Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

WP:NOR and Fischer's endgame

Fischer's play in game 4 of the Taimanov match was masterful & influenced a generation; one could say the same of thirty or forty other Fischer games. For other famous Fischer endings, see Game 1 of Larsen 1971 match, Game 7 of Petrosian 1971 match, Games 10 and 13 of Spassky 1972 match (off the top of my head). Kasparov cites the influence of Fischer's play in the pure B v. N ending (see Spassky's win against Fischer at 2nd Piat Cup 1967, Fischer's win against Unzicker, Siegen 1970). I am sure the editor of this section is aware of how Fischer horribly botched (by his high standards) the win in the 2nd game of the Taimanov match, only winning because of Taimanov's counter-blunder. Billbrock 23:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I put this over here because the Fischer's endgame is almost certainly going to be deleted. (I think it should be deleted, I put it up for AfD.) But I did find one reference in English to the endgame of R+B vs. R+N (plus pawns) being called the "Fischer endgame" (the reference is in the article). On the other hand, I found quite a few references where the endgame was discussed, but "Fischer endgame" was not mentioned where you might expect it to be: the online article by Muller, the Oxford Companion, Soltis, Kasparov, Shereshevsky, Hansen, and now the new book by Silman. So do you think it should be taken out alltogether? Bubba73 (talk), 01:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It belongs in the "Notable chess games" section. Soon someone will be arguing that Fischer contributed to the theory of positions with Q, 2 B's, N's,& R's, and 8 pawns. Neither in the AfD nor in this article is Fischer's contribution to theory articulated. Billbrock 14:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe Fischer's other endgame when Fischer shows that R & N are stronger than R & B. (Cf. game 7 of Petrosian match.) Here's a similarity between Fischer, Karpov, & Kramnik: none of them are doctrinaire about the superiority of Bishop to Knight. (Cf. "Even a bad Bishop is better than a Knight," per Kasparov.) Billbrock 14:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when you see a position won by a world champion class player against a much weaker player, you wonder if it was a win because of the position or because the better player out played the weaker one. Bubba73 (talk), 07:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I had overlooked that section. I made the move. Bubba73 (talk), 14:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

PS- it isn't OR because it is in two references: FCE and the Russian article. Bubba73 (talk), 01:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a little to help justify the section. Bubba73 (talk), 01:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Kasparov's comment that a bad bishop being better than a knight, in Damjanovic-Fischer, 1970, White had a bad bishop, black won with the knight. Bubba73 (talk), 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

USCF membership

The article says that USCF membership "peaked in 1974". It surpassed that mark in 1992. Should that be mentioned? Bubba73 (talk), 03:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delayed response. I'd say, yes, absolutely. The article should be accurate. "reached a peak in 1974 that wasn't surpassed until 1992" or similar language might work. (I seem to recall that some have argued that more recent membership rolls are inflated by huge numbers of scholastic players with heavily discounted memberships and a very high non-renewal rate, but I might be misremembering. I don't follow USCF politics, and even if true it is a debatable and argumentative detail that doesn't deserve mention in this article.) Quale 02:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is, that rate of change in membership enrollments in the USCF in 1972 dramatically increased, the momentumm carrying it through until 1974. And in 1992, Fischer was again involved in a highly publicized match. Are both of these items coincidence?

ChessHistorian 18:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding more on Fischer's achievements in chess!

Long overdue. Billbrock 07:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Brevity, focus, proportionality

Fischer's friend and childhood mentor, former U.S. Champion Arnold Denker, was in contact with the reclusive Fischer during the match negotiations. Denker, writing with his co-author, the respected chess journalist Larry Parr, in the book The Bobby Fischer I Knew And Other Stories (Hypermodern Press 1995), explained that Fischer knew he hadn't been playing for three years, and hence he wanted a long match to be able to play himself into shape.

Karpov, writing nearly 20 years later in his autobiography Karpov on Karpov (Atheneum 1991), expressed profound regret that the match did not take place. He views the cancelled match as the most disappointing episode in his own life, and stated that the lack of the opportunity to challenge Fischer held back his own chess development from what he might have achieved. Karpov, who had prepared hard for several months in anticipation, became World Champion by default in April, 1975, and went on to dominate chess in Fischer's absence for the next decade. Karpov has a high regard for Fischer's chess, and met with Fischer several times after 1975. Karpov wrote that the two champions got along well on a personal level, as they tried to reach agreement to play the match, without success.

Garry Kasparov, who succeeded Karpov as World Champion in 1985 and dominated top-flight chess for nearly 20 years, has written a five-volume series of books My Great Predecessors on the great champions who came before him. He writes that Karpov would have had a good chance against Fischer in 1975.

These three paragraphs should be condensed into one. Billbrock 02:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture

O come on guys, what's up with that picture? Are you trying to make him/this article look bad? Can't a younger one be uploaded, as that one is even hard to look at. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.76.70 (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Bobby-fischer-early.jpg

Image:Bobby-fischer-early.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TorturedinPasadena.jpg

Image:TorturedinPasadena.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo

I think the main photo of Fischer should be a more typical one. Bubba73 (talk), 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. -Etafly 11:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I searched for a photo that I was sure was OK copyright wise, but I couldn't find one. There are many articles about people that need photos. There ought to be a way to put up a photo of a famous (living) person without having copyright problems. Bubba73 (talk), 13:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Couldnt agree more. We need a better picture. Before I posted the photo required template, I looked quite hard for a public domain photo, also in vain. I found a lot of very suitable photos, but none of them had the copyrights owner on it (so we can't even ask permission). If someone has a good photo with knowledge of the copyright owner this might be something we can do. Voorlandt 17:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can claim fair use on one of the better suited photos. -Etafly 22:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I found these on Google Images:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]. The last one used to be on the article. Bubba73 (talk), 23:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The "to do" list has "Replace fair use images with free images, or obtain free licenses for existing images", but I don't know how to find free images. I think that having the only photo of him being taken as he was arrested might even be POV. Bubba73 (talk), 02:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The current picture is better (Fischer in 2005), but I think it would be best to have a picture of him in his adult playing days, about 1968-1972. Bubba73 (talk), 02:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:LIVING, WP:NPOV, and claim that he is "known for his anti-Semitism."

This sentence in the lead violates so many Wikipedia policies it is laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.42.170 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 15 August 2007

The anon IP user raises an interesting question: how many reputable mainstream sources need to state their opinion that Bobby Fischer's inflammatory comments on Jews are anti-Semitic before we can insert the clause "Fischer now lives in Iceland, and has also become known for his anti-Americanism, anti-imperialism, and anti-Semitism"?

Using Lexis-Nexis, I typed in the keywords Bobby Fischer and anti-Semitism. 121 articles surfaced. 89 from reputable newspapers; 14 from Newswires and Press Releases; 7 from magazines and journals---the list goes on and on.

Who are some of the organizations, mainstream publications, and authors asserting that Fischer's inflammatory comments are anti-Semitic? Here's a brief sample of the mainstream newspapers: the Chicago-Sun Times, the Boston Globe, the Australian, the Times (London), the Japan Times, Mainichi Daily News, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Gazette (Montreal) -- the list of mainstream reputable newspapers continues.

Of course, there is also the anti-Defamation League (ADL). Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), issued the following statement in part to the U.S. Newswire: "Bobby Fischer joins a long list of personalities who have achieved greatness in their special fields but unfortunately were infected with the disease of bigotry and racism, of which anti-Semitism is usually the most rampant." (September 2, 1992)

Writing in the Jeruselem Report, Darren Garrick states: "Real anti-Semitism is often crazier than fiction...despite having a Jewish mother, former world chess champ Bobby Fischer is still blaming the world's problems on 'the Jew-controlled U.S. government.'" (October 17, 2005, pg. 42)

Then there is a list of Fischer biographers, authors and former colleagues who also publicly stated that his inflammatory comments against Jews are anti-Semitic. I'm not sure where to begin listing them all, or even if it's worth mentioning at this point.

