Originally posted by robbie carrobieLOL! That video was great. I had never seen video of him before, only pictures. He really came off as a nicely spoken, likable guy. And then he just eases into total chovenistic sexism.
its OK i found it, hilarious, its the way Fischer is so sincere about his ability to beat any woman given a knight odds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdA7I9nPhSU&feature=player_embedded
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperChovenistic sexism is what it looks like today.
LOL! That video was great. I had never seen video of him before, only pictures. He really came off as a nicely spoken, likable guy. And then he just eases into total chovenistic sexism.
But back then we were not molly-coddled by the PC dullards who
cannot take a joke.
All comedians then made a living out of ugly wife jokes. etc, etc.
Bobby was just being a brash teenager.
You also get the impression that he 'walked into it'.
No wonder he developed a deep mistrust of journalists.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I'm not sure, but I think the 'scientific' opinion on female brain at the time was still that it was 'inferior', in some quite funny aspects as its weight.
Chovenistic sexism is what it looks like today.
But back then we were not molly-coddled by the PC dullards who
cannot take a joke.
All comedians then made a living out of ugly wife jokes. etc, etc.
Bobby was just being a brash teenager.
You also get the impression that he 'walked into it'.
No wonder he developed a deep mistrust of journalists.
not that bobby would've had read that kind of stuff, as he was an ignorant dolt off the board even back then. I don't know why people have such need to make excuses for him, just because he was such a genius at a certain board game we all happen to love. it's all out there, interviews, videos etc, and it was always quite obvious. not even his real life friends are trying to deny his dark side.
Originally posted by wormwoodhes not a 'dolt', as you erroneously presume. If he lacked social skills at the time, then what of it? did he not humbly ask the interviewer for a definition and when he found out its true meaning was affable enough to state that it was not applicable. what is it with you people that you must try to sully his reputation, even further? is he not entitled to his opinion, based on his evaluation. and what is more, if he was, as is generally thought, stricken with a mental ailment, some have suggested aspergers, others paranoia etc etc, to hold him to account for it, in other words, to evaluate his behavior and speech etc without taking these references into consideration, is a grave error of judgment. 'oh look at Fischer, hes socially inept, what a dolt', 'yes but he has aspergers', is to blame someone for something of which he can do little about and is akin to other forms of prejudice.
I'm not sure, but I think the 'scientific' opinion on female brain at the time was still that it was 'inferior', in some quite funny aspects as its weight.
not that bobby would've had read that kind of stuff, as he was an ignorant dolt off the board even back then. I don't know why people have such need to make excuses for him, just because he was s always quite obvious. not even his real life friends are trying to deny his dark side.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLet us look at it this way. If Fischer would have never been a famous chess GM would you ever have heard about him? If you had heard about him would you defend him?
hes not a 'dolt', as you erroneously presume. If he lacked social skills at the time, then what of it? did he not humbly ask the interviewer for a definition and when he found out its true meaning was affable enough to state that it was not applicable. what is it with you people that you must try to sully his reputation, even further? is he not en ...[text shortened]... one for something of which he can do little about and is akin to other forms of prejudice.
Originally posted by tomtom232yes everyone is entitled to it, infact, the best that any of us can hope for, is a correct evaluation of these things with our own minds. what else is there?
You argue that Bobby was entitled to his opinion. So those you argue against are not entitled to theirs?
He was a teenager from New York. Just a normal teenager from the Bronx.
Cocky, wide-eyed, brash, straight to the point. He could not be
someone else. He was what he was.
Everyone who knew him from that period tells you he was simply
chess mad and did not have much time for anyone who was not
interested in chess. I can understand that.
I love being in the company of chess players.
This 'dark side' did not manifest itself till the late 70's. when he had
a diagnosed mental illness. You cannot let that cloud you.
He was in his latter years very unwell. Why dwell on it.
I've read most (all) of the books on Fischer's games.
The best by far is the Soltis Book - Bobby Fischer Rediscovered.
One of the best chess books I own and if you want to look at Fischer's
legacy without all the armchair Frueds then this is the book.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieprejudice?? it's not prejudice when almost every single piece of evidence we have points to the obvious conclusion that he was much more than a little 'lacking' in his social skills. the ONLY reason why you and other people who never knew him make excuses for him, is because he happened to be one of the greatest chess players ever. you're mesmerized by his fame, and nothing else matters.
i will defend anyone against prejudice, anyone!
gp had a good point about him being young though. teenagers tend to act like idiots, but still occasionally turn out okay as adults. bobby never did though, be that because of mental illness or something else, he never did. and like I already said before, even his friends won't argue with that. only people who didn't know him do.
Originally posted by wormwoodyeah people who didn't know him, like you! nor do i feel mesmerized by his fame, was Yasser Seriwan also mesmerized when after meeting Fischer he stated that he was the most misunderstood chess celebrity alive? nor would i believe, 'everything that points to the obvious conclusion', either.
prejudice?? it's not prejudice when almost every single piece of evidence we have points to the obvious conclusion that he was much more than a little 'lacking' in his social skills. the ONLY reason why you and other people who never knew him make excuses for him, is because he happened to be one of the greatest chess players ever. you're mesmerized ...[text shortened]... y said before, even his friends won't argue with that. only people who didn't know him do.
I cannot understand why people who never knew him have it in
for him.
I'd like someone just to come on and tell us what Fischer did to them
personally to make them hate him so.
What harm did he really do to anyone?
Arrogant, bullish, unlikable, childish,...So what? Big Deal.
Perhaps that's how he was. Who cares?
He has no blood on his hands, he lived simply to play chess and
this obsession affected his behaviour.. Why attack a dead man?
As long as we're doing the "armchair Freud" thing, did anyone view the David Frost interview clip in the section of related clips? Fischer said something there that helped me understand a little better just how he approached chess. When asked what his favorite moment of the game was, he said it was (paraphrasing) when he destroyed his opponent's ego.
I tend to think most serious players are part artist and part warrior. I'm sure many take at least as much pleasure in an exciting sac or elegant defense as in the actual win. Fischer, however, sounds to have been the epitome of the psychological warrior by his answer. That's not a huge surprise to anyone who's read about him, but it was never made so clear to me as in that particular answer.
I'd be curious to hear other serious players' answer to that question.
Originally posted by Ichibanovwhen you say serious, does that mean, seriously good or seriously bad? for depending on the definition, it may exclude me from commenting.
As long as we're doing the "armchair Freud" thing, did anyone view the David Frost interview clip in the section of related clips? Fischer said something there that helped me understand a little better just how he approached chess. When asked what his favorite moment of the game was, he said it was (paraphrasing) when he destroyed his opponent's ego.
I ...[text shortened]... cular answer.
I'd be curious to hear other serious players' answer to that question.