money, but only that Trice said he had the money. Just to clarify (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there is some question whether these editors supported or opposed the content being here, I have left messages on their talk pages to see if they can clarify their opinion on the subject. This will hopefully clarify, again, the consensus on this matter. Just to clarify (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am one of the above-mentioned editors; I won't state an opinion here as to whether the material should stay or not, however I will state the facts as I see them.

In the past, pro-Gothic Chess editors have been aggressively persistent in attempting to get unsourced (or non-independently sourced) material into several articles here at WP, as well as a number of other unappealing tactics in an attempt to get their way, so up until the existence of this source I would have had to assume bad faith on their part, and suggested the material be removed. However, a nominally appropriate source (i.e. probably satisfies WP:V and WP:RS) for the material has now been referenced, although I'm still less than happy with it; the NY Post article was clearly written after the journalist spoke to Trice, and Trice alone.

I'll leave it up to the regulars at this article to decide whether it's in any way relevant, and whether they deem the source questionable or not. Oli Filth^(talk) 19:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Now we get this: " 21:16, 11 March 2008 72.78.127.156 (Talk) (88,768 bytes) (→Asylum in Iceland: FRC is mentioned and is unsourced, whereas Gothic Chess is properly sourced. Susan Polgar says she saw the actual money, read the article) (undo)

Cute. I read the article and Polgar's name isn't in it. Not only am I not persuaded, I'm getting pissed off with these guys. My vote (now) goes to: Leave this topic out of the article altogether.

Ewen (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he meant this article. That does actually quote Polgar. Sorry. Mind you, if she was signed up to sub for Fischer, when did this Karpov-Polgar Gothic match take place? It didn't? You don't say... Ewen (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What is still unclear to me is why the Gothic Chess promoters (usually SPAs with the exception of Kendrick7) insist that this (non-)issue be included in the biography of Bobby Fischer. Yes, we have one marginally independent source now which quotes Ed Trice claiming (emphasis on the word claiming) that a meeting took place in Iceland between Ed Trice and Bobby Fischer, that Bobby Fischer wasn't really interested (if at all), and the match obviously never took place for any number of reasons (most likely because Fischer had better things to do with his time). But then again, so what? Why is this relevant information for the Bobby Fischer article? Indeed, how is it considered information at all rather than just weakly supported hearsay based on one questionable source? I don't even see how it's relevant for the Ed Trice article, and that's where it should be mentioned, if at all. I could understand its inclusion here if there were multiple reliable sources claiming this issue were important news as judged by disinterested third parties (e.g., journalists or academics), but it doesn't make any sense why it needs to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article about the life of Bobby Fischer. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think any mention of Gothic Chess in this article is either inappropriate or undue weight. It's obvious that the only reason that a small number of Gothic Chess fanatics continually reinsert it into this article (sometimes with dishonest edit summaries in an attempt to disguise what they're doing) is for purposes of promotion. If they really thought it encyclopedic they would put it in Ed Trice where it belongs, and the fact that they haven't is telling. Unfortunately no one reads that article so it doesn't suit their purposes. Since our purpose is writing a good encyclopedia, we need not accommodate their need for promotion. I already had several go-rounds about this at /Archive 3#Gothic chess rumors and /Archive 3#More Verifiable Sources For Match Info. My opinion hasn't changed. Quale (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps create the new article The Bobby Fischer Ed Trice Knew? Billbrock (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem worth mentioning to me. I'm sure there were countless attempts over the years to get Fischer to play any form of chess; we don't need to include them all. Now if there'd been any negotiations over a Fischerandom chess match that might be more relevant as that was a variant he had something to do with .Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but a quote from Chessbase's article about Fischer's death is very fitting "Fischer generally refused to talk to journalists or entrepreneurs who approached him in droves with projects and business proposals." Just to clarify (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just talked with Kendrick. We appear to have consensus that we don't want the Gothic Chess material in this article, and that any attempt to add the material again is to be reverted on sight. Just to clarify (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Gothic chess did get mentioned in NiC 2008.2 :-) RJF wasn't interested. Billbrock (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Forfeit of title - to whom?

The section about "forfeiting the title to Karpov" and the mention of "the Karpov negotiations" is somewhat misleading. Fischer resigned his championship title on June 27, 1974, which happened before his potential opponent was determined; the Karpov-Korchnoi Candidates final match was played in late 1974.
- Fisher didn't resign/forfeit his title to Karpov, or any other specific person, he resigned it to FIDE.
- Arnold Denker didn't represent Fischer in "the Karpov negotiations", he represented him in the negotiations with FIDE. Karpov wasn't a party in those negotiations. 206.186.10.101 (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course he forfeited it to Karpov. Fischer may have issued that "resignation" letter in June 1974 but that wasn't the end of negotiations-- they continued throughout 1974 and into 1975. It wasn't until March 1975 that Fischer's final demand was rejected by a FIDE congress, 35 votes to 32. Until then, there were still preparations for a Fischer-Karpov match, with leading Russian grandmasters such as Polugayevsky (in February 1975) providing analysis on Fischer's chess strength. Source: Russians vs Fischer. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact the source given for the June 1974 date of Fischer's cable isn't reliable: it appears to be a forum that has taken its information from the Wikipedia article! This section needs a rewrite.Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wade & O'Connell give June 1974 as the date of FIDE's Nice conference and Fischer's cable. They reckon he replied three days after the decision. According to Hartston's 1978 account in Karpov-Korchnoi 1978 - The Battle of Baguio City Fischer replied as soon as the American delegate, Fred Cramer, told him. FIDE delegates sent a reply on July 2 1974 asking Fischer to reconsider. The deadline was February 1 1975, later extended to April 1. At a special conference in Bergen an Zee, The Netherlands from March 18-20 1975, FIDE adopted the unlimited games point but not the 9-9 draw issue. On April 1, Fischer was given another day by Max Euwe, then on April 3 Karpov was declared champion. Ewen (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very useful. Do you have an ISBN or page reference so I could add the source to the article?Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, but this comment reckons Karpov didn't beat Korchnoi until November 22, 1974. I'd say Fischer resigned his FIDE title and FIDE could do what they wanted with it. Fischer would say he was still World Champion - undefeated. Funny how Kasparov later took 'his' title away from FIDE too - but as he then took on allcomers his claim has more support... Ewen (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Troublesome Fischer GM claim