The bottom-line is that the anon IP user raises an interesting question. Bobby Fischer et al. may not think that he is anti-Semitic, but Fischer certainly managed to fool a lot of other people based on his public remarks into stating otherwise. Those are the facts. The question now is: What to do in terms of this WP article? Respectfully yours, J Readings 22:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I re-inserted the edit before seeing this talk page discussion. I agree with J Readings. There are ample WP:Reliable Sources which say that Fischer is known for his anti-semitism. While normally we would avoid this sort of "judgement word", Fischer is so well known for his anti-semitism that it does the article a great disservice if we fail to mention it in the lead. Also I can't see the word recommended against in the guideline page Wikipedia:Words to avoid, in fact it suggests is as a preferable term of "racism". Peter Ballard 00:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What makes Bobby Fischer notable is his chess, period. His anti-semitism is not what makes him notable. He could be one of the world's worst anti-semites and he would still not be worth any mention in Wikipedia but for his chess-playing. The lede should concentrate on what makes him notable - his chess. His anti-semitism is not notable enough to be part of the lede. It is sufficiently notable to be part of the article, but not the lede. Sbowers3 01:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit like saying Michael Jackson is only notable as a singer, so his bizarre behaviour doesn't belong in the lead; or Princess Diana is only notable as a princess, so her death does not belong in the lead. To quote WP:LEAD, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." (my emphasis). Fischer's anti-semitism is a notable controversy, and one of the reasons why he remains a fascinating and controversial figure. It is well documented, and belongs in the lead. Peter Ballard 02:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't deserve undue weight in the lede, but it must be mentioned. Greater detail is appropriate in the relevant parts of the article. It's unfortunate, but Fischer will be known to many who weren't alive during his chess playing heyday primarily as a loony anti-semite. Quale 05:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No doubt that it is well-sourced that he is known for his anti-semitism. But I think that the lead should be expanded a bit to make it clear why his stand on USA, Imperialism and Jews are particular important. From the little I know, it has played a significant role, but I don't learn it from the lead as of now. But the current "qualifier" after the sentence we discuss, "However, Fischer's inflammatory statements have done little to diminish the professional and popular recognition of his singular achievements on the chessboard." is just not needed (it seems as an attempt to make an unnecessary compromise). It already ís mentioned that he is considered one of the all-time greatest.--HJensen, talk 18:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not every antisemite expresses his beliefs in a way that makes said beliefs constitutive of his identity. I had earlier posted numerous examples from Fischer's home page. Upon reflection, I decided that the hate speech didn't deserve further promulgation. You can read the unredacted passages by reverting this edit or going to the source. Billbrock 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Google hits are a worthy judge of whether he is anti-Semitic (because someone denying they are would also rank highly in such a search) and frankly, Abe Foxman has been accused of calling people ant-Semitic when that actually does not seem to be the case (see his article for reference), so those arguments don't convince me. However, he has been called anti-Semitic in many articles appearing in the press, so in this case it's appropriate to say that. I also think it's appropriate to say: "However, Fischer's inflammatory statements have done little to diminish the professional and popular recognition of his singular achievements on the chessboard." In another similar example, William Shockley's scientific achievements were looked at in a different way after he got into eugenics. A reader coming across the first sentence would wonder if Fischer still has respect for his chess playing, and the second sentence answers the question. --Gloriamarie 22:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Gloriaamerie confuses the situation. No one here has used Google hits to test whether the media believe that Bobby Fischer's inflammatory statements are anti-Semitic. I used a Lexis-Nexis search followed by actually reading through all of the articles. Let me say that again, I read through all of the articles. Not a single publicly verifiable author, journalist or political activist defended Bobby Fischer's anti-Semitism in print nor did any of these authors, journalists, or political activists try to obfuscate the issue by claiming that Fischer was somehow a complicated, misunderstood intellectual. Rather, Fischer was labeled an anti-Semite as if it were a well-established statement of fact with examples thrown in to emphasize the point. Now, Gloriamerie will probably (and rightly) state that everyone will have to take my word for it, since I didn't quote all of these newspapers, magazines, and press statements, and that would be fair enough. I didn't quote all of them because there were far too many to quote and I didn't see the point of actually synthesizing original research to put a Lexis-Nexis number on the main page. I was only trying to demonstrate that the introductory statement could be linked to many reliable sources, which is overwhelmingly the case.

That said, after reading through Billbrock's list of Bobby Fischer's inflammatory quotes and now Goriaamerie's argument that we should include an unreferenced statement about how the world still respects Fischer as a chess player which, frankly, could be construed as original research, I'm beginning to think this situation needs some kind of closure. We should probably both develop a section that details some of the more prominent examples from the media calling Fischer an anti-Semite based on his inflammatory statements (and Foxman would certainly count among them) and remove the clause that claims that he is still a well-respected chess player. By all means, keep that latter clause in if a reliable secondary source is provided to emphasize that specific point about chess in the context of his inflammatory comments. Otherwise, I think it constitutes original research and should probably be removed in violation of Wikipedia policy. What do others think? J Readings 23:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I was the author of the sentence about the continued respect for Fischer the chess player. Pars pro toto, Kasparov in MGP4: "Many consider Robert Fischer to be the best chessplayer of the 20th century. Possibly this is so." (p. 490) On the previous page, Kasparov had alluded to similar examples of Fischer's antisemitism and observes that commentary on these strange views is "superfluous" (p. 489). Many other leading GMs have made similar comments. Billbrock 05:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest that rather than saying: " has also become known for his anti-Americanism," etc. which assumes knowledge of his state of mind, the article should say "has also become known for his anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-imperilistic statements" -- assuming that this characterization is supported by reliable sources, of course, which shouldn't be hard. Dlabtot 22:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe Bobby Fischer is best known for taking on a group of Soviets by himself in a sport, and for beating them in a famous match in Iceland, and that is why he now lives in Iceland today, rather than in an Arab country at war with Israel. He is similar to the U.S. hockey team that beat the Soviets in the 1980 Olympics. The allegations of anti-Semitism belong in the article, but not in the lede.Mpublius 19:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Alleged anti-Americanism

Is a call for the destruction of the United States really anti-Americanism? Some might deem it tough love. Billbrock 00:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'd delete "anti-imperialism". His anti-Americanism and anti-semitism are obvious enough, but how is he anti-imperialist? Peter Ballard 01:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Anti-imperialism" was added by one of the fans of Fischer's ideology. I was never crazy about it, but I was fighting larger edit battles, and thought it did partly capture his early anti-communist stance. Doesn't quite do justice to his current anti-Icelandic fervor (see the Iceland-UBS conspiracy stuff on fischer.jp), does it? Billbrock 03:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Would calling for the destruction of, say, Canada, be anti-Canadianism, or would it be tough love? Algabal 06:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, they did turn him into the universe's only chess fugitive. GuesssWho

What's the point of claiming Fischer is "anti-imperialistic"? Anti-imperialism is a philosophy associated with the political left, originating in Marxist theories of imperialism. Fischer's anti-American and anti-semitic rants hardly qualify as advocating the collapse of imperialism. True, he would like to see America destroyed, but this desire doesn't extend to the rest of the developed world (as far as we know) in favor of the third world. I would suggest that the person who added anti-imperialism is wishfully couching Fisher's hatreds into a philosophy which historically had some currency among left-wing intellectuals, in order to make them and Fischer seem rational and less bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.133.177 (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Dlabtot 04:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Left-wing intellectual concurs, and edited accordingly. It should be noted that, decades earlier, RJF was fervently anti-Soviet. But that doesn't need to be in the lede, and "anti-imperialistic" is indeed misleading. Billbrock 14:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Gothic chess rumors

I think the Gothic chess rumors should be removed from the Fischer article. Are there any good sources confirming any of this? Link 38. http://www.chessclub.com/chessfm is worthless as it merely links to the front page -- nothing can be confirmed by it. The rest are all links to a site associated with the Gothic Chess patent owner, so they are not independent. Ed Trice and partners are engaged in multiple edit wars right now and will certainly revert removal of the Gothic Chess stuff here as has happened at least twice before, so I wanted to see what other editors think. Even if the rumors have some validity, it isn't clear to me that they are notable. I don't know anyone who doesn't have a financial interest in Gothic Chess who cares about this. If anyone did, I would expect that third party sources confirming it could be found. Quale 00:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The references stopped me deleting it before, but I hadn't noticed that the references were not indepedent. Delete the entire paragraph, including references 35-37, which are radio interviews but the article says nothing about the contents of the interviews. Peter Ballard 01:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

They were not rumors at all. Anatoly Karpov signed the playing contract which is shown here:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/Karpov_Signature.jpg

The signature of Karpov was confirmed by Lawrence Totaro who is a renowned autograph collector, see http://www.chessville.com/links/Site%20Reviews/UltimateChessCollecting.htm for example. He also wrote the book "Fisching For Forgeries" which can be seen at http://www.fischingforforgeries.com/home.html

The discussion of the Dan Heisman radio program was blogged around the world, including the reputable source on Susan Polgar's site:

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2006/10/fischer-vs-karpov-it-could-finally.html

Another site mentions this too:

http://chess-training.blogspot.com/2006/10/fischer-karpov-20067.html

And even a low traffic blog has an entry on this:

http://rookvanwinkle.blogspot.com/2006/10/next-big-match-fischer-vs-karpov.html

So if was just a rumor, how come it was so easy to find so much information on it?

