• 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.

Bobby Fischer Dead

Senex said:
Yes, you have an opinion about something you don't have a clue about. Most people are as simple minded as yourself.
Click to expand...

OK that's fine - but what does it have to do with loving commies?

Senex said:
I'll play against people who worship Mr. Fishcer in good faith and I will humiliate anyone who wishes to play in bad faith.
Click to expand...

Morphy was the best American player.
 
Ian Osborne said:
So Kennedy should be remembered for shagging Marilyn Monroe? And Churchill for smoking and drinking too much?
Click to expand...
If you don't think leading major western nations relatively well through significant challenges reflects on the character of these men, then yes, I think that's how you should remember them. I have to admit, it's a comparison that never occurred to me: Churchill, JFK, Bobby Fischer... smoking cigars, having affairs, celebrating 9/11...
Diogenes said:
Sounds unreasonable to me ..
Bad behavior is celebrated in the multi billion dollar media industry ...
Click to expand...
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Diogenes said:
No one has said it makes up for it .. That is your and Checkmite's straw man ..
Click to expand...
No it isn't. Maybe you're not saying it makes up for it, but Senex sure is, I think it's reasonable to interpret Ian Osborne's comments that way, and I think others, in this thread and outside of it, have as well. Is Fischer great in spite of his lunatic anti-Semitism, or is he vile in spite of his amazing chess genius? I believe that there are plenty of people who would argue the former, and that's what bothers me.

Even if I am wrong, that doesn't transform my argument into a strawman. A strawman argument is one where the arguer intentionally constructs a bad argument and attributes it to his opponent for the purpose of easily disproving the bad argument and thus making his opponent look bad. If I am wrong, I have made a good-faith mistake about my opponents' argument - I have not invented the argument for my own dishonest purposes.

I doubt that studying law is either ..

Sure you don't need some more straw ?
Click to expand...
I'm glad you've heard the word "strawman" somewhere, and have acquired a vague notion of what it might mean, but trust me, not every argument you don't like is a strawman argument. What you're actually accusing me of in this last bit is not strawman, but hypocrisy, which is not a fallacy at all. The fallacy actually belongs to you, and it's tu quoque, which can be considered a species of ad hominem. Your point fails because I've never claimed that being a law student is all that worthwhile, and I've never claimed that I am (or anyone else is) a great person because of law school performance and in spite of bigotry. If I had, you would be right to criticize, but still wrong to ask if I needed more straw.
 
linusrichard said:
If you don't think leading major western nations relatively well through significant challenges reflects on the character of these men, then yes, I think that's how you should remember them. I have to admit, it's a comparison that never occurred to me: Churchill, JFK, Bobby Fischer... smoking cigars, having affairs, celebrating 9/11...

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Click to expand...
We were not discussing good vs bad , we were discussing whether someone's bad behavior should always overshadow their good.. You said it should in the case of Fischer..
Why ?
He was a much better chess player than a foul mouthed political extremist .. He didn't seem to have much following in that regard..

I say again..... He won't be remembered for the latter.. ( By the overwhelming majority of people who know who he was. )

I apologize if I incorrectly accused you of building straw men ..
 
Last edited:
linusrichard said:
I have to admit, it's a comparison that never occurred to me: Churchill, JFK, Bobby Fischer... smoking cigars, having affairs, celebrating 9/11...
Click to expand...

And a comparison I never made. It was you who said Fischer should be judged on what best sums up his character. I merely asked if that applies to others, and apparently it doesn't. You seem to want to judge Churchill and Kennedy on their ability and achievements. Unlike Fischer.

Is Fischer great in spite of his lunatic anti-Semitism, or is he vile in spite of his amazing chess genius? I believe that there are plenty of people who would argue the former, and that's what bothers me.
Click to expand...

It's perfectly possible to be vile and great, and as Fischer's political opinions - which were probably shaped by mental illness - had nothing to do with his qualities as a chess player, it's perfectly possible to celebrate the latter while condemning the former. And for the record, I do condemn the former.
 
EGarrett said:
That's another fascinating topic he brought up. The "Clubber Lang Effect" is indeed real. One motivated man, if he is talented enough, can reach greater heights than an entire team of people without real passion.

