Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

The rating gap

In recent days someone removed the statement in the lead, "many consider him to be the greatest chessplayer of all time." A similar statement remains in the article on Garry Kasparov, and now uniquely in his case. I'm not suggesting that the greatest of all time sentence for Fischer be restored, although when it was there it could have had a few more sources, including Viswanathan Anand. What I am writing this talk entry for, is to say that Fischer's rating gap might be mentioned in this article's lead even if it is already mentioned later on. It was the largest official Elo chess rating gap in history (Morphy's may have been larger unofficially, by what may be inferred about his comparison with contemporaries). In 1972 when Fischer was rated 2785, the number two player was in the mid 2600s Elo. I think many chessplayers would consider the gap as remarkable as other achievements highlighted in the lead of this article, such as his candidate's matches in 1971 and perfect score in the 1963-64 U.S. Championship.Cdg1072 (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the 2785 figure may be worth mentioning in the lead, not only because of the huge gap between him and the no.2 player but also because that figure stood as the highest ever until 1990 when Kasparov passed it.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The statement was not removed, but was moved from the lead section to somewhere in the body, in the hope that this was a more appropriate place for it.

There has been some recent discussion, particularly in Talk:Magnus Carlsen, about the desirability (and usefulness) of statements like this in articles about chess world champions. They are a magnet for edit warriors.

Regarding the rating gap, the article should make it clear that Fischer was playing head and shoulders ahead of his contemporaries for a few years. The rating gap is evidence of this. It doesn't fit neatly into the narrative, but if you think it would be helpful in the "Legacy" section or something like that, you can try it out. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I added a bit about the rating gap to the lead, and linked to a copy of the July 1972 rating list. Note that this list was published before the world championship match, and he actually lost 5 rating points for winning the world championship! MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

GOAT "Greatest of all time"

All greatest of all time or even "one of the greatest of all time" talk has been considered too subjective for the Kasparov and Carlsen's page and has been summarily removed despite numerous references supporting it.

Also, Fischer being the GOAT is a very subjective view. In comparison to who? Kasparov? Karpov? Carlsen? Alekhine? Capablanca? Users Bruce Leverett and Max Browne2 had a problem with these qualifications on the Kasparov and Carlsen page and judged for it to be totally removed. [User:Exxcalibur808|Exxcalibur808]] (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I actually agree this time, I just didn't want to go so far as removing the references completely. Not before discussion anyway. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"Greatest of all time" I'll grant you. But the article has not said that for a long time now. "One of the greatest", I don't know how that is disputable or subjective. I don't have Kasparov or Carlsen on my watchlist so was unaware of those discussions, but I think each case should be discussed on its own merits anyway. (Note that the OP has been blocked for a week for edit warring and put up a retirement notice). P-K3 (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the legacy section needs to be completely rewritten to make more specific claims than just gathering different pundit opinions on where Fischer ranks among the all-time greats. The first paragraph should probably be deleted, the second and third belong in a "playing style" section, and the rest should also be deleted for being a mix of individual opinions and details that belong in the appropriate chronological sections of his career. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The quotations from Kasparov and Karsten Müller are OK. With an individual sport such as chess, every world champion is going to have his devotees who say he was the greatest of all time. So quotations of people saying that are not very interesting, even the quotation from Anand. But if some source thinks that Fischer made a big difference in some way, that's more like it. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer in initial mention in bold type

To be consistent with many other articles, including Kasparov's, the bold face name at the very start of the lead should be "Bobby Fischer," and immediately thereafter, "born Robert James Fischer." Cdg1072 (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion of this here: Talk:Bobby_Fischer/Archive_8#Lead_sentence,_including_article_title_name. In a nutshell, I think we are following MOS:BIRTHNAME.

Kasparov actually changed his name at some point, according to the the article about him, so the first sentence in that article has to treat his name somewhat differently from the article about Fischer. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

lived his life as an émigré

Is "lived his life" necessary or is it redundant? Is "lived as an émigré" instead sufficient?Cdg1072 (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"lived as an émigré" would be an improvement, but the sentence is rather too florid for its size. Perhaps "Fischer then lived as an émigré until, in 2004, ..." etc.? Bruce leverett (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Any decision about this?76.165.129.153 (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Anybody can fix this if they want. If nobody follows up on this, I will eventually do something, but I felt it would be courteous to wait for User:Cdg1072 to do his thing. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected status