And look at this page, down at the bottom:

http://www.gothicchess.com/iceland_news.html

That is Grandmaster Fridrik Olafsson, Fischer's lifelong friend. He is holding Gothic Chess pieces in his hand. Also present was Frank Camaratta of the House of Staunton. He was contracted to make the wooden Gothic Chess pieces. From the other pictures, it is clear that they are in Iceland.

What would Frank Camaratta being doing with the inventor of Gothic Chess in Iceland, meeting with a friend of Fischer's who is studying the design of one of the two new chess pieces?

If you want the complete recording of the on-air article, here it is:

http://www.gothicchess.com/radio.wma

You need to listen to it with an older version of Media Player or with QuickTime or an exectuable of this sort.

And, finally, a complette description of how this match began can be found here:

http://gothicchess.blogspot.com/

I know all of this because I am a reporter for the Baltimore Sun and I actually interviewed one of the match financiers and the inventor of the game of Gothic Chess.

ChessHistorian 18:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• These are all either blogs or www.gothicchess.com. In either case they fail WP:RS as blogs are in general not reliable, and gothicchess.com is not an independent, third party source. If the Baltimore Sun reported it, that might qualify as a reliable source. Ditto The New York Times, Chess Life, Chessbase.com news, etc. My suggestion is that you take this to the Gothic chess article and edit war over it there. Also, what is it with the Gothic chess fanatics that they can't reply to anything without using at least 60 lines as displayed on screen? Learn to be more concise as a kindness to other wikipedia editors who are trying to contribute to an encyclopedia here. Quale 18:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You want short, no problem. How can you say that photographs of a team visiting Iceland with Karpov's signature already on a contract means that the whole thing about Fischer is a rumor. Care to explain? ChessHistorian 18:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• There's nothing to explain. Read WP:RS and come back if you find a source for your claims that qualifies as a reliable source. Since you write for the Baltimore Sun, where was this reported in the Sun? That might be satisfactory for a reliable source. (I'm finding it hard to believe that you are a journalist when you don't seem to have any conception what a reliable source is. If you aren't familiar with Wikipedia's policies, you should also digest WP:V and WP:NOR.) Quale 18:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the newpaper paid for my flight to Las Vegas to meet one of the billionaires who put up half of the $15,000,000 for the prize fund. The newspaper paid for my Amtrak ticket to Philadelphia to meet the game's inventor. I wrote the article myself. I verified all of the above after having called people like Dan Heisman and Susan Polgar. Another follow up article was published here:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.checkers20jul20,0,5286891.story

but this was for something different, involving the same person. I will need to find the link for the original story from 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessHistorian (talk • contribs) 19:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I look forward to seeing what you can dig up. There are a few points that I possibly should have made clear:

1. The foundation of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, so something you know to be true that isn't verifiable can't go in.
2. As verifiability is more important than truth, WP:RS and WP:V actually serve two purposes. Verification is one, the other is determination of WP:N encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia editors don't decide what is notable. In general, something is considered notable if it has multiple, reliable, independent, third-party sources. If not, there's a good chance it doesn't belong. If this story had been picked up by the AP for example, it would be easier to say that it is notable.
3. WP:RS reliable sources aren't exactly the same as newspaper reliable sources. In particular, your private interviews can't be used as a source, but once published by a reliable source, they can. It's convenient when sources are available on line, but this is not required. (The link you gave before doesn't work for me.)
4. WP:Undue weight suggests that much or all of this material may be better placed in Gothic chess or Ed Trice. Although a possible Fischer-Karpov Gothic chess match might be the most significant event ever for Trice or Gothic chess, the fact that it didn't happen makes it barely a footnote in Fischer's career even if it can be verified. I can't see this deserving more than a sentence or possibly two in this article, even if that. Put it in Gothic chess and Ed Trice where readers of the article will care.
5. Both the text I removed and your arguments here are troublesome for what they don't say. You seem to be calling on the reader to make conclusions based on weak evidence, and implying far more than you actually say. If there's good evidence reported by a reliable source that Fischer was seriously considering this match, provide it. Statements like
   1. "On October 16, 2006, Fischer gave another radio interview that was previously unannounced." -- So what? I think Fischer has given many unannounced interviews. Why do you not tell us what he said? Did he confirm the Gothic chess stuff or not? If not, this is completely irrelevant.
   2. Dan Heisman radio broadcast -- Does Dan Heisman speak for Bobby Fischer? Does he, like Ed Trice have a financial stake in this?
   3. Karpov signs a piece of paper -- Again, so what? Put that in Anatoly Karpov if you think it's important, it certainly doesn't belong here.
   4. "Fischer's liason, Friðrik Ólafsson" -- I have a tremendous amount of respect for former FIDE president Friðrik Ólafsson, but who says he's Fischer's liason? Has Fischer confirmed that?
   5. According to Ed Trice ... -- put it in Ed Trice. I don't doubt that Trice thought he was setting up the Gothic Chess Match of the Century, but absent strong evidence that Fischer ever seriously considered this, it doesn't belong here.
6. You did interviews for a story for the Baltimore Sun. Did you ever confirm any of this with Bobby Fischer or Anatoly Karpov? Is Ed Trice the only one you spoke to? Did you consider the obvious WP:COI issues?

Quale 06:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I see a local televsion interview about Bobby Fischer, Gothic Chess, and Trice is now on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54I8wqm2NeE

Perhaps this is as close as we can get to sourcing the events of Iceland. The contract signed by Karpov is shown in this video. Are there any autograph experts who can tell if that is Karpov's signature?

ChessHistorian 22:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Chess writer

I don't think I agree with "(chess writer - not notable enough to put in lead)"... isn't Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess one of the best selling chess books ever? Way back when that's where I learned what a pin was and how to put together combinations and all the basics... I'm just one of millions... Dlabtot 03:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I was reacting to an editor who was putting "He was/is also a chess writer" in the lead section of just about every chess player. The truth is most chess players write books, but it is (generally) not their books they are famous for. So putting "He was/is also a chess writer" in the lead section, should be reserved for those who are noted for their chess books, such as Aron Nimzovitch. Perhaps Fischer falls into that category too. I am willing to go with the consensus there. But do we then also put in the lead that he is noted as the inventor of the Fischer Clock and of Chess960? Perhaps we do. Peter Ballard 04:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with its removal from the lead. Although My 60 Memorable Games is an all-time classic, Fischer isn't primarily known as a chess author. In fact, I would say that even Max Euwe has a better claim to being notable in that area than does Fischer. I also would only mention chess writing in the lead for people well-known for it. Some World Champion examples off the top of my head: this would be yes for Euwe and Alekhine, no for Capablanca, Tal, Fischer, and Kasparov. Also yes for a number of people never World Champions but well-known for their chess writing, for example Tarrasch, Nimzovitch, Reti, Tartakover, Pachman, Reinfeld, Horowitz, Robert Byrne, and John L. Watson. The whole "chess writer" thing has to be handled carefully as as Peter notes nearly every prominent chess player has written something about chess. Formulaic application of this category can lead to absurd results. For instance, Paul Morphy could be considered a "chess writer" for the small number of months he co-edited The Chess Monthly but this would be perverse. Morphy did almost no work on the magazine and in fact wrote very little on chess at all. Quale 05:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Country

Should the American flag be removed, and replaced with Iceland? Or perhaps both flags. He did renounce his citizenship. He cannot return to the USA without being arrested. Like it or not he is best described as a former American. This is the best edit of the info box I could come up with.

Bobby Fischer/Archive 3
Full name	Robert James Fischer
Country	United States
Title	Grandmaster
World Champion	1972-1975 (FIDE)
Peak rating	2785 (July 1972)

Bobby Fischer/Archive 3
Full name	Robert James Fischer
Country	Iceland
Title	Grandmaster
World Champion	1972-1975 (FIDE)
Peak rating	2785 (July 1972)

Geo8rge 16:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Seems a bit unwieldy. Compare T. S. Eliot. Billbrock 17:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, having two boxes seems kind of weird. Especailly since the second box, covering 2005-present still indicates his peak rating, which was in 1972. Why not have country: United States / Iceland --or something like that? Also, should he be added to category:Icelandic chess players? Jacob1207 23:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

Can someone perhaps stick in a photo of King Bobby on his Wikipedia page? (or instruct me how i can do this)- it's quite a big omission for such a notable figure. Thanks cogsyp Cogsyp 11:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fischer YouTube Video

Since these discussion pages tend to only be read from the very bottom, I'll place this on here and let others decide if this sourced video material should appear anywhere in the article. I was not the interviewer for this so direct questions to the YouTube account who uploaded it and not myself.

ChessHistorian 22:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• If you provided concise, well reasoned arguments rather than writing Unabomber-like rants this would be much less of a problem. Youtube as a reference is generally discouraged on wikipedia. Aside from that, although I did enjoy watching the clip, characterizing it as a "Fischer Video" is inaccurate. The interview is more about Ed Trice than Bobby Fischer, so if it belongs at all, it belongs on Trice's page. Quale 19:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, Quale, you are wrong. The entire subject was about Bobby Fischer in Iceland, and how he is difficult to reach. Trice was the last American to have met and spoken with Fischer in person, and that undertaking was tremendous.

ChessHistorian 20:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. The video includes absolutely nothing directly attributable to Fischer. The video is an interview with Ed Trice, not Bobby Fischer, so if it belongs anywhere, it's at Ed Trice. No interesting claims in the video appear to have been confirmed by anyone other than Trice. Quale 21:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

More Verifiable Sources For Match Info

I would like to call to the attention of the editors on here that two people are expressing their own personal opinion regarding a factual matter, and their opinion is incorrect regarding sourced material.

Oli Filth continues to say the sources of the material I most recently submitted is from Ed Trice who invented the game of Gothic Chess, when this is clearly not the case.

Quale continues to say the information submitted is a "rumor", implying that it is unsourced, when, in fact, it is not.

I direct the readership to first download this file, which is the audio from an online Interview that was on the chess.fm radio broadcast in October 1996:

http://www.GothicChess.com/radio.wma.zip

Decompress the file, and listen to it with Windows Media Player, or some other audio player that supports the stream format. The fact that you can download this file from a website owned by Ed Trice has no bearing on its true source, namely, the ICC chess.fm internet radio channel. They only archive their broadcasts for one calendar year, and Trice requested a copy of it in exchange for being on the program. Clearly that is the voice of Dan Heisman, who does the broadcast. His ICC handle is "PhillyTutor" and he can confirm that Trice was on the show to discuss the sourced material that is being cited here.

There is no way this was a "rumor" if so many people were involved.

Next, take a look at this YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54I8wqm2NeE

Note that it is from a company that supplies interviews with individuals from a variety of backgrounds. There is no link between Ed Trice, Gothic Chess, and the news agency that performed this interview. Their YouTube account is:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheInterviewpoint

It is clear that this is 3rd party sourced material.

Also, take a look at the interview itself. Karpov's signature on the contract to play Fischer is right there. No rumor. Properly sourced.

This material belongs.

Clearly Trice was in Iceland, if you looked at the images that are linked from the blog:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/iceland/alexis_ed_streetsign.jpg

And here is Grandmaster Fridrik Olafsson, longtime friend of Fischer's examining the new Gothic Chess pieces:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/iceland/Fridrik_pieces.jpg

The plastic pieces are from the set Ed Trice sells online, the wooden pieces are designed by the House of Staunton:

http://www.houseofstaunton.com/gothicchess.html

Frank Camaratta, owner of the HouseOfStaunton.com, was on the Iceland trip to showcase his wooden pieces for Fischer's approval. Here is a photo showing Olafsson, Alexis Skye, Frank Camaratta, and Ed Trice all together in Iceland in a meeeting:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/iceland/news_meeting.jpg

His phone number is listed on his website as (256) 858-8070 and their email address is sales@houseofstaunton.com

You can contact them to confirm that Frank was there, and the purpose was for Fischer to approve his Gothic Chess set for use in the match with Karpov.

There is plenty of 3rd party sourced material that supports the fact that the match was well underway, and Fischer was just being Fischer and backed out. This was not a rumor. This is fact. And Wikipedia was founded on the premise that factual, sourced material can be included in articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessHistorian (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 November 2007

All that any of this verifies is that Trice claimed that the match was being set up; it doesn't in any way prove that Karpov or Fischer were actually involved. Given the previous COI, etc. issues that several editors have encountered in conjunction with the Gothic Chess crowd here on Wikipedia, I'm afraid the bar is going to be set higher than this. Oli Filth^(talk) 18:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oli is exactly correct. No one denies this is what Ed Trice claims, but we don't have any sources other than Trice's word for any of this. (In response to one of your earlier queries: Wikipedia doesn't employ handwriting experts to authenticate signatures, or experts to authenticate anything. If an independent expert authenticates something, wikipedia can report on it.) Even if it could be verified, the fact that the match never happened means that it is far less than an insignificant event in Fischer's career—it's an insignificant non-event. To the extent that this can be verified by WP:RS sources it belongs on the Ed Trice page. In fact, if this is really such a big deal that wikipedia must include it, why isn't it on the Ed Trice page right now? Quale 19:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What is proven that both of you are wrong. You change the definition of "source" to suit your own case-by-case instances and you don't apply the same standard to all articles.

There is 3rd party references that are proof:

1) The chess.fm broadcast - Last time I checked, Trice doesn't own ICC.

2) The trip to Iceland with Camaratta - Last time I checked, Trice didn't own HouseOfStaunton.com

3) The YouTube video - Last time I checked, Trice didn't own an online news reporting agency

These are all sources other than Trice.

There is no way your premises are correct when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

And your point doesn't make sense: The 1975 Karpov-Fischer match was a "non event", so why is it reported and included in every Fischer bio I have seen?

The fact of the matter is: A match with Karpov was again underway, everything was in place, and Fischer backed out of the deal.

Plain and simple.

These facts are undeniable, and your attempts to dismiss them have failed. Many different people were a part of this. As a reporter by trade, I've seen the first hand documents. They exist. The online sources that have been furnished are more than adequate to include them as another indication of Fischer's personality: allowing a huge event to fizzle due to his own bizarre temperment.

ChessHistorian 20:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to be far too close to this to be objective. I don't know if your investment in this issue is financial, familial, emotional, or whatever, but it doesn't really matter. (When Oli pointed out that Gothic chess supporters have been troublesome editors on wikipedia, he was also correct. A couple of Gothic chess fanatics have been really obnoxious, and by their actions have squandered the good will normally accorded toward new wikipedia editors.) You are absolutely correct that Fischer biographies report on the 1975 World Championship. Which Fischer biography reports anything about Ed Trice or a supposed Gothic Chess match? If the Gothic chess nonmatch were really the huge important non-event you claim, it would have been reported in places like the New York Times, Chess Life, New In Chess, Chessbase News, etc. Why are your only sources blogs, Ed Trice's website, internet radio broadcasts, images of a purported contract with Karpov, and YouTube videos? I hate to break this to you, but almost no one cares about Gothic Chess. Quale 21:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am objective. You and OliFilth are the one issuing curt lies and getting away with it. I am a reporter by profession and I interviewed Trice, spoke to Karpov in a 3-way telephone call in the summer of 2006, and spoke to other people involved with this match. I did an article for the Baltimore-Sun Times when Trice was acknowledged as having played a pivotal role in helping the game of checkers being solved. He downplayed his own role in it, but the Candian researcher who solved the game was sincere in his praise and appreciation of his work. So I did some follow up reporting of my own on him and his company. It seems people such as yourself get away with making unfounded claims about Gothic Chess. It's a multi-million dollar business, I've seen their balance sheet and general ledger which a CPA firm in Philadelphia confirmed in my presence with a member of their Executive Board. I've seen the documents showing the money put into escrow in Geneva for the match everyone insists was some form of publicity stunt. Trice says he deliberately did not announce it formally in the media so people would not accuse him of doing just that. But the match financiers "called him on the carpet" and told him to make some sort of announcement once Karpov was confirmed to be on board and Fischer was dragging his feet. The intent was to jostle Fischer out of his complacency after he asked for his $20,000 cash. Fischer responded to the chess.fm broadcast 4 days later by calling his own radio conference in which he talked about "Capablanca's modification to chess" and what the future of it holds.

