religious grandmasters?

It was in an article in either Chess Life or New in Chess after Fischer's death. I think Larry Evans, a close friend of Fischer's, was quoted as saying that after watching a documentary on Hitler, Fischer said that he admired the man.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dictionary smictionairy, the Arabs are Semites too, deny it we cannot, Fischer had nothing against the Arabs, therefore all that we can say is that he was anti Jewish.

why this is the case i think has to do with the tournaments that he played in and the people who put the money up for the tournaments were pulling the shots and failed to take his r ...[text shortened]... i don't think that its not without reason, whether the reasons were justified is another story.

Surely all forms of discrimination are not without reason. Most racists in South Africa learnt it from their parents. But there comes a point when a person must take responsibility for their actions and beliefs. It doesn't matter how much people of a different race, religion, culture mistreat you or appears to be inferior or whatever, if you judge anyone of a similar race, religion, culture etc unfairly then it is clearly wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Surely all forms of discrimination are not without reason. Most racists in South Africa learnt it from their parents. But there comes a point when a person must take responsibility for their actions and beliefs. It doesn't matter how much people of a different race, religion, culture mistreat you or appears to be inferior or whatever, if you judge anyone of a similar race, religion, culture etc unfairly then it is clearly wrong.

all that we can say is that his experience with those who were of a Jewish extraction were not good, and that those whom he deemed as close friends misrepresented him, especially in the media, for example, Frank Brady who wrote the book, profile of a prodigy, when Fischer asked that it be noted to a reference that he was infact not Jewish but a Christian, Brady refused, did not give his consent and the book was published and Fischer misrepresented, thus their relationship deteriorated, why would he do such a thing? under pressure from the publishers? who knows?

thus as Yasser Seriwan noted after speaking with Fischer, 'forget everything you have read about Fischer, he is probably the most misrepresented superstar alive'!

thus can it be said that Fischer was being unfair? if you were constantly maligned, you're character attacked, misrepresented, would it endear you to those who were doing it? Fischer could not be bought and sold, unlike Kasparov who would sell bottles of ketchup with his logo on it if it made money, no, not for anything and that's what those who were opposed to him did not like! for they could not make money from him!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dictionary smictionairy, the Arabs are Semites too, deny it we cannot, Fischer had nothing against the Arabs, therefore all that we can say is that he was anti Jewish.

why this is the case i think has to do with the tournaments that he played in and the people who put the money up for the tournaments were pulling the shots and failed to take his r ...[text shortened]... i don't think that its not without reason, whether the reasons were justified is another story.

dictionary smictionairy,

Yeah, who cares about facts.. they just get in the way.

I'm not denying the other definition of anti-semitism or that arabs are semites.

The fact is, anti-semitism is a legitimate term for anti-jewish. You may not like it, but hey... deny the facts all you want, it's still a fact.

therefore i don't think that its not without reason, whether the reasons were justified is another story.

I agreed with you before that its not without reason - Hitler had his reasons for hating Jews too. I don't see anything you mentioned that makes his hatred for Jews to be justified though, and that's the other story you mentioned 🙂

Originally posted by Arrak
im only guessing but i would assume GM's and IM's dont really have time for religion. plus chess and religion contradict each other, chess is logical and rational, religion cannot be proven and its a matter of opinion.

are their any grandmasters that are religious? and what is their religion? i would assume if anything their christian. but also how about any zen buddhists or buddhists?

An interesting topic you've brought up here. I don't see a connection between chess and religon. Some Masters believe in God, some do not. I'm guessing the percentages are not much different than the general population.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
dictionary smictionairy,[/b]

Yeah, who cares about facts.. they just get in the way.

I'm not denying the other definition of anti-semitism or that arabs are semites.

The fact is, anti-semitism is a legitimate term for anti-jewish. You may not like it, but hey... deny the facts all you want, it's still a fact.

therefore i don't think t kes his hatred for Jews to be justified though, and that's the other story you mentioned 🙂

i am sorry i did not mean to belittle your research, honestly this was not my intent, nor to deny facts, however one must remember that a dictionary just has someone else interpretation that's all, nor can we limit antisemitism to the Jews, although in popular culture it has admittedly taken on this guise.

however i feel dismayed when people are still attacking Fischers character because of the views he holds, no doubt based on his experience. note that this does not make them correct, but he is never the less entitled to them, just as others are entitled to theirs, is it not the case?