The article is listed as 'semi-protected' until December-1 to 'promote compliance with policy on living persons'. I need hardly explain why this is a rather odd reason. It seems reasonable to protect the article, not least in view of Fischer's notorious anti-Semitism, but whoever made this ruling would seem to have been ignorant of the subject. Daedalus 96 (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The reason given was odd considering he's been dead 12 years. However the article attracts a lot of trolls and edit warriors and silly "who was the greatest of all time?" arguments. It's rare to get a good edit from an IP or new account on this article, so I agree with semi-protection. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Internet Bobby Fischer Theory

This material has already been trimmed to the minimum, believe me -- it used to mention at least two other people who thought they had played Fischer on the internet. These incidents are not, strictly speaking, part of Fischer's life story. But if there is "more recent analysis" regarding Nigel Short's account, then it must still be notorious enough that at least somebody cares enough about it to analyze it. If you have a WP:RS account of this analysis, you could even add a quick mention of it to this paragraph. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a interesting story, although even at the time the smart money was that it was a prankster with a computer [1]. It got a lot of publicity at the time thanks to Nigel Short in his newspaper column, but it's perhaps better suited to Short's article than Fischer's. That said, I don't object to a couple of sentences here if that's the consensus. P-K3 (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It certainly got a lot of RS coverage at the time. The operator of that account certainly knew a lot about Fischer, when quizzed by Short he instantly identified the player, game event etc. Frankly I'm surprised the engines of the time were that strong, it was still possible until the mid 2000's for a GM (or anti-engine specialist) to beat a strong chess engine. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Anyway it seems to me the incident is still talked about and inherently notable, and that someone might well come to the Bobby Fischer article seeking information about it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

move My 60 Memorable Games to end of lead?

It looks like the My 60 Memorable Games comment is isolated where it appears, and might fit better toward the end of the lead which concludes with Fischer's contributions to chess. That topic seems to encapsulate publications by Fischer.Cdg1072 (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

"Why didn't I think of that?" Seems plausible to me. This being Wikipedia, you could just do it, and see who squawks. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Fine by me. Putting it after "Fischer made many contributions to chess" would be logical.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The new analysis of Fischer-Petrosian looks legit

Despite being cited the new information was reverted. I think we can trust noted endgame expert Karsten Muller to know what he's talking about, especially after crowd sourcing and reviewing the analysis. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, I think that information should be attributed, especially given that the analysis done by Zoran Petronijevic is qualified by him: "A lot of ChessBase readers helped to find the truth about this historically important and interesting position. Now we are, at least, closer to it. According to Fischer this was his best game of the whole match. But after our deep analyses (if they are correct, of course), we can see that his play was far away from ideal." Do you have a suggestion on how to attribute the content, such as to either Muller or Petronijevic? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this can be cited, and should be, but we want to look like an encyclopedia, so where we were saying, 'This game includes "22.Nxd7+" which is "perhaps Fischer's most famous and instructive move and is still being cited today".[610] The move 22. Nxd7+ was in 2020 found to be a mistake.[611]', we should be briefly summarizing the argument. I notice that even at the time of the game, 22.Nxd7+ was criticized and 22.a4 was suggested instead, so this is not a new argument. Maybe we could say something like "Fischer's choice of 22.Nxd7+ was controversial, and is the subject of analysis to the present day" (I'm not sure of this choice of words, maybe there is a better turn of phrase). Citing the same two sources, that is, Soltis and Muller.

Try to use a citation template, or at least, cite the new source in such a way as to give the name of the author (Muller), date, website, access date, etc.

I will eventually get around to this, but if somebody wants to get some practice at this kind of editing, go for it. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Although the discussion on this bio page should necessarily be fairly brief, it would be possible and good to talk about it in greater detail on the page on the Candidates Matches. Unfortunately World Chess Championship 1972 barely mentions the Candidates at all and says nothing about the individual games. An opportunity for improvement. Quale (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not like to write, in an encyclopedia, as if some analysis that was just published a month ago was a new discovery, and was the conclusive end of the argument; especially since the argument began at the time of the match, when Najdorf, in the press room, criticized 22.Nxd7 and suggested 22.a4. Even Müller, in the comments on the article, concedes that there are loose ends that might be worth tying up. That is why I rewrote this passage the way I did. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have sources for Najdorf and other anti-Nxd7-ers? Can work this info into the article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's at the beginning of the analysis by Petronijevic in the Müller article. Before 22.Nxd7 he gives a list of sources, and then in the notes to 22.Nxd7 he quotes them. The quotation about Najdorf doesn't come with a source number, but I think it was supposed to be (2), since that's missing between (1) and (3); so it would be a collection of Fischer's games edited by Golubev and Gutseit, 1993. (I should dig this game up in my collection of old Chess Lifes, maybe it would be mentioned.) He doesn't quote Averbakh, who is (7), but states that Averbakh didn't give the move any exclamation points. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with others above that the original edit, "The move 22. Nxd7+ was in 2020 found to be a mistake" is wholly inadequate. None of this is new as the move was controversial at the time. I'm not sure that analysis decades after the game is even that notable, and as Quale suggests would be better dealt with at the article on the match.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The article itself is notable. It seems to have gotten a lot of eyes on it, both before and after it appeared in ChessBase. I'm glad the IP editor brought it to our attention. The article bolsters, in a backwards way, our claim that this game was notable. So I'm happy to cite it here, but this is not the place to get involved in the discussion of 22.Nxd7. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• FYI, and in case anyone wants to cite, this is the annotation in one of the standard works on Fischer, by Wade & O'Connell, p428 (converted to algebraic).