This is related, somewhat, to one of my favorite wikipedia articles...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasparov_versus_the_World. Garry Kasparov, on his own, played an entire message board of thousands of people all colluding and voting on what moves to make against him. It was a long, drawn out battle...but Kasparov ultimately defeated them. The power of one, indeed.
Click to expand...

And Deep Blue beat Kasparov. ^_^
 
Ian Osborne said:
And a comparison I never made. It was you who said Fischer should be judged on what best sums up his character. I merely asked if that applies to others, and apparently it doesn't. You seem to want to judge Churchill and Kennedy on their ability and achievements. Unlike Fischer.
Click to expand...
I believe that Churchill's and Kennedy's achievements reflect on their characters. Unlike Fischer's. I don't like it when people get a pass on being awful people because they're good at their jobs. Bobby Knight is another great example of this - though not as good at his job as Fischer, nor as awful a person, it's still an example of someone getting a pass on bad behavior because he's good at what he does. When you get to Churchill and Kennedy, I think the nature of their "jobs" means that you can't separate the two out as easily as you can with someone like Fischer or Knight or me or probably you.

But you do make a fair point. If Fischer were merely guilty of telling a sexist joke now and then, instead of all the stuff he said, I'd probably, on balance, consider him a figure to be celebrated. So it's not just that you look at what reflects on his character and ignore abilities and achievements - I was being sloppy. You also have to look at the magnitude of them, the effect they have on the world around them, etc.

It's perfectly possible to be vile and great, and as Fischer's political opinions - which were probably shaped by mental illness - had nothing to do with his qualities as a chess player, it's perfectly possible to celebrate the latter while condemning the former. And for the record, I do condemn the former.
Click to expand...

I think I agree with all of this. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if his chess talent were also shaped to some extent by mental "illness" - if he's to escape blame for his bigotry, should he be denied credit for his genius?)

But to go back to my original point - what bothers me is not that I think people should ignore or not celebrate the genius. It's just that I feel that they're minimizing the bigotry.
 
Senex said:
Bobby Fisher is the best prototype of an American.
Click to expand...

The prototypical American renounces his American citizenship? :boggled:
What is an American other than someone who has American citizenship? It's not an ethnic group.
 
linusrichard said:
............
But to go back to my original point - what bothers me is not that I think people should ignore or not celebrate the genius. It's just that I feel that they're minimizing the bigotry.
Click to expand...

You still seem to be ignoring the fact, that if it wasn't for his chess prowess, you ( or very few people anywhere ) would even know he existed..

So you really should be celebrating his chess genius for giving you this opportunity to demonize him ...
 
Diogenes said:
So you really should be celebrating his chess genius for giving you this opportunity to demonize him ...
Click to expand...

Exactly. Giving his views on world politics and race relations any credence at all is one step away from being an Appeal to Authority fallacy...
 
Diogenes said:
Checkmite said:



Nice try though ...
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I'm following you. Tal did have a winning record with Bobby. Granted, all four of Tal's wins came in the 1959 Candidates Tournament when Fischer was only sixteen. Bobby's win at Bled 1961 was a good game, but his win in Curacao 1962 came when Tal was so ill he soon had to drop out of the tournament and be hospitalized.
 
Diogenes said:
You still seem to be ignoring the fact, that if it wasn't for his chess prowess, you ( or very few people anywhere ) would even know he existed..
Click to expand...
I'm ignoring it because it's not relevant to what I'm saying. I accept that this is true.
So you really should be celebrating his chess genius for giving you this opportunity to demonize him ...
Click to expand...
Ian Osborne said:
Exactly. Giving his views on world politics and race relations any credence at all is one step away from being an Appeal to Authority fallacy...
Click to expand...
What fallacy? What credence? What is it you think I'm saying?
 
pomeroo said:
I'm not sure I'm following you. Tal did have a winning record with Bobby. Granted, all four of Tal's wins came in the 1959 Candidates Tournament when Fischer was only sixteen. Bobby's win at Bled 1961 was a good game, but his win in Curacao 1962 came when Tal was so ill he soon had to drop out of the tournament and be hospitalized.
Click to expand...

What don't you get about " ... on the few occasions that Fischer played Tal, Tal usually beat him. "

..... not being true ?

' Usually ' would mean he beat him more often than not ... Which is obviously not the case ..

I don't care if was in sanctioned competition or not ... He didn't USUALLY beat Fischer ... So it is inaccurate to say so ...

The appeal to pity doesn't count either ...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom