Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Resplit

Splitting this off was a good idea, but I think this should be the main Bobby Fischer page, and what's now the main page should be moved to Bobby Fischer (biography). After all, the only reason anybody's interested in his biography is because of his chess career.

Any thoughts/objections? —Chowbok 01:19, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Nobody objected, so I did it. —Chowbok 15:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I did some work on the style of the Iceland section, but I will allow others to determine if it is enough to check it off of the 'to do' list. Youngamerican 18:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I created this separate article because the original article had exceeded the Wikipedia length for articles. Previously there was no way to expand upon the chess career aspect of this subject, nor the biographical aspects. This separation now allows for both. Undoubtedly some editors will want to further tweak this article as well as expand upon it now that the space has been created. MPLX/MH 00:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Iam unhappy with this article, when it states that all Soviet players declined on principle to fight it out amongst each other early on in the stages of tournaments so they could solely force their attacks on the non-Soviet contingent. Where's the proof in this? I have read copious materials about the likes of Tal and Botvinnik, and they played not only for the glory of their country, but also themselves. Unless sufficient proof of this is given, I am slamming an NPOV warning on it pronto. --Knucmo2 18:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you have the knowledge (and you seem to), just go ahead and rewrite it because it takes more energy and time debating stuff than correcting errors. Just remember your to cite your own sources. MPLX/MH 23:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is, of course, virtually impossible to prove such claims beyond all doubt, but I don't believe the article states it as fact anyway; rather, the way I read it, it says that it was possible in principle, that Fischer believed it happened, and that rules in later cycles were changed in response to his complaints. Perhaps a little rewriting could be done to make it clearer we're dealing with an opinion (albeit a rather widely held one) rather than definite fact, but I don't find the article terribly misleading as it stands. --Camembert

Hello, and thanks for your response. Firstly, I always appeal to the talk pages if there is any dispute about something, to inhibit the possibility of an edit war, in other words, seeking others' implicit permission to do so. These errant claims need to be stated in the form of a claim, the article does not read as such, it reads more as a given. I do not know where you quote the terribly, it was not mentioned in my article. Nor did I suggest that the overall article, whatever can be meant by that, is misleading and deceptive. However, usually NPOV disputes usually mean the 'whole' of an article. Furthermore, an opinion widely held may be one worth stating for the history books, but it is certainly not one which increases its validity, which I am sure you will know.--Knucmo2 23:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What happened really in 1975/76?

Some years ago I read in several books and articles (german/dutch/french) that Robert Fischer met Anatoly Karpov at least three times personally at various locations in 1975/76. At least one source maintained that they met in Manila (other cited Bangkok), Tokyo and Madrid (Linares?), moreover some authors charged that Karpov successfully intimidated Fischer with some kind of psychological warfare. Assisted by KGB psychowarfare experts he was able to exploit Fischers personal weaknesses with the effect that Fischer was too frightened to play against him in Manila. Karpov keeps mum about these episodes and only acknowledges a meeting with Fischer in Spain in 1976 where Karpov agressively refused to play agaist Fischer on the old terms, because he considered himself as the legitimate champion. Are these allegations true or simple examples of common Soviet/Karpov bashing? Perhaps has some user more knowledge about this mysterious period? -- G.R.S 9 Jul 2005

Sounds too speculative to repeat in Wikipedia imo, especially since the sources disagree about even the basic facts. --Malathion 9 July 2005 05:54 (UTC)

---

Yes, history should not be based on cold-war speculation, thats like saying that Hemmingway killed himself because of a "special" treatment the CIA gaved him because of his friendship with Fidel Castro, a supposed treatment wich ultimately caused his depresion and suicide. Yet, such fact is untrue, is just pure especulation, and its just one of the many tales circulating in the middle of cold war. Anatoly Karpov retained his tittle for 10 years until 1985 when he lost against Kasparov.

1992 Purse

A $1m purse in 1992 is inconsistent with the following paragraph that states that Fischer took a $3.3m prize. I've changed it from $1m to $5m as that seems to be correct based on a few searches (and references at the bottom of the article.) I am in no way an expert; if someone knows better, feel free to improve (and explain!) Blorg 14:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The total prize fund was $5m, of which Fischer, as the winner, was due $3.35m, the remainder going to Spassky (see, for example, Davies, Pein and Levitt, Bobby Fischer: The $5,000,000 Comeback). I believe there is some question-mark over whether either player actually received this amount, however--somebody might want to look into that. --Camembert 20:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) (copied from Talk:Bobby Fischer)

Featured Article status

I think this is an outstanding and detailed article. I'm going to try to get the ball rolling on having it upgraded to featured status. --Malathion 28 June 2005 09:12 (UTC)

Fischer Jewish?

I am removing this artice from the Jewish chess players category. Fischer denies being Jewish and given the subjectivity of such ethnic assignments I think it's best that Wikipedia stay out of it. --Malathion 28 June 2005 09:28 (UTC)

Fischer does deny being Jewish, but this doesn't change the fact. See Jew for a discussion of how the term Jewish is commonly applied. Quale 28 June 2005 15:10 (UTC)

In modern usage, Jews include both those Jews actively practicing Judaism, and those Jews who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jews by virtue of their family's Jewish heritage and their own cultural identification. I don't see which of these definitions matches Fischer. --Malathion 29 June 2005 01:25 (UTC)

You skipped the very first line of the article: "The word Jew (Hebrew: יהודי) is used in a wide number of ways, but generally refers to a follower of the Jewish faith, a child of a Jewish mother, or someone of Jewish descent with a connection to Jewish culture or ethnicity and often a combination of these attributes." Fischer's mother was Jewish, and the man likely to have been his biological father was Jewish too. There are many, many references that identify Fischer as ethnically Jewish, so unless you can find convincing references that say he's not Jewish, that claim is original research. You should note that he is correctly listed in List of Jews#Chess Players as well. Quale 5 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

The Jew article is my reference. Given that we have a huge article dedciated to the controversy surrounding Who is a Jew? which reaches no concrete conclusion and Fischer still disputes it, it seems that characterizing him as a Jew would be arbitrarily accepting one definition of "Jew" over another.

Thanks for pointing out List of Jews#Chess Players. I'm removing him now. --Malathion 5 July 2005 21:34 (UTC)

After looking at that article again, I think it's fine to have him on it since it seems to include anyone who could be considered Jewish by any conceivable definition. I'm still opposed to putting the category in this article, though I think it might be a good idea to mention the controversy somewhere in the article. --Malathion 5 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)

Fischer doesn't even (consistently) deny being Jewish -- he describes himself as "Part Jewish. My mother is Jewish." in the 1962 Ginzburg interview. I think it is reasonable to include in him in the category if according to some definitions he is Jewish. But in any case, I agree Fischer's complex relationship with Judaism is worth discussing in the article. Neilc 6 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he hasn't always denied it, but he does now. You point is taken though. After further deliberation I think it would be okay to have the category as long as the body mentions that he vehemently denies being Jewish. --Malathion 6 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)

Interesting to note that Boris Spassky is also partly of Jewish ancestry ("mother Jewish") according to List of Jews#Chess Players, and is also an anti-Semite like Fischer. --billbrock

I previously put in a link to Who is a Jew? which I think is an acceptable compromise. If you read that link, you will see that some Jewish groups say, "Even those descendants who are not aware they are Jews, or practice a faith other than Judaism, are technically still Jews, as long as they come from an unbroken female line of descent". Therefore, since whether Fischer is a Jew is open to debate, the link should remain, and I have reverted its removal. Rocksong 02:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is not a good idea: 1) The chapter is about his antisemitic views, not about his ethnicity. 2) The wording is IMHO far from perfect; why he "should be" considered to be Jewish himself? - the theory which is described in the article Who is a Jew? is a Jewish/Sionist ideology, not relevant for most of the world population - allow me to think that Jews are simply those claiming to be Jews, please, just like with all other groups.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree on (1) that the link is in the wrong chapter. It belongs in the early chapter where his Jewish background is mentioned. On (2): the article Who is a Jew?, while far from perfectly written, does present more than one view. There are some people who would regard Fischer to be a Jew - in fact, his type of situation is one of the 3 contentious areas discussed - so the question isn't settled 100%, so the Fischer article shouldn't say that it is. I've no problem with rewording it to suggest he is not a Jew, e.g. to say something like, "Most people would not consider Fischer to be Jewish because he has renounced the Jewish religion - see Who is a Jew?". However I think it is important to link to the article for people to read and decide. Rocksong 13:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, let us have the link in a more appropriate part of the article (or in External links) and please reword it. I would only not use the phrase "most people" because we do not have a survey of the world population about the views of the majority in this issue. Greetings,--Ioannes Pragensis 07:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Chessmetrics

Please see the Chessmetrics methods site for a discussion of its methods. Chessmetrics ratings have demostrated significant predictive value and it seems quite relevant that Fischer was the most dominant champion in chess. I really don't mean to be snippy, but please educate yourself before reverting edits because you do not understand them. --Malathion 2 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)

Please don't assume that people who disagree with you are "uneducated" -- I was already familiar with Chessmetrics and how their statistics works. My objection was not "Chessmetrics uses inaccurate statistical techniques" or similar. My point is that (a) citing something that is likely to be unknown to 95% of the audience is probably of limited value (b) puting an obscure citation in the introductory text of the article is not the right place (c) your revision removed a lot of useful content and was therefore not an improvement anyway. BTW, while I have no quarrel with Chessmetrics' "predictive value", is it actually an accepted and reputable reference source for chess statistics, or just a hobbyist's website? (I haven't seen it referenced outside Wikipedia articles, but perhaps I just live in a cave.) Neilc 2 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)

while I have no quarrel with Chessmetrics' "predictive value", is it actually an accepted and reputable reference source for chess statistics, or just a hobbyist's website? Both. I agree that naming Chessmetrics might be confusing if the reader hasn't heard of the site. How about we leave the statement about Fischer's dominance and let the reference carry readers to chessmetrics if they follow it? --Malathion 2 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)

I'm fine with a reference to Chessmetrics somewhere in the article body, I just didn't like it (a) being placed prominently in the introductory text as the main indication of Fischer's chess ability (b) replacing some decent descriptive text about Fischer's chess dominance. Neilc 3 July 2005 07:06 (UTC)

Well, Chessmetrics referencing aside (I think we agree it shouldn't be explicitly mentioned in the intro) I just don't like this section of the introduction:

He was the second American to have been hailed as world chess champion, the first being Paul Morphy in 1858 (though Morphy did not proclaim himself world champion, so Wilhelm Steinitz, who did, is considered the first official world champion). Fischer is considered by most to have been one of the hardest working and most gifted chess players of all time.