The article states: "Fischer got the Grandmaster title in the first tournament where he had the opportunity to do so, a feat which is believed to be unique since the title system was first formalized in 1950 by FIDE." This is a problem, since the system wasn't formalized in 1950. In 1950, titles were awarded by nomination and committee vote. Formalized rules weren't adopted until 1953 when problems with the politicized voting process became apparent. Fischer won his GM title under revised rules adopted in 1957. See Grandmaster for the gory details. This claim needs a direct cite, and probably at minimum an update from 1950 to 1953 or 1957. Or it could be removed. Quale (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"believed" by who? Without a cite, I would have no hesitation in removing it. Bedies it's not necessary - Fischer's achievement of youngest ever GM at the time is impressive enough anyway. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Should be protect this page from IP vandalism disruptive edits

Now that consensus has firmly established that no Gothic Chess promotional material belongs here, the next question is this: What should we do about the IPs and Single-purpose accounts (SPAs) vandalizing performing disruptive edits on this page by trying to add this spam again and again? Here are diffs from just this week showing the spammer at work: [13] [14] [15] [16]. In one case, the spam was on the page for about 30 minutes before someone caught it and reverted it. So, how should we handle it?

Should we, for the time being, not allow IPs to edit this page? Or should we just leave things the way they are? Hopefully enough people have this page on their watch list and are keeping an eye on the changes that it will be reverted within five minutes of the spam being added (such as what happened the last two times the spam was added).

Thoughts? Just to clarify (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's no big deal. It's not like it's wholesale vandalism or obscenity or libel. Just something we'd rather not include. I say we keep reverting - it's not like we're overwhelmed by a tidal wave of Gothic edits... Ewen (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Point of order here. Though unwelcome, it's not vandalism. See WP:VAND#NOT. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Point taken; I've renamed the edits "disruptive edits" Just to clarify (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The disruptive edits are continuing: [17] [18] [19]. Quite frankly, I don't think they will stop until we IP-protect the page. Just to clarify (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ask an administrator for semi-protection of the page. Bubba73 (talk), 16:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection. Bubba73 (talk), 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection request added; see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Just to clarify (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed for remarks

Although I am a frequent user and editor of Wikipedia, I have just read through this article for the first time and in particular some of Fischer's alleged comments about America and Jews. Not even in Mein Kampf have I read anything so inflammatory. Many sources are given, but some of the more outrageous quotes are not supported at all, and the majority are supported by only off-line sources which are hard to verify. I really think that this material needs to made more verifiable or toned down. Viewfinder (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to be more specific, Viewfinder. Which exact statements in particular? If you check the archives, you'll notice that we've been through all of this before. Also, I added many of the off-line sources courtesy of LexisNexis. There is nothing in official policy of verifiability that forces us to use only on-line sources. Verifiability means that if you were to go to the public library and look up the citation, you would be able to read the passage. That's what it means. J Readings (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am new to the article and I am not going to go through all the archives or go to the public library, so I will assume that consensus was reached. But I would still like to see more on-line sources. Viewfinder (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The website fischer.jp is offline, but I believe the mp3 interviews can still be accessed via mirror sites and/or archive.org. I have most if not all of the interviews: could host them if the demand is there. But because of the content, I would prefer not to. Billbrock (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Further Reading" section

This section is way too long. It lists about 20 books (and at least one twice), and one not even in English!! What is this, an Amazon search of every book about Bobby Fischer? Can we just cull it to a couple of respected ones? Perhaps Brady's (because it is personal recollections), Kasparov's (because presumably his annotations would be of a high standard) and one or two others? Peter Ballard (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that trimming is needed, although I might not remove as quite as many entries as you suggest. Entries to remove:
  • The three books on the endings should be tossed out at once—far too little Fischer content.
  • The German work should go. (It would make sense to keep it if there was a lack of good English language material available, but as this section makes clear, lack of writing on Fischer is not the problem.)
  • Edward Winter's book on chess champions probably should go too, as many books have a single chapter on Fischer and there's no point in trying to list them all.
  • The duplicate Wade & O'Connell entry should be removed.
• To stay:
  • Brady and Kasparov are well-known works.
  • Bobby Fischer Goes to War and Russians Vs Fischer are two recent works, both excellent, especially the second.
• On the bubble:
  • Chess works with little to no bio content include Mednis, Agur, and presumably Soltis and Levy (I have not read the last two). I would keep Mednis (a very well-known work), remove Agur (an interesting book, but pure chess and the author is not well known), and ask people who have read Soltis and Levy for recommendations whether to keep or remove. If Mednis is kept then perhaps another chess-centered work is needed with a positive view of Fischer's play, although Kasparov might fill that role.
  • Bohm is an interesting book, but a distinctly minor work and could be left out.
  • Donaldson covers an interesting but distinctly minor period of Fischer's life (his early "retirement" from competitive chess and his exhibition tour of the US) and could probably be left out.
  • Denker & Parr is probably an interesting book, but I haven't read it so need some help evaluating it.
• I think this would remove 7 to about 12 of the entries. Quale (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The three books on endings are specifically referenced in the text. They (and Mayer and Wade & O'Connell) were in the references until a little while ago (until someone moved them to F.R.). WP:Guide to layout#Further reading says that sources that are specifically referenced should go in References, not in Further Reading. Bubba73 (talk), 01:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Cite#Further reading/External links. Bubba73 (talk),

I have Soltis, and it is a definite keep (one hundred annotated games). Bubba73 (talk), 01:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bohm is referenced about 15 times in the text too. There may be others like this. Bubba73 (talk), 01:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Specific references in the text belong in References. Do the endings books say anything important about Fischer other than what is cited in the article? Actually I think those books are still in the references (144–146), are you sure they were removed? Bohm might be worth keeping, as it is entirely about Fischer. I find it hard to believe that the three books on endings qualify as "major recommended resources on the topic" (the language used at the link you cite, WP:Guide to layout#Further reading), but since I haven't examined them, I may be wrong. Quale (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Those books probably have a little more stuff about Fischer, but very little, so they need to be in References and not Further Reading. I believe someone moved them from being Harvard references in the article to Further earlier today, converting references to footnote style. If they are to be footnote style, they need to be changed to <ref>{{Citation .... }}</ref>, where the "Citation" is the complete thing that is now in Further Reading, and then they can be taken out of F.R. Bubba73 (talk), 03:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding this discussion quite enlightening. Now I'm seeing why many of these books (most of which I haven't read) might be useful. I think what we need is an annotated list of further reading - explaining why each book is useful. The guideline on WP:External Links says "External links should identify the link and briefly summarize the website's contents and why the website is relevant to the article.", and I think we should follow the same rule here. ("Further Reading" is, after all, just like an "External Links" section, except that it lists printed rather than online resources). Peter Ballard (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There are two possible goals for Further reading: utility and completeness. Utility would direct people to the very best sources, a great help if they would like to read more about Fischer but not do a disertation on him. Completeness would include as many good sources as we can find. Maybe we can do both. People will have different interests: some might be interested in only the games, others might not even play chess but want to read about him. The Further reading section could be broken into subsections, say Biography and Chess games. Annotation is also a good idea. Quale (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be hard to be complete or even nearly complete on Fischer. But that would be good, in a way. On the other hand, I like the idea of being selective, essentially saying "these are the ones you need to focus on for more information". Perhaps two levels - the most essential and the ones needed to be complete. Bubba73 (talk), 16:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing - there are a lot of books about the 1972 match. I think those should go over there instead of this article. Bubba73 (talk), 16:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning that Fischers biological father was Probable and Likely Jewish repeatedly

I made the following changes:

Changed from: Fischer, whose mother and probable biological father were both Jewish, made occasional hostile comments toward Jews from at least the early 1960s.

To: Fischer made occasional hostile comments toward Jews from at least the early 1960s.

Changed from: In his later years, Fischer lived in Hungary, Germany, the Philippines and Japan. During this time he made increasingly anti-American and antisemitic statements, despite the fact that his mother and likely biological father were both Jewish.

To: In his later years, Fischer lived in Hungary, Germany, the Philippines and Japan. During this time he made increasingly anti-American and antisemitic statements.

I made earlier attempts at simply maintaining it at mentioning the fact that his mother was Jewish but two individuals felt that it was proper to judge it as probable and likely that Fischers father was also Jewish and that those judgements had to be mentioned. Now they ofcourse could have judged it as possible instead but certain motives hindered them from doing so. I made some attempts at discussing the matter with one of them but eventually he stopped replying to me and decided instead only to engage me in some sort of a revert war.

It is mentioned elsewhere in the article that fischers mother is jewish and that it is possible that fischers biological father also was and there is no need to repeat it, furthermore Fischer asked that he be removed from the encyclopedia judica so he was not in favour of himself being called Jewish, by mentioning the fact that his mother and his possible biological father were jewish one is ofcourse only circumventing saying "Fischer was Jewish" and that is something he would not have approved of so it is best to be rid of the sentance all together. Another option is saying something along the line of "Fischer who himself was of Jewish ancestry...." and if anyone wants to edit the article in that manner then be my guest but for now please do not revert the article since the current version now is obviously better than the previous one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.90.118 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is certain that RJF was of Jewish ancestry: whether the correct percentage is closer to 50% or 100% may be reasonably viewed as irrelevant by many. I do agree that this did not need to be juxtaposed with his antisemitism in the lede. But the evidence for Nemenyi as RJF's biological father is not idle speculation, but fairly compelling. (The legal father was not in the USA during WW2; Nemenyi paid child support, Peter Nemenyi stated that RJF was his half-brother etc.) Fischer believed in many things that were contrary to fact; whether or not he approved of X is less relevant than whether the WP community believes X to be true. In turn, the WP community should make this judgment based on the most credible research available. One should assume good faith on the other editors' parts: interesting index of RJF's probable ;-) mental illness. But I do agree that there was an issue with the spin of the version edited. Billbrock (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that we do not need to rub his face in it and say "Fischer who was of Jewish descent" all through the article, I think both the instances you cite are justified, and should be re-inserted. The second one gives context to his anti-semitic statements, while the first one is essentially re-stating the same thing in the lead section, and I think that if the lead is to mention his anti-semitism then it should also mention his Jewish ancestry. (It seems I disagree with Billbrock here). However I think the lead mention should be brief, and in order to keep it brief the lead probably should not mentions his possible/probably Jewish father. In short, I think the comments should be reworded rather than deleted. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops I just noticed that 194.144.90.118 made almost the same suggestion as me (i.e. reinstate but reword to something like "Fischer who himself was of Jewish ancestry...." Peter Ballard (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with all here, as I think that mentioning that Fischer's biological father was Jewish is appropriate in the places that the article did so, including the lede. I think this fact was mentioned in several of Fischer's obits, even brief ones, which suggests that it is appropriate in the lede. It deserves mention in the other locations for the reasons that Peter mentions. If this were a short article three mentions might be overkill, but the article is not short. Quale (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to add that 194.144.90.118 has referred to the idea that Nemenyi was Fischer's father as a "vague theory" and "speculation", but as BillBrock points out, the evidence is very compelling and I'd say it is very likely true (but evaluating its truth is not my job). If it were only a vague theory it would deserve either no mention or only a single brief mention. Quale (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue this to the death but here's how I see it: Fischer was of Jewish descent whether or not Nemenyi was his biological father. And Fischer's anti-semitism was noteworthy because he was of Jewish descent; whether he had 1 or 2 Jewish biological parents doesn't affect this. If some short obituaries disagreed on this point and made a point of mentioning Nemenyi, then IMHO they made the wrong call. I still think it's too detailed a point to mention in a 3 paragraph lead. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like consensus learns towards mentioning Fischer's Jewish ancestry at these points in the article; I see no reason to not include it. I have known Fischer's mother was Jewish for a while; it is a notable fact about him, especially in light of his antisemitic statements. That in mind, I reverted yet another attempt by the IP to remove these mentions. Just to clarify (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify (wink wink) there is no consensus forming or "learning", there are two opinions for not mentioning these facts along with his antisemitism and with your so called vote there are three against, hardly a consensus also you did not revert any attempt at anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.90.118 (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line: Multiple, and I mean multiple, editors support including this information, and you are the only editor who opposes including this information. You're a one-man crusade knowingly editing against the wishes of multiple other editors. Just to clarify (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not correct. Billbrock also supported the exclusion. So it's 3-2, exactly what 194.144.90.118 said. Plus I have been arguing for a shortened version. No consensus yet. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't think Billbrock opposed the mentions; I think he is just opposing having them in the lead section. That in mind; I've just removed the mention from the summary at the top, but have kept the other mentions. Does this sound like a reasonable compromise to you guys? Just to clarify (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good faith can no longer be assumed from your part "Just to clarify", first you miscount and disregard an earlier count and now you're making wild assumptions regarding Billabrocks position which are contrary to what he himself said. Also if you truely had been looking for a compromise then you would have rephrased that sentance in the bottom part and used "Possible" instead of "Probable". Seeing your inability to count against and for opinions and your self given freedom to interprete what others write into something it clearly is not I ask that you make no more edits or reverts to this article by yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.90.118 (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess what, buddy. Welcome to the Wikipedia. You don't get to control what goes and does not go in to articles without regard to the wishes of other editors. You have to work with us. Just to clarify (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It is obviously you that has problems with working with others. Miscounting and misinterpreting things all over the place like some sort of a madman.

Since I'm getting cited above :-) My personal hypothesis (warranting no place in the article of course) is that Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel's Freud or Reich? is useful in understanding RJF & that his antisemitism is a useful index of his self-hatred. This is an encyclopedia article, not an interpretative essay, so I'd prefer that others not be led to the conclusions I've reached: putting this in the lede we may call the "Schickelgruber option." I agree w/ Anand (see interview on either ChessVibes or Europe Echecs, I forget) that it's a blessing for RJF that he's dead. Having said that, check out New in Chess 2008.2: it's a useful corrective to RJF reductionism, including my own. Billbrock (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer's Father: To Be or Not to Be....Jewish. That's the Question

OK, it's a cheesy title but I like it...so there! I did a little research on this question, hoping to put to rest all of this back-and-forth. Using LexisNexis I found 299 articles. Granted, some of them are false positives so I needed to read through them. Here is a small sample:

• "It would be 20 years before he played again. In the meantime, he descended into a kind of madness, donating money to a pseudo-religion promising Christ's return in 1975 and developing a loathing for Jews. That his mother Regina was Jewish mattered not. Fischer may even have had a Jewish father, a Hungarian scientist who had an affair with his mother. His legally recognised father, a German-born scientist, left home when his only son was two." (Neil Tweedie, "Bobby Fischer's final bizarre act The American chess prodigy's eccentricities didn't end with his death. As Neil Tweedie discovered in Reykjavik this week, the reclusive genius had arranged his own secret 'guerrilla' burial. Now its legality is being questioned," The Daily Telegraph (London), January 25, 2008).

• "Although his mother and perhaps his father were Jewish, his anti-Semitism grew more virulent as he grew older. An admirer of "Mein Kampf," he began broadcasting radio rants, often from the Philippines, about Jews, communists, the criminality of the United States and the perfidy of the international chess establishment. Asked on Sept. 11, 2001, about the attacks on the World Trade Center, he said, 'This is all wonderful news.'"(Joe Holley, "Bobby Fischer; World Champion Known as the 'Bad Boy of Chess'", The Washington Post, January 19, 2008).

• "Edmonds and Eidinow also offer the tease of new material. They trace the KGB's fears that the Americans were poisoning Spassky or probing his mind. (Fischer's same fears of the Soviets are old news.) And, based on declassified FBI documents, they offer a new patrilineal genealogy for the boy from Brooklyn, suggesting that his biological father, as well as his mother, were both Jewish. Both were also "Communist sympathizers," perhaps even Soviet agents. Sadly, they bury the details of this revelation in an appendix. Moreover, theirs is not the first published account of the FBI file. (That credit, though unnoted, belongs to two reporters then at the Philadelphia Inquirer, for a 2002 investigation that gets no mention in Bobby Fischer Goes to War.)" (Reviewed by Andrew Meier, "Grand Strategies; Revisiting a superpower showdown," The Washington Post, March 21, 2004, p. T03).

• "Yet after beating Spassky in Reykjavik, he refused to defend his title in 1975 and became a notorious recluse. He now lives in Japan, occasionally granting interviews to Icelandic radio in which he expounds his theories of global Jewish conspiracies. (In an appendix, Edmonds and Eidinow claim to have discovered the identity of Fischer's biological father: if they are right, then both Fischer's parents were Jewish, which casts his vitriolic anti-semitism in an even more tortured light.)" (Steven Poole, "Steven Poole looks back on a world-famous chess match: Bobby Fischer Goes to War: The True Story of How the Soviets Lost the Most Extraordinary Chess Match of All Time by David Edmonds and John Eidinow," The Guardian (London), Guardian Saturday Pages, Pg. 11)