  22.Nxd7+! This fluid switching of advantages is one of the hallmarks of Fischer. If instead, in order to meet Black's ...Bb5, he had played 22.a4 then Petrosian organises some sort of line of defence by ...Bc6 with ...Nd7 in reserve.

27...h4 gets a question mark, with the comment "less is conceded with 27...Nb6 28.Ree7 Rf6". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

For the claim that Najdorf suggested 22.a4 instead of 22.Nxd7, I found Robert Byrne's article "Fischer vs. Petrosian: Wrapping It Up", Chess Life & Review, February, 1972, p. 85: "This exchange, which wins the game, was completely overlooked by the press room group of grandmaster analysts. Najdorf, in fact, criticized it(!), suggesting instead the incomparably weaker 22 P-QR4."

In the game, Byrne mentions that in playing 23 ... Rd6, Black was defending against the threat of 24. Bxa6 (taking advantage of Black's back rank). In Petronijevic's analysis after 23 ... d4, he doesn't mention 24. Bxa6, but this gets mentioned in the comments; it doesn't appear that there's a clear verdict.

But anyway, this is an RS for that anecdote. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Ratings are wrong

Throughout the article, USCF ratings and FIDE ratings are used interchangeably, though this is definitely not the case. FIDE didn't even have a rating list published until 1971. And even after then, USCF ratings have never been comparable to FIDE ratings (in the article at some point it says Reshevsky's rating was 2713, whereas his peak FIDE rating was 2565, huge difference).

It either needs to be clarified at multiple points that these ratings are not comparable, or USCF rating mentions have to be removed altogether (mainly the parts about Fischer's ratings when he was very young) Rotalihin (talk)

I agree that the reader should be advised that US and FIDE ratings were (and are) not the same, perhaps in a footnote. But also, perhaps the article should do less delving into obscure issues of rating comparisons. For instance, readers are presumably uninterested in what Reshevsky's rating was in 1958. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Reshevsky of course peaked in the 1930s and 1940s, a long time before FIDE adopted the Elo system. He was certainly a top 5 player during this time. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleted discussion of the rating gap from talk page

Someone has tampered with this talk page, not allowed (or so I recall) in Wikipedia. The recent discussion of the rating gap, suggesting its inclusion in the lead, is gone. Whoever did that also appears to have removed the rating gap mention from the lead. Perhaps the mention of it ruffles some feathers out there. In the Karpov Wikipedia article, it still says in the lead, "many consider him one of the greatest chess players of all time"-- lately the trend has been to remove that kind of locution from all grandmaster biographies, a move I support.Cdg1072 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It got archived, not deleted. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Narrow opening repertoire

@JorgeLaArdilla: The "Extraordinary claim" that Fischer's opening repertoire was narrow is backed by a citation of Plisetsky and Voronkov, which I believe is an adequate secondary source. It was not necessary to add the additional citation of the chessbase article by Matthew Wilson.

That is not a very interesting article, but it does mention the quotation in which Fischer memorably used the phrase "best by test". It would be good if we could quote that phrase at this point in our article. Does anyone know where Fischer used it? Bruce leverett (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

In 60 Memorable Games, can't remember which one. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

45 Fischer v Bisguier. Yeah treat my comment as a throw away. My 60 Memorable Games article includes ByT but no ref. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Copied in ref from King's Pawn Game. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

He also said in 60 Memorable Games that he never opened with the Queen's Pawn (ie 1.d4) "on principle." The few games in which he did play a Queen's Pawn opening he generally got there by transposing.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism in the United States

There's a section on anti-Semitism in the article, but this doesn't seem like a defining characteristic of Fischer as a person. Per WP:OPINIONCAT, we should avoid categorizing people by their like or dislike of someone or something. The category has the effect of labeling Fischer an anti-Semite, which goes against the impartial tone preferred on Wikipedia.. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That guidance in WP:OPINIONCAT makes sense to me, but I note that when I click on Category:Antisemitism in the United States, I see a lot of individual people, and that category isn't any more helpful for them than it was for Fischer. Thanks for pointing this out. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I've been going through the pages and de-listing those where anti-Semitism isn't a defining feature. Even in the more substantiated cases, there's a case to be made that such a categorization is too subjective. In the case of living persons, there's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons about prohibiting such categorizations altogether. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Summary of win/loss counts

@MorganDWright: I will revert the edit that added this summary to the lead section. Here's why:

• WP:INDISCRIMINATE These numbers are of relatively little interest. Do people look up Bobby Fischer to find out how many wins and losses he had? As in any biography, the story of his life is the important thing. I admit that there are other trivia in this article, but that doesn't make it a good idea to add more.
• MOS:LEAD "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." So if for some reason it were a good idea to include these numbers, they would best be placed somewhere in the "main body" of the article, not in the "lead section".

If you disagree with this decision, feel free to comment on it here in this talk page. Thanks for your attention to Bobby Fischer -- it is a popular article and there's room for improvement. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sogn

@Ramskjell: The text is taken almost verbatim from Brady 2011. This article: [2] says that Skulason "heads Iceland's hospital for those deemed by the legal system to be criminally insane". This article: [3] refers to "Psychiatrist Magnús Skúlason from the treatment clinic Sogn", and notes that he "will be suspended indefinitely". Perhaps there is an unusual story here. I suggest that we should leave the text in place until we have a clearer picture. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I agreed with the edit, the text with "Sogn Mental Asylum for the Criminally Insane" in initial capitals makes it sound like it's the official name of the hospital, which it almost certainly isn't. The terms "mental asylum" and "criminally insane" are very American and would probably be regarded as politically incorrect in Iceland. They certainly are in my country (New Zealand). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

What I really want to know is whether Skulason's account of his contacts with Fischer was for real, or just a story to sell for cash that he needed at the time. Can anyone dig more deeply into this? Bruce leverett (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm still trying to find the official name for Sogn, unfortunately most of the google hits are Norwegian. From what I can gather it's a low security prison, where Skulason was employed and got into trouble for falsifying prescriptions (not really relevant to the Fischer article). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not easy to figure out which of our various sources actually talked to Magnus Skulason. The Times? Dylan Loeb McClain? The Guardian? Brady? Brady, published in 2011, may have copied the story from one of the others. When did they talk to Magnus? Was he really a "member of the seven-man committee who had saved [Fischer]" as the Guardian claims? I have to add that all, or almost all, of our sources are behind paywalls now; and they're all different paywalls, you can't do research any more without creating umpteen different accounts with passwords.

I have to wonder if anyone did, or could have done, due diligence on the accuracy of Magnus Skulason's recollections of his time with Fischer. The article from Iceland Review tells us that, just about the time that Fischer was dying or had recently died, Magnus was becoming disgraced, first losing his right to prescribe medicine, and then being suspended indefinitely from his position at the "clinic Sogn", due to his addiction to drugs. This makes me very distrustful of everything that Magnus told the English-speaking media. There were, of course, no witnesses to these bedside conversations other than Magnus and Fischer. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd keep it, his statement was fairly bland and uncontroversial, making no formal diagnosis. I found a UN document which describes a psychiatric hospital for serious offenders with mental illness near Selfoss. https://rm.coe.int/1680696bda. It is referred to there as the "Sogn Institution for Mentally Ill Offenders", and had a capacity of 7. It has since been converted into a low security prison. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for researching this. The change you have made to the article looks reasonable to me. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

By the way paywalled stuff can often still be found at archive.org if you know the URL. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

Hi , why would you think that "Bobby Fischer" is not the byname of "Robert James Fischer"? The word byname is even used at Britannica for Fischer's name? In addition, if the article is called Bobby Fischer then the byname is the first name that should be used in the opening sentence. Blockhouse321 (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the full name of the article subject as the first mention, not nicknames. See MOS:FULLNAME. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit more nuanced than that, but if someone is normally known by a nickname, e.g. Bill Clinton, it is normal to use that as the title of the article, but use their formal name in the first sentence. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Quotation from Donner

The quotation from Donner in the section about antisemitism was originally given as: "He also championed a brand of anti-semitism that could only be thought up by a mind completely cut off from reality." Using Google Books to search the 2006 printing of Donner's book, one can easily determine that this is the correct quotation.

