Brady on Fischer

On topic: in my opinion Fischer has shown what can happen to a person with a bright mind, lots of talent and than getting lost in his own delusions, neuroses, psychoses or whatever.

At the end of his life he was nothing but a raving lunatic and that is a real shame. It is something I wish nobody would ever have to suffer. The fact that he was a extraordinary talented chess player however doesn't make it in any way more "painful" to see than anybody else going bonkers as well. He needed treatment and I am not sure he got the treatment he needed.

The statement that he was a better chess player than either Kasparov or Karpov is just plain dumb. They never played each other and we will never know whom was the better player.

Hi emperor

"But while certainly a splash in the English speaking world,...."

In 1972 there were 100's of journalists from all over the world in Iceland.

Believe me emperor, you had to be there in'72 to see what a splash he made.
It was front page news, not buried on the puzzle pages like today.

The match reports opened the BBC's news as first item and this was global.
I recall a newsman holding up newspapers from all the world with Fischer's
picture on all the front pages.

You had to be there...I feel sorry for any chess player today who was
not a wood pusher in '72.
it was The Year. (the build up, 6-0 v Taimanov and Larsen, 6½-2½ v Petrosian
was not too bad either). I doubt if Chess will ever see another year like it.

That is why you will rarely find players of my generation putting down Fischer.
(unless they are doing it for a quick buck to feed the teenagers who read the gossip columns).

You had to be there.

We know what he did for Chess and he left us those wonderful wonderful games.

"I think that the claims that Fischer did more to generate 'real market interest'
are a bit strange."

In 1969 the prize fund for the Pertrosian v Spassky World Ttile Match was $1,400.

3 years later...

In 1972 the prize fund for the Fischer - Spassky World title match was $240,000.

That is an increase, in marketing terms, of.....
...you are a graduate student, you do the maths.

You had to be there....you just had to be there.

Originally posted by Kegge
On topic: in my opinion Fischer has shown what can happen to a person with a bright mind, lots of talent and than getting lost in his own delusions, neuroses, psychoses or whatever.

At the end of his life he was nothing but a raving lunatic and that is a real shame. It is something I wish nobody would ever have to suffer. The fact that he was a extraordinar ...[text shortened]... t plain dumb. They never played each other and we will never know whom was the better player.

I agree with greenpawn34; it was a wonderful and exciting time for chess and chessplayers all over the world. At the time there can be little doubt that Fischer was the greatest living chess player; his prodigous record speaks for itself.

It is also true that, as a person, Fischer had some problems but in chess terms he was a genius.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Fischer was da man! Fischer played, 'honest chess', Karpov and Kasparov were mamas boys! especially Kasparov!

Quit saying he was crazy - that is a lie. He was immature, malformed, unschooled, anti-social, but he was NOT crazy! That lie minimizes his responsibility and the responsibility of those who raised him.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Quit saying he was crazy - that is a lie. He was immature, malformed, unschooled, anti-social, but he was NOT crazy! That lie minimizes his responsibility and the responsibility of those who raised him.

Originally posted by Kegge
Edit: message deleted. I will not let you taunt me any more.

Fischer was a chess genius, that much is true. However, it has to be admitted that he was an unpleasant person. This is not uncommon in geniuses. Being a genius should not make one a god nor render one immune from harsh judgement by history or those who record it.

In 1972 I was 14 and mad about chess. I thought Fischer was good but never went to the extreme of shoving him on a pedestal and worshipping him. That saved me from disappointment when he behaved like an arse shortly after. I don't think I need another book to tell me all I need to know about Fischer. I was there and I would have loved to play him. I wouldn't have wanted to spend more than a couple of minutes in his company away from the board though.

PS:5 15 YES OR NO? What's that supposed to mean? If we are in base 10 (I bet we are) then no, 515 is a rather dull little number.

Originally posted by Rene-Claude
I agree with greenpawn34; it was a wonderful and exciting time for chess and chessplayers all over the world. At the time there can be little doubt that Fischer was the greatest living chess player; his prodigous record speaks for itself.

It is also true that, as a person, Fischer had some problems but in chess terms he was a genius.