As for his character, do you know of any other superstar so principled that he could not be bought and sold, nor marketed like a walmart product? Fischer could have had anything, but he would not sully his art nor taint his character like some two bit hustler! thats why he loathed Kasparov, when Tal was in hospital, nobody went to visit him, nobody except Fischer, does that strike you as an uncaring individual, so self obsessed that he cares for no one except himself as has been portrayed? when he did make money he gave it away to what he deemed at the time was a good cause, yes it was naive, yes it was nonsense and foolish, but does it not strike you as a generous act never the less? what are we to make of the mans character now in the light of such revelation?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am sorry i did not mean to belittle your research, honestly this was not my intent, nor to deny facts, however one must remember that a dictionary just has someone else interpretation that's all, nor can we limit antisemitism to the Jews, although in popular culture it has admittedly taken on this guise.

however i feel dismayed when people are s ...[text shortened]... never the less? what are we to make of the mans character now in the light of such revelation?

however one must remember that a dictionary just has someone else interpretation that's all

Umm... no it is not just someone's interpretation. The point of a dictionary is that it contains the agreed upon definitions of the words in a language. There are abridged and unabridged dictionaries with different variations depending on where they come from, but it's not just someone's interpretation.

With language we have to know the definitions of words in order to communicate - dictionaries are where we store those definitions objectively to help prevent the re-definition via individual interpretation. Of course words and new definitions creep into the language as people use them in different ways.

nor can we limit antisemitism to the Jews, although in popular culture it has admittedly taken on this guise.

Look up the history of the term. It is more than just "popular culture" behind that meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitism

As I said, I'm not saying that using anti-semitism to mean hatred of arabs and jews is wrong, I'm just saying that using it to mean anti-jewish is not wrong.

however i feel dismayed when people are still attacking Fischers character because of the views he holds, no doubt based on his experience.

He deserves the attacks. I'll say that openly. Yes, he's entitled to his views. All people are entitled to their views, but they are not entitled to not have them criticized.

Are racists simply entitled to their views without criticism? Should we say nothing against the KKK?

but does it not strike you as a generous act never the less? what are we to make of the mans character now in the light of such revelation?

I think no one is perfect and we all have flaws. Some more serious than others. No act of generosity suddenly makes Bobby Fisher's views somehow OK or tolerable.

I applaud Bobby Fisher's chess ability and if he was as generous as you claim then good for him. I also condemn is ridiculous and prejudiced views with equal fervor.

The man was a genius at chess and it is a shame that his legacy is marred by his own stupid and prejudiced views.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thus can it be said that Fischer was being unfair? if you were constantly maligned, you're character attacked, misrepresented, would it endear you to those who were doing it?

But that is my point exactly. If you judge all members of a race based on your experience of a few, you are unfairly judging some members based solely on the fact that they share racial characteristics with people you don't like. That is clearly a form of racism.

We are all guilty of some amount of judgment based on the characteristics people have that we associate with other people with similar characteristics - and with good reason, its more often than not a correct judgment. However, when we take it to extremes or make public comments, judgments, laws etc based on peoples characteristics then it becomes a much more serious problem. From what has been said in this thread it seems Fischer made some comments to the effect that he had something against all Jews. If that was true, he was wrong and if he said it publicly it was very wrong as he should have known that as a public figure he should be even more careful not to misjudge.

Originally posted by Arrak
im only guessing but i would assume GM's and IM's dont really have time for religion. plus chess and religion contradict each other, chess is logical and rational, religion cannot be proven and its a matter of opinion.

are their any grandmasters that are religious? and what is their religion? i would assume if anything their christian. but also how about any zen buddhists or buddhists?

Interesting thread. The premis implies however that chess players never do anything ilogical or irrational, which would deny thier humanity. Religious beliefs are not based on logic, but there is reason and rational involved for some believers at least.

