Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
It also helps to study and understand things like racism, Anti-Semitism etc...until you really know why people believe them and why they are incorrect...then it's easier to not take them to heart and to just recognize them as simple fallacious or childish mistakes of thinking. If you need an example...H.P. Lovecraft was a known racist and named his cat "******-Man" (it starred out my "n-word")...but it doesn't stop me from appreciating his talent as a writer.
People can have ideosyncracies, even revolting ones such as racism. Hey, everybody's different.
But Fischer crossed a line. He wasn't just anti-semitic. He publically advocated full-scale genocide. This isn't a "simple" or "childish" folly; it's grevious. So grevious that, in my opinion, it can't just be ignored simply because he was a really good chess player. You can't compare the depths of Fischer's hatred to someone's alcoholism, or philandering. The guy shouted out some of the most vile and horrific things I've ever heard from any human being ever. And...this is just OK? "Oh well, genocide isn't that bad...he's a hero!" No. And, as I've stated earlier, I refuse to jump on the "he was 'ill'" bandwagon simply because it makes his disgraceful behavior a little easier to excuse.
Yeah, so, exactly which mental illnesses cause people to deny the Holocaust, praise the 9/11 attacks, and complain that the world is run by evil Jew conspiracies? Which of these debilitating mental ailments causes a loss of cognitive reasoning in all areas except when playing chess?
That was apparently a response to the USA trying to stop him playing against Spassky, because of pointless, strong arm, cold war politics. He equally hated the Commies and the USA.
As I am positive you are aware, the champion always enjoys an advantage. Botvinnik retained the title not by defeating Bronstein, but by achieving a 12-12 tie. Likewise, Kramnik defended his title with a 7-7 tie against Peter Leko. And with Fischer out of the way, Karpov began to make demands that FAR EXCEEDED anything Fischer could have dreamt of, such as the notorious "right to rematch" clause, where you effectively have to be defeated twice in a row to be permanently dethroned.
The fact that you are obviously a chess buff and know all of this in advance, and still make such fallacious arguments, only leads me to conclude that you are trying to intentionally spread disinformation.
That legend is totally apocryphal. There isn't one whit of evidence that he ever made any such demand. It's a lie, plain and simple. The fact that this old canard comes up in so many different contexts (in one version, it was a demand that he made of a hotel in the 1960's) is characteristic of urban folkloke. For what it's worth, Fischer too has denied it.
I'll forgive you for being ignorant in that matter, since I've seen it in print so many times it's conceivable that you might actually believe it to be true.
Look, Checkmite, I don't want to fight here. I'm half Jewish myself. I don't like Fischer's comments during his later life any more than you do. But to take the occasion of a man's death, a man who gave the world so very much, and use it as an opportunity to malign him shows absolutely no class whatsoever.
Everybody has the right to criticize a man while he's alive, and should he die, once the period of grieving passes, it is not out of bounds to criticize him again. But during the occasion of his passing, while millions are grieving the loss, you come along with an upside-down eulogy that gloats over his renal failure while dredging up the worst dirt you can find on him, lies included. In my mind this is unforgivable, and highly hypocritical. Here you are attacking his character while revealing you have a seriously flawed character yourself.
And another thing Checkmite, if this quote that "advocates genocide" as you put it bothers you so very much, then why do you feel it necessary to change Fischer's words in your signature?
A little historical revisionism there, hhhhhmmmmmm? Why don't you actually put what Fischer really said in your quote instead of distorting it?
Oh, I fully agree that what Fischer said was vile--quite vile. But why do you find it necessary to take something vile and distort it to make it appear much worse?
Don't tell me you didn't do that on purpose. When I do a google search on the phrase "execute hundreds of thousand of Jews" I find no documents. I'm sure in a few days we'll find your posts at the JREF forum, and nothing else. If you're really going to go down this path at least don't lie about. If Fischer is as bad as you say he is, you shouldn't need to stuff new words in his mouth.
I think Checkmite is entitled to get angry when it comes to statements like Fischer made.
The important point that I'm making...and I think you're making to some degree, Unalienable, is that the logic of "Bobby Fischer was a sickening Anti-Semite, therefore he was overrated as a Chess player" doesn't work.