Hi Diophantus

In terms of chess, which is all I understand about Fischer. Yes he belongs on
a pedestal, he was World Champion and one of the greatest chess players
of the 20th century.

I can fully understand the oppositee coloured Bishop attack Fischer
carried out in Game 3 and how narrow the win in that game was.

I can show you all the mates and wins after Fischers 27...Bxa4 in Game 5.
One of the most imaginative games ever played in a World Final that was
marred by Spassky's blunder. 27.Qc2.

I can see how close Spassky came in games 13,14 & 15 to turning the whole
thing around. Game 13 he lost a drawn ending and in games 14 & 15
Spassky let wins slip away to draws.
From this tragic trio he scored 1.pt instead of 2½ which would have tied the score.

But having never met Fischer I cannot or will not pass judgement on him
as a person and I don't think others should do so either based on something
they have read.

A few others in this thread have stated they have known someone close
to them who have had what can only be termed as a nervous breakdown.
Did they tape record them whilst they were unwell and play it back
stating this what this person has been like all thier life.
Of course not.

Yet this clearly unwell man has been quoted (and mis-quoted) called malformed
and a raving madman.
Doing so is like hurling abuse at a cripple because he cannot climb a set of stairs.
It's the same thing. You are taking the words of someone who was mentally ill,
who felt persecuted and alone and claiming he was like this all his life.

You are so wrong.
The people who knew him, those he let get close to him say the complete
opposite to the utter tripe that has been written about him.

Back to the chess, which is what you should be talking about when mentioning Fischer.

In my opinion, the Fishcer of '72 would have beaten Karpov in 1975 because
Karpov was not yet Kaprov and Karpov went to pieces in the '78 match
when the pressure and the off board antics flared up.
He allowed 5-2 to become 5-5 within 4 games.

Also right up until 1980 Karpov had a slight weakness when faced with off beat
though respectible openings.
Between 72 & 80 He lost to the Budapest, Centre Counter, Classical Defence
of the Lopez, c3 Sicilain, the grand Prix attack and don't forget Miles and the a6 game.

Fischer's run in in the World Championship from game 11 when he had the lead
he required (remember at one time he was effectively 3-0 down. 2-0 down
in the match but a tie would have been no good to him, so it was 3-0).

As White his game plan was to play it safe, no need for risks.
As Black Fischer played Pircs, Alekhine and non-Najdorf Sicilains to avoid the
Russian analysis and out-played Spassky.

Karpov I fear would has got caught up with the occassion and Fischer
who was at the time the best player in the world, would have out done him
both off and over the board.

The replay in 78 and Karpov without a doubt would have qualified would
have been different and then I'd tip the scales to Karpov.
After getting the title by default Kaprov's tournament success was incredible
as if he was showing the world that he was a worthy champion.
(and he was...but he never had to face Fischer.)

In 1978 he would have been hardened by the '75 match and then
I think he would have won it.

My only doubt with Fischer is having achieved his dream since he was 8 years old
may not have had the same motivation. Though in '74 he was sending the USA
Olympiad team game analysis of Karpov pointing out a missed win that
Craig Pritchett had in his game with Karpov. So he still had his eye in and
was expecting to play Karpov, he was studying his games.

But that is just my opinion.

So let's try to keep Fischer on the chessboard and unless any of you knew him
or had him on a couch in your role as a psychiatrist then I'd leave all the
gossip, rumours and lies out of it.

Apart from that, you a are slagging off a dead man, someone who never
harmed a living soul.

He dedicated his life to the game, this dedication took an awful revenge,
leave it at that.

Great post (as usual greenpawn). I learned a lot from it.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Diophantus

In terms of chess, which is all I understand about Fischer. Yes he belongs on
a pedestal, he was World Champion and one of the greatest chess players
of the 20th century.

I can fully understand the oppositee coloured Bishop attack Fischer
carried out in Game 3 and how narrow the win in that game was.

I can show you all the mates ...[text shortened]... ted his life to the game, this dedication took an awful revenge,
leave it at that.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
he was and still is a mamas boy!

Originally posted by Kegge
Very mature little boy.