On the other hand, editor @208.44.170.108: claims that the book gives an entirely different quotation: "He also championed a brand of anti-semitism that could only be thought up by one of the greatest minds of our time." Since Donner died in 1988, the 2006 printing of his book is presumably not the original one, and it is possible that this editor is reading an older and different version. On the other hand, it is possible that this editor is just a troll. There is a lengthy history of vandalism from that IP address (see its talk page), and the quotation itself is not very plausible. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Until the IP comes up with any evidence that the quote is incorrect, the 2006 version stands. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

"speculation on psychological condition"

this section is ridiculous. Not scientific, not medical, simply guessing. should be removed --142.163.194.84 (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. There are reliable sources to indicate there has been considerable speculation about Fischer's psychological condition. Joseph G. Ponterotto is a notable American psychologist, author and professor. He states there is evidence Fischer suffered from paranoid personality disorder characterized by paranoid delusions.

In the article Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler, for example, it deals with speculation that Hitler suffered from mental illness, although Hitler was never formally diagnosed with any mental illnesses during his lifetime. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs

@MaxBrowne2 and Simmagister: Thanks for suggesting that the lead paragraphs be trimmed.

Regrettably, I would say, it is necessary to say something in the lead paragraphs about anti-semitism (and his psychological condition). For most biographies I would think that the subject's idiosyncrasies do not belong in a brief summary of what makes him notable, which is what the lead paragraphs are supposed to be. But I am convinced that people no longer think of Fischer as just "that chess guy", but as "that anti-semitic chess guy". See for example the letters to the editor columns in Chess Life, September and October of 2021. Hmm ... I cannot easily give you a link to these issues of the magazine. Well, in the August issue, there was a cover article about John Donaldson's research into Fischer, and the subsequent Letters columns were set aflame by someone who was outraged at Fischer's anti-semitism.

Regarding notability of Fischer's actual accomplishments, I think we must mention his victory in the U.S. Championship at 14, and his winning the U.S. Championship with a perfect score in 1963-4, as these were sensational at the time. (Let me mention an anecdote from that time. I learned chess in 1962 as a 10-year-old. My mother happened to mention this to a neighbor lady, who turned to me and said, "What do you think of that guy, Bobby Fischer?" As it happened, I didn't yet know who he was. But she did!) I would also say that the 6-0 sweeps against Taimanov and Larsen were sensational. But I am not unhappy that you have cut out some other stuff. It's not necessary to recite every record he ever broke in these paragraphs. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have made the above described adjustments. I am unhappy that the 2nd of the lead paragraphs, about events after 1972, is so long. But these events are still notorious, and I don't see a way of reducing the material about them in the lead paragraphs. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Catholic POV

Hi User:Bruce leverett, how my edits are not improvements? The fake quote I removed is not supported by the source[4] and I added his actual views on Christianity because they are notable and also because of people who want to convert him to Catholicism would better know that they stand no chance here. 122.170.161.254 (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Several things wrong:

• The fact that you got a negative search result from Google Books doesn't mean the quote isn't there. I have already found a periodical that lifted the same quote from Brady. I don't personally have a copy of Brady 2011, but before you claim that the quote is "fake", you more or less have to prove that the book doesn't have it. Do you have a copy of the book in front of you?
• You deleted the words "Towards the end of his life". What, are you claiming that Fischer was sympathetic to Catholicism before that period? What grounds do you have for that?
• You added the word "somewhat". What is the point of adding that word? Isn't it just MOS:DOUBT?
• You modified the article to quote the same statement ("... Jewish hoax ...") twice. That is ridiculous. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't have the book's copy but Google Books can correctly verify the existence of a quote by showing the particular quote the search results if it really exists. But this quote showed 0 results which means that the quote is not found in the book.

"Towards the end of his life" seemed like original research. There is no point in saying that he became sympathetic only before years of his death. I would be in support of removal of that whole sentence, as well as the one I wrote "Fischer was somewhat sympathetic..." because it is original research too but at least it echoed that he couldn't be wholly sympathetic to it as he was overall anti-Christianity.

Lastly, I just used the same source for identifying his views on Christianity that already existed. It does not use the quote "twice" but only used in the article body once. It was used in references (by someone else}. 122.170.161.254 (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

On page 315 of the paperback edition of Endgame Brady writes, ... near the end of his life, he began to explore Catholicism and according to Gardar Sverrisson, Bobby talked with him about the transformation of society by creating harmony with one another, and then professed that he thought "the only hope for the world is through Catholicism." Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quotation. The quote "only hope for the world is through" does appear in the result which means that I can trust your research. I have restored the content but with a rewrite per the quote you provided. 122.170.161.254 (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Bob's parents

When looking at the preview Wikipedia page that comes up on Google, the parents of Bobby are listed as Regina and Hans Gerhardt Fischer. But in the article itself, it correctly informs us that this is highly unlikely. To clarify: Regina had separated from Gerhardt when she left Moscow for Paris in 1938/1939. She then emigrated to the U.S. in 1939; still with just Joan. Bobby was born in the USA in 1943, in the middle of WWII. Gerhardt had never come to the U.S.. The FBI at the time, who was closely following Regina, concluded that Bob's father was not Hans Gerhardt Fischer, but rather Paul Nemenyi who was involved with Regina in 1942 and kept meeting Bobby throughout his childhood until Bobby was nine years old, when Paul died.

In short, it is not a fact that Hans Gerhardt Fischer was Bob's parent. It shouldn't appear as a fact on the preview page. S. Kossin (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think your clarification is thoroughly discussed in the article itself. The official record is that Hans Gerhardt Fischer is the father. That Paul Nemenyi is the father seems very likely, but it has not been conclusively proven. Ewen (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't control how Google chooses to present Bobby Fischer. Take it up with Google. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit

Previous:

On August 8, 1971, while preparing for his last Candidates match with former World Champion Tigran Petrosian, Fischer played in the Manhattan Chess Club Rapid Tournament, winning with 21½/22 against a strong field.

Current

On August 8, 1971, while preparing for his last Candidates match with former World Champion Tigran Petrosian, Fischer played in the Manhattan Chess Club Rapid Tournament, winning 21½ out of 22 games against a strong field.

There are two problems with this edit: (1) The style represented by 21½/22 is used throughout the article, and in other chess articles. There's no good reason to change the style here. Yes, it's a two-level fraction, but legal mathematically and chesswise. Using "out of" as a rule instead would be cumbersome. (2) The verb "winning" means that he won the tournament in question. The "with" introduces his score as additional information; omitting it leaves in question just who won the tournament. Yes, that score certainly looks like a winner, but suppose that it were a Swiss System, and somebody who didn't play Fischer finished 22/22.

It would take two reversions to fix this, so I thought I'd offer it for a consensus. I'd suggest ...

On August 8, 1971, while preparing for his last Candidates match with former World Champion Tigran Petrosian, Fischer won the Manhattan Chess Club Rapid Tournament, scoring 21½/22 against a strong field.

WHPratt (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. OK with me if you just revert the edit, but if you have some slightly different plan, that's OK too. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Easiest would be to use my suggested edit above. See if it works for you. WHPratt (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic Fischer was a Jew Himself

"Fischer made numerous antisemitic statements and denied the Holocaust; his antisemitism, professed since at least the 1960s, was a major theme in his public and private remarks. There has been widespread comment and speculation concerning his psychological condition based on his extreme views and unusual behavior."

This statement near the top of the Article should include the fact that Fischer himself was Jewish, as both of his parents were "Polish Jews" (per the article itself, further down). Failing to note this ironic context is misleading, and fails to tell the entire truth of the situation, at the moment in the Article that it should be told.107.195.106.201 (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I would be open to the idea of adding, to the first sentence of the last paragraph, something like "Although Fischer was born to Jewish parents, ...". It is not unusual, in a Wiki biography, to mention the subject's ethnic heritage. I could boldly do this now, but I thought I'd wait a little while for other editors interested in this article to weigh in. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Should Fischer also be classified as a neo-Nazi, an Al-Qaeda sympathizer, and a self-hating Jew? 2001:8003:AD13:F800:F132:F39A:7D66:4DE7 (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality?!

For a long time the article referred to Fischer as either the greatest or one of the greatest chess players of all time, providing references backing this assertion. Any particular reason for deletion? I am aware of Wikipedia's policy regarding neutrality, but we're talking about notable chess persons opining Fischer was one of the greatest, not fanboys. On a different note, there's an entire paragraph in the intro section dedicated to Fischer's antisemitism. At various points in his life Fischer was also anti-Soviet (going beyond merely accusing soviets of collusion) and anti-American. 109.78.96.122 (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

There was quite a lot of discussion, both here and in other chess biographies such as Talk:Garry Kasparov and Talk:Magnus Carlsen, about the use of "greatest of all time" claims. The most recent discussion regarding Bobby Fischer can be found in Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive_10#GOAT "Greatest of all time", but one can find it in earlier archives as well. As you probably noticed there was quite a collection of sources for this article. But ultimately the consensus was to drop it. I would characterize it as, "greatest of all time" statements are not worth the trouble of maintaining them.

