Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Picture of Fischer's 'resting place'

The picture on the Wiki predates Fischer's burial there. His headstone would be visible in shot (it's just inside the front gates on the left hand side) had this picture been take post-internment. Further, the church itself is currently (I was there yesterday) in far better condition than in the photo. I have a newer image and will attempt to add this at some point. --213.176.144.116 (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Reassessment?

I think this article is pretty comprehensive and could be promoted to FA or GA status. Besides the four "citation needed" passages, what else could be improved about it? Toccata quarta (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

american grandmaster -> icelandic grandmaster - change made anonymously

?? JMRW67 (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it should say "American, later Icelandic" (per the model laid out in the lead of the article Garry Kasparov). According to MOS:BIO, "previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." In Fischer's case, both of his nationalities are relevant to his notability—the American one because of the Cold War and Yugoslavia issues, and the Icelandic one because of the Japanese detention events. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really. This has been discussed at length in the past. "American, later Icelandic grandmaster" would simply be a lie, for as far as I know FIDE never had Fischer registered with the Icelandic Chess Federation and Fischer had no notable chess activity at all when he was an Icelander. The current lead handles this well. Nothing Fischer did with Icelandic citizenship would have been encyclopedically notable if not for his fame as an American chess champion. The portion of his life in Iceland is so insignificant compared to the first 60 years of his life (actually the first 25 years) that a single paragraph mention in the lead is more than generous. Quale (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"American, later Icelandic" does not imply he played chess for both countries. Please look at the lead of the article Garry Kasparov, which has "is a Russian (formerly Soviet) chess grandmaster, a former World Chess Champion, writer and political activist". Are you going to argue that it says "is a ... formerly Soviet ... political activist"? FIDE does not give "US GM" titles, but there are GMs who are American. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There are some differences here. (1) The USSR is formerly a country, it is no longer, and (2) Russia was a part of the USSR. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Also the argument that his Icelandic citizenship is notable "because of the Japanese detention events" isn't compelling. Fischer wasn't famous because if his problems in Japan or with his problems with the US govt. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The Kasparov situation isn't the same. Kasparov is a Russian GM and he was a Soviet GM, so "a Russian (formerly Soviet) chess grandmaster" is true. And by this I mean very specifically the his FIDE registration was URS and currently is RUS, and also very specifically that Kasparov's chess career playing for both the Soviet Union and later for Russia are both very highly notable. Either one alone would merit a Wikipedia article. Claiming that Fischer "was an Icelandic (formerly American) grandmaster" would be so misleading that I would call it a blatant lie. It is not true that FIDE does not give US titles. Every FIDE player has a national chess federation affiliation, with the rare exception of stateless players. (The only two examples I can think of are Pal Benko for a period around 1958 and Viktor Korchnoi for the period after he left the Soviet Union and before he became Swiss.) As far as I am aware, FIDE has never had Fischer registered with any federation other than USA. Fischer retired from professional chess seven years before he moved to Iceland and never played chess for Iceland. He was an American chess player, and since he's dead he will always remain an American chess player. An American baseball player who retired to the Bahamas would not become a "Bahamanian (formerly American) baseball player". Quale (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Quale. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

In "is a Russian (formerly Soviet) chess grandmaster, a former World Chess Champion, writer and political activist", "Russian (formerly Soviet)" of course does not modify "political activist", "writer", or "former World Chess Champion". In "was an American, later Icelandic chess Grandmaster and the 11th World Chess Champion", "American, later Icelandic" definitely modifies "chess Grandmaster". If the reader came across "American, later Icelandic chess Grandmaster", it includes assertion of "Icelandic chess Grandmaster", and since "American [...] chess Grandmaster" is used to imply Fischer played chess under the American flag, then "Icelandic chess Grandmaster" would have to be considered to do the same. So the argument above, that "American, later Icelandic chess Grandmaster" does "not imply Fischer played chess for both countries", is wrong, since there's no reasonable basis for a reader to parse out that it implies Fischer played chess as an American, but not as an Icelander. (A better argument would be that "American, later Icelandic chess Grandmaster" does not imply Fischer played chess for *either* country, but, taking that position would be simply untenable.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Bubba73, your comment is irrelevant. How did I contradict it? I did not.

BashBrannigan, are you serious? Per WP:LEAD, an article's lead is meant to summarise the most important aspects of a subject's notability. Why are those "minor" things mentioned in the lead, then?

Quale & Ihardlythinkso: In that case, the phrase "Bobby Fischer was an American (later Icelandic) dancer, politician, and chess player" is fine. According to you, the lead of the Kasparov article should say "is a Russian (formerly Soviet) chess grandmaster, a Russian (formerly Soviet) former World Chess Champion, Russian (formerly Soviet) writer and Russian political activist". Toccata quarta (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No, if "Russian (formerly Soviet)" was intended to modify "former World Chess Champion", then it could be written "is a Russian (formerly Soviet) chess grandmaster, former World Chess Champion [...]". Instead it's written using definite article "a". (So likewise, one could make "American (later Icelandic)" not apply to politician, by: "was an American (later Icelandic) dancer, a politician [...]". So the definite article "a" changes the context re what modifies what, and what doesn't.) There is no impetus or mandate to clarify in the sentence Kasparov's nationalism re "a former World Chess Champion", "writer", and "political activist". (That would be sentence "overload", and can be left to context in what follows in lead or body.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The WP:MOSBIO argument doesn't hold water. Your MOSBIO quote was "previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." That indicates that since Fischer's previous nationality and his country of birth is relevant to his notability, the US should be mentioned in the opening sentence. Notice however that the section says nothing about current nationalities or countries of death, so it offers no support that Iceland should be mentioned in the opening sentence or paragraph. In fact, the part of MOSBIO that directly applies to this question is just one sentence earlier, and it supports mentioning the US but not Iceland in the opening paragraph:

"Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity): In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable."

Now you may argue that Fischer wasn't notable mainly for past events that occurred before he was granted Icelandic citizenship, but then this discussion will be over for me. Notice that both the inapplicable section you quoted and the directly applicable section I quoted govern only the opening paragraph. Fischer's Icelandic saga is important enough to be mentioned in the article's lead section. In fact it is and has been in the lead for many months, in the last paragraph where it belongs both in view of chronology and relative importance to his life. The article lead can always be improved, but shoehorning "Icelandic" into the opening sentence would make the article worse by falsely stating that Fischer played chess for Iceland and by falsely implying by undue weight that the Icelandic phase of his life was of particular importance compared to the totality of his career. (The article has over 25 sections and subsections, and the Icelandic portion of his life is detailed in 2 of them.) Quale (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The implication of "previous nationalities" is quite clear. It doesn't denounce current nationalities. Please tell: Why does the article Michael Tomasky mention its subject's nationality? Toccata quarta (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Because his notability associates to his current nationality. ("The opening paragraph should have [...] (location, nationality, or ethnicity); [...] the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's try something else: What about the Britannica? Does its opinion count?

Another point: If you place such emphasis on the relationship between the words "American" and "chess Grandmaster", why not consider what "chess Grandmaster" means? "GM" is title given by FIDE, and Fischer did not lose it. It does not imply activity, and Fischer accordingly qualifies as an Icelander with the GM title. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

For the article audience, I think it does imply activity (i.e. that Fischer played as GM under the American flag). We can pick apart words, but that's not what the general readership would do (the article isn't a legal document or science journal; "American" was his nationality when he achieved notability, and he achieved it by playing). Re Britannica, IMO their opinion counts only when they choose to edit WP. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the implication of "previous nationalities" isn't clear, because there is no implication. That sentence means just what it says, and it doesn't say anything about current nationality or country of death. Current nationalities are covered in the sentence I quoted which immediately precedes it in MOSBIO and which works directly against your argument. And what's your point about EB? I read the first page. The first sentence says Fischer was "American born" and says nothing about Iceland except that he died there. (We sometimes do this in Wikipedia as well, but many editors dislike putting places of birth and death alongside the dates and prefer to see them mentioned instead in an infobox and in the article text or later in the lead.) EB certainly does not call Fischer an Icelandic grandmaster. It doesn't call him an Icelandic chess player or celebrity, and doesn't even mention Icelandic citizenship until the fourth paragraph. (It's just a coincidence, but our Wikipedia article also mentions Icelandic citizenship in its fourth paragraph.) And you're serious with your Michael Tomasky question? Let's see, he was born in the US, raised in the US, schooled in the US, works in the US, is notable for writing about US politics, and you're asking me why his Wikipedia article refers to him as an American? And finally, if being an Icelander with the GM title were important enough to mention explicitly we could, but Fischer was never an Icelandic GM. If Michael Phelps were to retire to Fiji, never swimming competitively again, he would not be a "Fijian (formerly American) Olympic gold medalist", nor would he be an "American (later Fijian) Olympic gold medalist". The situation with Fischer is exactly analogous. And as I've stated previously the way that FIDE records titles works directly against your argument as well. Every player is registered with a national federation, and unless someone can demonstrate that FIDE ever recorded Fischer as an Icelandic GM (or in fact as anything other than an American GM), the Icelandic GM claim is flat out false. Quale (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

author does not belong in lead paragraph

Why is half of the lead paragraph devoted to Fischer the author? Compared to the rest of his life it is pretty minor. For instance Leonard Barden's long obituary only gives is a short mention.[1] Of course it is in the article, but it certainly doesn't belong in the lead paragraph, and probably not in the lead at all. See WP:LEAD. Adpete (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I tried something, what do you think? (The entire lead, short of the two opening sentences, seems to be chronological. Fischer's My 60 covers period 1957 New Jersey Open – 1967 Sousse Interzonal. So I put mention of the book at end of '60s, and cut new paragraph that is about the '70s. Also removed word "author" since it's implied, and "best-selling" can be left to body.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that's good. I think the lead's still a little long and I've shortened it in 3 places. First, the Chessmetrics sentence can go (too detailed for the lead, and Chessmetrics' value is debatable, and it's in the body). Second, leave 54 months at #1 but remove "third longest of all time" because (a) it really should be "third longest since records began in 1971"; )b- 3rd longest out of 41 years isn't that special; and (c) most of the time he was inactive and waiting to drop off the list anyway. Third, I cut out a sentence or so of detail about how he ended up in Iceland. Adpete (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine IMO. (The para topics seem logical, but it's 5 paras for lead now, will FAC throw a fit?) ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

On another point, I never read "widely regarded as" to imply majority (majority of who?), rather as worldwide recognition (as in, if the world's population could be queried "who was best ever?", Fischer would likely come out on top). I also think the phrase "considered by many" is vague (e.g. how many is "many"? who is counted?) and doesn't have to be (i.e. with "widely"). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Famous", etc. and WP:PEA

As I have already written elsewhere, it makes no sense to claim that the adjective "famous" is peacock. If fame can't be measured, then neither can be notability. Fischer is famous, and so are his chess games and writings. "The Game of the Century" is as famous as anything in chess. Toccata quarta (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

All of what you said is unsourced opinion violating WP:NPOV.Curb Chain (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced, yes. Violating WP:NPV? No.

Thank you for replying. How about answering the opening two sentences of this section? Toccata quarta (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source: [2]. Toccata quarta (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that source does not use "famous" the way this article "used" to use it. In response to the 1st 2 sentences of this section, I suggest you read WP:PEA and that fame is subjective while WP:N is a guideline.Curb Chain (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The source is quite clear, and confirms the game's fame. If fame is subjective, then so is notability (unless you have some unusual definition of the word "famous").

By the way, it seems that you overlooked the following passage from the article:

"This game remains famous worldwide today.<ref>Brady 2011, p. 64.</ref>"

So much for your "unsourced" claim. Toccata quarta (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere does WP:N mention famous. The source is quite clear that it does not refer to the game as famous. One source calls it famous, but the germane issue is using the qualifier/adjective in other contexts in the article.Curb Chain (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: It seems that it refers to a video which is an excerpt of the game, where the sources does call the game "...very famous" but the video does not play and the topic in this discussion is not about the game being famous and about using the word in other contexts.Curb Chain (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure we are speaking the same language? "The game was hailed as the 'Game of the Century' and has been discussed in countless chess books and collections." Now, this is how the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "famous":

"a : widely known

b : honored for achievement" ([3])

Still not convinced? Toccata quarta (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Still not convinced because if you are to put it back into the article you will be violating WP:SYN.Curb Chain (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"This game remains famous worldwide today.<ref>Brady 2011, p. 64.</ref>" Which part of this constitutes synthesis? Toccata quarta (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That text still remains in the article. So you are not satisfied with that statement and what it removed?Curb Chain (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who insists that the game is not famous. I have given you this reference, but you haven't restored the deleted passage. Toccata quarta (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Stay on topic because that is precisely why I haven't restored the edit.Curb Chain (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(Unindent) Just because something/someone is called famous by some people, doesn't mean that language is appropriate for WP. e.g. Most(?) people would say Justin Bieber is famous, but the word "famous" does not appear once in the JB article. I think the whole problem would be avoided if we simply link to Game of the Century where it is mentioned (It's not overlinking because the mentions are well apart). Then the notability of that game is obvious. Adpete (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a big difference between the words "famous" and "amazing". The former can be defended on the basis of numbers found in reliable sources, while the latter is indeed subjective peacock. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Toccata, that a word should be reviewed in context. It seems clear to me, that Curb Chain sees a word that matches the long list of single words on his User page, and immediately launches a campaign against it's use on that basis, regardless of context. (Might as well be editing with blindfolds on, then. Banning words or "word avoidance" is not healthy for good writing.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stay on topic people

[4] The disagreement is with the removal of the word "famous" in this edit. The reason is that it should be removed is because:

1. It is unnecessary
2. It violates WP:PEACOCK
3. It violates WP:NPOV
4. The sentence reads better without the qualifier
5. It is an unnecessary adjective.Curb Chain (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

the greatest of all time

There is some comment text explaining the use of the weasel words "considered by many", but I think it would look less like it wants a {{fact} next to it if there were some kind of local link within the text. Crasshopper (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we need something. WP:LEAD#Citations says citations in the lead are sometimes appropriate ("editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material"), and I think this is a case where it is appropriate. When I look at other articles sometimes regarded as the best in their sports, (e.g. Pele, Jack Nicklaus, Don Bradman, Wayne Gretszky etc) it's done with traditional citations(s) in the lead. But I prefer the idea of a link to the "Legacy" section in the text, because it's hard to summarise the in a single reference. But I don't think it's appropriate to leave it uncited. Adpete (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"He is considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time." may be a fact (depending on how many "many" is), but "X is the greatest Y of all time" is always a silly thing to say because time has not yet come to an end and therefore all candidates have not been considered. Similarly with other words in place of "greatest". 213.122.59.173 (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the reader can understand that 'of all time' does not include future events. The phrase is fine and is very commonly used, not just in chess but everywhere. --SubSeven (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

“The [1972 championship] match, held in Reykjavik, Iceland, …”

I thought several games, six I think, were played in Belgrade before the match halted for some time (I don't remember if it was after an agreed-upon number of games or because of a disagreement about match conditions), then resumed in Reykjavik? I don't have references I can quote about this, however; it's what I remember from what I read in the press (both chess magazines and general newspapers) and heard on the radio (in "general" news bulletins) at the time. — Tonymec (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

While the match was in the planning stages, there was some talk of dividing the match into the phases in different host countries, in order to resolve an impasse between the contestants. However, Iceland ended up with the entire match. WHPratt (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You must be remembering the negotiations. I've just checked Horowitz' book: out of the cities which submitted bids, Fischer wanted Belgrade, while Spassky wanted Reykjavik. At one stage there was a compromise to have the match half in each city. But sometime during negotiations Belgrade withdrew. (Israel Horowitz, "From Morphy to Fischer" (Batsford, 1973), p.257-259). The match was halted after Game 1 (and Fischer forfeited Game 2), but the whole match was played in Reykjavik. Adpete (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

American → "American born"

User:Arinbjorn, Fischer's notability period occurred under American citizenship, his Icelandic citizenship occurred well beyond it near the end of his life. Have you looked at Einstein's notability period and compared with his various citizenship periods? His period of notability was under various different citizenships, so "German-born" has its case there. But that argument doesn't exist for Fischer. Are you arguing that "American-born" is required since Fischer held Icelandic citizenship at time of death? That is not what MOS says ("the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable") and the two bios, as explained, don't compare on that point, so your argument for "consistency" in Fischer & Einstein BLPs specifying "-born" is completely bogus. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ihardlythinkso. In much more loquacious terms: the usual practice is to include only the citizenship which the person mostly held during the activities for which they are described professionally in the lede. This is true even if the person later renounced that citizenship (a step which Fischer never officially took). For example, John Huston is described as an "American director" (began career in 1930, renounced in 1964 to become Irish), Yul Brynner is a "Russian-born American actor" (began career in 1941, renounced in 1965 after getting Swiss citizenship), ad Yehudi Menuhin is an "American violinist" rather than a Swiss one (began career in 1923, acquired Swiss citizenship in 1970, renounced US citizenship in 1994).

Of course there's some exceptions to this rule. For example Eduardo Saverin is described as a "Brazilian internet entrepreneur" with no mention in the lede of his erstwhile Americanness; but then, his notability is ongoing rather than being long in the past, and he held the Brazilian citizenship all his life. Donald Keene is described as "American and Japanese"; even though he had to give up US citizenship to become Japanese, his entire career was based around advancing American knowledge of Japan, so it seems reasonable to describe him as both. And Myron Wentz' nationality goes unmentioned in the lede entirely (hard to say he was "notable as an American" since most of the public had never heard of him before those 1990s scandals over CEOs renouncing citizenship, but at the same time it would be too much of a stretch to describe him as a "Kittitian businessman" just because he bought their passport).

Bobby Fischer's Icelandic citizenship is clearly of a different nature than those exceptions. He rose to fame as an American, spent his entire career without any particular connection to Iceland besides a few friends living there, and only acquired the citizenship at the end of his life. IMO Calling him an "American-born Icelandic chess grandmaster" is misleading at best. quant18 (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Influenced by....

Who influenced the subject of the article? I would suggest John W. Collins, Arnold Denker for starters, but, of course, there are others. Let us reach consensus and then populate the "influences" field of the infobox.--76.220.18.223 (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Influenced what? His chess? His lifestyle? His anti-semitic rants? That infobox field is one of the most vague I have yet seen on Wikipedia. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Any "influences" are already in the article body -- in context. An Infobox single-word label "Influences" has no context, so would be misleading. It would setup unhelpful debates on qualification to a presumed definition, based on sources, and in the end the sources are only speculating as well, it is not fact (but the Infobox would implicate "fact"). A bad idea. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Structure

Why has the structure of this article been massively changed? It's not proper. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Editsums in 2 User:Sirmouse edits say "formatting consistency". (No cheese for Mouse today!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

lol. You are free to correct what you want to. I'm just doing my part, adding citations, cross-checking sources, doing research, reading for clarity. I welcome any suggestions as it is a group effort and not just the work of one measly mouse.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirmouse (talk • contribs) 02:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Grandmaster or grandmaster

FIDE refers to it as "Grandmaster" (and in some cases "Grand Master"): http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=163&view=article

My limited research shows that Pliestsky, Voronkov, Edmonds, Eidinow, Nunn, and Brady refer to the title as "grandmaster", whereas Lombardy and Silman refer to it as "Grandmaster". Eade and Fischer seem to use the terms interchangeably. Which is it?... Sirmouse (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Question about Fischer

When I was reading this interesting biography, I kept wondering, how did he financially survive as a fugitive? It's not like he had sponsors or a regular job. And then, to get to the end and read he had an estate worth $2M? It's very confusing as it sounds like his family was poor and his chess successes were decades old. If anyone could answer this question and incorporate this information into the article, I think that would be very helpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The $2M came from his $3.35M winnings of the 1992 Spassky rematch. Prior to that much of the time he existed on his mother's social security checks, and royalties from his two books (acc. Endgame by Brady). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Collins section

The section on "Collins myth" looks to be a copy/paste from the Collins article, and that is a bad idea. (I hate to say the obvious, but this article is a biography of Bobby Fischer. That section suddenly segues to make it all about Collins, who he taught, who he didn't, and about Collins. That is the wrong idea and bad writing for this bio article on Fischer. That section needs serious reduction and summary, restricted to how it relates to Fischer, and not other players.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Quale (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. Fixing it now... Sirmouse (talk)16:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Robert James Fischer

"My name is Robert James Fischer. Friends and patzers call me Bobby." Heronils (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If you were to speak in English rather than in riddles, your post would not be confusing. Please see WP:UCN. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not a bad quote, but where is the primary source from which it derives? Sirmouse (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Formal A-class review

If anyone wants to write a formal A-Class review please feel free. I am too involved in the project to be allowed to write such a review, and do not have the tech savy to go through the wikiproject chess nomination page. It was hard enough to figure out how to put up a GA nomination, and even then I was shown to have done the process completely wrong.

Therefore, I will leave the formal A-class nomination and review to basically anyone else. lol

Sirmouse (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Making something an A-class article is supposed to go through a review procedure, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Review. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not simply to focus on promoting it as GA? We can easily circumvent some of the formal procedures and the time spent there could be easily compensated to improve the article and review it for a higher quality level.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Greatest chess player of all time?

I've noticed that the wording in the article's intro was discussed in the past (most recently here), but to say Fischer is "considered by many to be greatest chess player who have ever lived" is definitely an outrageous overstatement of the facts. No doubt that he was one of greatest chess players of all time, but there is nothing compelling that puts him above the others in all relevant categories except the fact that he was a brilliant chess player in a relatively short period of time. Most of the chess players and critics agree that Fischer dominated in chess for about two years, Kasparov dominated for almost twenty years, Capablanca was the player with flawless technique and least number of mistakes on average, Tal was the most creative and innovative chess player, Botvinnik was the greatest player excelling in positional play and Petrosian was the one with greatest defensive style; on the other hand, the statistics shows that Lasker is the player with most World Chess Championships won, Karpov is the one with most games and tournaments won, Tal is the holder of the longest unbeaten strike and Carlsen is the person with largest rating achieved as well as the one with the largest rating performance on a top-level tournament. By summarising all of these categories, it becomes evident that the only category in which Fischer was greatest is his dominance in two or three years, which cannot be regarded as something that makes distinction among the greatest in history and normally occurred often than, for instance, Kasparov's long-term domination. Some may say that Fischer was the greatest because of the fact that his domination was greater than any other domination and that his rating at the time would be more valuable now, but such opinions usually come from or have ever circulated in the American media or chess literature and are generally attributed to the tense political ties during the Cold War. Don't forget that in many books and chronicles the World Chess Championship 1972 played between Spassky and Fischer is generally seen as battle between the Soviet Union and the United States. Moreover, the rise of Magnus Carlsen and his dominance in the last two or three years along with all the records he broke in meantime shadows what Fischer did 40 years ago but is yet to be proved if he's capable to reach what the other players did throughout chess history. So, it's much better if the wording in the article's intro says "one of the greatest" (similar to the articles about Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine and Botvinnik) rather than "considered by many to be the greatest" (similar to the article about Kasparov), because Fischer has never dominated chess like Kasparov did and hasn't played even a single chess game as World Champion. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

[...] to say Fischer is "considered by many to be greatest chess player who have ever lived" is definitely an outrageous overstatement of the facts. -- Who are you attributing as "outrageously overstating the facts"?: (1) those who contend Fischer was "the greatest chess player who ever lived"? or (2) those reporting that many say Fischer was "the greatest chess player who ever lived" (e.g. Frank Brady, Endgame, 2011, p. 328: "For chess players, and for people who followed the story of Bobby Fischer's rise to become what many say is the greatest chess player who ever lived, [...]"), or (3) some other entity? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"Carlsen is the person with largest rating achieved" - ratings vary with time. There has been rating inflation and GM title inflation over the past decades. Kasparov is mentioned as being the greatest about as much as Fischer, probably more. But Kasparov was not that much above Karpov, both in terms of rating and the record of their games - it was pretty close (Kasparov's record against Karpov in classical chess was 51.97%). Fischer's rating was about 100 points above the best of his contemporaries. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Some people should spend more time studying WP:OR and WP:V. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain to make Fischer the greatest because his domination was greater than the domination of others. Fischer has never dominated chess for a period of time as Anderssen, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Karpov or Kasparov did in their prime. His short-term domination is much comparable to plenty others who were best for two or three years. You may surely say that Fischer would have dominated chess for more than 50 years if he continued playing, but we cannot witness and gauge upon something that has never happened in reality. The problem here is when presenting the sources. Similar sources are used to consider other people "one of the greatest" rather then "consider by many to be the greatest ... who have ever lived". The comment in the article preventing to change it in the previous wording only proves that "one of the greatest" is not the same with "considered by many to be the greatest". Unfortunately, this is the English Wikipedia and every single source for an American (in this case, pushing the POV from the Cold War to manipulate with Fischer in order to balance the United States with the Soviet Union in a field where the one side was immensely more dominant than the other) should be overstated to make him much better than the others.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia presents the opinion of reliable sources, and there are plenty of sources that consider Fischer the greatest chess player of all time. The article acknowledges this fact. Your WP:OR is irrelevant. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's work a little bit with some reliable sources:

• Leonard Barden, a highly reputable English chess author and journalist, in his article titled "Obituary of Bobby Fischer" published in The Guardian on 19 January 2008 mentions that "most experts place [Bobby Fischer] the second or third best ever, behind Kasparov but probably ahead of Karpov."
• Chernev (1976) ranks Capablanca "the greatest chess player of all time".
• Carlsen (2012) considers Kasparov to be "the greatest chess player of all time".
• Aronian (2012) stated that Alekhine is "the greatest chess player of all time".
• Jeff Sonas, an American chessmetrician, in the fourth sequel of his article "The Greatest Chess Player of All Time" provides a very good analysis on why the largest gap that Fischer attained cannot be compared with other similar records and even mentions that Kasparov is the player with largest gap on average for a long period of time.

Your selective approach to use only those sources who claim Fischer was the greatest doesn't hold as this can be easily opposed with the writings of numerous other chess authors who don't agree with that sentiment. In that case, the easiest way to draw any conclusion is to compare it in different chess categories rather than using tin-foil-hat arguments that Fischer was greatest because of his three-month record gap in the history of chess. Sorry if you get this wrong, because it's not intended to put any offence against you, but most of the chess books by American chess authors I've read in English present Fischer as someone who will never be borne on Earth; in contrast, the books written by Russian authors I've read in Russian have never focused solely on that who was the greatest player and why we should distinct him as so. It's understandable for me that you were victims of that "Fischermania", but this is Wikipedia that anyone can edit without limitations and borders. Shall we introduce the wording "considered by many the greatest ... who have ever lived" in the articles of every single chess player? My answer on this is no. The only person who somehow merits such regard is definitely Kasparov. Wordings like "one of the greatest" are enough to illustrate the point in the most proper way. Else, you might be interested to consider specifications in any chess category as we have in the article on Anand that he is "considered the strongest rapid player of his generation".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Name the article source you believe is claiming "Fischer was the greatest". Then examine what that source/author is claiming. (I believe you have that part wrong.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC) p.s. It's understandable for me that you were victims of that "Fischermania" -- please stop with the personal/motive suggestions, that's highly inappropriate.

Please don't try to avoid and conclude the matter without any real discussion on this. Fischer was "one of the greatest of all time", but to say "considered by many to be the greatest" is highly disputable. You have enough sources that many people disagree with it. My questions once again are explicit: Do we need to use the same wording in every single article about a chess player who has ever been considered the greatest of all time? Why not to simply mention "one of the greatest of all time" and conclude the case (see the examples from the articles about Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine and Botvinnik for further alignment of the style)?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Another important thing is the definition of "many" in the context of how many consider him to be the greatest. Since there is a note saying Please do not change this to "one of the greatest chess players of all time". The lead says "by many", not "universally". See body of article for more apparently to make distinction from "one of the greatest" I suppose "considered by many" means by more than a half (otherwise, one of the greatest would suffice any lower proportion). Unfortunately, you have only two sources that support your position and all the time you're trying to refer to them as supporting evidence for "many". On the other hand, I've already listed more than two sources in which Fischer is not mentioned as the greatest.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"you have only two sources that support your position"—drop this lie, will you?! Let's quote the article's source:

<ref>Greatest player ever: * Böhm & Jongkind 2003, pp. 47 ([[Hans Ree|Ree]] interview), 91 ([[Jan Timman|Timman]] interview), 113 ([[Nigel Short|Short]] interview). * Hartston 1985, p. 157. * Levy 1975, p. 9. * Müller 2009, p. 23. * Waitzkin 1993, p. 275 (quoting Kasparov).</ref>

I could also add Anand and Topalov to this list. The lead doesn't use the word "universally", so please stop wasting others' time, like you did a few months ago at Talk:George Gershwin. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't intend to waste your time but to free Wikipedia of American jingoistic opinions that every American is greater than any other person in the same field. You still don't have enough sources to justify the word "many" and most of them are before the time of Kasparov. But don't worry, it's not that difficult to find multiple times more sources than those you have to prove that Fischer could not be "considered by many to be the greatest" (working on it). And if you feel insulted or think that someone wastes your time, then you're not compelled to enter such discussions. You also need to understand that Wikipedia is not just to edit articles and these discussions are even much more important in order to produce quality content. I can just provide much more sources than you have that Fischer could not be considered by "many" the greatest and leave the discussion to let you decide whether it's worth changing into a more neutral wording or not. It's simply impossible to debate with people from the United States whose primary goal of editing here is to push US-centrism in an article about a person whose success in the past was misused for political reasons. Maybe you wish to encourage me to gather a group of friends to come here and reach a consensus on the grounds of the number of people involved, but no thanks, my intent is not to manipulate with Wikipedia in a such way you already use to do.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"It's simply impossible to debate with people from the United States whose primary goal of editing here is to push US-centrism"—I'm not American, but don't worry; in the not-so-distant past, I was twice (falsely) accused of being Polish, as part of content disputes at Frédéric Chopin. "Maybe you wish to encourage me to gather a group of friends to come here and reach a consensus on the grounds of the number of people involved, but no thanks, my intent is not to manipulate with Wikipedia in a such way you already use to do."—Drop your libellous crap—now. You have just accused me and other editors of meatpuppetry. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Fischer dominated for a lot longer than two years. The 1970-1972 period is often cited because it is then that Fischer really reached an unprecedented level of dominance, but he was the best player in the world long before that. --SubSeven (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It's very subjective to say that he was the best player in the world long before that because: (i) there was no official FIDE ranking list before 1971 to prove that, (ii) he hasn't won any World Chess Championship until 1972, and (iii) there are no sources claiming he was the best player in the world during 1960s or any other period.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"It's very subjective to say that he was the best player in the world"—but that didn't stop you from writing about "others who were best for two or three years."

"there was no official FIDE ranking list before 1971"—true, but for the record, Arpad Elo did retrospective calculations going back to 1850 or so, if I'm not mistaken. And there is Chessmetrics, which is reasonably highly regarded (after all, you made reference to its calculations above).

"he hasn't won any World Chess Championship until 1972"—can you show me a source that shows that "World Chess Champion = best chess player in the world" is a (virtually) universal view? For example, in January 2013, Russian Grandmaster Sergei Shipov said, "Carlsen has already been the world's best player for a few years now." ([5])

"there are no sources claiming he was the best player in the world during 1960s or any other period."—is "any other other period" (which necessarily includes the 1970s)—a slip of the tongue? Never mind. Since you referenced Jeff Sonas and his article http://en.chessbase.com/post/the-greatest-che-player-of-all-time-part-iv, you may have noticed that in a related article Sonas mentioned that Fischer was No. 1 in the world for more than nine years, and for the first time in 1964. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for referring to Jeff Sonas and his article on chessmetrics, in which he clearly explains that the gap of 125 points that Fischer recorded ahead of Spassky could not be taken with factual accuracy because Lasker was World Chess Champion for 27 years and Kasparov is the player with highest gap on average. You still avoid to answer on my simple question as to why not use the wording "one of the greatest" which will immediately conclude the discussion and make the article reflect the things in a more neutral way. It's highly disputable to put Fischer above other players when he doesn't hold any of the most important records such as: (i) length of being ranked no. 1, (ii) number of games and tournaments won among top-class players in history, (iii) most consecutive top-class tournaments won, (iv) number of World Chess Championships won (this is much better criterion than the number of years), (v) record for highest rating ever achieved, (vi) record for highest rating performance ever achieved, and (vii) longest unbeatern streak. The only categories in which his records are still unbeaten are: (i) longest winning streak and (ii) highest rating gap. Please also note that Fischer's games have never been regarded the greatest and most instructive as those of Tal. He could have become the greatest player of all time in any terms if he continued playing professionally at the same level for much longer period, but he gave up too early and we cannot gauge his greatness sole upon his dominance at the time of his prime.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Simeonovski,

Let me first say how much I appreciate the discussion and your enthusiasm for the topic. I especially enjoy that you do your research and cite some interesting sources.

The page lists Bobby Fischer as "considered by many to be the greatest chess player who ever lived", but when one clicks on that link it takes one to a "Comparison of top chess players throughout history" page. This indicates that Fischer is "among" the best players ever.

I believe the confusion stems from you deducing that we believe that Fischer is the single greatest player ever, bar-none. We are not. We are saying he is considered "by many" and cite reputable sources.

Wikipedia is not about OUR opinions. It is about the opinions of reputable (oftentimes published) sources. We work very hard to present the facts from many different angles and perspectives.

I believe I speak for other editors of the Fischer page when I say that we are open to citations and sources, but cannot debate our own subjective opinions about what our research indicates.

I pray that you keep an open mind as we all continue to refine and learn from one another.

Thank you.

Sirmouse (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

As with the above, our personal opinions are irrelevant. Personally I think Capablanca is the best ever, but I'm not going to try to put that on his Wikipedia article. The question is what most closely reflects what is published in reliable sources. Note that the Kasparov article also uses the same "considered by many the greatest ever". From my own reading of current opinions I think both Fischer and Kasparov are singled out as more than just "one of the best". This is my impression of current day chess players, writers, etc that most lump Fischer and Kasparov uniquely. I could be wrong, but that's my opinion for what it's worth. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and I think that you're the first one in this discussion who gets exactly my point. Kasparov and Fischer are apparently the two players who are singled as greater than those considered "one of the greatest" on the English Wikipedia. If one cannot bring them down in the category "one of the greatest", the other not-so-easy solution would be to bring the others up to the category "considered by many to be the greatest". The problem is that we don't have any balance between them and many people could be motivated to argue against it (just what I was doing in this discussion). Finally, my classification is too complex to consider a single player as the greatest of all time, so I respect and admire different chess players for their achievements in different chess categories.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Why not include such wording on the Karpov page and other greats such as Capablanca, Botvinnik, Morphy, etc. I welcome anyone to do so, IMO.

Sirmouse (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't. My understanding of current views of experts is that Kasparov is generally considered the greatest, with only Fischer as a possible challenger to that status. I don't know of many saying Botvinnik or Morphy. BashBrannigan (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Lombardy

I'm concerned about the Lombardy section. The influence Lombardy had on Fischer seems overstated in the article, and the entire section based solely on Lombardy's own claims. The claim that Lombardy was Fischer's "teacher and coach" through 1972 is not credible. The idea that anyone could teach or coach Fischer (or that Fischer would permit them to try) after 1960 or probably earlier is absurd. I think this is undue weight caused by over reliance on a single, not disinterested source. Quale (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

There is also the source from Ponterotto. Well, Fischer DID bring him into the 1972 match to be his sole second and they analyzed games together. Lombardy seems to have had a close enough relationship with Fischer that he only left for the match because of him -- probably due to the fact that he actually had beaten Spassky, whereas Fischer had not --, and only stayed in the match thanks to his persuasion. Lombardy also owns the first autographed copy of Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games", and Fischer was entrusted to Lombardy for the 1958 Portoroz Interzonal, and acted as his second there, analyzing games with him. There are even pictures of the two of them analyzing together at Collin's home.

Sources for these claims stem from "Bobby Fischer Goes to War", "Endgame", "The Psychobiography of Bobby Fischer", as well as "Understanding Chess". I will present citations upon request.

But I do agree on the claim that he coached him through 1972, to the extent that there is simply not enough evidence to demonstrate that. I will correct. Thank you for your comments and suggestions and insight.

Sirmouse (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I like your rewrite of the section. I would not dispute that Lombardy was very important in Fischer's chess career, just that Lombardy's influence on Fischer's chess play itself after 1960 or so was overstated in the earlier version. I don't think Lombardy and Fischer actually analyzed games together in 1972. Lombardy did some opening preparation, but I have read that Fischer did all his own analysis including adjournments. Lombardy was absolutely crucial in the 1972 match in two ways. Fischer would not have had a place in the Interzonal if Lombardy had not agreed to step aside, and Fischer would have left Iceland without playing if Lombardy had not convinced him to stay. Quale (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It was Benko who gave Fischer his spot in the Interzonal. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't just Benko. According to Brady, the way that it worked was that the top three finishers at the 1969 U.S. Chess Championship qualified for the 1970 Interzonal. The top three were Reshevsky, Addison, and Benko. If Benko stepped out then the next in line, Lombardy, could go to the Interzonal, but Lombardy also stepped aside, and only then, under these conditions was Bobby able to step in and take that essential third seat to play in the Interzonal.

Thank you, Quale. "A Mystery Wrapped In An Enigma" as well as "Profile of a Prodigy", "Endgame", and "Bobby Fischer Goes To War" all state that Lombardy analyzed Fischer's games during the 1972 World Chess Championship. They have a long history of analyzing together which goes back to at least 1956 (see "The Unknown Bobby Fischer", page 45). Sirmouse (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? I was pretty sure that Bobby Fischer Goes To War says that when Fischer was encouraged to stay in his room and analyze an adjournment during the 1972 match, Fischer said "Lombardy's a fish, let's go bowling." I'd have to look that one up, but it's a quote that sticks with you. Quale (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bowling story is complete fiction. (see Lombardy 2011, p. 220.). The story derives from a junior U.S. diplomat at Reykjavik named Victor Jackovich. (see Edmonds & Eidinow 2004, pp. 221-222.). I know about the specific quote you are referring to, but I believe that quote is attributed to Don Schultz who was "part of Fischer's team" (see Brady 2011, p. 199.), and was on the Lombardy page a while back, but with no citation that I could find, despite reading through seven or eight books, looking for its origin. The old Lombardy page, with the uncited quote was copied onto chess.com: http://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/today-in-chess-history-dec-4 if you're interested to see what exactly was said.

Sirmouse (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bobby Fischer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 17:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Disambig links:OK
• External links: Problems found
• Reference check:

1. 404: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBIT_FISCHER?SITE=AP - Dead
2. 404: https://www.createspace.com/211957
3. 404: http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_332337.html
4. 404: http://www.geocities.jp/bobby_a/list/p_54/54_0.htm
5. 404: http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/asithappens_20080118_4495.mp3
6. 404: http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/232529/fischer-s-pinay-love-child-iceland-claim-inheritance
7. 404: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/news/13891951.html
8. 404: http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/event/wijk08/fischer.html
9. 404: http://www.goddesschess.com/chesstories/fischerend.html
10. 404: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/news/13891951.html
11. 403: http://www.uschess.org/docs/pdf/15EBactionsvolex02.PDF
12. 302 : http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_332337.html domain change
13. 301 : http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4403 - Changes sub-domain and redirect does not contain ".,?&"
14. 301 : http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4410
15. 301 : http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20040817a3.html
16. 301 : http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hpjkKfonmIFJxdSyG535aNfW6rnQ
17. 301 : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3900793.stm
18. 301 : http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/innlent/frett.html?nid=1315727
19. 301 : http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3546
20. 301 : http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4392
21. 301 : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4102367.stm

Still some others.

Comments: This will take me a few days to do. For now, I will begin by pointing out the reference matter so that it can be fixed while I prepare the rest of the review. The 404s should be checked for archival. The 403 should be fixed or backed up as well. Several of the sources, included the dead ones, seem to be unreliable sources. Some of the dead sources have been dead for years as well. Please go through the Checklinks list and resolve as many as you can. This review will likely go beyond the hold for 7 days following its completion for the sheer size and depth of the article, even a month would be acceptable in my eyes. This article is extremely important to Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a notice that its been a week without responses, and I think I may have to fail it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I went through all the 404s and fixed the deadlinks. I also went through the 402 and 302. I'm not sure what you mean by a 301 in terms of what we can do to improve it. I must admit that the technical computer numbers are not something I am too familiar with, but I can assure you that we have been making the desired corrections to the page since you started the review process. Sirmouse (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about them then. I have a few questions about the reliable sources used. Could you please comment on Di Felice's books? Why are these, published through McFarland, reliable? Same with Horowitz. Why is a mention in The Book of Laughter and Forgetting needed? There is at least one improperly sourced claim like "A 2005 episode of Law & Order: Criminal Intent, "Gone" is based on Bobby Fischer"[6] that is unsupported by the source. Other issues are the letter to Osama bin Laden which can be taken quite negatively and could be seen as another major issue. Some aspects such as the "Fischer clock" are lacking in details and cover more the patent details than its use. There is one citation needed listed in the article: "One of the games was in the 1970 Interzonal and the other two were in their 1971 match." And these are before I go through the prose matters... but this will be a lengthy and detailed review, but I think taking it piecemeal would result in the best polishing of the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will leave the 301s to more "tech savy" contributors. I find the Di Felice books to be reliable. I have consulted their text with a grandmaster chess player, regarding his own results for confirmation of the text's accuracy. I have also run the text by a Ph.D. academic scholar, and former University professor, who confirmed the reliability of the text as well. I have also cross-checked the text with every printed book I could find on the topic, as well as a number of internet databases, and have found the information listed in the Di Felice texts to be reliable on all counts that I could find. I also did extensive research on the McFarland company, and find that they print a number of scholarly, peer-reviewed articles that have been given glowing reviews by various professors from esteemed Universities across the country. From my knowledge and what I have read, the publisher is reliable when it comes to the accuracy and authenticity of the aforementioned text. As regards Horowitz: I have read the text of his work in its entirety and do not find his information to be inaccurate, based on other books on the subject matter. According to "The Oxford Companion to Chess", by David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, -- well known chess historians -- and published by Oxford University Press, "Horowitz... was proprietor and editor of Chess Review, for many years the leading American chess magazine, from 1933... until 1969 when it merged with Chess Life to become Chess Life and Review." Based on this information, I find that Horowitz is sufficiently reliable as an author and researcher. However, if you find information on either Di Felice or Horowitz that brings into question their reliability, by all means let me know so that I can do what is necessary to rectify that potential inaccuracy of such potential claims. The mention of Fischer in The Book of Laughter and Forgetting demonstrates Fischer's popularity in the culture -- hence, the reason that it is listed in the "In popular culture" section of the Fischer wikipedia article. It need not be. That is completely at the discretion of the reviewer. If you find it to be unneeded, then by all means, I will remove it from the page. The citation of the Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode is, as you correctly state: an "improperly sourced claim". It will be removed as soon as I have a moment to do so.

I have removed the "unsourced" claim as it is not specific in its supposed accuracy, as well as being, obviously, without any sort of citation. I will look into the issues regarding the Osama bin Laden letter as well as the "Fischer clock". I will keep you posted. Thank you so much for your thoughts any insight. Your review of this article is greatly appreciated by its contributors. Sirmouse (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have a lot to go through and I am reasonably satisfied that if you had the sources peer reviewed then they are acceptable. My own field with the publisher has been less accurate - they do not fact check so much as offer copyediting and publishing - though the background on the author says more about their competency and ability. I have quite a bit more checking to go through. So please bear with me, I don't think having a longer and more detailed review is a problem - since I think the goal is to get it Featured. Right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That certainly seems reasonable to me. I added two more sources for the "Fischer clock" section. I fixed the link for the Osama bin Laden article. It does come off as very negative, I agree. Unfortunately, the DeLucia book is extremely rare and hard to come by, so I cannot easily cross check that reference. My thoughts are that, if the letter was only in draft form, with no proof that it was even sent, let alone published, then it should not be put into the Fischer article, as it may have only been a passing thought to Fischer and should not reflect his official opinion on the matter -- unless you know of a radio broadcast in which he orally reflects the same opinion of Osama bin Laden? -- I also removed the Law & Order popular culture reference as it seems to only be an allusion to Fischer at best. Sirmouse (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you give it a thorough copyedit? The prose was rather different and tone and construction in places. When was the last time it was checked? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. It has been some time since it was last checked. It may take me a few days to complete, but I will get to work on it right away. I will let you know when I finish the copyedit. Thanks! Sirmouse (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Just completed a "thorough copyedit" of the article. Took me five days, but it's done. What next?...Sirmouse (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note that an editor has appeared out of nowhere, attempting to derail this GA-review by stultifying with a tag he refuses to discuss. Asked to follow WP:BRD, he has chosen to revert-war instead. I haven't re-reverted, as I know an edit-war can itself potentially derail a GA-review. Still, I would hate to see the hard work of others negated by the pointless actions of an editor who has contributed absolutely nothing to this article. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay, I have been very busy as of late. And yes, the article is of great length, perhaps too long as Article Size is indeed an issue. I do believe it should be trimmed, but I don't know how keen you are on this, but it is a valid point. It takes days to review the article as it stands. And the pure text is over 100kb. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. I am condensing the article as we speak... Please let me know your thoughts on this. Thank you. Sirmouse (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed 5,304 bytes from the footnotes, that do not diminish the scholarly breadths of the article. Even though Lord Polonius said that "brevity is the soul of wit", we are not talking about discourse in a play. We are talking about a "comprehensive" article on the subject matter. Sirmouse (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This article needs a split to be fair, I think the only way to really make it acceptable for readers is to split off some of the more detailed sections and summarize them as per WP:SS in a more condensed fashion. As it stands, this article is still of excessive length for most readers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed an additional 5,380 bytes from the main article, that keep its integrity intact. I have checked the readable prose of the Fischer article, using the DYK check tool, and it reads it as 12104 words. By comparison, the "Roman Empire" article (which holds GA standing) has a readable prose of 19858 words. In the last 30 days, the Fischer article has been viewed "76955" times, whereas the "Roman Empire" article has been viewed (in the last 30 days) "225484" times. Based on this data I think it is safe to conclude that it is unnecessary to split the article. It may even detract from viewership, and it certainly won't enhance the comprehensiveness of the article, since longer articles tend to suggest substantive research. Sirmouse (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still disagree that the "Roman Empire" and "Bobby Fischer" are comparable topics. You have the life of a single person against an empire that spanned nearly 15 centuries. The fact that plenty of refs are still 404 and broken is a major issue. Which that alone is an issue from passing GA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns for the article. I, among many other editors over many years, have worked to make the Fischer article what it is today. Having read almost everything there is to know about Fischer, I can say with certainty that the standards you seek for the Fischer article go well beyond what the standards should be for a GA. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the standards you have set forth are at the level of a Featured Article. I believe this is one of the best articles on wikipedia. It has more in-line citations and primary sources than nearly every single non-list article on wikipedia. I find it ludicrous to debate this any further, and, for that reason, I therefore resign my editorship of this page, as well as all of wikipedia. I wish you all the best in finding someone who can make this article meet the impossible standards you have set forth. All best. Sirmouse (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not misunderstand - I'll just do the rest by hand and pass it. Ugh, I don't want any drama over this, it may be good - but there are certain issues that do need to be checked and I've had a far more annoyance over trivial things that I am not getting on your case about. There's like two dozen or more issues that would need to be resolved before FA. GA, while lower, is something I can whip up fairly quick. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the links were just broken and I don't like being taken to ad or porn sites when I click on links, but a GA review requires that such problems be nipped quickly. I also had this on a previous article I was checking out. Anyways - unless someone gives really good reason not to let this slip by for its length - this should be GA. I'll pass it since I've fixed the last URL issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Notes

Bibliography

• Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992) [1984]. The Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280049-3.
• Stein, Jess (1973) [1966]. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language. Random House. ASIN B000X6MOZU.

In popular culture

I've again removed some of the unsourced trivial mentions of the subject found in the "In popular culture" section per WP:BURDEN. Even with reliable sources, most of these do not appear to be worth mentioning in the article; an In popular culture section is not meant to be a catchall for any and every time a subject has ever been mentioned, even in passing. It's starting to look more like a trivia section than what it's supposed to be, which is a section showing the individual's impact on popular culture. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 14:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, the HBO documentary does not qualify as "popular culture". It should either be removed from the article or moved to the section "Further reading", which should then be renamed to "Further reading and documentaries". Toccata quarta (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been over 100 days (30 August 2013) since the last edit on the "In popular culture" conversation. The bot is supposed to "automatically archive discussions inactive for 99 days". I guess the bot broke down or something....

Sirmouse (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging

An editor placed a "too long" tag on this article. I explained that without specific suggestions as to what should be condensed or removed the tag is unhelpful. Rather than following WP:BRD, this editor is intent on revert-warring the badge-of-shame back into the article. When asked a second time to explain what, exactly, should be condensed or removed, the editor refused, insisting he would "leave that to the article's authors". This is the epitome of laziness. I will again offer this editor the opportunity to propose any specific changes to improve this article. If this is not done within a reasonable amount of time, the tag will again be removed. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Article too long

Please read WP:TOOBIG for guidance on optimal article lengths; at over 13000 words, this looks like a candidate for splitting. Perhaps dividing his life into pre- and post-1972 might be a logical way to divvy it up? Sasata (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean cutting a biography into 2 separate articles? (That seems absurd to me. Can you name any precedent for having done that?) The article exceeds Kb length stipulations named at WP:TOOBIG, but IMO trimming at this point is inadvisable since the article is still growing, e.g. in some areas where is unbalanced. (Trim/summarize now will just produce another fat article later that needs trimming/summarizing. Why not let it expand for 1 year so there will be full-feathered content to look at re summarizing/trimming!? Just an idea.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, here's a few of many: Early life and career of Barack Obama; Early life and military career of John McCain; Early life of Isaac Newton; Early life of Joseph Smith. As an alternative to splitting, another option would be to farm out some sections into daughter articles, e.g. the "Contributions to chess" section could easily be developed as a stand-alone article (I've been thinking about doing this myself). Some of the current sections could be trimmed drastically, like those on the 1972 and 1975 (non) matches, in WP:Summary style. Sasata (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"I've been thinking about doing this myself": In the end, it's easier to just tag it, huh? Several featured articles exceed kb-length guidelines, Obama, for instance. Try adding a pointless tag to that article and then revert-warring. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to say? Sasata (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Attempting to disrupt a GA-review by adding a pointless tag to an article where you've contributed absolutely nothing is most certainly not constructive. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The above is a translation from Wiki-speak to English. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

