I don't know about you folks, but this writer is a HUGE Robert James
Fischer fan. Not just because he was the strongest and most brilliant
chess player that ever was (and probably will ever be) but because he
was an incredible individual in many other ways. Bobby has had a very
tumultuous and controversial career, but at key moments where many
in his position would have "compromised" or sold-out for the cash, he
stayed firm with his convictions and beliefs (though arguably
misguided in some cases). The "real" Bobby Fischer story is so
amazingly full of drama that nothing would have to be embellished in
order to produce a feature-length film that would greatly entertain
both chess players and non-chess players alike! So when I saw the
movie " Searching for Bobby Fischer" I was greatly disappointed! Not
only does this movie have absolutely nothing to do with Fischer (it is
about a "garden-variety" I.M. by the name of Josh Waitzkin.........they
just used Fischer's name to sell product.........incidentally they ripped
him off......he never got a dime in royalties), it is a very poor
production all the way around! In one scene, the two kids who are
playing (who are supposed to be at the national master level at least)
are playing a game in which the "Josh" character offers the other one
a draw in a completely won position, THE OTHER KID TURNS IT DOWN
and goes on to lose. It was a simple position whereby "Josh's
opponent promotes his queening pawn first (only to lose it to a skewer
check) and Josh wins the endgame easily by virtue of being up a
QUEEN! A "real" Bobby Fischer movie is something that I have been
wanting for a long time (I would make one myself if I knew anything
about film-making and could raise the money). I was thinking that the
perfect actor to play Fischer as an adult would be James Woods. I
couldn't think of anyone who could be a good candidate to play
a "younger" Fischer (any ideas?). Also if any of you are interested in
hearing any of the Bobby Fischer radio interviews (there are 19 so far)
let me know and I will give you the URL.
I don't know why chris and Russ allowed your post here (it should go
in the rants forum) but since they did, I will respond to it here. For the
first part, I am not your "buddy". And for the second, comparing Josh
Waitzkin to Robert James Fischer is like comparing an inebriated,
semi-conscious, imbecilic, moron to Einstein (where chess is
concerned). You have proven that you know nothing about chess,
Waitzkin, or Fischer! I happen to know that Josh Waitzkin is actually a
really nice guy and pretty honest as well (I met his dad once,
journalist and writer "Fred Waitzkin"😉 and he would be the first to
confirm my description of his ability (relative to Fischer's). Josh is a
strong tournament player who showed much talent at a very early age.
(He was beating his dad before he was ten.). Josh has had private
tutoring (mostly from Pandolfini) and has worked on many projects
(including tutorial software for the "chessmaster" series). When I
say "garden-variety" I.M., it is not an insult, but objective fact. Fischer
is a completely different story. If there is anyone deserving of the
title "genius" it was Fischer! RJF has so many accolades and
accomplishments in the chess world that it is hard to believe we are
not talking about a fiction novel! I am not going to mention
everything here, but to give you an idea what I am talking about:
Bobby first won the United States Championship when he was 14 years
old (no I am not talking about the "junior" championships). He won
every tournament he played in from 1962-1970 (18 of them) with the
exceptions of Curacao "candidates" (4th place) in 1962; Capablanca
memorial Havana (2nd place) in 1965; and the Piatigorsky Cup, Santa
Monica (2nd place) in 1966. In 1971, on his way to the world
championship match with Boris Spassky, he defeated two "world-class"
grandmasters(Larsen and Taimanov) back to back with the unheard of
margins of 6-0, IN BOTH MATCHES (not allowing even a single draw
from a world-class grandmaster). He won his world championship
match with Spassky in 1972 (12.5 - 8.5) after losing a game to
default for not showing up! !~?TONY?~!, (that is allot of
embellishment for a simpleton like yourself), do us all a favor and
become a bit more educated about a topic before you speak of it! If
you desire not to become more educated, then do everyone a favor
and keep your mouth shut!
I had taken your "garden variety" comment as an insult. I don't mean
to compare Fischers style to Waitzkin's because they are incomparible.
I didn't say Waitzkin was better because Fischer would womp the crap
out of him just like he did everyone else. I know everything you said
about both of them, and I am very educated chesswise. I am not the
best player here ( by far ) and I wasn't trying to start and argument.
Bobby Fischer is one of my chess idols besides Richard Reti and Aron
Nimzowitsch. Fischer is a chess god and I wasn't comparing him to
Waitzkin. And by the way, I was confused about the naming of that
movie too!