I also think it would help a lot if we reiterated that Fischer's Anti-Semitism was akin to an empty religious belief...he was challenged on it in public and had no justification whatsoever for what he was saying. (he just stammered and said "I've read a lot of books.") Furthermore, it never follows that you should do anything to an ethnic group because certain members do things you don't like. That's just simple racist fallacy and that's what the quote (if Fischer said it in any form) from Fischer was. It's also true that if there is some conspiracy to power in the world, it's not Jewish people exclusively nor does it divide along racial or ethnic lines (see: The Bush Family.) So, I don't think there's much need to let Fischer's words rile us up to much. It's some sort of empty, cartoonish ranting.
I think Checkmite is entitled to get angry when it comes to statements like Fischer made.
The important point that I'm making...and I think you're making to some degree, Unalienable, is that the logic of "Bobby Fischer was a sickening Anti-Semite, therefore he was overrated as a Chess player" doesn't work.
I also think it would help a lot if we reiterated that Fischer's Anti-Semitism was akin to an empty religious belief...he was challenged on it in public and had no justification whatsoever for what he was saying. (he just stammered and said "I've read a lot of books.") Furthermore, it never follows that you should do anything to an ethnic group because certain members do things you don't like. That's just simple racist fallacy and that's what the quote (if Fischer said it in any form) from Fischer was. It's also true that if there is some conspiracy to power in the world, it's not Jewish people exclusively nor does it divide along racial or ethnic lines (see: The Bush Family.) So, I don't think there's much need to let Fischer's words rile us up to much. It's some sort of empty, cartoonish ranting.
I think when discussing Fischer or other people who excelled in their field, you do need to compartmentalise a little - As an anti-American anti-semite etc, he was no more or less than the hundreds of thousands of other such people in the world
As a chess player - he was among the greats, and potentially the greatest ever. Should we remember him for his actions that didn't set him aside from from many others, or focus on the thing that made him special.
Many years ago I read a book "Dreamweaver" An author went around and interviewed a number of science fiction authors about their day to day life and how it fitted in with their chosen craft. In a few instances, some of these authors came across as total nut jobs, who had very extreme, and some instances, unhealthy views on a number of topics.
Does this stop me enjoying their fiction? Does anyone buy a book because an author is a nice guy, or because they like the work he produces. Maybe Fischer deserves the same curtesy - as a person, he was less than desirable - As a chess player he was almost without peer
As I am positive you are aware, the champion always enjoys an advantage. Botvinnik retained the title not by defeating Bronstein, but by achieving a 12-12 tie. Likewise, Kramnik defended his title with a 7-7 tie against Peter Leko. And with Fischer out of the way, Karpov began to make demands that FAR EXCEEDED anything Fischer could have dreamt of, such as the notorious "right to rematch" clause, where you effectively have to be defeated twice in a row to be permanently dethroned.
We can "tu quoque" all we want; I don't think I ever implied that any of the people you mentioned were "better than Fischer"; I'm just talking about Fischer. But if you insist, I will certainly agree with you that Fischer was no better than Botvinnik, Kramnik, or Karpov when it came to making unreasonable and occasionally unfair demands.
The fact that you are obviously a chess buff and know all of this in advance, and still make such fallacious arguments, only leads me to conclude that you are trying to intentionally spread disinformation.
That legend is totally apocryphal. There isn't one whit of evidence that he ever made any such demand. It's a lie, plain and simple. The fact that this old canard comes up in so many different contexts (in one version, it was a demand that he made of a hotel in the 1960's) is characteristic of urban folkloke. For what it's worth, Fischer too has denied it.
I'll forgive you for being ignorant in that matter, since I've seen it in print so many times it's conceivable that you might actually believe it to be true.
Look, Checkmite, I don't want to fight here. I'm half Jewish myself. I don't like Fischer's comments during his later life any more than you do. But to take the occasion of a man's death, a man who gave the world so very much, and use it as an opportunity to malign him shows absolutely no class whatsoever.