The first sentence is very wordy and has less to do with Fischer than with the general history of chess. The second is just vacuous and weasel language. It's not clear what is meant by "most gifted" and its impossible to confirm whether he was indeed the "hardest working". I think Chessmetrics has made a good case that of reigning world champions he was the most dominant over the secondary competition, which is why I think it is a good candidate for a replacement- at the very least, it is relevant, verfifiable, and falsifiable. I would be happy with a better suggestion though. My main aim here is to improve that part of the introduction somehow. --Malathion 3 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)

Regarding Fischer as world champion, I agree the existing text could be improved. Perhaps just state that Fischer was the second American world champion, and explain the details of the Morphy situation in a footnote, or later in the article's text? About trying to have a "verifiable and falsifiable" way to talk about Fischer's dominance over the competition, I agree the current text is a bit weasly, but I'm not sure that a reference to a statistical database is an improvement (at least by itself). Even if Chessmetrics were a well-known, universally accepted way of assessing chess ability, just talking about statistics doesn't express Fischer's dominance with any "color". There are certainly plenty of grandmasters who have testified to Fischer's brilliance; perhaps we could say "Fischer was described by [ Tal / Petrosian / Keres / etc. ] as '...'" (insert your favourite positive assessment of Fischer). That would remove the weasel phrasing -- while not "falsifiable", a leading GM certainly qualifies as an expert whose opinion on Fischer's talent should carry some weight. Perhaps it is also worth mentioning the 1972 Spassky match in the introduction, as that was the apogee of Fischer's chess career. Neilc 3 July 2005 13:49 (UTC)

Jackpot. Garry Kasparov said "The gap between Mr. Fischer and his contemporaries was the largest ever." I'm getting to work on merging this article with Bobby Fischer (biography) and I'll put that in at the end. --Malathion 4 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)

Fischer's peak rating

In Wikipedia entry "International Grandmaster", a list compiled by Przemek Jahr mentions Bobby Fischer's peak rating at 2785, while this entry mentions a peak rating of 2795.

POV-section

The section goes :

Fischer made several important contributions to chess theory. In particular, his success playing the Black side of the so-called "Poisoned Pawn" variation of the Najdorf Sicilian (1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qb6!) revolutionized both the particular variation, and the way chess professionals viewed opening theory in general. Fischer's plan of quickly developing the queen and snatching a pawn violated centuries of time-tested opening principles, but through rigorous analysis, Fischer was able to prove that the variation was perfectly safe for the second player. Consequently, chessplayers began to weigh concrete analysis over blind adherence to principles, which has subsequently led to many similarly shocking discoveries.

• The whole tone of the section is obviously not neutral. The author gives the impression that Fischer = God Almighty. How can that be neutral?
• Since this is apparently not so obvious to everyone, concrete objects from my part are: "revolutionized..." = POV-word (one opening doesn't revolutionize anything, especially since he was its main adherent -- in fact, several grandmasters considered Fischer opening to be his weakest point (still dispoted)) ; "violated centuries of time-tested opening principles" = POV (chess changes all the time) "perfectly safe" = POV (if it was "perfectly safe" you would never lose), "Fischer was able to prove that the variation was perfectly safe for the second player" = POV (the variation is hardly played after Fischer lost the first game against Spassky in 1972) ; "chessplayers began to weigh concrete analysis over blind adherence to principles" = POV (I really doubt that chessplayers before Fischer played according to "blind adherence of principles" Did Nimzowitsch? Did Petrosian? Did Capablanca?) // Fred-Chess 00:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. ⟳ausa کui ^× 00:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your slightly condenscending and unpersonal words :-)

Unfortunately, the best solution I can see is to delete the section entirely. // Fred-Chess 00:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Deleted article

Recent edit: "List too long, doesn't help the articel, no need to maintain it at all imo" - I agree with you 100%—which is why I voted not to delete, and certainly not to merge, that article in the VfD. Since you feel the same way, apparently, you should have voted on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_who_have_beaten_Bobby_Fischer_in_chess VfD. ... Which you'd have been able to do if they'd ever bothered to link to that vote on this Talk page, where just about all the people involved and informed on the matter would have seen it and been able to vote, unlike practically hiding it on such a much more obscure sub-page. The failure to do that, plus the troubling fact that all the last few votes were for "keep" and the vote was closed almost immediately after this strong trend of keep votes began, makes me highly doubt the validity of the results of the aforementioned VfD. Just check out the vote timeline:

• 23 October: nominate; 1 delete, 1 keep
• 24 October: 3 merge, 2 delete, 2 merge or delete
• 25 October: nothing
• 26 October: 1 merge
• 27 October: nothing
• 28 October: nothing
• 29 October: nothing
• 30 October: nothing
• 31 October: 1 keep
• 1 November: 2 keep
• 2 November: nothing
• 3 November: nothing
• 4 November: 1 strong keep; closed

The timeline shows that this closure was definitely premature, whether the results were accurate or not. And I don't think they were at all: consensus was really established, just look at the results:

• 4 votes for delete
• 5 votes for merge
• 5 for keep

That looks like the opposite of a consensus to me - in fact, "merge" barely even got a basic majority, at 55.5%! (I suck at math; it didn't even get anywhere near a majority, it got 35.7% of the votes) It also got exactly as many votes as "keep" (less, in fact, if you don't count "delete or merge" as .5 votes for delete and .5 for merge and took the votes more literally, which would put "delete or merge" at 2, delete at 3 votes, merge at 4, and do not merge/keep at 5!), and hadn't gotten a single vote in nine days, out of the twelve total days allowed for the vote. Delete hadn't gotten a vote in eleven days, for that matter. Why was this ended so prematurely, right when voting was starting to pick up again after a five-day lull and the tide was very clearly turning? -Silence 07:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Note however that you are being tendentious classifying "redirects" into the other options just because you consider redirecting a bad option, but that's your opinion, not the opinion of those who said redirect too. And what's this fuzz al labout? You accused me not to post a note here to attract more people for the discussion, but you didn't either! How about opening a request for undelete then? -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

And while we're at tit, why not notyfying Chess people? Or Kasparov people, since this affects them in the case of a similar page is done for Kasparov, why not all the other grandmasters pages? That's homework for you -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, what? Are you joking? Redirect makes no difference whatsoever. I'm also getting slightly tired of the repeated accusations and attacks on my character, with claims like "just because you consider redirecting a bad option"—when did I ever state that I think redirecting is a bad option?! If we went ahead with deleting or merging rather than keeping, I'd think not redirecting was a bad idea!! "Merge and redirect" is more than obviously a vote for merge, the "redirect" is incidental and an unrelated issue that has nothing to do with any of the problems I mentioned above, and nothing to do with the vote in general; I doubt many of the people who didn't vote "redirect" oppose redirect, and any that do can simply bring up the page on "Redirects for delete". It's a matter beyond trivial, practically a red herring, and certainly a nitpick.

"but that's your opinion, not the opinion of those who said redirect too." - No, that's what you wish my opinion was, because straw men are easier targets than real ones. They don't move around as much. Hell, they practically jump into your attacks—because that's what you designed them to do.

"And what's this fuzz al labout?" - It's about a badly bungled VfD that needs reopening so it can be voted on properly. What do you think it's about?

"You accused me not to post a note here to attract more people for the discussion, but you didn't either!" - I didn't "accuse" you, I pointed out that everyone failed to link to the VfD on the page, which is a deep and terrible flaw in the voting. Your argument is a poster child for tu etiam ad hominem attacks; I admit that I made the same mistake everyone else did. And that has nothing to do at all with the fact that it was a mistake, and thus needs fixing.

"How about opening a request for undelete then?" - Procedure is to discuss the matter with the admin who mistakenly deleted first, and only go to Request for Undelete if the matter can't be resolved among the two parties. I've been hoping that it can, that you'll be willing to let people's voices be heard in a revote or reopening of the vote. Can it? -Silence 20:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Fischer's IQ

I remember discussing Fischer's IQ on a forum several years ago and the general consensus had been that the IQ of 180 was a speculation. Can someone provide an actual citation for this number? It may be that this is a myth that has continued by word of mouth (or text, as the internet allows now.) -- Solberg 20:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Solberg

Search Yahoo for "bobby fischer iq". There were plenty of references saying 180/181. There was a copy of a 1992 Esquire article (the first link, I think) saying 181.Tommstein 08:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if Esquire is that reputable. I'll stick with Frank Brady (a respectable former editor of Chess Life magazine and Fischer's main biographer) who claims Fischer's IQ to be 180, so I think that this is probably the number to put in the article, but I believe that a disclaimer should be there to note that *no one* knows if this is really true, even Fischer has no idea what his IQ is, according to Brady. See http://www.chessmaniac.com/Bobby_Fischer/Bobby_Fischer_Articles2.shtm . Also, 180/181 are not the only frequent claims for Fischer's IQ, so is 187. It's sort of amusing though. For example, there is a website that "estimates" Fischer to be 187 (see http://www.aceviper.net/aceviper_net/ace_intelligence/aceviper_famous_people_iq_list/aceviper_famous_people_iq_list.html which has a bunch of essentially made up numbers), then there is another article which claims that this is in fact the exact result of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale for Adults. (See http://www.aceviper.net/aceviper_net/ace_intelligence/aceviper_questions_and_answers/aceviper_interesting_intelligence_related_questions_and_answers.html

Also I have to point out now, while I'm at it, that a lot of this article smacks shamelessly of plagiarism. Compare "Fischer's academic records indicated an I.Q. of 180 with an incredibly retentive memory" in this article and http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/7378/fischer.htm which is chess master Bill Wall's page on this issue. I don't have time, but someone should go through and either cite or modify all these blatant copies from that and other websites. Stuff like this kills what used to be a featured article candidate.

 -- Solberg 04:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Solberg

I guess I might as well start the process. -- Solberg 07:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Solberg

another article which claims that this is in fact the exact result of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale for Adults. (See http://www.aceviper.net/aceviper_net/ace_intelligence/aceviper_questions_and_answers/aceviper_interesting_intelligence_related_questions_and_answers.html])

I believe that the claim that Marilyn Vos Savant took the Terman aka Stanford-Binet, made by that page, is incorrect, so I would doubt the source. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 12:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence of academic records is not dispositive of IQ score. If this is to be an encyclopedia article it should read like one and state that Fischer's IQ is unknown, but is rumored to be at a certain level. Easier yet: take it out since there is no verifiable evidence on the subject. Collin Imhof 00:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Fischer's proposed rules changes

I have excised some incorrect statements about Fischer's proposed rules changes for the 1975 defense of his title. The lines read

This was the same champion advantage that had been used in previous Soviet world championships matches (e.g., Fischer's match with Spassky) and in other world championship matches since then so it was not controversial in the sense of being more unfair than prior matches. It was controversial in the sense that Fischer himself had previously argued that this advantage was unfair and that he would not insist upon it. Because FIDE changed the rules to give Fischer less of an advantage than Soviet players had enjoyed and because FIDE had accepted the match conditions of all prior world champions, ...

These lines contained errors, both large and small.

1. There was no such thing as "Soviet world championships." They were world championships contested by Soviet players. Even though the World Heavyweight boxing champions have been overwhelmingly American, one would hardly refer to their title bouts as "American" world championships.
2. FIDE had not "accepted" prior match conditions, but set them. Indeed, if the champion wanted a rules change, it would tend to be looked upon favorably, as were Fischer's. FIDE accepted all of what Fischer wanted except for one point.
3. That last demand was definately considered to be considerably more unfair to the challenger. Under the previous system, with the match tied at 11.5-11.5, whoever won the next game would win the match. The champion's advantage was that, in the event of a draw, the champion would retain the title in a tied match. Under Fischer's conditions, with the match tied at 8-8, the challenger would have to win two games before the champion won any in order to take the title. The champion's advantage is that he need win only 9 games before the challenger won 10. By switching to a wins-only policy, scores could only increase by full points, not half-points. Instead of the old half-point advantage for the champion, the proposed system would give him a full-point advantage, double what it had been before.
4. The excised text notes Fischer's hypocrisy regarding his previous statements regarding the champion's advantage. It failed to note Fischer's equally hypocritical statements about Botvinnik. When Botvinnik, a working cybernetic engineer, was champion, Fischer denounced him for not participating in more chess events. Yet Fischer did not play even one game during his tenure as champion.

One may accept Fischer's claim that he refused to play Karpov due to some high principle; one may also conclude that it was due to cowardice. Clearly, once one is champion, the only possible direction is down.

Can he leave Icleand?

I could have sworn that I saw him today at Dartmouth College. Is he even able to come to the U.S.? I must have been mistaken, because the article seems to imply that he has vowed not to visit the US until Bush leaves office. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pictures? Piepants 01:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Piepants

No. It was just a physics professor who looks exaclty like him. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

FIscher's rating officially peaked at 2780 not 2785

It is a common misconception that Fischer's peak rating was 2785, and commonly and often repeated. He WOULD HAVE been 2785 had he not lost rating points in the match versus Spassky. The best way to verify this is to check the Informants from 1971 and 1972.

Copyright in Links?

JzG has deleted the link press.com/fischer1.htm Bobby Fischer Interview, claiming it is a copyright violation. I have concerns about doing this, on a number of fronts. First, is a transcript of a radio interview a copyright violation in the first place? Second, if a radio broadcast is ordinarily copyright, does this change in the case of an interview with a famous person? i.e. the interview is an insight into Fischer's views. IMHO, they are statements on the public record which deserve to be preserved. Third, even if they are copyright violation, is there anything in Wikipedia policy to prevent linking to copyrighted material anyway? Unless I can be convinced there really is a copyright problem there, I say we should restore that link. Rocksong 01:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No arguments, so I'm restoring it. Rocksong 01:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

JvG still says it's a copyright violation. OK, I agree that we shouldn't link to copyright violations, but I don't believe the transcript it is a copyright violation in the first place. The mp3s of this and other Fischer interviews already exist on the web at Fischer's web site (table just over halfway down). So since they've already consented to Fischer having the recordings, I don't think a transcript is violating the radio station's copyright. Nor do I see how it violates Fischer's copyright. On the positive, it is a transcript of a conversation by a public figure, for people who can't or don't want to listen to the entire mp3. So please explain why it's a copyright violation, or stop deleting the link. Rocksong 01:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, not the first U.S. World Chess Champion

The article begins:

Robert James "Bobby" Fischer (born March 9, 1943) is a grandmaster and former world chess champion, who on September 1, 1972, became the first and only American chess player to win the World Chess Championship.

This is incorrect. William (nee Wilhelm) Steinitz became a U.S. citizen in 1888, after both his matches with Zuckertort (1872 and 1886; it is still disputed which one made him "World Champion") and before his matches with Chigorin, Gunsberg and Lasker. The second match with Zuckertort was played in the USA. While one might quibble that Steinitz did not first "win the championship" as an American, I am adjusting the opening to "American-born". -Wfaxon 19:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

On 4 August 2006 at 14:26 user "62.40.76.253" correctly corrected us as to "American" vs. "US". I wasn't forgetting Capablanca but still, "American" as a nationality only refers to one place. -Wfaxon 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Writings by Bobby Fischer

Bobby wrote or at least authorized an earlier games collection before "My 60 Memorable Games" and mentions it in the latter. It is very rare. I don't have a reference (or even access to my copy of M6MG) so I can't find details now. Help? -Wfaxon 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Found it (Google is my friend). -Wfaxon 23:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

We might also include:

"A Bust to the King's Gambit", American Chess Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1961.

"The Russians Have Fixed World Chess", Sports Illustrated, August 1962.

-Wfaxon 18:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Gamesmanship

Viz. the 1972 match vs. Spassky; "81.157.230.213" added:

The gamesmanship which many considered unsporting was overlooked in general in the United States.

While some may still see Fischer's behavior as gamesmanship, subsequent events have borne out the contemporary opinion by many that explained it in terms of a (reasonably justified) inflated ego combined with a near-crippling fear of defeat and incipient paranoia. Or you could just say he was immature. I don't know of any acquaintances of Fischer who ascribe to him any capacity for "gamesmanship". --Wfaxon 03:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

When I first saw that sentence appear I too was uncomfortable with it. Delete it I say. Rocksong 03:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

anti-semitism section

Fischer claims that he never called jews 'niggers'[1]. Instead he merely called them 'murderers'. I have listened to the radio interview and it's a bad line but I certainly can't hear the word niggers. Can you hear it? listen from aboout 18:00 on I will change the quote in the article. Curtains99 02:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sticking to the relevant subject, professionalism (originally titled, "Fischer's comments re the 9/11 attacks," but "professionally" retitled :-)

I have added quotations which should probably be summarized & pulled back (note that some are directly relevant to the antisemitism section). But I put them in as quotations for now b/c I wasn't sure folks were aware of just how far off the deep end our friend went.... Billbrock 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

S/o pulled them back (which I agree is not an unreasonable decision): I restored a characterization of the remarks and referenced an mp3 file approved by the Unstable One himself. Billbrock 00:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fischer's comments on 9/11 are already mentioned in detail in this article, excessively, in my opinion. This is not the forum for a POV regarding Fischer's mental state or speculations about someone's religious background or ethnicity. Ditto for your geocities source regarding Fischer's alleged profanity. Your posts are unprofessional, completely out of place in an encyclopedia. Unless you know Fischer personally, I am not sure he is your "friend."AaronCBurke 02:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The mp3 is there for you to listen to. You can link to it via a page recommended by Fischer himself. Indeed, I am not a mental health professional, but I was feeling charitable.... Billbrock 03:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Re Paul Nemenyi: just as Fischer denies the historicity of the Holocaust, his defenders can deny that Nemenyi and Regina Wender Fischer appeared to believe that RJF was Nemenyi's biological son. Was he? I dunno. But perception can be reality in such things. Did RJF believe he was Jewish? That would explain a lot. Did you know that the WWCOG saw themselves as British Israelites (i.e., chosen people who weren't Jewish?) And there's that strange change-of-name to "Robert D. James" in the Pasadena Courthouse years.... In addition to the Inky article cited, see BF goes to war (written by two Jews; therefore, suspect) (/sarcasm). Billbrock 03:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, many of us of a certain age have a great reservoir of empathy for Fischer the human being. I am glad that he has the opportunity to live a comfortable retirement in Iceland, and wish him well. However...we are all accountable for our words. Do you wish to hold me accountable for my words and excuse Fischer for his words? Billbrock 03:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another postscript: I had to restore the fact that Regina Wender was of Jewish ancestry (I have seen references to her as a Polish Jew, but she was definitely a cultural German, & borders were in flux...). Nowhere in the article is it suggested that RWF was observant--indeed, that would be rather unlikely given her personal history. (Fischer has even claimed to be uncircumcised.) Is RWF's ancestry now a disputed fact? Billbrock 03:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The link to Fischer's interview immediately after the 9/11 attacks is provided by RJF himself on his personal website. And here's the 9/11 mp3. Give it a listen; give a few of the other interviews provided by Fischer a listen. Then we can have a better-informed conversation about his mental condition. Billbrock

Here's the crucial passage from the Inquirer article, which Edmonds & Eidinow find credible:

Agents made it their business to find out who Fischer's father was. They checked his birth certificate; it listed his father as Gerhardt Fischer. He and Regina Wender had married in Moscow in 1933.

They divorced in 1945, two years after Bobby's birth, but the FBI believed they had been apart longer than that. Regina Fischer came here in 1939; the FBI said her husband never entered the United States.

The FBI file says Gerhardt Fischer lived for a time in Chile, where he sold fluorescent lights and worked as a photographer.

The FBI suspected he might have been a Soviet spy there in World War II, targeting Nazis. The evidence? In a letter to Regina Fischer, he had made what the FBI called a "cryptic" reference to photographing fishermen at a Chilean port.

The file noted that several German agents had been arrested there, posing as fishermen.

The FBI seemed to pay more attention to Regina Fischer's Hungarian friend, Paul Nemenyi.

Nemenyi came to the United States in the 1930s, taught college mathematics, and met Regina Fischer in 1942, according to the files. An informant told the bureau that in 1947, Nemenyi opined that the Soviet system was "superior to that of the U.S."

Nemenyi also took a deep interest in Bobby Fischer. He paid child support and complained to social workers about the way Regina was raising the boy.

A social worker told the FBI of interviewing Nemenyi in 1948. This informant dutifully reported that as they spoke about Regina, Nemenyi had wept.

The heavily censored files don't say whether Nemenyi was Fischer's father. Letters obtained by The Inquirer offer an answer. They are the papers of Nemenyi's late son Peter, a civil-rights activist who gave them to a state archive in Wisconsin.

"I take it you know that Paul was Bobby Fischer's father," Peter Nemenyi wrote after his father's death in 1952. The papers also include a plaintive letter that same year from Regina Fischer to Peter Nemenyi.

"Bobby... was sick 2 days with fever and sore throat and of course a doctor or medicine was out of the question," she wrote. "I don't think Paul would have wanted to leave Bobby this way and would ask you most urgently to let me know if Paul left anything for Bobby."

In the end, that's the picture the FBI was left with: nothing more than a worried single mother with a troubled son.

I do not claim this evidence is conclusive, but I certainly find it compelling, as did two reporters and the editors of a major newspaper, as did two authors and their publisher. Billbrock 05:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting silly. My point was that the focus of this encyclopedia article should be on Fischer's achievements as a chess player. That is why Fischer is famous. Fischer has commented publicly on baseball, and expressed opinions regarding Ichiro Suzuki breaking the major league hits record a few years ago. Should these Fischer statements be included in the Wikipedia article? Was Thomas Edison a Democrat? Should this be included in the Edison article? Maybe, farther down, briefly. From reading Mr. Brock's previous posts, I have learned that he was president of the Illinois Chess Association, and an accomplished chess player in his own right. Shouldn't the focus of the Fischer article be on Fischer the chess player? AaronCBurke 05:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fischer himself has turned the attention elsewhere in his numerous broadcast statements which he continues to disseminate via his website: per his most recent interview, he not only hates Americans and Jews, he also hates chess. But of course Fischer was once a chess player first, and I too would like to remember him as that, not as the self-hating American & self-hating Jew he's become.... I accept the primacy of focus argument (in fact, I long ago noted in the "to do" section that 1970-72 section of his career was underrepresented, and I feel that the WWCOG section is a bit long). But don't use the primacy of focus argument to dodge unpleasant facts.

Should the article be split? Probably. How? I don't know.Billbrock 06:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Was Thomas Edison a Democrat?" Funny example to choose...I dunno, but I too would probably consider it NN in the context of a WP article. Was Edison an antisemite? Yes, and his biographers deal with it, but because he kept it to himself, it doesn't merit the same attention that it would in an article about Edison's friend Henry Ford. But in his public broadcasts since January 13, 1999, Fischer has made it clear that "self-hating Jew" is now his full-time occupation.

At the same time, I say this without malice (it is my personal belief that RJF is not fully accountable for his actions), and wish him a peaceful and happy life in Iceland. Fischer-Unzicker, Siegen 1970: now that's chess! Billbrock 06:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

metacommentary (moved from top of talk page)

This encyclopedia article needs to focus more on Fischer the chess player, because chess is what Fischer is best known for. For example, the encyclopedia article about Paul Morphy focuses on his chess career first, his eccentricities later on.AaronCBurke 17:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of us care a great deal about Fischer the chess player. But facts are stubborn things. One can deal with them, or one can choose to avoid them. Billbrock 04:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"historical grounds"

I agree that my characterization of Fischer's interview re 9/11 as "virulent" speech may be seen as non-NPOV by those who haven't bothered to listen to the mp3 rant. But I'm curious as to the evidence supporting this edit. Not every vocal critic of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy calls for genocide of American Jews; not every supporter of a Palestinian state wants Israel to be wiped from the map. Had Fischer stopped with his "the chickens are coming home to roost" remark--i.e., his opening reference to the BBC announcer's "what goes around comes around"--and urged reform of said foreign policies, the characterization might be fair. So I'm reverting while adding reference to Fischer's critique: kindly cite sources and context from the 9/11 interview to support alternative interpretations. Billbrock 18:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know if there are any misquotations in the following. I would be happy to discuss a fair characterization of these statements:

"Fuck the U.S., I want to see the U.S. wiped out."

"It's time for the U.S. to eat the shit, to humble themselves, to withdraw their troops from around the world, to admit that they've been wrong, that's the only solution. Otherwise, the U.S. has to be destroyed."

"Death to President Bush! Death to the United States! Fuck the United States! Fuck the Jews!"

"Hallelujah, this is a wonderful day! Fuck the United States! Cry you crybabies, whine you bastards."

And here's the clincher:

"[...] I'm hoping for some kind of a Seven Days In May scenario, where the country [i.e., the United States] will be taken over by the military, they'll close down all the synagogues, arrest all the Jews, execute hundreds of thousands of Jewish ringleaders, and, you know, apologize to the Arabs, kill off all the Jews over there in the bandit state of Israel. I'm hoping for a totally new world."

In this case, I would argue that "virulent" is unfortunately a justifiable characterization. RJF is not merely conducting a Chomskyan critique of 9/11 as jusitified blowback from the excesses of American imperialism, he's engaging in hate speech (and, unfortunately, self-hate speech). Billbrock 18:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Hatred speech"

I consider terming Fischer´s rational and coherent, yet a bit hypomaniac, statements, as "hatred speech" is vague and obviously judgy from a non NPOV. I emphasized the meaning of his words, and then quoted them plainly, without criticism of his style. I don´t think the point he used profane language is important here. Again trying to debase him on aesthetical considerations seems non NPOV. Drcaldev 19:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved comment from Talk:Bobby Fischer/Comments

This article is all over the place. Not enough emphasis on chess career; little coherence. Frequent attacks by antisemites trying to paper over RJF's recent statements; unclear how much weight should be given those stmts (cf. John Forbes Nash). Billbrock 06:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Is there really no better picture of him? The one up is retarded. 67.126.143.170 (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

YOUR retarded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.142.53 (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There are certain elements that are extremely prejudice and intolerant namely bigots they dislike the poor dead great man Fischer and wish to portray him in the least favorable light possible so while better photos of Fischer have been placed within the article they like to make up reasons or to play this morals and standards game to see this one up cause it basically shows a dumb young nerdy kid instead of something which more resembles a role model. Well good work you bigots I hope you all die a painful death at a young age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.74.14 (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fischers estate

The article previously stated that a dispute over it between Fischers wife and daughter had been solved amicably but that was false information and untrue, the truth of the matter is that there is little information about the current status of the ongoing dispute over Fischers state, a news story appeared stating that the supreme court had sent the case back to a lower court level but it only mentioned a dispute between Fischers American nephews and his alleged wife it was dated sometime in june, another article from may says that four parties have made claims to Fischers estate, his alleged wife, his alleged daughter, his nephews and the US government. I provided two links to news stories in icelandic on the icelandic states channels website regarding the matter but it looks like it's currently still pending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.74.14 (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think, Fischer would have liked this article to have a free image of him?

The many comments about the missing picture shouldn't have all been archived. Therefore I will add a small sentence at the start of this discussion page.

Though overall I wonder if Fischer himself would have liked to have an image of him in this article, or if he would have liked to have an article about him at all. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.21 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo, again

Is there really no good Fischer picture available to use it in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.21 (talk • contribs) .

26.02.09 Great to see there is a picture now. Greetings from Germany! 82.113.106.23 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been a recurring headache for a year or two. I'm working on an angle that might get one that is barely acceptable, and better than the one of him a a kid. Bubba73 (talk), 01:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the big problem with getting a picture? GBizzle (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

First let me say that the one I thought I might could get hasn't panned out. To answer your question, almost all of the photos of Fischer are copyrighted. We can use a copyrighted photo in some cases if there is no free image available. But the bad photo of him as a kid with Jack Colins is available for free, so that thwarts the rationale for using a copyrighted one. Bubba73 (talk), 15:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone finally found a good picture of Fischer under a Wikipedia-compatible license. Hopefully this resolves this issue once and for all. Just to clarify (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea, great. I think this one will pass the test. Bubba73 (talk), 20:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness for that. Finally! Great news.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Big improvement. Thanks. Billbrock (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this picture came from a contribution the German government has made to the Wikipedia; more information is here Just to clarify (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Anti american?

Bobby was NOT anti american. He percieved america to be a Zionist occupied nation and ergo he hated america. It would be better to say he was anti ZOG rather than anti american. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.87.201 (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

why sign a comment or two?--Jrm2007 (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Icelandic

I don't think this is a great fit in the lead. Thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not? One major point in his life was his move to Iceland, and he did gain Icelandic citizenship. Malinaccier (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's better than it was before, when it said he was "an American and Icelandic chess grandmaster". This wording is more accurate, reflecting that it was very late in life.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the article and solutions

A while ago I made the following edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Fischer&diff=268324019&oldid=268268340

Jinky Ongs paternity is highly disputed and so far remains unproven.

The dispute is currently unsettled and may involve claims from four parties, Fischer's presumed daugther, Fischer's presumed wife, two of Fischer's American nephews and the American government due to unpaid taxes.

All of this is very true and the links are from a trusted source the national television channel of Iceland. Content in foreign languages can be used if english versions can not be found is what the wikipedia guidelines say so the fact that some of you may not be able to read Icelandic has nothing to do with the matter.

Another problem with the article is the claim that Fischer is burried in the cemetary of a catholic church, the church in question is not mentiond on Icelands catholic church's website but it is however mentioned on Icelands Evangelic Lutherian churches website http://kirkjan.is/soknir/TC1 . I'd go ahead and put these facts straight in the article but it seems to me like some people like the revert button a bit too much so feel free and comment on these suggested edits before I make them, otherwise they'll go up in a day or two by my doing.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

. .

Web reference

The web reference for #154 is wrong. It should be http://db.chessmetrics.com/PL/PL10986.htm

I didn't know how to change it so I stuck the request here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OppieT30 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Done Bubba73 (talk), 01:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Fischer as *third* American world champion

The lede is wrong. "In 1972, he became the first, and so far the only, American to win the official World Chess Championship." I think it was cast this way to emphasize the Cold War angle.