There are actually dozens more along similar lines. I haven't read through all of them. Of the ones I have read through, I can safely say that journalists appear to be always harking back to the Edmonds and Eidinow claim made in an appendix of their book. Is it enough for an encyclopedia article? Hmmm...I'm not sure, to be honest. If all of the journalists continue to repeat the Edmonds and Eidinow claim without checking out the facts themselves, does it make it an established fact that Fischer's biological father was Jewish? I don't know. What we probably could do is simply attribute the claim to Edmonds and Eidinow and be done with it. What do others think? J Readings (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for looking in to this. I really appreciate you shedding some light on this issue. There has been too much heat (fighting) and not enough light (research and insight), and, yes, I take some of the blame here. Just to clarify (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This guy Justtoclarify Deserves alot of credit for his annoying and childish bullshit that much is for sure my sincere advice would be for him to spend a little more time listening, reading and learning and such but hell. As for those articles you dug up they don't tell much regarding Fischers biological father and they give a distorted image of his anti semitism as can be seen from among other things the very article that we're talking about and I'll quote under " Life as an émigré " it says " He visited with the Polgár family in Budapest and analyzed many games with Judit, Zsuzsa, and Zsófia Polgár.[94][95] " Now if he was so damn anti semetic what the hell was he doing visiting and making friends with those jewish people? I also recall something from his personal homepage it was an email written from a young Israeli male and he told fischer about how he was a fan of his and such and then told him that he was an Israeli Jew and asked if Fischer really had that much against Jews and why? Fischer answered that he really wasn't that much against Jews but more against certain traditions, politics and actions taken by certain Jewish people. People are always focusing on his anti semitism trying to make the nice man (The one occasion I had the privilege to speak with the man he was very nice and friendly) into some sort of a neo nazi and it's just simply absurd if he really hated jews so so so much then he of course would have attacked himself with a weapon and reduced the population of jews on earth by 1.

(Unsigned comment by 194.144.90.118)

So, being nice to some Jewish people excuses his comments, does it? Fischer had much respect for Spassky, Tal and many other Soviet players but at the same time he was paranoid about the Soviet organisation (accusing Karpov, Korchnoi and Kasparov of pre-arranging matches, for example). I'm not sure that if Fischer had known that his father was Jewish it would have altered his views, but it is notably ironic that his background was Jewish but his views were anti-Semitic.

Oh, and please 'spend a little more time listening, reading and learning' how to sign comments using ~~~~.

Ewen (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The program signs my comments for me, why would I bother?

Being nice to some Jewish people does not excuse his comments cause there is no excuse needed, Fischer was a free man who could say whatever he wanted. You may feel that you deserve some kind of an apology from him and any other person who says something bad about the holy Jews but that is not how the world works and by implying that you're owed such excuses you are actually only proving Fischer and others who would have something negative to say about people such as yourself right.

Do you really for one second believe that a bunch of "people" on the internet "know" that Fischers father was Jewish while Fischer himself was just completely in the dark? He probably actually knew the truth to the matter, something we never will. Adolf Hitler was anti-semitic, the KKK is anti-semitic, it is unfair to call Fischer anti-semitic, call him anti-zionist and anti-jewish if you want but calling him anti-semitic isn't fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.90.118 (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Was Fischer anti-semitic? In the usual sense of the word, yes. (He denied this in 1992 on the basis that the Arabs are also Semitic people and he had nothing against them...)

Much has been written on this question, but it is a notable aspect of his character. That's why it should be part of the article (not because the article should be a forum to demand an apology - what a bizarre suggestion!)

Did he know that his father was Jewish? Quite possibly not. Although Paul Nemenyi may have been his father Fischer was brought up by his mother alone. Gerhard Fischer had divorced Regina in 1945 and Paul Nemenyi didn't have much involvement with Bobby and died in 1952. Did Bobby ever need to know?

Would it have made a difference to his anti-semitic views? Probably not. His personal relationships with Jewish people (Mikhail Tal, the Polgars) were often amiable and respectful, but his views on a worldwide Jewish conspiracy were rather different.

Files reveal how FBI hounded chess king (Philadelphia Inquirer) by Peter Nicholas and Clea Benson:

(BTW, this is the article concerning Fischer's father, written by professional journalists who based their work on FBI files. Hardly 'a bunch of "people" on the internet'...)

'In the [2001] radio interview Fischer... described Jews as "thieving, lying bastards. They made up the Holocaust."

'The irony is clear: His mother was Jewish and so was [Paul] Nemenyi, the man described by some as his father.'

The article December 2002 Atlantic Monthly Bobby Fischer’s Pathetic Endgame by Rene Chun has much more about his anti-semitism dating to at least the 1960's, his 1992 denial of anti-semitism on etymological grounds, and his relationship with the Polgars.

Ewen (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Interviewed in August 1961 by Ralph Ginzburg, Bobby followed the line that his father was Hans-Gerhardt Fischer:

Q: You're Jewish, aren't you?"

A: Part Jewish. My mother is Jewish.

...

WHEN I asked Bobby about his personal life, he said... His father was a physicist... When he was a baby, his parents were divorced.