My objection to you and Oli are your implications that this was a fabrication. It clearly was not. And I am responding to this because my own boss is aware of this, and he called it to my attention after doing some online surfing, and he directed me to respond to this as if the Baltimore-Sun Times would be impugned if I did not deal with your innuendo and your insisting on impropriety of some form. Everything you posted is your own opinion. You are entitled to it. You also should either keep it private or communicate to the person involved, namely Ed. It seems to me you just don't care about the truth and what is well known and well established because you have some sort of axe to grind against him. So be it. But don't start labeling my posts as ficticious or without foundation or without basis. It's all sourced. And, no matter what you are saying, Trice is NOT the source. The Dan Heisman Show has nothing to do with him. Trice was invted on there as a guest. That other online media source whose video was uploaded onto YouTube is clearly third party and without bias. It was a report on Fischer, and they contacted the last American to have met the man. And Frank Camaratta, another person who makes his livelihood via sales to chess enthusiasts, went to Iceland with Trice not because of "hype", but because of the opportunity of a very real match which was slated to happen.

You want me to stop posting? Fine, stop saying this was a fabrication. Stop posting YOUR unsourced opinion. Stop overlooking what is plainly and clearly evidence of the foundations for one of the most interesting "what if" matches of All-Time. It did not take place. So what? Neither did Karpov-Fischer 1975, nor many Kasparov matches that never came to fruition. That doesn't mean it isn't newsworthy. That does not diminish the role of those who tried to make it happen. And it does matter, as it was a game interesting enough to Fischer to consider re-emergence from his self-imposed isolation. That alone is worthy of print.

ChessHistorian 00:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your response misses the point, yet again, as I've never claimed this is a fabrication and I don't think Oli has either. I simply claim this hasn't been demonstrated to be WP:V verifiable using WP:RS reliable sources, and given that I have no idea what it is (although I suspect it's self-promotional). It certainly doesn't appear to be very newsworthy, which also brings up WP:Undue weight. If it's newsworthy as you claim, then why hasn't it been reported in the news? You've said a couple of times that you write for the Baltimore Sun. Was this reported by the Baltimore Sun? (I asked this before, and you didn't give a very satisfactory response. "Yes", followed by a cite that can be verified would be a good answer. Also good would be "No", followed by you going away.) Your comparison of this non-match to Karpov v. Fischer 1975 is absolutely laughable, and those kinds of claims make people discount everything you say as no one will take that comparison seriously. The 1975 match that Fischer didn't play made Karpov World Champion, and was reported by nearly every important news organization. The Kasparov matches that didn't come off were also potential WC matches, reported by many reliable sources. This Gothic chess non-match hasn't done anything we can document except get a very few Gothic chess fanatics on wikipedia riled up and calling other wikipedia contributors liars, an example of the kind of unprofessional behavior that makes other wikipedia editors dislike you and makes me suspect that you have WP:COI conflict of interest problems in this area. Quale 16:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please folks; calm down, have a nice cup of WP:TEA. Obviously, there have been past problems with self-promotion around the topic of Gothic Chess, so of course there's going to be a heightened sensitivity and latent distrust for any editor who brings the topic up. It's probably not the end of the world to have a mere sentence on the attempt at creating this match in the article, even if it's purely the result of Trice's tireless self-promotion. We can frown upon that behavior, and editors who seem to be doing his bidding , but he managed to get this topic mentioned in the NY Post, and I'm willing to throw Trice a bone here. Whether User:ChessHistorian is actually a reporter who found the story interesting or a member of the Gothic Chess booster-club isn't particularly material, but let's try to WP:Assume good faith. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Difficult to AGF when no prior actions have earned it! That aside, I agree that the reduction of the material from a whole paragraph to a single sentence should just about be acceptable by everyone as a compromise (personally, I still don't believe it belongs, but nevermind), and that should be the end of the matter, hopefully. Oli Filth^(talk) 18:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Could we add one sentence for each of any other nonstandard chess variants Fischer may have played in private? How is Fischer at Rubik's Cube? Seriously, many people have approached RJF with business ventures and almost succeeded. Has RJF made any public statement on this variant? Then why is it in the article, the subject of which purports to be RJF's life? Billbrock 19:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I completely agree with that sentiment. My comment above was written purely as an effort to pacify ChessHistorian. Oli Filth^(talk) 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also agree with Billbrock, Oli Filth and Quale. This is such a non-issue in terms of Fischer's life that I'm surprised the conversation continues at all. J Readings 20:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

RJF's health

This blog item is of interest, but doesn't yet merit inclusion in the article, IMO. Billbrock (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He may suffer from Asperger syndrome. Many sufferers show brilliant logical skills, in mathematics, computing or even in games like chess. The 'paranoia' he's suffering from could be part of Asperger's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.23.221 (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a cautious mention would be appropriate. Mig Greengard is a reputable chess journalist so his blog is a WP:Reliable Source. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Mig discusses the poor sourcing of the various stories in print media; the verifiable stuff seems invasive of RJF's privacy. Billbrock (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter's edit seems reasonable till we know more. Billbrock (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It is also on Susan Polgar's blog http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/, and she links to a Spanish article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A translation of the Spanish article gives few detils: "He is bad, the problem he is serious". Bubba73 (talk), 02:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence for Fischer's Jewish Heritage?