Some discussion about the anti-semitism paragraph can be found in Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive_10#Lead Paragraphs. My own position is that normally, the lead paragraphs should be a summary of what makes the person notable, and this would not include idiosyncratic or bizarre beliefs; but in Fischer's case, with the passage of time, his antisemitism has become a significant component of his notability. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Understood, but my point is that Fischer was anti many things, why single out antisemitism? 51.37.206.248 (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Operation Earnest Voice on Wikipedia

Fischer was a prominent critic of the US regime but this article as is typical of Wikipedia does not allow any mention of this, instead it mentions completely irrelevant things like 'Soviet collusion' and attacks defaming his mental health.= 2804:D45:A301:CA00:49CF:BDB8:B9AB:63FD (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hitchens's razor mean anything to you? Ewen (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Italicization

@MaxBrowne2, @Bruce leverett: Regarding your reverts of my italicization in the phrase "also known as Gerardo Liebscher", I'd like to ask: What if it read instead, for instance: "also known under the pseudonym Gerardo Liebscher"? Would you still object? If so, why, even though both phrases put the focus on that alternative name as such? Hildeoc (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a "pseudonym", and a pseudonym like Lady Gaga is still a proper name. I got the MOS link wrong, it's MOS:NOITALIC, which includes "proper names" in the list of things not to be Italiticized. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: I just had another closer look at that section. Now the thing is that, firstly, the relevant passage on proper names there is only in the context of italicizing foreign-language terms, stating that italics are to be avoided for "proper names, to which the convention of italicizing non-English words and phrases does not apply". Secondly, I would have rather considered MOS:WAW to apply here. What do you think? Hildeoc (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how this is talking about "words as words". It's talking about words as somebody's name.

Does anyone, inside or outside Wikipedia, use italics in a situation like this? I cannot think of an example. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with both of Bruce's points. This is not MOS:WAW but even if you tried to apply that rule, italics are used to indicate the use–mention distinction. This sentence uses the name, it doesn't mention it, so italics aren't correct here. As Bruce notes, no one italicizes this. Quale (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Icelandic-American?

Maybe a n00b question but why aren't we calling Bobby Icelandic-American? Or a dual citizen of Iceland and the US? Or what? I mean Bobby died dual right?

https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/324239/african-american-or-filipino-american-how-do-you-distinguish-americans-of-a Thewriter006 (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

If I recall correctly from previous discussions, the consensus was that he was an Icelandic citizen for such a short period of time - right at the end of his life - that it would be misleading to describe him as "Icelandic-American" in the opening sentence. His taking of Icelandic citizenship is however mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Where are the previous discussions please? Thewriter006 (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Most recently, see Talk:Bobby_Fischer/Archive_8#Nationality. Note that there are 10 hefty archive files for this talk page. That's a sign that even the simplest-looking editorial issues are likely to have been fought over. Thanks for asking. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

OMG THANKS THAT EXPLAINS IT. TIL about archive in wikipedia talk pages. I was wondering why this talk page is so short LOL Thewriter006 (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

btw bobby was indeed american up to death and thus was dual citizen at death too? @Bruce leverett Thewriter006 (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Please understand that everyone who watches this article rolls their eyes, sighs inwardly and says to them selves "oh no not this crap again" every time someone suggests "Iceland-American". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but you see I'm different right? :D

I mean, I know there's no way in Hell this hasn't been discussed before. Thewriter006 (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

and additionally it's not just the icelandic-american but just look at this talk page:

if you don't know about the archives, then it's insane that bobby fischer not just of all chess players but also of all humans has such a short talk page right? Thewriter006 (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Paul Nemenyi as Fischer's Father

I made a change to this section solely based on the report and sources that were being discussed. Please feel free to comment, but make sure to you've read the 2009 LA Times article that was quoted (currently linked in note 13). Thanks. S. Kossin (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe someone can help me, but it seems I inadvertently made a type-text fonted box in the middle. I will try to mend it myself but will appreciate any help. S. Kossin (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Gratefully, there are photos of Paul Nemenyi, so I included one. Some even like to compare his face with Bobby's. So it is quite relevant here. S. Kossin (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

german ancestor, Name Wender

Wender is a german family name, no polish family name, so she must have german ancestors. 2003:CA:A72F:4900:6128:69B6:506B:226 (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer's Family Roots

Apparently, Peter was Bobby's half-brother from his illegitimate father, Paul. See here: http://livingstoncountychessclub.blogspot.com/2017/05/bobby-fischer-genius-and-mental-illness.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.98.105 (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:SELFPUB. A Web page at blogspot.com is not a reliable source, especially for potentially defamatory claims. General Ization ^Talk 00:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Meteoric

The quotation from Brady does not specifically refer to Fischer's rating (i.e. Brady does not mention ratings on that page or the one after). Brady refers to Fischer's "learning curve" and his "meteoric rise". There is no need for us to bring in ratings at this point, since we are already listing the strong tournaments he won, etc.