Of course, most of what we read here has already been written and
said before at myriad places. Bobby IS/WAS a phenomenom. Both as
a character & personality, but above all: the Chessplayer (I capitalise
this!).
That's why it seems odd to me that nobody seems to be thinking of
laying emphasis on the fact that Fischer was a loner who educated
himself, and never had any 'second' really. Don't think he would listen
to him.
When he beat Spassky in 1972, he did actually no less than beating
the whole Soviet Chess Hegemony. Which is an unheard of
achievement. Not before fischer, neither after him.
Moreover, in his heyday there were also no computer databases, nor
just the facility to be one click away from your opponent's most recent
games and have your machine analyse and check for weaknesses in
his actual play. Perhaps this should make it possible to CALL him the
greatest, as it is impossible to compare for instance the K's to F.
Chess has changed a lot since his days.
My appreciation for Bobby as a chessplayer is great. That of his
personality and ideas is not. Maybe he's a very lonely man with his
signals crossed in a distorted chess-brilliant mind. Who knows?
Well written post Cervenakovas, but you are in error when you say that
nobody has emphasised Fischer's "single-handed" sucess. I went into
detail about both his lack of computer resources and the absense of a
real second in a previous post. And to Spassky's credit, it was he that
made the match with Fischer possible. The Soviets were looking for a
way to steal the victory under the facade of "Fischer's
unreasonableness", but Spassky really wanted to play the match with
Fischer. It was perhaps destiny!
I also thought your describing Waitzkin as a "garden variety" IM was
somewhat insulting. When you say garden variety, I take that to
mean that he is nothing special. I am a low-rated player, and think
that ANY IM is something special. It takes determination, intelligence
and plenty of hard work to reach that level. Your description of the
endgame in the movie is also somewhat unfair. Virtually every single
endgame in the world, if it was played out, would end with one side up
a Queen.
I have absolutely no respect for Fischer because he hated Jews, even
though he was half Jewish by race, and because he read Nazi
literature. Calling his beliefs "arguably misguided in some cases" is
the understatement of the year.
However, I, too, was disappointed in the movie because it was very
inaccurate as far as describing Waitzkin's childhood chess career.
When he lost the national championship the first time, he was mated
after 16 moves, and in the movie, his dad said he lost in only 7.
Also, something I'm kind of confused about, is that in the book, it
said he drew the game against Jeff Sarwer in the last round and
shared the national championship, but Chessmaster 8000 has a voice
annotation of that game by Waitzkin, and he says he beat Tal Shaked
in the last round to win the championship alone. Does anyone know
what the deal is? Another aspect of that portrayal of the
championship tournament is that the real guy is very competitive and
would never be so silly as to offer a draw in a won position and TELL
HIS OPPONENT that he was winning.
Also, xeno, you should read the book "Searching for Bobby Fischer"
because it told a LOT about the real Fischer, including those facts that
I mentioned up above.
I read the book after seeing the movie and enjoyed both very much.
I imaging in the movie it was a simple case of changing some of the
facts to somehow add to the dramatic affect. This often bothers me
but in this case it did not. In part because I saw the movie first and in
part because I saw it and read the book before starting to actually
play chess. To your question...my recollection from the book was that
he did, in fact, draw the last game but because of strength of
opponents he was awarded the championship. ( i think they were both
5-0-1)...and that would make sense that he offered the draw when he
saw where the game was headed. He wasn't giving up the
championship by doing so.
I am also not a big fan of Bobby Fischer (the man). I don't know very
much about him but what I do know is not very appealing. But I am
impressed with his chess genious. He was like the Babe Ruth of
chess. I'm always fascinated by people who are so much better than
everybody else that they seem almost superhuman.
You are very new here Mr. Rogue, and I suggest you read ALL of the
posts concerning an issue before taking liberties with the writer. I have
already responded to a "pro-Waitzin post in detail. It appears after
the response made by "@?!TONY!?@". You are correct about your
interpretation of the expression "garden-variety"; indeed as I.M.'s go
Josh is nothing special. To become an I.M. is an impressive feat in
competitive chess on its own, but it is a universe from the level that
Fischer played at. I don't mean this to offend, but if you were stronger
and understood a little more about chess you would understand how
transparent that position that I was referring to was. I personally know
class players from the club that could have easily calculated the result
well before the "jeff sarwer" kid was "surprised" to find out he was
losing. Your assertion that "virtually every end-game in the world, if
played out would end in one side up a queen is very naive and
indicative of a beginner level mentality. The master level (and
beyond) of this game is in a sense a completely different game than
the one that beginners play, with different rules and different goals.