I know this topic has been discussed in depth, particularly in the talk archives, but what is the exact evidence for the Jewish heritage of Fischer's mother? There are, from what I can tell, three sources in the main article. The first is merely an AP article that states it with no support. The second is Bobby Fischer's own declaration in a 1962 interview. The third is just a rehash of the second (so really not an independent source and should be deleted in my view). Given the fact that he later denied being Jewish (confirmed by the Encyclopedia Judaica), it seems that Fischer's own word on this matter is unreliable, and sources 2 and 3 are therefore also unreliable. Therefore the only evidence we have confirming his Jewish heritage is an unsourced AP article. Wouldn't the reply from EJ be considered stronger evidence? It appears that Fischer's Jewish heritage is far from certain, and, if not completely stricken from the article, should at least be accompanied by, "a fact that Fischer himself now vigorously denies." Does any anyone have real, independent, evidence that Fischer's mom is Jewish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubbyty (talk • contribs) 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Regina Wender's father, Jacob, was born in Lodz & was a dress cutter by trade: not exactly indices of Irish ancestry. http://www.wargs.com/other/fischer.html One might check the Ellis Island database for 1913-1914. Might also be worth looking at this book on the St. Louis Jewish community circa WWI: there might well be references to Jacob Wender in the St. Louis Yiddish press. RW lived a fascinating life: it would be interesting to know more. Billbrock (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC) No indexed reference to JW in Ehrlich (I have not seen the book, but the index is accessible online via Google Books). Billbrock (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a Jacob Wender who arrived on Ellis Island on August 5, 1913, on the S.S. Zeeland. Under "Race or People" on the ship's manifest, we find "Hebrew." His most recent permanent residence was Zürich; we know that Regina was born in Switzerland some months earlier. Billbrock (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Born in "Neustadt, Russia," which I'm guessing refers to Nowy Korczyn, Poland. "Up until the Second World War, the village had a large Jewish community," says the WP article. And if I'm not misreading the manifest, JW's occupation was "Chemiker" Billbrock (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Pardon my ignorance of Polish history / geography: there were multiple Neustadts, and I'm not sure that Nowy Korczyn was part of Congress Poland (parts of which were considered "Russia" for a time"). Interesting site. Billbrock (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information Billbrock. You gave me the idea to plug the information in ancestry.com and see what I could dig up. Using the family info from the wiki article, I found the 1930 United States Federal Census > Missouri > St Louis (Independent City) > St Louis (Districts 1-250) > District 189. On page 37 of 51, Jacob, his second wife Ethel, and their children Sylvia, Max and Regina are clearly listed. Regina's birthplace is listed as Switzerland. Included, under language (?), is "Jewish." I think this is the strongest independent evidence yet for Regina's, and therefore Bobby's, heritage. Interestingly enough, Jacob's occupation is listed as, "Salesman: Real Estate." Now, if only I can figure out how to reference this. Any ideas? Tubbyty (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't belong in the article: WP:NOR. Numerous verifiable sources already exist to document RJF's (matrilineal & probably patrilineal) Jewish ancestry. I don't believe that any editor of this article has ever claimed that RJF or the adult RWF ever practiced Judaism. Billbrock (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Billbrock, are you meaning to say that the 1930 US Census is not considered a "reliable source"? Ok, I don't know if I agree with you, but if "numerous verifiable sources already exist" then let's get them in the article. Right now, as far as I can tell, there is not a single verifiable source cited in the article that supports the often-claimed matrilineal Jewish ancestry of RJF. Unless, of course, you are considering RJF's own word as verifiable even though he has contradicted himself on numerous occassions. Just because his statements are published doesn't mean that the truth of his statements are verifiable, but instead only the fact that he made the statements. In the absence of a single verifiable primary source, we should eliminate any claim of matrilineal Jewishness and merely note that on occassion RJF has both confirmed and denied Jewish heritage.Tubbyty (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen lots of chess history books which document Fischer's Jewish heritage. I'll get some references in the next day or 2. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"According to Talmudic law the religion of a child is determined by the faith of the mother. Regina was born Jewish, though she was not particularly devout. Bobby, therefore, was considered a Jew." -- Frank Brady (1973), Profile of a Prodigy, p. 2. As Peter said, there are many other reliable sources. Quale (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a religious definition of Jewishness. Other Jews may have viewed RWF and RJF this way, but I'm not sure what their self-perception was. The ethnic definition is what I had in mind; of course not without relevance to the history of the 20th century. Billbrock (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The act of collating various verifiable sources into a narrative is indeed original research: it's one of things historians, scientists etc. do. Billbrock (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point Billbrock. The reasoning/collating is not Quale's but Frank Brady's. It is not WP:OR to cite a WP:RS like Frank Brady. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Billbrock was actually referring to TubbyTy's comment about researching U.S. Census data rather than the Brady quote I supplied. It's a point about what Wikipedia considers original research that I think some people find tricky. If I research U.S. Census data and put my conclusions into an article, that's OR -- I'm interpreting a primary source and that's not allowed. If a WP:RS does the same interpretation Wikipedia can use it. Similarly, it seems to me that if I have Fritz analyze a position and I put that evaluation into an article it's OR, but if a chess writer does the same and publishes the result we could use it. Quale (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter, I haven't seen any references updated yet. Any luck? Quale, I do not have access to a hardcopy of "Profile of a Prodigy" but I was able to find a preview on Google Books. I saw the page you mentioned, but as far as I can tell, the book is entirely unsourced. Is this true? If so, are publications without references/sources still considered reliable enough for Wikipedia standards? Either way, reference 2 in the article has to go. It is a radio excerpt that may or may not be Mr. Fischer and, as far as I can tell, does not mention his heritage in any way. It's still a little unclear to me what is considered a reliable reference on here, but I highly doubt unverified audio from "Radio Bomba" on Geocities constitutes one. Also, reference 3 is very weak as well. In the science world an unsourced news article is definitely not a primary source, are things a little more forgiving here? I don't mean to be a pain in the a** about all of this, but I just want to get it cleaned up. Doesn't matter to me one way or the other what the truth is, it just should be cited correctly. Thanks. Tubbyty (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It is good to examine sources with a critical eye. Frank Brady personally knew Bobby and Regina Fischer from the time that Fischer was a young teenager due to Brady's work in American chess. In fact he first encountered Fischer in January 1956 (p. 10) when Fischer was 12 years old. Later in the 1950s he got to know them both quite well as Regina frequently approached him looking for funding to support Bobby's chess career. Most of the book recounts events that he either witnessed personally or was contemporaneously involved in in his role as editor of Chess Life and through his other work with the USCF and other U.S. chess organizations. Brady was actually someone who could be considered one of Bobby's "friends" in the 1960s, to the extent that Fischer had friends. Brady examined proofs of My 60 Memorable Games, for instance. David Edmonds & John Eidinow (both journalists who worked for the BBC), Bobby Fischer Goes to War, p. 306: "Given Bobby's anti-Semitic and anticommunist obsessions, there is a poignant irony to the fact that his parents were communist sympathizers and that he is ethnically Jewish on both sides of his parentage." The appendix to the book goes into detail about the evidence that Paul Nemenyi was Bobby's biological father. The Nemenyi article needs updating improve its discussion of this and to provide proper cites. Quale (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

RJF quotations

Do these quotations (all unsourced) belong in the article or in Wikiquote? I tend to think the latter. Billbrock (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

One or two could go here, but with this many, I think Wikiwuote would be better. Bubba73 (talk), 22:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If any are in the article there should only be a few, and they should be well sourced. Without a source, I say delete. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Done for now. Billbrock (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo, again

Why can't we have a photo of Fischer as we was in his prime playing days, about age 27-29 (1970-72)? They have been put up and taken down. Surely there must be a photo available that doesn't violate copyrights. Bubba73 (talk), 03:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think fair use could be claimed for this famous copyrighted photo. Billbrock (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it, but it has a problem with #8 of Wikipedia:Fair use#unacceptable images. "A magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." Bubba73 (talk), 20:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Probably USCF owns rights to the October? 1972 cover photo of Chess Life & Review (Fischer in sweater, Icelandic countryside) & would grant permission. They also have an archive of photos of RJF in action. Billbrock (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That might be a good source. Surely they would have a photo they would release (I hope). I wich that photos on Google would give their copyright status. Bubba73 (talk), 21:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've written to them asking if they have one we could use. Bubba73 (talk), 21:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

They replied, and said that they didn't have one that was free of copyright restrictions. Bubba73 (talk), 05:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Death

It has been said according to the cnn homepage that bobby fischer is dead... www.cnn.com c_falco 11:46 GMT

In the Marca website it says he died in Iceland at 11:23 GMT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.36.131.144 (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

it is astonishing to consider that bobby fischer a chess prodigy and on-edge personality extrordinaire would die at the age of 64, the same number of squares on a chessboard, fischer who's whole entire life from the age of 10 revolved around the chessboard would live to the same number of chessboard squares and be limited in this life to that number, chess fans around the world are going to reverberate in their minds for some time to kind on this interesting seeming oddity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.108.25 (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe, but I don't know if that fact deserves a place in the article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. Tempshill (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable Games

Someone should really add some of Fischer's best games to this article, all the other World Champions have some.