Agreed that Morphy (acclaimed, not official WC) doesn't count. But both Steinitz and Capablanca were official American world champions. Only Steinitz was a U.S. citizen, of course. Readers of New Ideas in Chess may recall Réti's essay about "Americanism" in chess re Capa.... The adjective has more than one meaning, of course, but it's desirable to minimize the US-centrism in WP. Billbrock (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What year did Steinitz become a US citizen, and was it after he was world champion? Bubba73 (talk), 00:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Steinitz became a U.S. citizen in 1888 & subsequently defended the title successfully against Gunsberg & Tchigorin. Billbrock (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, was still WC until 1894. Bubba73 (talk), 00:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd phrase it as Fischer was the first person born in the US to become the official W.C. The others all have qualifiers - Morphy was not official, Steinitz became WC before he became a US citizen, Capa was North American but not a US citizen. Bubba73 (talk), 01:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps better to recast to tone down US exceptionalism (and RJF exceptionalism for that matter). As currently cast, the awkward & not quite correct Steinitz footnote might also note that the gap between Morphy & contemporaries was similar to that between Fischer 1970-71 & contemporaries. Incidentally, why do we (I am a US citizen) care whether RJF was first US World Champ? Has something to do with US intellectual insecurity w/r/t European culture: cf. Emerson's The American Scholar. The cult of Soviet chess stemmed from similar insecurities. 70.228.36.206 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess what is perhaps more significant is not that he was the first American but that he was the first non-Soviet since before WWII to win the world championship. The fact that he was an American, at the height of the Cold War ere, just gave it added spice.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No argument there. The lede remains factually incorrect. Billbrock (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

IQ

Where (and why) did the info about Fischer's IQ go? If I remember correctly his IQ (180 or so) was the result of a test he did while still in highschool, not some "honorary IQ" bestowed upon him by some over-enthusiastic chess journalist. Maybe the test itself wasn't the most standardized or rigorous possible, but then again the statement referred to an estimated IQ. Notably, the International High IQ Society (www.highiqsociety.org/) lists him in the 172-188 IQ range.81.96.127.72 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at that page and found no mention of Bobby Fischer. I am not sure if this whole IQ deal is notable enough for it to be on this page and also I don't really see it as being that big a deal, it doesn't take a genius to realize that Fischer was one regardless of what any IQ test said about him.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you can see that link only if you take the IQ test AND opt to have the results explained (that is, pay the 5 bucks fee or whatever they ask for). I can't find any other way to access that particular page. I suppose I could make a screen capture for you or simply copy/paste the text referring to him, but I suspect this doesn't meet wiki's standards (even screen captures can be easily faked). Alternatively I could ask them to make the info available to everybody or ask what their source is, but honestly I won't go through the trouble if nobody else thinks it's worthwhile. Now why would the IQ be a big deal IMO? Well, according to a number of sources (such as Mensa, International High IQ society, wikipedia, etc) - and given the Gaussian IQ distribution in the population - only about 1800 people in the world today (assuming a 6 billion population) have an IQ of 175 or higher. Furthermore, International High IQ Society estimates only about 24 people in the whole human history have had an IQ of over 189. If indeed Fischer's IQ was around 180 (albeit estimated only) I think we start to see the implications of that. I think it's not very demeaning to say that the general public (myself included) doesn't really realize what Fischer was capable of, and wikipedia targets the general public, like it or not. A brief mention of his IQ (together with a percentage or absolute figure, perhaps) would add more weight and appreciation I think, particularly in the light of the bad press he received during the last years of his life.81.145.166.130 (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Any information about his IQ would enrich the article, but we must have a reliable source so that it meets the Wikipedia policy of verifiability. Thanks :) Malinaccier (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok guys you know where we can find such a source?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait... I already asked www.highiqsociety.org for a source, let's see when and if they reply. I'll keep you posted ;) 81.96.127.72 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, this claim originated in Frank Brady's famous biography of Fischer, Profile of a Prodigy. Brady wrote in the revised (1973) edition of that book:

Recently, I spoke to a professor who used to work in the Grade Advisor's Office at Eramus Hall while Bobby was a student there.

"His I.Q. was definitely in the 180s," he said. "Give or take a point or two. He was definitely a 'high' genius, but with no interest or capacity for schoolwork."

Frank Brady, Profile of a Prodigy (2nd ed. 1973), David McKay, p. 22. You can read it yourself on Google Books. Krakatoa (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I used to think that is enough proof. After all there are thousands (if not tens of thousands) of books being used as sources by wikipedia. Realistically, how often is anybody checking on the author's sources (that is, the source of the source) for verification? But for whatever reason some people choose to be too anal when it comes to topic such as this. Anyway, I'm still waiting for a reply from that website, maybe they'll give us (finally) the source that everybody wants.81.145.166.130 (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume that Brady is the source. I don't know of anything else. btw, Brady elaborated on his claim a bit in his Foreword to a later book:

In previous writings I have cited Fischer's I.Q. as in the range of 180, a very high genius. My source of information is impeccable: a highly regarded political scientist who coincidentally happened to be working in the grade adviser's office at Erasmus Hall - Bobby Fischer's high school in Brooklyn - at the time Fischer was a student there. He had the opportunity to study Fischer's personal records and there is no reason to believe his figure is inaccurate.

Frank Brady, in Robert E. Burger, The Chess of Bobby Fischer, McGraw-Hill, 1979, p. vi. ISBN 0-07-008951-5. Krakatoa (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The said website never replied to my request, nor was I able to find a way to make the link available to non-members. That said, the matter is closed as far as I am concerned, i.e. we cannot find a source other than Brady, which - if I understand correctly - is not considered reliable enough. Sorry for all the hubbub, I was really hoping I can shed some light into this. 81.96.127.72 (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, Brady thinks his "source of information is impeccable" - but to my mind, "I talked to a guy who used to work in the grade adviser's office at Bobby's high school" (i.e. hearsay) doesn't sound like a reliable source. Krakatoa (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And what about books found in a storage compartment, Fischer Could have been storing them for someone else, they could have been planted, who knows? And text written in a notebook, handwriting confirmed by a handwriting expert of course? Save me some time and do the right thing please.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some help

This newest edit made to the article 1 indicates that a record Fishcer had has fallen but I don't think it's really apropriate to mention in the article who broke it, I would however think that it would be appropriate to mention how long it stood "more than a decade" "more than half a decade" "three years" whatever something cool but I am running into this problem I took a look at the article of that Nicholas Nip and it seems that whatever record he is supposed to have broken was already broken by Vinay Bhat and then the question becomes what records was that exactly, this article refers to "youngest-ever junior champion" but the Bhat article refers to "youngest national master" and I took a look at those sites and well I couldn't read much into them so the question is, has a record that Fischer held been broken? Is it the record that this article refers to? And how long did it stand? If someone could confidently answer those questions then that would just be great.

The other matter is my own edit a while ago right here while this is all factually correct and according to verifiable sources I do believe that it might be possible to phrase those sentences somewhat better and if anyone could help me out with that I'd appreciate that greatly.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Also I'd like to ask other editors if they think that this edit shouldn't be reverted or somehow adjusted.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted it. The material doesn't seem to be of great importance, and the presence of a youtube link is both a potential copyright violation and an indicator that the material's only been added to generate hits. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, since nobody felt like discussing this matter I just had to make the most logical assumption even though it is poorly sourced that Bobby Fischer, Vinay Bhat and Nicholas Nip have all broken the same record but that it was originally Vinay Bhat that broke it so therefor it probably isn't relevant to include a reference to Nicholas Nip in this article and cause of that I just deleted the Nip reference and added instead only the year that Vinay Bhat probably broke the record, sloppy work really but if the Vinay Bhat article is correct then the record was indeed either broken in 94 (most probable) or 95 (far less likely).--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Krakatoa library edit

I find this edit distasteful, Fischer was first and foremost a Chess genius not an anti semite and this article already sufficiently says all it needs to say regarding his alleged anti semitism, further more Fischer wasn't an anti semite he was an anti zionist which is a completely different thing. But yes regarding these books that he had in his library, so what exactly? If you were to invade my storage facility then you'd find guess what? An original copy of Mein Kampf printed in Germany in German but guess what I aint no fucking anti semite either and I don't even speak German so how could that be possibly relevant?

The books in Fischers library are of none encyclopedic relevance and I am rightfully reverting the edit referring to them, if anyone has a problem with that then lets discuss the matter here on the talkpage and reach some sort of a consensus, till one exists please don't reinsert this material.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, I agree fully. If the edit can be properly sourced, then there could be grounds for discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The evidence supporting RJF's visceral antisemitism (as opposed to mere anti-Zionism) is abundant: the radio interviews alone suffice. Having said that, I would agree that the contents of one's library would not normally be included in a WP biographical article. Billbrock (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You certainly are eloquent, 194x144x90x118. A copy of Mein Kampf in one's library, without more, doesn't prove that one is an anti-Semite. If one has many anti-Semitic and white supremacist books in one's library, and one writes notebooks and letters dripping with hatred for Jews and calling for genocide against them, that is strong evidence that one's possession of such books is not merely intellectual curiosity, and that one is an fact an anti-Semite.

I don't know what to make of SarekOfVulcan's comment. David DeLucia probably owns more Bobby Fischer memorabilia than anyone else on Earth (maybe Lothar Schmid has even more; I don't know). His book lists the Fischer memorabilia he owns (many hundreds of pieces), and has photos of a significant subset of those pieces. Chess historian, writer, and bookseller Dale Brandreth (co-author of the book The Unknown Capablanca) wrote of the two editions of DeLucia's prior book David DeLucia's Chess Library: A Few Old Friends:

Among the treasure[s] depicted in this volume are the Paris Lucena Manuscript, the first edition Damiano, a flawless Carrera, the three editions of Saul (1614, 1640, 1672), the first edition Ruy Lopez, three different-color editions of the London 1883 tournament book (pristine copies), the Dubuque Chess Journal (with collation of this very hard-to-get complete run), St. Petersburg 1895 Tournament book, letters and scores of Alekhine, a commemorative envelope from Em. Lasker to his wife Martha from Cambridge Springs 1904, the first page of the Cambridge Springs 1904 tournament bulletins (the first tournament bulletins ever), extracts from several Lasker manuscripts (some on mathematics), several Lasker letters, a letter from Einstein to Lasker, Morphy letters, scoresheet, photos, and his chess board, Capablanca scoresheet, Capa's top hat, passport, and watch...and hundreds more extraordinary items. These two volumes are unique in the history of chess literature. I lack enough superlatives to do these two volumes justice.

You don't explain why my citation of DeLucia's book Bobby Fischer Uncensored is not a "proper source" and I can't imagine what the answer is. Krakatoa (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the citation mentioned an ISBN or a publisher. If it's a mainstream, reputable publsiher I can't see a problem in using the book as a reference.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If Fischer was SO! antisemitic and against jews then he would have put a gun in his mouth and rid the world of the jewish that he saw in the mirror. Ok it's time that I dug up something which PROVES!!!! beyond the shadow of a doubt that fischer was in fact Not! antisemitic. I hope you'll be as willing to see it mentioned in the article as you are willing to see these book mentions.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I can't be as rational and lucid as you obviously are, 194x144x90x118. Bobby Fischer Uncensored is a self-published book that costs $350; 300 or so copies of it were printed, and as far as I can tell from the book itself it has no ISBN. A lengthy review of it is at ChessGames.com [here http://www.chessgames.com/~ChessBookForum?kpage=15#reply385]. (Scroll up a bit to the two-part review by "Paris Attack". The comment by "FSR" is me.) If you like, I can also furnish a cite from chess historian Edward Winter's book Chess Facts and Fables regarding DeLucia's prior book. Bobby Fischer Uncensored came out literally days ago, so there are no reviews of it other than the one I just cited. Krakatoa (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the book is self-published is a problem, unfortunately. WP:V says here, that it's usually unacceptable as a source unless the author has previously had work on the subject published in reliable third party publications.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Edward Winter, perhaps the world's foremost chess historian, wrote in Chess Note 5323 the following about DeLucia's prior book, which like Bobby Fischer Uncensored is about items from DeLucia's collection of chess memorabilia:

5323. Most beautiful chess books (C.N. 3164)

C.N. 3164 (see page 119 of Chess Facts and Fables) discussed David DeLucia’s Chess Library. A Few Old Friends (Darien, 2003) – ‘a new book so stunning in terms of both production and content that we can only marvel at it’. Richly illustrated, it presented the highlights of Mr DeLucia’s vast collection of rare chess books, manuscripts, letters, photographs, equipment, etc., but now he has brought out a second edition which is even larger and better, in a limited edition of 225 copies.

The Foreword (page v) mentions that his most significant acquisition in recent years has probably been a collection of ‘over 100 Lasker manuscripts, 900+ letters, 75+ postcards, numerous signed books, honorary diplomas presented to Lasker as well as many other fine Lasker items’. He has also procured ‘the last remnants of the Capablanca estate which included many of his personal belongings like his alligator wallet, attaché case, top hat with leather carrying case, hundreds of letters written to him in the later years of his life as well as a number of unrecorded games including the one he played against Tartakower’. That last game-score (see pages 180-181 of Kings, Commoners and Knaves) is not included.

The book is a 394-page hardback of incomparable quality, and Mr DeLucia informs us that some copies remain available, at $325. We shall be glad to forward to him any orders or enquiries from C.N. readers. [Emphasis added by Krakatoa.]

"Of incomparable quality" is a far higher standard than Wikipedia's "reliable source" requirement. Note that the person saying DeLucia's prior book is "of incomparable quality" is Winter, someone well-known for his exacting standards. See the comment by grandmaster and chess journalist Hans Ree quoted in the article about Winter: "Winter is a just but stern supervisor of chess literature. Every chess writer in the English language knows: when he makes a mistake in a date, overlooks a mate in an analysis, or sins against the King’s English, he will be flogged by Winter, whose eyes see everything." Krakatoa (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if it were true none of this belongs in an encyclopedia and Fischers anti semitism is already covered. Besides you trying to say that Fischer was in the KKK or a Neo-nazi? He wasn't and he has very little in common with the everyday bigot.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has certain standards. Your opinion that, "Even if it were true none of this belongs in an encyclopedia" is irrelevant unless you can point out a Wikipedia standard saying that it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. I am not "saying" anything, I am pointing out facts about what books Fischer owned and the views he expressed. All of those views are consistent with this section of the article, which pertains to Fischer's anti-Semitism. Your opinion that Fischer "has very little in common with the everyday bigot" is your point of view (see WP:NPOV) and hence irrelevant. Krakatoa (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That it does, read THIS! for example Fischer was first and foremost a Chess genius not an antisemite. You are pointing out that Fischer owned books, I already stated that I too own a copy and not just any copy but an original Mein Kampf printed in Germany in German, does that make me too a neonazi(even though I can't read it since I don't understand the lame language german)? Or should we perhaps publish Fischer's entire library here and judge him somehow for his possession of each and every book? Fischer was a genius, you don't have to be one however to see that Fischer "has very little in common with the everyday bigot".--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Also get this: It is yours to prove that your version is better than the previous one but you have not given any reasons for why your proposed version is any better than the current one and therefor your suggestions can not be taken seriously. It is Not! mine to point out policies regarding proposed changes that no reasons are given for.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, the material I added is relevant to the subject of Fischer's anti-Semitism, and is sourced. I have explained why the cited book is a reliable source. I don't care whether you are a neo-Nazi or that you think German is "lame." Your statements that Fischer "has very little in common with the everyday bigot" (whatever exactly that means) and "was first and foremost a Chess genius and not an antisemite" are your opinions and not a basis for excluding otherwise relevant factual information from this article. Krakatoa (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The cited book is new and hasn't been reviwed yet, but the cited auttor is reliable - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess#Bobby_Fischer_dispute for comments on his previous work. If Hawking wrote a book on theoretical physics or Clack on early tatrapods or Ruppoert, Fox & Barnes brought out a new edition of Invertebrate Zoology, those would be accepted as reliable sources. DeLucia's books is cited only for matters of fact, not interpretation, so there's no good reason to doubt it. --Philcha (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And that doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information and that the contents of one's library don't belong in a WP biographical article.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me just say I am no expert on Fischer, but I did listen to one of those Filipino radio interviews and the language and views expressed by Fischer there were, to say the least, both noxious and nauseous. The article skips over the content of these radio interviews somewhat, but the material added recently (currently deleted, but needs adding back in so that people can judge/discuss) explores the depths of his hatred for the Jews and having heard it first hand, I can vouch for the authenticity of these comments. It's not Wikipedia's remit to brand him an anti-semite or to attach labels per se, but to report the facts and allow readers to reach their own conclusions. As editors, we certainly can't cherry-pick the good parts of his chess career and ignore the rest. He was a great chess player, but the "first and foremost" arguments hold no water; he also wrote and spoke despicable things about Jews and as we explore the finer details of his sparkling chess, so we also must examine Fischer's darker side. These anti-semitic episodes are on record in so many forums that it seems churlish to question the validity of the DeLucia text. My only real criticism of the Fischer article now, is that there seems little mention of the possibility/probability that the acuteness of his hatred and paranoia were most likely symptoms of an ongoing mental illness, exacerbated by the news of his mother's and sister's deaths, not to mention the seizure of his personal belongings. Certainly, the bizarre conspiracy theory and the denouncing of Jews when at least part Jewish himself, hardly seem like the actions of a sane man. Top level chess players have been suffering mental trauma, illness and breakdown since time began and I can see parallels here with Tony Miles, who had running battles with colleagues and team-mates and firmly believed that he too, was being conspired against. After one particular breakdown, he tried to reach the Prime Minister and was arrested. I recall his paranoia once forced him to leave home and go and stay with IM Malcolm Pein, before embarking on a misguided move to the USA. During this time, Malcolm was well aware that Tony was not of sound mind. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me also say, I aint no expert on Fischer either, I did however have the honor of meeting the man and having a short conversation with him and I like many other people am a pretty good judge of character, hatefull bigoted people Do in fact exist but Fischer wasn't one of those people by a long shot, he may dislike certain things regarding Jewish culture and Jewish politics but he obviously didn't give a fuck if your great granddad was a jew or not cause how exactly would he have lived with himself if he did? Read read THIS! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUE#Impartial_tone it states that "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.".

There is already a ton of information regarding Fischer's anti semitism in this article and there is no need to mention what was or wasn't in his library, it's irrelevant and doing so gives a tone that endorses the opinion of some misguided people that Fischer some sort of an everyday neo nazi punk which is ofcourse contrary to wikipedias policy.

This obsession that some people have regarding Fischer's antisemitism is actually quite pathetic "Ohhh he said something bad about my jewish people so something bad should be done/said to him" this type of racial sensitivity is actually nothing more than nationalism and racism in itself, racist/nationalists believe that people should suffer a certain treatment from society due to their race or nationality while these extremely racially sensitive people believe that other people should be punished or mistreated simply for having and voicing an opinion.

As for this edit warring that you guys are engaging in it's Not! allowed, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war Here It is stated that "Edit warring causes problems for both readers and other contributors and makes collaboration less pleasant. Attempts to instate one version of an article at the expense of another can lead to the loss of a neutral point of view. For these reasons, contributors should not engage in edit wars, but should instead resolve disagreements through discussion, consensus-building and ultimately dispute resolution. Administrators may block contributors in response to persistent edit warring, to prevent further disruption." Or in other words reach a consensus do not continue re adding material to an article with out one. As for the "material is under discussion, so needs to be viewable" argument please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DIFF HERE! the material even though reverted isn't gone, it can be seen by viewing a diff like THIS ONE! for example.

Now if you guys are not for consensus building or want to edit war and such then wikipedia isn't the place for you, you could try out encyclopedia dramatica or some other more suitable online encyclopedia but here on wikipedia we are supposed to discuss matters and reach a consensus regarding article contents so PLEASE! do NOT reinstate that material without first reaching a consensus regarding these proposed changes here on the talkpage.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean one-person-one-vote nor does it mean accommodating every opinion irrespective of whether it is supported by facts or logic. There is reliable evidence that Fischer had a large quantity of anti-Semitic literature, and the article simply states that with no comment. If it turns out, very improbably, that there was an innocent reason for Fischer's possessing anti-Semitic literature, there will be a race to add that. --Philcha (talk)

Too true but like I have mentioned here time and time again Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information, please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Right here it is stated: As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. So it does not matter if those antisemitic literature actually were in his library, that does not automatically mean that it should be in the article.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTDIR#DIRECTORY Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.[3] Wikipedia articles are not: " 7. A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[4] Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight. "--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re the points you raised:

• "complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" - the article does summarise, in 4 parts: early 1960s; early 1980s, late 1990s and what was found after his death.
• "Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight" - the statement about his library and notes is sourced, and does not assume undue weight since it is the shortest of the four parts. --Philcha (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a funny way to rationalize things, this attention to Fischers antisemitism is unwarranted and therefor doesn't belong in the article. All these mentions of his antisemitism look designed to portray him as some sort of neonazi or something else which he was not. Merely having the four parts of similar length alone doesn't give the article appropriate weight. Please don't be claiming nonsense of this sort here.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Side note the notability of this is almost none, who the f knew what books were in Fischers library, what media coverage did it receive? This is definitely not something which belongs in the article.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 194x144x90x118's suggestion that Fischer's possession of anti-Semitic literature doesn't prove that he is an anti-Semite, I note that the DeLucias' book also includes a typewritten manuscript by Fischer, dated November 18, 1997, entitled "What Can You Expect from Baby Mutilators" (obviously an allusion to circumcision). That document is an anti-Semitic screed in which Fischer complains about the "Jew-controlled company" Batsford, Jonathan Speelman ("a typical kinky-haired Jew"), John Nunn and Graham Burgess ("I wouldn't advise you to make any bets that they're not Jews"), "Jewish tricksters" Simon and Schuster, the "Jew-controlled American Chess Foundation", "the Jew Frank Brady", "the Jew Fred Waitzkin", the "Jew-controlled company" Bosch, "the Jew Kasper W. Weinberger", "the compendium of evil known as the 'Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem", etc., etc. Fischer cites Mein Kampf and other anti-Semitic literature as authority (DeLucia 2009, p. 249):

As Napoleon pointed out: "All the talent of the Jews is concentrated in predatory acts." And he also said: "They have a creed which blesses their thievings and misdeeds." See page 87 of the book "The Secret World Government" by Maj.-Gen., Count Cherep Spiridovich, first published in 1926. Hitler pointed out in "Mein Kampf" that the Jews are not the perennial innocent victims as they like to portray themselves to be but are themselves fully the aggressors, the victimizers!

Incidentally, I agree with Brittle heaven that it would be appropriate to include a discussion of Fischer's (IMO almost certain) mental illness. However, I don't know offhand of a reliable source that discusses that. Krakatoa (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to prove that Fischer was antisemitic or to underline it any further. This stuff is of undue weight and it does NOT! belong in the article. Regarding Fischers mental illness that sounds dificult since a diagnosis can not be made by viewing videos or listening to interviews and if Fischer was indeed diagnosed with such a condition then it would fall under doctor patient privileged and thereby be offlimits to the general public for the next hundred years or so probably.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In terms of context and undue weight, I'd ask if anti-Semetic feelings were something Fischer was known for. If it was common knowledge or something he spoke about publicly, then it deserves a mention and isn't undue. It shouldn't be a major portion of the article of course, but if it's associated with the subject, it's notable. Dayewalker (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

For roughly the last decade of his life, RJF's antisemitism was not a casual opinion, but constitutive of his identity. Billbrock (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Does the Krakatoa edit regarding Fischer's library have undue weight concerns?

Does the Kraktoa edit seen here, have Impartial tone concerns?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUE#Impartial_tone states that "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.".

The Bobby Fischer article already mentions his antisemitism repeatedly and there really isn't any need to underline it any further.

What we are talking about are only some books which were in the mans library nothing more really.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It would seem inappropriately worded. It implies because he had books of a certain view that this was also Fischers view. I know from my own experience that my own library contains books of opposing views. To be objective the articles coverage of Fischers views should be established from elsewhere (from his words and actions perhaps?), rather then reading anything into his library. All that a library implies is that you have an interest in the topic covered by the books in your library; nothing more. SunCreator (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion in the previous section. If these books (there are many others; I cited only a few) were the only evidence that Fischer was anti-Semitic, they probably would not be worth mentioning. But there is abundant evidence of Fischer's vehement anti-Semitism - see the section in question of Bobby Fischer. The edit also makes reference to notebooks written by Fischer, which call for genocide against Jews. As I state in the previous section, Fischer also, in a typewritten manuscript, cited Mein Kampf and other anti-Semitic books as authority concerning the characteristics of the Jews. Given all that, I think that Fischer's possession of these books is further proof of his anti-Semitic views, and that inclusion of this material is relevant and appropriate.

I do not see that the edit in question has issues of undue weight or impartial tone. It does not have "undue weight" given that it is all of two sentences long, the shortest part of this section in the article. (The four parts, as Philcha observed above, address the 1960s, the 1980s, the 1990s, and material discovered after Fischer's death.) Had I cited all of the abundant evidence of Fischer's anti-Semitism in the book, there might well be an issue of undue weight. I also don't see that there is an issue of "impartial tone": the sentences in question state facts, from which the reader can draw whatever inferences he/she chooses. Krakatoa (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer clearly suffered from some degree of mental illness and I do not think that any more emphasis on his antisemitic statements than there already is. Controversy is not always that notable. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is 'abundant evidence' elsewhere then use that and not this library information. 'I think that Fischer's possession of these books is further proof of his anti-Semitic views' I think your wrong it's no proof at all - that's only implied and not useful in my view. To relate this in chess terms, I had a book called 'Winning with the Scotch' by Gary Lane, I can assure you it's only purpose for me was so I could, playing with the Black pieces, win against the Scotch. SunCreator (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The book includes a 16 pages of a 100-page typed manuscript with many anti-Semitic statements, some of which I quoted in the preceding section on this page. It includes many letters in which Fischer made anti-Semitic comments. It includes anti-Semitic comments that Fischer wrote in books he owned. If I include all of those, the edit will go on for pages (rather than two sentences) and really will be "undue weight". Krakatoa (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You seemed to have changed the subject. I'm discussing this edit about 'the library'. If your discussing 'the book' then we are not discussing the same thing. SunCreator (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"The book" is Bobby Fischer Uncensored, which is the source for all the material in the disputed edit. The book is about David DeLucia's collection of Fischer memorabilia, primarily items that Fischer once owned. The book includes photographs of numerous books owned by Fischer, including the anti-Semitic ones I mentioned (and others), books on other subjects, magazines, comic books, the notebook I mentioned, correspondence, and various other things (scoresheets, photographs, autographs, etc.). Krakatoa (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

While there's no need to belabour Fischer's racist views, his library and notebook provide additional aspects beyond his public statements. In theory the statements might have been attention-seeking or made under provocation or whatever, but the library and notebooks show that he held extreme racist views in private as well, thought about them fairly often and liked reading books that presented similar views.

I agree that there are in general other reasons for having racist books - for example in order to work out counters to them (like SunCreator's book on the Scotch Game) or study them as a historical phenomenon, etc. However Fischer's statements and notebooks showed that he held similar views, which makes it extremely unlikely that he acquired the books simply in order to analyse them. --Philcha (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm in full support of Krakatoa's material, as it gives essential, graphic evidence of Fischer's state of mind and the depths of his hatred for the Jews. Krakatoa works in a legal environment and he knows that claims of Fischer's anti-semitism elsewhere in the article could be seen as speculative or fabricated were they not adequately evidenced. Indeed, if some such weighty evidence is not attached now, then a succession of future editors could be expected to reinstate it, or much worse, try to remove what they would see as unsupported claims of Fischer's anti-semitism; this is an unhelpful scenario that is best avoided. No need in this case to worry about books in the library giving a wrong impression, the weight of evidence out there (including the notebook) shows that the impression is correct. In actuality, the contents of the radio interviews are equally graphic, but here, their mention is confined to the conspiracy theory element, which I believe removes any idea of 'undue weight' (two sentences in a very lengthy article is hardly disproportionate). To repeat my previous posting, it would be incredibly helpful to acknowledge Fischer's undoubted mental illness; this would hopefully calm a lot of the understandable indignation at the implication that Fischer was 'pure evil' and would help explain that the anger, paranoia and extremist views are all common symptoms of someone who has lost the plot. This kind of view must surely be given in the chess periodicals if nowhere else (I think I read something), so I'll have a look for a reliable quote. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious, how do you know that Fischer had undoubted mental illness? Loosmark (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Enough commentary even if you exclude the forums - The American Spectator, My madness saved me (book), "official" blog post at New York Times, Movie Review: A Beautiful Mind The comment at The Atlantic says he was paranoid.