While beginners focus their energy on holding and acquiring material,
and trying to set up 2 and 3 move combinations (that are generally
not forcing), the master is thinking about things like, "how can I
weaken the d5 square so as to mobilize there" and what sort of end-
game would come out of an exchange of rooks where my opponent
has the queenside pawn majority", etc. In master level play games
are resigned long before a checkmate is administered, or a decisive
amount of material is obtained. I have read almost everything there
is to read about Fischer and also have listened to his 19 radio
interviews: http://home.att.ne.jp/moon/fischer/
This is not an appropriate forum for a discussion of politics and I
would appreciate it if you don't try drag me into a political discussion. I
have likely read and wrote an essay on many topics in which you have
only a cosmetic understanding of. My interest in Fischer for the
purposes of this forum is his chess. If you desire to learn a bit more
about the REAL Fischer and not just go on heresy from those who have
something to gain by slandering him, I suggest you listen to the
interviews and read "I was tortured in Pasadena", by Robert James
Fischer. "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing"
I agree with you, Xeno, the film is a poor thing. Watched it once more
on video-tape a couple of weeks ago. RJF deserves a better portrait.
However...
I've read & re-read Frank Brady's biography 'Profile of a Prodigy'. Fine
reading. However... You dismiss rather readilly Bobby's very explicit
anti-semitism. And: He did'n acquire that in his later life. No! If you
read 'The King, Chess Pieces' by the late Dutch grandmaster Jan Hein
Donner, you'll find out that Donner, who became quite befriended with
Bobby, who already told him of his eschewing Jews and his liking, of
all people!, Adolf Hitler... Bobby was then only 15 or 16 or so. Anyway,
it was on his first tournament trip to Europe (Bled, I seem to
remember).
Also in various interviews with a Filippino he confirmed his likes &
dislikes more than just explicitly. But I don't know whether or not this
source is a reliable one.
And what about 'The King'? I'm almost sure many of the RHPrs will
like reading it. Yes READING! Although there's a lot of chess in it also,
of course. Donner was the kind of man who would have loved it to be
at a site like RHP. Always controversial, very often even insulting, and
at the same time he was such a very lovable character. Really, this is
a MUST for every chess-lover, who's got guts and wants to stir things
up. I could write pages & pages about him, but I there's a splendid
review in the archives of The Chess Cafe. Go for it lasses & lads.
Xeno, nobody will challenge that Bobby has been one of the greatest
in chess history. But how can we, simple chess-ignoramuses, judge on
who is the Greatest of all these Greats? Have you such in-depth
knowledge & understanding of Caïssa that you can do that? I don't
doubt it. I just KNOW you, me or anyone else for that matter, just
can't. Let's be humble, Xeno. That's how you become great.
My post was not an invitation to discuss politics or Fischer's beliefs
regarding the Jews as this is not an appropriate forum to do so. It was
merely my account of the SFBF movie and my desire for a better
production. I liked Brady's book as well but there are certain aspects
of it in which "reading between the lines" is necessary, and I believe
you have the ability to do just that Cervenakovas. I am under the
impression that you have heard at least some of the Fischer radio
interviews and I would implore you to listen to the rest. You are an
intelligent writer and attempt to back up your assertions with facts but
are perhaps a bit quick to merge beliefs with "knowledge". Your style
though, is very pleasing and refreshing to me after being exhausted
by some very uneducated, reactive, overly-emotional types who try to
win arguments by diverging off of the topic and try to quell defeat with
statements like "I don't think either one of us is going to shift on this
one". I have not yet read the "Donner" book but will attempt to do so.
Thankyou for the suggestion. I would very much enjoy having a more
private discussion with you on say msn messenger. If you like you can
send me an email at: xenophobe_8@hotmail.com
separating my feelings for Fischer as a player and Fischer as a person. I'm awe-
struck in both cases, but awe can be both good and bad...
Honestly, I prefer to lay my respect at other players' feet. Paul Morphy's, for
instance, is a good example of a truely disturbed mind that could keep its
turmoil mostly internal. I figure with insanity at such a level, the better
person is the one who disturbs the fewest around them...
Fischer is a brilliant ass. Like Darth Vader, his hate consumed him.