But what’s there to forgive, none of these people has done anything to you. This is exactly analogous to some Muslims hating some Danish cartoonists.

You might say that you don’t like Henry Ford as a person, but you’d probably like Bobby Fischer even less.

Bobby Fischer was a chess genius who was so strong he fought the entire Russian chess machine and his own demons to excel and set new standards in the field. His brilliance, creativity and strength in all areas of the game are to be treasured.

I was a teenager in the seventies; to me he seemed like the combination of all my favorite players: Harry Pillsbury; the devastating attacks of Paul Morphy; the great attacking style of Alexander Alhekine (without the drinking); the psychological determination and great positional play of Emanual Lasker (“the best move is the one which most unsettles the opponent”); and the easy, casual excellence—especially in the endgame—of Jose Raoul Capablanca (though Capa never trained or studied seriously, and Bobby showed that hard work REALLY paid off).

He clearly was mentally imbalanced. But one can separate great talent from other, obviously negative aspects of their personality.

I compare him, in a fashion, to Pete Rose – – great baseball player, but deeply flawed by betting on the game and then denying it forever. Or Michael Ray Richardson – – terrific basketball player who could not get his drug problems under control.

And of course, John Nash – – great physicist whose mental illness led him to anti-Semitic rantings.

In contradistinction, I refer to Henry Ford. Clearly a business genius, yet also an unrepentent anti-Semite. No mental illness here. He is one I do NOT forgive!

I want to remember the chess genius, and my heart goes out to him for the many years he suffered—tormented by his demons, often quite lonely, and who knows how happy?

Rest in peace – – baruch dayan emes.

Indeed. But the far greater measure of this slant is in America; the lesser so in Europe (save Russia’s Pravda, in which (transliterated) he is labeled a “Chess Scandalist”. Draw your own Sociological conclusions.

..which is quite out of character, both for yourself and CT. If you don’t mind my saying so.

Philosophy pays more? REALLY? So does delivering newspapers. Please forgive me, but although you seem less artificially transcendent (to be polite) than “aa”, and to be sure given the limits of my edumacation (Studied Kant with Tonelli and Chess with Lombardy, in terms of the subject matter at hand), the only thing I agree with is 66% of your Chess Book ranking. Beyond that,you BOTH clearly need to go to the Cadillac Ranch for a month. I’ll foot the bill.

“I definitely agree with you that a Foucaultian archaeology of chess would be a fascinating study!”

OMG. Give me a break. Ask for Myra at the Cadillac. She’ll “deconstruct” whats ailing you.

“A Foucaultian aerchaeology of Chess”. I don’t need any more humor for 2008. This will keep me laughing for the entire year….

also: pynchon seems fairly on top of HIS paranoias, and his ability to travel below media radar is as admirable as it’s enviable

back in the day i always felt sorry for spassky and wanted him to win: i think this is because he was called “boris”; i disapproved of bobby f’s misbehaviour—i was a very judgmental 12-yr-old

Woudn’t have got that today, Jim Harrison, don’t have the right surname, si sabes lo que quiero decir.

Well, racism can be caught, as a matter of fact. Young people are especially susceptible.

Beyond that, I don’t understand your point.

“I find the process of development of chess theory more interesting than the theory itself, particularly when compared to the way the various natural sciences have developed. And because it is narrowly defined and has limited objectives, it could make a nice case study.”

Respectfully: My FIDE-equivalent rating is roughly 2350 and I am reasonably literate in the sciences, as well as the history of science, the philosophy of science, etc. etc. Nevertheless, I have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. None. I would be interested in playing you a few games via sundry Internet Chess websites to gauge your understanding of the game, and perhaps form a simple opinion on your qualifications. I would consider myself unqualified. With further respect: Your expressions call to mind I. A. Horowitz on Chess, or C. Sagan on formal astrophysics. Neither were taken seriously. Convince me otherwise.

It is impossible to understand Fischer.

I studied and became friends with Lombardy in the late 90’s. Bill is a well-educated and extremely brilliant renaissance-type man. He kept his thoughts to himself on Bobby, but once simply said to the effect: ‘he’s crazy’. Now go ahead and take that one word ‘crazy’ and project into it WHATEVER your genetics and experience compel you to.

We’ll miss you Bobby. Now go have ‘a few’ with Misha and pick up where you left off…..

I don’t give a damn if someone says something offensive, all that matters is that we’re able to agree that it’s offensive. Beyond that the response becomes more about insecurity and irrational fear than reason, as if racism, or insanity, were an infectious disease that could be caught. Another reason to hate the terminology of “memes.” Still if you want to follow such a passive logic, the only way to inoculate yourself against disease is by being exposed to it.
The point is to understand Fischer. Embarrassment is a symptom of humanity, but defending it is silly.

Fischer’s defenders are blinded by his skill at chess.

We are horrified when public personalities make vastly less offensive remarks, yet Fischer is excused. This is just a particular status system – the world of chess – letting those at the top do whatever they want.

It’s fundamentally no different than the high school football star being indulged for all sorts of misbehavior as long as he produces on the field.