RIP Bobby  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For mine: the Game of the Century against D. Byrne, the "unexpected resignation" by R.Byrne, and the positional crush of Petrosian in game 7 of their match. RIP Bobby indeed. I'd hoped he'd find sanity and happiness. :( :( Peter Ballard (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It was there about a year ago, but someone removed it after the section bloated greatly. I reverted the original slim version of mine.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Category: Jewish Chess Players

Fischer did not consider himself Jewish and his father was not Jewish as well. I do not consider it appropriate to put the tag "Jewsish Chess Players" on his article. For if Judaism is a religion, Fischer did definitely not belong to it. After all, what do you do with a Jew who becomes, say, a Christian or a Muslim? Still "Jewish etc."? Or what if someone has a Jewish mother and a muslim father? No, my friends, that's not the way to go. If someone is Jewish, he must CONSIDER himself jewish, but Fischer wasn't even circumcised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.181.93 (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, no editor of this article has ever claimed that RJF or RWF practiced Judaism. The reference is to ethnicity: cf. Jean-Marie_Cardinal_Lustiger or Disraeli. Billbrock (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually recent research has found that Fischer's father was Jewish (the man listed on his birth certificate was not his true father), so he's 100% ethnically Jewish, for what it's worth.Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Jewish law, a person is a Jew if their mother is a Jew. The father's ethnicity is irrelevant to this determination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.201.38 (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is wholly religious. Jewish law does not determine BIOLOGY. DNA does. DNA says that if your mom is black and your dad is probably black, then people who are so inclined can call you black, (since black is just a way to identify people who's great great great great great grandfathers had dna consistent with people who have historically lived in Africa. Same goes for Jewish. If your mom is Jewish and your dad is probably Jewish, then it doesn't matter if your a Christian or an agnostic...you're Jewish because your great great great great great great grandfather had dna consistent with people who lived in various Jewish communities. Let's just face it. The guy was Jewish. Also...antisemitism has nothing to do with religion. Antisemites hate agnostic Jews and Christian Jews because they hate Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.204.153 (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Death

Bobby Fischer is Dead. He died in his home in Iceland. Here is an Icelandic web coverage of it

http://mbl.is/mm/frettir/innlent/2008/01/18/bobby_fischer_latinn/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.70.130 (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the article doesn't mention that he died at home just that he had spent some time in the hospital but the last two months at home. Both the Icelandic State Television and the webnewsservice Vísir say that he died at the hospital. I know that initially some Icelandic news services said he died at home but I believe that this was just a misunderstanding. Not that this is an important point but it would be better to get it right. [7]

We'll miss him and his crazy idiosyncrasies. Somebody write this section.--Jondel (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In use tag

It is highly improper, inconsiderate and rude for editors to continue to work over an "inuse" tag, which is placed in order to allow an edit to be completed. There is no justification for removing it and not allow other editors time to complete the work that is being done. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's practical to have that tag up there just now as the article is so high-profile-- there is so much misinformation and vandalism being added by anon ips that we need to revert constantly. It's not really compatible with the "recent death" tag.Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that is what the temporary protection request is all about. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

An "inuse" tag is highly inappropriate for articles that are in-the-news and that are linked from the front page like this, actually. Do you expect the world to wait patiently for you to complete your edit? Tempshill (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Icelandic name

If you become a naturalised Icelandic citizen in the ordinary way, you are required to take an Icelandic name. Did Fischer ever do so, since his citizenship was a specific act of the Althing which didn't mention a new name? Marnanel (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that he received his citizenship under somewhat unusual circumstances, so normal procedures may not have applied. I'm interested to see the answer, though I can't find a reference for it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Those laws were abolished before Fischer became a citizen. Haukur (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. Could you perhaps when you get a moment write something about that on Icelandic name? Marnanel (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fischer's child

The article doesn't mention the child Fischer had during his years in the Philippines. Maybe it should? For some reason I thought it was a daughter, but Ljubojevic mentions a son here. Anybody know more? Skarioffszky (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC) P.S.: The Atlantic claimed that "Fischer is now a parent: Justine gave birth to a baby girl in 2000. Fischer's fatherhood has until now been a well-kept secret, shared by his Philippine friends, who hope that this child will fill the void in Fischer's life that chess once occupied."

Pro Jewish? Strange text?

"Fischer, whose mother and probable biological father were both Jewish,"

Fischers mother was Jewish there is no doubt about that or well the little doubt that exists is minimum but to say that Fishcers biological father was probably Jewish or "Fischer, whose mother and probable biological father were both Jewish" that's just simply wrong. This theory that his father was infact Jewish is alright and maybe it's even correct but say that his father was probably Jewish is stating an opinion which is not backed by facts, it is most probable that Fischers father was his registered birthfather and nobody else so if one would like to use the written text in a changed correct form then it should say "Fischer, whose mother was Jewish and whose probable biological father was not,"...

I don't feel like rewriting that line to look right so I ask that someone else changes it, if not done soon however I'll simply delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.90.118 (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

widely publicized as a Cold War battle pitting a single American against the Soviet system.?

{{edit protected}} Was it? If so how widely? Not in the Soviet Union surely? "pitting a single American against the Soviet system" should be deleted. Bias and stuff, innit? 86.42.111.78 (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Better pictures?

Do you think the pictures in the article look silly? I know I've seen much better pictures of Fischer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.85.233 (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WHY EDITORS BLOCKED THE PAGE ?

It has been a long time policy of the editos of wikipedia to: 1. Stress to anoyance that Bobby Fischer was jewish, while Bobby Ficher himself did non want anybody to consider him jewish. 2. That he was Icelander instead of American, while he has been only 3 years from that nationality, and only as a result of political asilum offered by Iceland, after the politicaal persecution of the U.S. against Bobby Fisher. The resut is that editing of this page is blocked, under the excuse of vandalism. Wikipedia is becoming to know as a dictatorship of its core editors. Truly, no wonder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.17.85.163 (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if they stress those things, they only mention them, to the extent that they are true. 86.42.111.78 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Icelandic people

Please, can you explain, why you have removed the Category:Icelandic people from the article. The discription was that this category is controversal. For me, this breaks the NPOV. I am noting again, that the facts that he has got the Icelandic citizenship makes him an Icelandic. This is written in the introduction and in the infobox. It should be added in the categories. This doesn't mean that he was Icelandic chess player.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, In my edit summary I mentioned that I controversially removed that category while I consensus removed the other one in effect stating that I would understand if anyone readded the category. My reason for removing the category is that well when I think of Bobby Fischer "Icelandic people" isn't something that comes to my mind, sure he stayed here us for some time and it was really nice to have him and while we probably valued him more than most of us he still wasn't one of us if you know what I mean, I based this removal more on feeling than on policy or classification and it may well be that it violates NPOV so you are free to readd it if you want but a good question is if someone were to ask you or perhaps an Icelandic person: "Could you name me some Icelandic people" Bobby Fischer would hardly be amongst the names mentioned.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In Canada if you become a citizen you are considered "Canadian" the same as any other Canadian, regardless of how long you are here. BashBrannigan (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Since he became an Icelandic citizen, he belongs in the "Icelandic people" category. Krakatoa (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure Icelandic citizens is equal to Icelandic people? Loosmark (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there any citizens other than people? If citizens is not equivalent to people then "people" needs to be clarified. Is it physical appearance, ancestry, race, religion, knowing which side of the road to drive on? Do you wish to make that clarification?BashBrannigan (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no official definition of the category "Icelandic people". To my mind, any Icelandic citizen qualifies as an "Icelandic person". Conceivably there could also be other persons who live in or are associated with Iceland (for instance, people who were born outside of Iceland, have long resided in Iceland, but have not been granted Icelandic citizenship) who could be deemed "Icelandic people". In other words, I would say that having Icelandic citizenship would be sufficient, though perhaps not necessary, to make one an "Icelandic person". That is just my opinion, of course - but are you suggesting that something beyond Icelandic citizenship is necessary to make one an "Icelandic person"? If so, what? Or, if you wish to address just this specific case, are you suggesting that Fischer should not be deemed an "Icelandic person" and, if so, why? Krakatoa (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

well i don't know but for example if somehow i'd get chinese citizenship tomorrow would that make me a Chinese person? Loosmark (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you name me some Icelandic people?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Q:Bobby Fischer was Icelandic wasn't he? A:No Fischer only lived in Iceland as a refugee the last few years of his life, Fischer was actually American. This may be a trivial point of view that I am demonstrating here so feel free to add the Icelandic people category if you wish to do so but this "Could you name me some Icelandic people test" is something which Fischer fails.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Fischer would not be classified as famous Icelandic, because he has all done as American. And, the fact that there aren't enough notable and popular Icelandic people is not decisive to give away this category from the article. It' s more a technical addition. Mohandas Gandhi spent 21 year living in South Africa, but I bet that 50% of the contestants in this discussion knew it, and consider Gandhi as South African. He was also ranked 3rd greatest South African of all time. I think that the citizenship does not influence on the national consideration. It is also obvious that many people know about Bobby Fischer as one of the greates American chess players of all time, but don't know about his late years.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, dear Loosmark. Can you tell me, then what is the definition for "American people". Are Americans people from the indigenous tribes, that populated today's territory of the USA, or Americans are English, French, Russian, German, Italian, and other immigrants? On this Wikipedia, an American is every person, who got American citizenship. As you can consider American citizens as American people, it's same and you must consider the Icelandic citizens with Icelandic people.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To follow up on some of above. I checked and Lucy Liu is in the categories of Asian Americans and Chinese Americans, but NOT Chinese Peoples. So "Chinese Peoples" does not refer to race, but to citizenship. Ghandi is in the category of "expatriates in South Africa" not "African peoples". Question: If Ghandi is today considered to have been a South African, if he was alive today, could he vote in a South African election?BashBrannigan (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is POV for someone to be deciding "well, sure, he was a citizen of Iceland, but I don't think he was Icelandic enough." To avoid that sort of improper subjective decision, we need a bright-line rule to the extent that is possible. Any subject of a Wikipedia article who was a citizen of Iceland should automatically be considered a member of "Icelandic people". Krakatoa (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In my view the problem with Fischer is he didn't even speak icelandic. Loosmark (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Gandhi wasn't South African, although he spent 21 year in South Africa, but is regarded as South African, according to the South African votes for person of all times. For me it's enough for Bobby Fischer to say that he was in the group of "Icelandic people". Ok, then. The same question above for all:

"Can you tell me, then what is the definition for "American people". Are Americans people from the indigenous tribes, that populated today's territory of the USA, or Americans are English, French, Russian, German, Italian, and other immigrants?"

As American citizens become "American people", it is same with other nationalities. Don't make discrimination. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In the US and Canada you are strongly encouraged to speak English (in Canada, either English or French) but whether you do, or not, if you are a citizen you are equal to any other citizen...period. In the US: American citizen=American people in Canada: Canadian citizen=Canadian people.BashBrannigan (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What BashBrannigan said. Millions of American people don't speak English. Krakatoa (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

But the people who don't speak English are "American people", although they don't recognize their selves as Americans. In this case, Fischer asked for the Icelandic citizenship. So, he wanted to become Icelandic. It is clear that if Fischer, with getting the Icelandic citizenship didn't become member of the group of Icelandic people, then the American people don't exist, or they are the people of the indigenous tribes, that populated the territory of the USA. I agree with you. It's good to have hyperbolic thinks or feelings about your native country and the people who live there, but the reality is different. Bobby Fischer was an American chess player, one of the greatest players, but he was Icelandic (Icelandic people) too.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Jewish

Would it not be more appropriate to list Fischer under 'Americans of Jewish descent' category? Fischer was not religiously or ethnically Jewish. He was part-Jewish by descent, so it seems incorrect to categorize him as a Jew, which implies that the person is religiously or ethnically Jewish. Karpouzi (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fischer never practiced Judaism AFAIK, so agreement there. However, Regina Wender Fischer and Paul Nemenyi were both ethnic Jews. "Americans of Jewish descent" is certainly more precise, but "Jewish" includes more than practitioners of Judaism. Billbrock (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize that "Jewishness" is often considered to have a racial as well as a religious component, but there is something screwed up about including a raving anti-Semite in the category "Jewish chess players". Krakatoa (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Judaica complied with Fischer's request not to call him a Jew. So should we. It doesn't matter how many sources are found calling him a Jew. Encyclopedia Judaica is (by my understanding as a non-Jew) a very good source, and we should follow its lead. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. It does matter how many sources say Fischer was of Jewish descent. Just because EJ complied with Fischer's request is no reason for Wikipedia to ignore the fact that Fischer's parents were ethnic Jews. Most of the best known Jewish chess players were not religiously observant. (Reshevsky is probably the best known counterexample.) In any case, Fischer himself admitted that he was ethnically Jewish and only later decided he wasn't. Quale (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters how many sources have labelled Fischer as a Jew. If he does not meet normal criteria for being religiously or ethnically Jewish, then he is not a Jew. You are making an unwarranted assumption that Fischer's father was Paul Nemenyi. The article in question constitutes speculation until they find proof. So it makes no more sense to categorize Fischer as a "Jewish chess player" than it does to categorize him as a "German chess player". Can anyone cite a firsthand quote of Fischer self-identifying as a Jew? There are plenty of contrary qutootes. Karpouzi (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that Fischer himself hated Jews, and expressed a wish in writing that he did not want to be identified as Jewish, it seems unfair to label him as such. This controversy is best resolved by simply leaving him off any lists of Jews, since little is gained by placing him on such a list in any event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.59.118 (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2009 (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 most humiliating light possible so therefor they like to boldly state that Fischer's father was Jewish like they themselves were present when he was conceived and saw a circumcised dick entering his mother or something similarly idiotic. Well I say to you idiots FUCK you, that's right, Fischer was a Great man and a great guy and those that think negatively of him should simply be ashamed of themselves for they are the ones that are flawed and filthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.74.14 (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And so it goes. When I met him in the 80's he was a complete prick, and it looks like little had changed as he got older. No surprise someone as foul-mouthed as the above would be calling him a "great man". It's hilarious how these types insist Jews are a "race" and then say that it's a lie that anti-semites had Jewish parents. Heads up, Fischer had a Jewish parent, and so did Adolf Hitler. By their own standards, they were both subhuman scum because of it. SoheiFox (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Fischer wasn't anti-semetic. He hated Jews, but not Arabs. So what if he had a Jewish parent? He didn't want to be identified as a Jew. What is being gained by branding him a Jew? Why not just leave it out entirely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, a person is only considered Jewish is their mother is, irrespective of the father being one or not. While Fischer's mother was of Polish-Jewish descent, I have found no source confirming she was Jewish and ethnicity depends on what else was in the mix. Suffice to say he had Jewish ancestry but it's not all that relevant. Secondly, tose who claim the term antisemitic includes hatred of Arabs are deluded as those who hang on to the archaic meaning of decimated to mean reducing by one tenth. Sure it is true that the word semitic refers to both Arabs and Jews, as the the prefix Homo refers to men, but one wouldn't be stupid enought to confuse "homoophobic" as meaning fear or hatred of all men. Dainamo (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

My ignorant friend, "Homo" in "homoophobic" cames from the Greek prefix ὅμο-, meaning "the same".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%BD%8D%CE%BC%CE%BF-#.CE.9F, however semitic is quite clear.

This is a serious flaw in the article if correct. Was Fischer indeed not Jewish?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Both of his mother's parents, Ethel (Greenberg) and Jakob Wender, were Easten European Jews. Maybe the article doesn't make that clear. All Hallow's (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sexism

Did I miss a mention of some of Bobby Fischer's sexist remarks in the article? Surely these are noteworthy...--ZincBelief (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you know whether the issue was notable enough to be widely disussed? Do you have any references besides dirt-digging paparazzi? - Altenmann >t 16:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any extreme sexist attitudes by Fischer that would be notable. Also, Fischer grew up in the 50s where many attitudes that would be considered sexist today, were widely held at the time. BashBrannigan (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of Fischer's alleged sexism comes from his notorious 1961 interview with Ralph Ginzburg, in which the 18 year old Fischer is quoted as saying, "They're all weak, all women. They're stupid compared to men. They shouldn't play chess, you know." Ginzburg conveniently "lost" the interview tapes, and Fischer disputed much of what Ginzburg published. Besides, a different picture emerges from Russians vs Fischer, where Koblencs recalls Fischer at the 1959 Candidates Tournament asking him and Tal what they thought of the style of a Russian female player named Dmitriyeva: "We gaped. Tal and I have studied thousands of games, but it never even occurred to us to study the games of our women chessplayers. How could we find the time for this. Yet Bobby, it turns out, had found it."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Involvement with the Worldwide Church of God

There is almost no support for the entire section of the article Bobby_Fischer#Involvement_with_the_Worldwide_Church_of_God. Apart from the first sentence which I put in, concerning the skepticism Fischer about religion that Fischer had previously expressed to Ralph Ginzburg, almost everything in the section is unsupported. Moreover, the only sources cited for anything are two Internet articles critical of Garner Ted Armstrong and the Church by the "Ambassador Report", whatever that is. I question whether these are reliable sources. If, as I have suggested on the WikiProject Chess talk page, we try to get this article to Good Article status, this section will be an obvious target. We should either furnish reliable sources for this section, or delete it. Krakatoa (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)