One could also argue the similarities between chess and (some) religions:

Both are based on rules
Both speak of victory and defeat
Both speak of war within the concept and in it's reality
Both can be accussed of being black and white
Both have structured hierarchies
Both can involve a finacial cost to be involved
Both will involve a sacrifice for a greater purpose
Both will be attacked or criticised by the uninitiated or unbelievers
Both can have a King and Bishops

I'm sure there are other similarities. I see no reason why a GM should not be religious, not even in fact suffer from a mental dissorder, which I believe Ficsher did.

Originally posted by divegeester
Interesting thread. The premis implies however that chess players never do anything ilogical or irrational, which would deny thier humanity. Religious beliefs are not based on logic, but there is reason and rational involved for some believers at least.

One could also argue the similarities between chess and (some) religions:

Both are based on ...[text shortened]... ot be religious, not even in fact suffer from a mental dissorder, which I believe Ficsher did.

…Both will be attacked or criticised by the uninitiated or unbelievers
.…

How does this apply to chess?

And doesn’t religion often also attacked or criticise (and also oppress or even murder) the uninitiated or unbelievers?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
however i feel dismayed when people are still attacking Fischers character because of the views he holds, no doubt based on his experience.

I know nothing about the man other than he played chess and what I have heard in this thread. But I see nothing wrong with attacking a persons character because of the views they hold. Surely that is the best reason to attack someones character? Where they got the views may be interesting but that doesn't make the views right, nor excusable nor does it make the persons character any less flawed.
If he was a racist then I will attack his character.
I have met many racists who were very nice people in all other aspects of their lives often very generous etc.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Both will be attacked or criticised by the uninitiated or unbelievers
.…

How does this apply to chess?

And doesn’t religion often also attacked or criticise (and also oppress or even murder) the uninitiated or unbelievers?[/b]

It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to my wife moaning about how much time i spend on it, and some of my collegues calling me a nerd as I play it online! My wider point in my post is that you cannot logically assosiate chess masters with a lack of religion.

Likewise to your point Andrew, you cannot infer that because bad things have been done in the name of religion = therefore religion is bad.

Yes terrible things have been done in the name of religion. And in the name of politics, and in the name of love...or hate, or in the name of sport even, or in the name of science at times. The hypocrisy related of those done in the name of religion, in no way diminishes those done with other motivations.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
however one must remember that a dictionary just has someone else interpretation that's all

Umm... no it is not just someone's interpretation. The point of a dictionary is that it contains the agreed upon definitions of the words in a language. There are abridged and unabridged dictionaries with different variations depending on where they come ...[text shortened]... and it is a shame that his legacy is marred by his own stupid and prejudiced views.

i am sorry this is simply unacceptable! it is well understood that the Arabs are Semites, therfore, when Israel very recently entered Palestine and killed hundreds of people were they accused of being anti Semitical? No, but why not for the Arabs are also Semites! therefore i am not accepting this definition of antisemitism for it is flawed and erroneous and fails on every premise! i gave the concession that it has become part of common culture to term attacks solely on the Jews as antisemitical, but this is a bastardization and corruption of the term Semite! you may site all the references you like, i will not accept it if it excludes reference to the Arabs!

actually Fischer cannot be accused therefore on this basis of antisemitism, no siree!, he was certainly anti Jewish, but not all Jews as has been erroneously proposed, therefore we cannot also accuse him of indiscriminate racism. For example when he stayed in Hungry he stayed at the family home of the Polgars, Sophia Polgar relates this on you tube if anyone is interested, were they not Jewish? why would Fischer stay with this family if he hated all Jews? now we know he was a man of principle, therefore its inconceivable that he would, is it not, for there were many others who would gladly have offered him hospitality! No, what Fischer was referring to was specifically what he felt was a global conspiracy of bankers, financiers, publishers and media moguls, who for the best part were of Jewish extraction and were not only intent on having him silenced but were subversive and manipulative in politics and elsewhere, is anyone prepared to deny that this is the case?

please note that i myself am completely non political, have never voted, nor ever will, but rest my hope in Gods Kingdom to establish peace and justice upon the earth!