In addition, I am uncomfortable using the word "meteoric". Just because we have a source, doesn't mean that it isn't MOS:PUFFERY. I will try to write a single sentence that conveys that Fischer suddenly got strong during 1956, without using extravagant language. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, could attribute the word "meteoric" to Brady, or say something like "a sudden rise in strength described as 'meteoric'" (ref Brady). I don't think the word is hyperbolic in the context of Fischer. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Methinks the word was well-selected by Brady. ("Meteoric" conveys several things at once: attention-getting; observed by many; rarely occurring; individual/solo; speed; altitude.) --IHTS (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, I will curb my destructive impulses.

I am considering moving that sentence to the beginning of the section (before the paragraph about the Log Cabin Chess Club). Make sense? Bruce leverett (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

match of the century at the start

why don't we say match of the century at the start instead of like all the way down (kinda like bobby's icelandic citizenship lol) ? Thewriter006 (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Which match of the century? At least three different matches are given that title, in this article alone. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Picture in "Chess Beginnings"

Inaccurate description. The player on the right (to avoid accusations of bias) is making a move. His motion is captred in the photo. JApples31 (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

What's your beef? The caption says they are "analyzing". When two players get together to analyze a position or a game, they often move pieces around. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Why did Bruce Leverett delete this?

I added back the following, which I wrote years ago, and which was in the article for years, but someone deleted:

</ref> On the tenth national rating list of the United States Chess Federation (USCF), published on May 20, 1956, his rating was a modest 1726, over 900 points below top-rated Samuel Reshevsky (2663).

Bruce Leverett recently deleted it again, claiming "Ratings are wrong." Why does he claim this? Has he looked at the source material I cited? I did not make this up, and it strikes me as very important information. As far as I know, Fischer had literally the most striking rating rise in chess history. I think this material should be added back. Krakatoa (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Krakatoa (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not claim that "Ratings are wrong". I cited an earlier Talk page discussion that was given that title by another editor. See Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 10#Ratings are wrong.

In that discussion, an editor complained that we were citing USCF ratings at one place in the article, and FIDE ratings at another place, without noting that they are different. I agreed, and I also suggested that readers would be uninterested in what Reshevsky's rating was in 1956. I soon ripped out the part about ratings.

I take it for granted that you want to support the claim that his rise was "meteoric" by looking at his rating. But to do that, you need to cite two of his ratings, not one of his and one of Reshevsky's. Fischer's rating in the May 20, 1956 Chess Life was 1726. His rating in the next rating list, which was May 5, 1957, was 2231.

Brady supports the term "meteoric" without citing Fischer's rating, and indeed, I don't think he ever mentions Fischer's early ratings. I figured it would be acceptable for us to follow the same course. Also, to me, a 500-point rating gain in one year, while very unusual, is unlikely to be unique. Fischer's gain in strength during that year was unique or nearly so, but his rating progress doesn't show it. Moreover, Harkness ratings were notoriously unreliable; to make a long story short, that's why the USCF switched to Elo ratings. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

References

What was the cause of his death?

64 is not an age to die on "Altersschwäche"... 2A01:C23:79B7:3C00:90CC:EEC4:700C:9D05 (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Why does he had no children?

Had he no sex? Was he infertile? 2A01:C23:79B7:3C00:90CC:EEC4:700C:9D05 (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Fischer didn't play for Iceland

I removed Iceland from the "country" entry in the infobox. As it's been there since 2007, I should explain why. There've been recurring discussions about how to describe Fischer's nationality (here, here, here, here and most recently here), but the "country" entry in {{Infobox chess biography}} refers to the chess federation(s) the player was or is affiliated with, not the player's nationality or citizenship. (It doesn't say so in the template documentation (maybe it should), but you can see in articles where more than one "country" is listed (e.g. Fabiano Caruana) that that's how that entry is consistently used.) Fischer was never affiliated with the Icelandic Chess Federation. As mentioned in several of the above-linked discussions, he never played for Iceland and in fact didn't play any official games while he lived there. His FIDE page still lists his federation as USA, and the FIDE archive of transfers doesn't list a transfer for him. Joriki (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

William Lombardy

Here is my my long understanding of William Lombardy's place in the story of Bobby Fischer.

Fischer was disqualified from the world championship with Spassky for not showing up for the qualifying match and so the right to challenge went to Lombardy. Lombardy knew that Fischer, not him, had best real chance of beating Spassky so he stepped aside.

I think this is interesting to know about Lombardy and his vital role not just as Fischer's second but in insuring that the U.S.A won. 2601:589:8101:2560:7179:8FA0:A095:6E0D (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)