Everybody has the right to criticize a man while he's alive, and should he die, once the period of grieving passes, it is not out of bounds to criticize him again. But during the occasion of his passing, while millions are grieving the loss, you come along with an upside-down eulogy that gloats over his renal failure while dredging up the worst dirt you can find on him, lies included. In my mind this is unforgivable, and highly hypocritical. Here you are attacking his character while revealing you have a seriously flawed character yourself.
Wait a second, now. OK, give me a break. "No class"??? Yeah, only a serious ***hole wouldn't give a rabidly-genocidal anti-Semite a break when the poor man dies.
OK, if Fischer's mother were here, and I attacked him, THAT would be classless. If his wife were here, or some old girlfriend that still really loved him. Maybe his best and closest friend, or something.
But you are just like me. Someone who's never met the guy, who really knows absolutely nothing about him except what you've read in books, newspapers, websites, and the like. You, just like me, have formed an opinion about him, and our respective opinions, based as they are on pretty much the same information, are equally valid and equally important.
Now he's dead, sure - but that fact doesn't make your third-hand opinion about Fischer any more important, valid, or "socially acceptable" than mine for a given length of time simply by virtue of the fact that your opinion of him happens to be "positive", while mine happens to be "negative". Claus once tried the same quasi-religious "don't speak ill of the dead" argument-from-emotion on me; I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now.
And another thing Checkmite, if this quote that "advocates genocide" as you put it bothers you so very much, then why do you feel it necessary to change Fischer's words in your signature?
A little historical revisionism there, hhhhhmmmmmm? Why don't you actually put what Fischer really said in your quote instead of distorting it?
Oh, I fully agree that what Fischer said was vile--quite vile. But why do you find it necessary to take something vile and distort it to make it appear much worse?
Don't tell me you didn't do that on purpose. When I do a google search on the phrase "execute hundreds of thousand of Jews" I find no documents. I'm sure in a few days we'll find your posts at the JREF forum, and nothing else. If you're really going to go down this path at least don't lie about. If Fischer is as bad as you say he is, you shouldn't need to stuff new words in his mouth.
At first this incensed me; but upon consideration, I discovered you were right - the quotes contained in my signature don't seem to appear anywhere on the internet. So, I understand your skepticism.
The quotes in my signature were transcribed by me directly from an audio clip, an interview featuring Bobby Fischer, given by a radio station in the Philippenes, a couple of hours after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The audio clip can be heard here:
Part One:
Part Two:
The quotes in my signature are all taken from Part Two. To my knowledge, the entire interview hasn't been transcribed on the web yet. I haven't changed any of Bobby's words.
I think when discussing Fischer or other people who excelled in their field, you do need to compartmentalise a little - As an anti-American anti-semite etc, he was no more or less than the hundreds of thousands of other such people in the world
As a chess player - he was among the greats, and potentially the greatest ever. Should we remember him for his actions that didn't set him aside from from many others, or focus on the thing that made him special.
See, I cannot do that. As I've said before, every man is the sum of all his parts, not just the pretty ones; spewing hate and advocating genocide doesn't become OK, or even "not as bad", for no other reason than because the guy happened to be good at chess.
If Bobby Fischer had done something which directly saved hundreds of lives, or kept a major charity from going under, or championed some other kind of tremendous humanitarian cause - OK, I can see something like that possibly eclipsing what he ended up doing. But he didn't do anything even close to so grand. He was good at playing a game. So, he got lots of other people interested in playing the game. But outside the dimension of that game, he didn't accomplish anything meaningful. That's not good enough to offset what he later did.
I'm not glad he's dead (I'm more of an "any man's death diminishes me" type), and I don't think he's in Hell (but only because I don't think there is one), but still -- I feel like the epitaph on Fischer is "Chess genius who happened to be a raving anti-Semite" when it should be "Raving anti-Semite who happened to be a chess genius."
Being good at what you do - even being incredibly great at what you do - should not give you a pass at being a basically vile human being. This is doubly true when what you do incredibly well is - and let's be honest here - play a game.
I didn't really know he hated Jews until this thread. I guess a Jew hating Jews must really bug some Jews. They seem to really hate Jews who hate them.
Which might explain some of the hatred here, between Jews.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