Ralph Ginzburg Portrait of a Genius As a Young Chess Master January 1962

Ewen (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image

Who *exactly* has been saying that the image used all along is not a free image? It's important to be very clear about this. A anon IP suddenly changed it without warning or justification a few days ago. I'm unconvinced that it's suddenly a problem. If no real explanation can be given, it should be changed back to the old (and much better) photo.J Readings (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:FU. Basically "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"; since we have a picture of Mr. Fischer that is free, I don't see how adding an encumbered picture significantly adds to "readers' understanding". And, yes, there are many Wikipedia pages that violate Wiki's policies; there are literally millions of articles and people can not monitor all of the pages all of the time. I would accept the other image if we didn't have a free image of Fischer; since we do, I don't see the need for a non-free image. Perhaps you can convince the copyright owner of the other image to license it under a free (CC or what not) license. Just to clarify (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What we need is a good free image circa 1970 (the height of Fischer's career), but of course these are hard or even impossible to find. Quale (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. A picture of Fischer from 1970 or so would be ideal. Just as having a picture of Arthur C. Clarke from the late 1960s, during the height of the popularity of "2001: A Space Odyssey" would be ideal; or having a picture of Madonna from the mid-to-late 1980s, when she had the majority of her number one hits would be ideal. However, the general Wikipedia consensus seem to be that it's better to have a free less-than-ideal picture of someone instead of a non-free "ideal" picture of a celebrity. Just to clarify (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Less than ideal? It's just awful. It would be better to have no picture at all in the infobox than that. It also looks silly to have it appear again just a couple of paragraphs down.Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely off topic and against the rules of this talk page since it's not a forum but here goes: Fischer arrived in Iceland on the 27th of march looking like this : http://mbl.is/mm/myndasafn/detail.html?id=138049;leit_id=bobbyfisch-1207100556;leit=bobby%20fischer;booltype=and;wordtype=exact;start=;end=;;offset=28 Less than three years later he died from old age, I for one sorta disliked how we Icelanders took this man in and felt that it was just another attempt by our government to display some sort of power but just think if the Japanees and the Americans had gotten their way Fischer would have spent atleast another year in and out of jails and courtrooms if not a whole lot longer or shorter but such a badly worn man could have died alot sooner than he did free in bad circumstances in captivity.

And for what exactly? Playing Chess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.90.118 (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Writings

This section has recently been expanded, which is welcome, but I wonder if the stuff on the Batsford controversy is a bit too detailed for this article and would be better off in the My 60 Memorable Games article? (Declaration of interest: I wrote the My 60 Memorable Games article).Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

First Sentence

I find the first sentence very unusual for 3 reasons. First of all, I do not see the significance that Bobby Fischer was an Icelandic citizen at the time of his death. Numerous celebrities have lived in and obtained citizenship in a country different from his/her place of birth, and none of these have the unusual clause "at the time of his death" in their Wikipedia pages. He had been living in Iceland for several years, it is not as if he just moved there. It is also clear that he was not born in Iceland as I kept the "American-born" in my change. Next, the first line of any article should naturally contain the most important information. Winning the World Championship is far more significant than being a chess grandmaster and merits inclusion. Finally, grandmaster is never capitalised in the chess world. It is universally customary to use the lower-case of grandmaster in chess books, publications, chess websites, et cetera. I do not see why Bobby Fischer's article is exceptional among chess articles for capitalisation of this word; it is just highly unusual. I am restoring it to my changed version, and if it is changed back to the inferior version, I would like to see an explanation here for discussion. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.162.77 (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit because it was factually incorrect (the 14th World Champion was Kramnik!) and in my opinion your other changes were not improvements. It is not the case that it is "universally customary" to use lower case for Grandmaster; it is often capitalised as it is a title.Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally there's a discussion about capitalisation conventions at WikiProject Chess, here.Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The anon editor is right: 1st sentence is a summary , and world champion needs to be there. I've had another try at a rewrite. Oops, checking WP:LEAD, actually that is 1st paragraph (not sentence) is the summary, but I still think my edit (with a short one sentence 1st paragraph) has done the right thing. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree the lead should say he's World Champion. Whether it's the 11th, 12th, or 23rd if of no significance however. The word Grandmaster is spelt with a capital in printed sources I have, so the claim of 'universally customary to use the lower-case of grandmaster' makes no sense to me. It's also become the norm in chess literature to us GM meaning that the word 'Grandmaster' is rarely used. SunCreator (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Bobby Fischer is the eleventh person to win the World Chess Championship, but I consider him to be the Fourteenth World Champion and consider this to be the most accurate description. Eg, George W. Bush is universally considered to be the 43rd President of the United States, but is the 42nd person to hold the office. By referring to players by the number of the person makes it difficult to have historical discussions during the time of Botvinnick, Tal, etc., since there were nonconsecutive champions. 69.221.162.77 (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw a discussion with grandmaster being lower-cased, but do not have the reference. Nevertheless, grammatically correct English would dictate that grandmaster be capitalised when used as a title, eg, Grandmaster Fischer, but lowercase when used as an adjective, eg, Bobby Fischer, chess grandmaster. Therefore, it should still be lowercase in the current usage. 69.221.162.77 (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In 1975, Fischer refused to defend his title

"In 1975, Fischer refused to defend his title when FIDE, the international chess federation, would not accept all his conditions." Sounds a bit POV to me. SunCreator (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If you say it is POV, what is your alternative viewpoint? 69.221.162.77 (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I imagine Fischer would of said he was prepared to defend his title but FIDE wouldn't accept his conditions. I guess there is most likely some Fischer comments about the situation published somewhere. SunCreator (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

SunCreator is correct - here's why : "Refusing to defend my title" means that, for some reason, I am not willing to enter in a contest for my title under any circumstances. (Perhaps I consider the organisation running the contest as non-legitimate. Or, I use the contest to register a protest. Etc.) On the other hand, if I submit a proposal for the conditions under which the contest should take place, and then these conditions are not accepted, then, if I do not accept the alternative conditions imposed on the contestants (including me), this does NOT mean I "refuse to defend my title".