Paranoia is not necessarily a mental illness. IMO only a psychiatrist could tell if and how much was Fischer really mental ill plus if his hatred towards Jewish people was caused by his illness. I believe this is a complex topic and I don't feel qualified enough to make any judgement on that. Loosmark (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be unsafe to state anything explicitly in the article, where the facts are already quite eloquent. --Philcha (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I too am no expert on mental illness. However, given Fischer's behavior, especially in his later years, I would be surprised if those who are qualified did not deem him mentally ill. As for Fischer's virulent anti-Semitism, it was long-standing (at least since 1961 - see Donner's remarks quoted in the article) - beginning well before the seeming descent into madness in the last years of his life. Krakatoa (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Without paranoia, there would be no prophylactic play. Billbrock (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Note also the distinction between RJF and John Forbes Nash--only one was a self-hating Jew. RJF's mental illness was in IMO self-evident (I am not a psychiatric professional), and I think it's important to treat these undisputed facts with appropriate discretion. At the end of his life, RJF was unfortunately consumed by antisemitism & other irrational hatreds (the UBS folly, e.g.); to hold otherwise is counterfactual. But the RJF of 1971 was not the RJF of 2001, and it's the former RJF who's notable. Billbrock (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC) P.S. By "undisputed facts," I meant those referenced by Krakatoa. Billbrock (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that adding the two sentences violates WP:UNDUE. The edit adds recent evidence that shows he held these views in private so I think it is appropriate to include. Academic38 (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on my talk page after making the comments above, after looking at the page I don't think those two sentences are undue. My opinion, as above, is that they add relevant information to the article based on the subject's publicly stated beliefs, and are not undue, especially the second sentence. Dayewalker (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I also support the recently added material, which is quite brief compared to the rest of the article. Krakatoa's past edits have greatly expanded and improved the coverage of Fischer's chess career, and the net effect has been to markedly reduce the weight of the sad but necessary coverage of the ugly aspects of Fischer's beliefs and statements. There has been no attempt to smear Fischer here, although this page does see recurring attempts at white-wash. The current amount of attention paid to Fischer's anti-semitic and anti-US views is appropriate. Quale (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Fischer's antisemitic positions are well-known, and his long-time colleague Larry Evans wrote about Fischer's admiration of Hitler. While simply possessing a copy of Mein Kampf does not make you a Nazi, just like owning a copy of the Bible does not make you a Christian, my feeling is that Fischer's possesion of Mein Kampf is not at all irrelevant to this context. This article in the Washington Post states that Fischer was an admirer of Mein Kampf, which is something far beyond a mere scholarly interest. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support keeping edit. I do not believe this is undue weight. It is in the correct section and follows well what preceeds it. Just another clue into his anti semitism and I find it notable and interesting. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Earlier today, chess historian Edward Winter reviewed the DeLucias' book Bobby Fischer Uncensored (the source for the edit in question). In Chess Note 6189, he calls it "[o]ne of the most extraordinary of all chess books". He writes, "A richly-illustrated 394-page hardback of supreme quality, it presents hundreds of items from David DeLucia’s collection of Fischer material, including photographs, game-scores, correspondence, contracts, books and ephemera." Krakatoa (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Winter also writes "His personal notebooks are also reproduced, and it would be impossible to overstate the anti-Semitism with which they are suffused" and gives a few specific examples of the same sort that Krakatoa included in his very brief addition to the article. Quale (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per my comment of 05:56, 18 June 2009, before this became an RfC, and Krakatoa's of 02:13, 24 June 2009. --Philcha (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, with revisions per my comments above (19:22, 16 June 2009). Material can be both true and notable, yet unencyclopedic. (Compare "His achievements are legendary" in the current version of the lede--subject to same critique.) It is very difficult to achieve the right tone with this material: to the WP community, RJF should be neither saint nor demon, but the subject of an article. Billbrock (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. In terms of illustrating Fisher's anti-semitism and paranoia, the last para may be appropriate. However, it also seems to insinuate that he was a white supremacist or a Nazi sympathiser, which would be a slightly more specific allegation. I don't know enough about the subject to judge what might be correct or incorrect, but I would say that those more specific insinuations should be either supported by clearer evidence or removed. --FormerIP (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Response. I do not think Fischer was a white supremacist, as distinguished from an extreme anti-Semite. I assume that he found white supremacist literature of interest because it attacked Jews, rather than because it also attacked blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, etc. I note in one of the footnotes accompanying the relevant text, "Fischer wrote of Nature's Eternal Religion in a 1979 letter to Benko, "The book shows that Christianity itself is just a Jewish hoax and one more Jewish tool for their conquest of the world. ... Unfortunately the author is an extreme racist and this somewhat spoils the book." DeLucia 2007, p. 280." I could have put this in the text, but of course the text is already very long so I was trying not to add too much to it. Krakatoa (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So, it would seem that there may exist material that would allow us to include a clarification along the lines that he had written disapprovingly of the contents of the books in question, thereby negating the conclusion which might otherwise be reached (?). --FormerIP (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This library edit is a gonner, who says that Fischer wasn't storing those items in his storage facility for a third person? And if that indeed was the case then why exactly does a mention of this belong in the article? Also these things that Fischer allegedly wrote I assume that a handwriting expert did indeed confirm that Fischer himself wrote those things? Are we next going to insert material into this article regarding what was or what wasn't in Fishcers internet explorer bookmarks folder?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you trying so hard to sweep Fischer's anti-semitism under the carpet? Loosmark (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I aint "trying nothing hard". The issue that I have with this is that from where I standing it just looks completely insane. If you were to go through my storage facility then you'd find a Mein Kampf book too which admittedly belongs to me, has been in my family for the last 60 years or so if I'm not mistaken but its presence there does not mean that I'm a neonazi or anything of the sort really since I'm not. Also if you were to invade my storage facility and go through the things you'd find ther then you'd find among other things stuff which I'm storing for others and well you could draw a heap of conclusions from those objects I'm sure, hell for all I know I might be storing thousands worth of cocain there, I don't go through peoples things when they ask me to take care of them. And this stuff that fischer allegedly wrote, who is to say that he acctually did? The book was there fine, did it acctually belong to fischer? Who knows? Was that his acctual handwriting? Was an expert asked to evaluate if it indeed was or not, I doubt it. This stuff it DOESN'T belong in this article by any means it portrays him as a neonazi because of some items that were found in his storage space, that's just crazy and it seems to me like an attempt to smear his good name and it's not tasteful.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

To smear his good name? Have you listened to the inteviews he was giving in his last years? The tapes were floating on the net. Loosmark (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't only listen to those interviews but I(a white guy) and a half brittish half Indian man also had a pleasant conversation with him that did not seem as if any racist feelings were underlying or anything of the sort. Lets get this on record. Are you indeed saying that you believe that Fischer was a Neonazi or a white supremacist? I'll take it that you agreed with the rest of the things I mentioned since you did not comment any further on them.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's time 194x144x90x118 read and understood WP:V and WP:NPOV. Reliable sources show that both in public and private Fischer was a virulent anti-Semite, and this discussion has brought to light no reliable sources that contradict that view. OTOH no-one here has identified any reliable sources that suggest Fischer held or expressed any other racial prejudice. If 194x144x90x118 can identify the source for the interview (i.e. a transcript) and it qualifies as reliable, it would be interesting to see whether that source provides evidence of absence of other racial prejudice in RJF or merely absence of evidence.

Further discussion is futile unless it identifies reliable sources well enough for them to be cited in a WP article. --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is very simple, what items were discovered in Fischers storage facility is not something which belongs in this article. Putting this material into the article as unreliable and questionable as it is gives the reader the idea that Fischer might have been a nazi sympathizer or a white supremacist which is misleading, this will be changed.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I continue to be amazed at the blatant POV pushing 194x144x90x118 is engaging in here. For those who don't think that this isn't an extreme pro-Fischer person, I would like to point to this edit made yesterday, where he asserts as a fact, that Fischer was world champion until his death in 2008. Nobody, including the United States Chess Federation, recognized Fischer as world champion after he defaulted the match in 1975, so I think this edit, apart from violating WP:UNDUE, is a very clear-cut example of disruptive editing. In this RFC section, I see no support, let alone consensus, for the changes 194x144x90x118 is advocating, and unless that comes quite soon, I propose that we end this discussion here and now. If he continues to refuse to accept that, I think we should bring the matter to the Administrator's Noticeboard for administrator intervention. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bring it.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sjakkalle's assessment that this RfC has had a clear-cut outcome. I think after a month we have gotten all the comments we are going to get. Academic38 (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We all have a POV - it's part of being human. The important thing is to try hard to put aside our POV and to write with a neutral tone using reliable sources. I think that Bobby Fischer was the greatest chess player in history, but there is no denying that he had flaws as a person - and that too is part of being human. This article is a biography of a person from birth to death with appropriate emphasis on what made him notable, but also including more than chess, and that means including items that are not so flattering but are a significant part of him as a person.

I just reread the entire article. Nobody could deny that it gives most weight to his chess career. Even someone who knew nothing about chess would have to come away from the article thinking that this guy was a phenomenal chess player. The article mentions some of his flaws but they don't take away from the greatness of his chess career. IMO the weight given to his anti-semitism is appropriate with or without Krakatoa's additional paragraph. The one additional paragraph in that section makes little difference either way.

The RFC is clear that it is reasonable to include that extra paragraph - it doesn't violate UNDUE. There's nothing here worth arguing about. This is a good article about a great chess player. Nothing we write will change Fischer's greatness - or his flaws. And nothing (so far discussed) is going to change a reader's impression that this guy was a great chess player with some personal flaws.

There is no reason (at least not yet) to think about going to ANI. Let's just be cool and wait to see what editors do. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is a consensus to include the material, but would also note that several users (me included) are concerned that BF's anti-semitism is not conflated with Nazism or white supremacism. It appears that there is an RS that clarfies this, and I think the wording should be such that the reader is not left with a false impression. --FormerIP (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sjakkalle You should have read a little bit more regarding this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT before you wrote that stuff. You write "I see no support" Oh well isn't that a clear cut case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT right there? Besides this rfc isn't about changes proposed by me it's about a single change made by Krakatowa. This talkpage and this RFC are also NOT about me or how I am editing other articles, it's only about the Library edit nothing more. Your comments here were inappropriate and I suggest that you refrain from making further such inappropriate comments on this talkpage. If you have some sort of a problem with me personally then you can feel free to bring it to my talkpage.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Take it to your talk page? What about the disclaimer you put prominently at the top of that page? This would seem to be covered by your item 4. I suspect Sbowers3 isn't familiar with 194x's brief but definitely attention-getting history on wikipedia. I suggest that anyone who thinks it worthwhile to engage 194x to look at the disclaimer at User talk:194x144x90x118 and in particular this edit, which was his comment about a half hour before opening this RFC. My advice is to ignore 194x—In my opinion he simply wastes the time of editors who might instead be doing something productive. His arguments are generally incoherent, but always demonstrate POV pushing and promotion of fringe views. I see no evidence that he has ever contributed anything of value to wikipedia, and I doubt he ever will. His entire purpose seems to be to troll talk pages and end up at WP:ANI where I believe he has already appeared prominently at least three times this year. Fortunately aside from incivility and generally trying to stir things up on talk pages, he doesn't seem too harmful as he hardly ever edits in article space. Quale (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What a beautiful personal attack you made right there Quale very productive stuff right there. I'll wait some time before I ask an uninvolved administrator to take a look at it but I don't intend to just shrug and let people get away with whatever they please here at Wikipedia while I myself am expected to follow all rules, regulations and guidelines to the letter. Please just strike that BS out and it will be behind us.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)