The crucial factor here is, of course, whether my conditions can be called reasonable or unreasonable. (Because one way of refusing to play but hiding that refusal is to propose unrealistic, or pretty wild conditions of play). Seeing, however, that FIDE, subsequently, adopted almost all of Bobby Fischer's 1975 match conditions, we can comfortably reject the "unrealistic" hypothesis. Ergo, Fischer postulated a set of conditions which was generally reasonable. That set of conditions was not accepted and Fischer did not accept the alternative. Therefore, it was FIDE which did not allow in 1975 the world chess champion to defend his title the way FIDE allowed subsequent world chess champions to defend their title. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't see the problem here. The sentence says he refused to defend the title under the conditions FIDE offered. That's what happened. But if someone can come with a different wording that's fine by me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, The Gnome's argument is rubbish. Just because most of Fischer's demands were reasonable, it doesn't follow that they all were reasonable. Any number of sources will tell you that Fischer refused to defend his title and that his demand of 9-9 clause was unreasonable. Quite a few will also say that they suspect that Fischer had no intention of playing in 1975 under any circumstances. "Fischer refused to defend his title" is accurate, and I would object to any attempt to soften it or move even a small proportion of the responsibility onto FIDE. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you'll have to do better than that. Which "number of sources" do you have in mind, may I ask? I hope it is not the likes of Schiller, Keene, Kasparov or the usual pop psychologists. And why was the "9-9 clause" unreasonable? The rule whereby the challenger had to prove to be better than the title holder was a quite valid concept. Fischer proposed an unlimited number of games AND a limited number of wins necessary to wint he match -- otherwise, there was the danger of a match without limitation! (Yes, one can say that the excesses of the Kasparov vs Karpov sagas could've been avoided.) "Fischer refused to defend his title" is NOT accurate. I explained, logically I thought, that the meaning of that expression is "refusing to play under any circumstances". But Fischer's demands, it has been argued were NOT unreasonable. And refusing to accept unreasonable conditions is not the same as refusing to play-period. The compromise in the wording is clearly "Fischer refused to defend his title under the rules imposed by FIDE and after FIDE refused to accept all of Fischer's conditions". -The Gnome (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter Ballard is right. Sophistry can't hide the fact that Fischer could have defended his title in 1975 had he chosen to do so, and under conditions more favorable to himself than Spassky had in defending his title in 1972. Fischer refused, even after Euwe allowed Fischer extra time past the deadline to agree to the match terms. Quale (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the issue is still highly emotional for some people. Calling my arguments "sophistry" is indicative of this frame of mind. As to the substance of the "argument", suffice to say that the conditions of the Spassky vs Fischer 1972 match are not too enlightening as to the worth of`Fischer's proposals. Fischer was a pioneer also in improving (vastly) the general conditions under whjich chess tournaments and matches were conducted, eg in terms of elimination of noise, improved lighting, better compensation, etc. And the matches for the world title have not always been conducted under the same rules. Even re-matches (i.e. the "tradition" which was at the discretion of the champion, actually, before FIDE took over) were not always conducted under the same rules as the original match. We should be examining whether what Fischer suggested was "rubbish" or not. But the record shows that FIDE and most of the chess professionals did not think they were rubbish at all -- they adopted almost all of them for subsequent world title matches. -The Gnome (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I used the word "rubbish", but the argument really was based on a fallacy. I repeat: Just because most of Fischer's demands were reasonable (or at least, not unreasonable enough to be rejected), it doesn't follow that they all were reasonable. That is faulty reasoning - can you see that? Anyway, let's see what the sources say. Everyone dig up sources they can find about whether commentators thought Fischer's demands were reasonable - whether Fischer refused, or simply FIDE stripped him of his title, or whatever. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Russians vs Fischer has quotes from Kaprov, Korchnoi, Lev Albert and a few others. I'll look it up. In an earlier discussion someone mentioned Hartston's book on the 1978 Karpov-Korchnoi championship match as background for 1975 but I don't have access to that one.Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have Russians vs Fischer (in the first, Moscow edition) and it's an eye opener. Fischer was often paranoid but the Soviets were out to get him -- chessically. -The Gnome (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that anyone is arguing about it shows there are different points of view so it's best if the word is made neutral. SunCreator (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because a case is being argued on Wikipedia (or on the internet in general), it does not follow that we need to present a POV midway between the two points being argued. Extreme minority points of view pop on Wikipedoa all the time. Now I think that is the case here (that those who think that Fischer's claims were reasonable were by far the minority), but I'm happy to collect WP:Reliable Sources and go with that. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made an amendment so it now says "FIDE and Fischer could not come to an agreement". This is factually correct without introducing a POV for one side or the other. SunCreator (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It might have been better to wait for this discussion to run its course before doing that.Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see my edit as controversial. But if you see it otherwise feel free to revert it. SunCreator (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well at least one editor here has objected to it being rewritten. Plus I feel your edit is a bit too wordy for the lead. I've had a go at trimming it. I'm also not sure if one can resign a title and be stripped of it, so I've avoided that problem by editing that bit out altogether. See what you think. (I also have no objection to it being reverted to the original version). Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That wording is fine with me(better then mine). 'The resigned/was stripped of title' does not need to be in the lead. It's dealt with later on in the article anyway and that seems appropriate. SunCreator (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo, again.

What's the deal with photos of Fischer? The one at the top (1) is a duplicate of the one farther down, and (2) he is almost unrecognizable there. He is deceased, so there is no problem with using photos of him. Let's use one where he looked like he was in hus prime playing years, perferably 1970-72, but could be a little earler. Bubba73 (talk), 05:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion a bit further up under Image in which WP:FU was mentioned. There are as of yet no free images of Fischer from that period and apparantly "general Wikipedia consensus" is that as we have a free image there, albeit not a great one, we shouldn't add a non-free one. I'd like to see some evidence of this consensus. I agree with you that he's almost unrecognisable and hence using a non-free image of him as an adult would "significantly increase readers' understanding" of what he looked like. I also agree that's it's not right that the same picture appears twice.Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The top of that page says that it is a guideline (i.e. not a policy). And "it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". I think that a picture of him in his prime playing years is historically significant, and we weould be able to use one under "fair use". Bubba73 (talk), 13:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider Image:Tigran Petrosian.jpg, where it states "1.No free equivalent exists that would effectively identify the article's subject ... ", and the other fair use rationales. I do not believe that the old photo of Fischer with Collins effectively identifies him. We need a better photo. Bubba73 (talk), 14:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have got a photo that perhaps may be used under the "fair use" clause: it is taken from an old jugoslav book now out of print: Robert Fišer Genije koji se ne vraća by D. Bjelica. Since I am a new Wikipedia user, I'd like to receive further instructions. Jarman74 (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jarman but I think it would still be copyright. 'Fair use' is where no other picture is available and in this case we do have another picture (but not a good one).

Another try might be to include the image used for My_60_Memorable_Games. I think the book needs more of a mention in the article anyway: Fischer's decision to publish and his choice of games offer an interesting insight into his state of mind at the time.

Ewen (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Claim filed

With the claim filed before deadline, Jinky, 7 years, old, is set to get her share, and end the estate legal suit.Lawyers Sammy Estimo and Rudy Tacorda, counsels for Marilyn Young, 29-year-old mother of 7-year-old Jinky, announced on June 4, 2008, that the child was set to receive her share of the 140 million ISK Fischer estate (excluding gold deposits and royalty from the movie, "Bobby Fischer Goes to War)." Estimo stated that they learned from Reykjavik, Iceland, that the Probate Court had received the claim folder of Jinky Young before the May 17 legal deadline.gmanews.tv, Pinay child of late Bobby Fischer soon to be a millionairesports.inquirer.net, Fischer heiress to get share of P140-M estate soon--Florentino floro (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC) --Florentino floro (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm: that's about $1.8 million at today's exchange rates. RJF's holdings in UBS alone were around $3 million US fairly recently. Devaluation of the dollar would not account for the entire difference. Billbrock (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Duh: the UBS monies were denominated in CHF. So there's (very roughly) $1 million not accounted for. None of our business, but marginally interesting.... Billbrock (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Catholic?

I've reverted the additon of Roman Catholic categories. I note the article says he was buried in a Catholic church but I'm not sure that's enough evidence to put him in such a category. I'd like to see a bit more evidence of this conversion as it's not really addressed in the article itself.Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization says "An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there.". So you did the right thing. A ref is required. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Jewish

Would it not be more appropriate to list Fischer under 'Americans of Jewish descent' category? Fischer was not religiously or ethnically Jewish. He was part-Jewish by descent, so it seems incorrect to categorize him as a Jew, which implies that the person is religiously or ethnically Jewish. Karpouzi (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fischer never practiced Judaism AFAIK, so agreement there. However, Regina Wender Fischer and Paul Nemenyi were both ethnic Jews. "Americans of Jewish descent" is certainly more precise, but "Jewish" includes more than practitioners of Judaism. Billbrock (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize that "Jewishness" is often considered to have a racial as well as a religious component, but there is something screwed up about including a raving anti-Semite in the category "Jewish chess players". Krakatoa (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Judaica complied with Fischer's request not to call him a Jew. So should we. It doesn't matter how many sources are found calling him a Jew. Encyclopedia Judaica is (by my understanding as a non-Jew) a very good source, and we should follow its lead. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. It does matter how many sources say Fischer was of Jewish descent. Just because EJ complied with Fischer's request is no reason for Wikipedia to ignore the fact that Fischer's parents were ethnic Jews. Most of the best known Jewish chess players were not religiously observant. (Reshevsky is probably the best known counterexample.) In any case, Fischer himself admitted that he was ethnically Jewish and only later decided he wasn't. Quale (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters how many sources have labelled Fischer as a Jew. If he does not meet normal criteria for being religiously or ethnically Jewish, then he is not a Jew. You are making an unwarranted assumption that Fischer's father was Paul Nemenyi. The article in question constitutes speculation until they find proof. So it makes no more sense to categorize Fischer as a "Jewish chess player" than it does to categorize him as a "German chess player". Can anyone cite a firsthand quote of Fischer self-identifying as a Jew? There are plenty of contrary quotes. Karpouzi (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "nyt" :
  • [[Hans Bohm]] and Kees Jongkind, ''Bobby Fischer: The Wandering King'', Batsford, 2003, p. 67.
  • {{Citation | last = Bruce | first = Weber | title = Bobby Fischer, Chess Master, Dies at 64 | newspaper = The New York Times | year = 2008 | date = January 19 | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/crosswords/chess/19fischer.html | accessdate = 2008-01-20}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster inconsistency

There's some inconsistency in the Bobby_Fischer#Young_champion section. It claims he became an Grandmaster following his 1958 victory at the U.S. Chess Championship but later in the article it claims he got this after Yugoslovia. The references cited aren't related to the 1958 victory. One of them says he became a USCF Master in 1957. Would someone like to clean this up? Thanks. -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Interzonal - Israel Horowitz, "From Morphy to Fischer", Batsford 1973, p.189, "and Fischer the youngest grandmaster ever, in consequence of his participation in the Candidates'" (i.e. because he qualified for the Candidates at the Interzonal). The claim that he got it at the US championship has two footnotes, but neither footnotes supports the claim. So I'll delete it. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts

Before I start, just wanted to say that I think this is an excellent article - reading through it has left me in awe again about some of Fischer's achievements. I do have some comments / questions that I hope could improve the article, but don't want to make the changes without getting others' opinions.

• Early years - Fischer's mother's Jewish ancestry is mentioned in citation 6 - under the section about anti-Jewish statements there are two more citations. Not sure whether all these are needed?
• Young champion - notes that Fischer was the youngest junior champion but should this be clarified as the youngest winner of the United States Junior Chess Championship?
• US Champs / Olympiads - seems to cut the flow of the article. I'm not quite sure how to deal with this but wonder whether they could be put somewhere else?
• Semi-retirement - I find it difficult to believe that his 7/7 at the New York State Championships was his first ever 100% performance (junior / club tournaments?)
• World Champion - the chronology is slightly awkward (1970 to 1969 and back). It took me two goes to work out what was happening and I wonder whether this is worth a quick re-write. Also this section is the only part of the article to use (+/=/-) notation for tournament scores.
• Chess Oscars - is a citation needed for this?
• Fischer Random - "Fischer described the unsavory side of chess in its current form at the highest levels" seems an odd sentence.
• Jinky Young - there are 6 citations for this information - is this over the top?
• My Sixty Memorable Games - is all the Batsford stuff needed? I would argue that something is useful, but that most of the information is in the Sixty Memorable Games article.

Hope this is useful. Fletch79 (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)