What I meant was do you have any opinion about ideas or comments about reducing the length of the article? Sasata (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I'm with Ihardlythinkso. I think it's just fine. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree that a split would not improve the article or Wikipedia. But I also appreciate the many improvements that Sasata has made. Quale (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both Ihardlythinkso and Quale on this matter. I appreciate the diligent and punctilious work of both Sasata and Joefromrandb. Sirmouse (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Concerning one of Sasata's suggestions: While in the abstract I agree that detailed coverage of the 1972 match and 1975 non-match belong in the articles on those matches, the 1972 championship is the single most important event in Fischer's career so it deserves good coverage in his bio. Neither section is particularly long in this article, so on the whole I think trimming them significantly would be inadvisable. I just don't see any attractive way to split this biography. Any division should reflect the way that his life has been reported in our sources, so an artificial division such as 1943–1969 and 1970–death would not be acceptable. A lot has been written about Fischer's playing style and contributions to chess, so that subject could be expanded to a complete article-sized page on its own. But at its current size, that section seems a good fit for this page. I think there's a bit too much about Lombardy in the Fischer biography (it can certainly go on Lombardy's page), but it's only a few sentences and wouldn't make much of a difference in the page size. Quale (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Unattributed quotes

There's a large number of unattributed quotes in this article. Our MoS on quotes suggests: "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote." I also suggest that many of these quotes would be better paraphrased or trimmed. As an example, "For Lombardy, whom Bobby had played many blitz games with,[328] Fischer's 4½-point margin of victory "came as a pleasant surprise".[329]" Why is it essential for the reader to know that Lombardy was pleasantly surprised? Another: "Despite Botvinnik's remarks, "Fischer began a miraculous year in the history of chess."[341]" Is this unattributed quote necessary? His miraculous year is described in detail in the following paragraphs. I can provide additional examples if desired. Sasata (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The point of an encyclopedia is to provide detail on a subject matter and to paint a picture of what the time and circumstances were like. Without doing such, a reader is left with a bunch of bullet-point facts without any understanding of how and why the person-of-interest said and did what s/he said and/or did. It is important to note not only how an individual acted by how s/he affected/effected those around him or her (e.g., Fischer's statements about Jews). The reason some of the quotes are not truncated, is to avoid the statements being taken out of context, and to provide a complete picture of the subject matter and circumstances of his or her actions at the time of said event.

If wikipedia is to be an article that people come to, then we, as wikipedia editors, should provide information that is complete in it's assessment of a subject matter. We want people to come away feeling that they have a good grasp of the subject matter and would only turn to a primary source because they wanted to learn more, not because the article was lacking in a certain area. My two cents....

Sirmouse (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

To "provide a complete picture of the subject matter and circumstances of his or her actions at the time of said event" would require volumes of text and gives an excuse to keep on adding quotes and continue bloating this article. Where does it end? What about editorial discretion and size guidelines? Will the unattributed quotes be remedied? Sasata (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Size-guidelines are themselves subject to editorial discretion and occasional exceptions. WP:SIZE says content should not be removed simply to reduce the size of an article. There is plenty of precedent for this; for example, Featured Articles Barack Obama and Sea, and Good Article Adolf Hitler, to name a few, all exceed the guidelines of WP:SIZE. Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:Otherstuffexists is not a good argument to defend violations of guidelines. Sasata (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:Otherstuffexists is an neither a policy nor a guideline. It's an essay. Along with 50 cents, it will get you a cup of coffee. There are no "violations of guidelines" here; again, Wikipedia does not have firm rules. If you split up this article, don't be surprised if you're promptly reverted. There's a four-to-one consensus against you here that the article-size is fine. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SIZE is a guideline; this article exceeds the length recommended in the guideline. Contrary to what you might think, I am here to help the article and I would like to assist with the GA-candidacy. I hope you might take that to heart and stop sniping at me. It is clear that consensus is against splitting the article; that's fine, there are other ways to reduce the length and still retain all the information here (per WP:SUBARTICLE). Sasata (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You are not helping anything. You are edit-warring against consensus and refusing to follow WP:BRD; you're disrupting a GA-review and you're going to wind up blocked. You have been given multiple examples of Featured Articles that exceed size-guidelines, and consensus here clearly agrees that the size of this article is fine. If you're "here to help", start by self-reverting and continuing to discuss this. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I will not let you bully your way out of removing an appropriate tag; if you feel the need to report me to the authorities, that's your prerogative. I will continue to improve the article until you have me removed for my egregious behaviour. Sasata (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Report you to the authorities"? Surely you have me confused with someone else. I don't engage in such puerile nonsense. Ever. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I am working on a daughter article solution to this, but need time to carefully read through the article (it's quite long, after all), and real life unfortunately intervenes. Sasata (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you're thanking me. I think what you're doing is disgraceful. That I would never stoop to the level of reporting someone at a noticeboard doesn't change the fact that you're causing pointless disruption. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I thank you because you are a devoted Wikipedian with the encyclopedia's best interests at heart, and you have done good work in exposing me as the disgraceful, disruptive scoundrel that I am. Sasata (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"I would never stoop to the level of reporting someone at a noticeboard"—but that didn't stop you from writing "you're going to wind up blocked", did it? Toccata quarta (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sasata, there are at least nine "biography" articles that exceed the length of the Fischer page. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LongPages&limit=500&offset=0). I do not think it unreasonable to have a biography article of this length. I am completely open to adding sub-articles on various sections of Fischer's life, but I do not see the point in adding a tag at the top of the page, listing it as "too long". I can find no precedent for this, but then again I am a relatively new editor on Wikipedia. None of the nine "biography" articles that are longer than Fischer have such a tag. (Citations available upon request). I appreciate the work you are doing for the page. Also, thank you to Joefromrandb. Sirmouse (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That's ok, I'll transfer some of the info (not "delete", per Joe above) to daughter articles and remove the tag soon. The unattributed quotations still need to be addressed. Sasata (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't recommend transferring material to other articles just yet. (Create the other articles if you like, but be very cautious about deletions from this article.) The details are important, and no one other than yourself knows what daughter articles you envision and what material you intend to transfer. Remember, you're try to solve something that no one else sees as a problem. Quale (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the tag can be renamed so as to state that the article contains "unattributed quotations"...? Just a thought. Sirmouse (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Focusing on the specific examples Sasata provides here rather than getting side-tracked on article size, I agree with the concerns expressed. Lombardy's opinion about Fischer's decisive victory in the 1970 blitz tournament isn't relevant and adds nothing. (The footnote in which Lombardy calls himself one of the best blitz players around is beyond ridiculous and is a surreal addition to a Fischer biography.) The brief paragraph describing Botvinnik's skepticism about Fischer in 1971 probably doesn't need to be in this article either. I'm not sure what a general reader is supposed to make of this. Is it supposed to tell us something about Fischer, or Botvinnik, or how Fischer was viewed in 1971? I don't think it really informs. Placed in greater context, it could be appropriate to include in the 1972 World Chess Championship article. The Interzonal and Candidates are barely mentioned in that article, so it needs a lot of improvement. Sasata, if you have other examples of dubious material in this article, I will certainly give an opinion. Quale (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Quale, let us not forget that Lombardy beat Spassky 12 years before Fischer beat Spassky in the world-renowned 1972 World Chess Championship (starting with Game Three). Very few people could beat Spassky. If Lombardy had not coached Fischer in his formative years, teaching him about how to study, what to study, how to analyze, etc, there might not be the Bobby Fischer we know today. Had Lombardy not gone into the priesthood, Lombardy might have been the 11th World Champion.

Sirmouse (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no way to know for sure, but in my opinion that's not true. This article relies too heavily on Lombardy's autobiography, and I hope you can understand why I think it might be hard for him to have an objective view of his contributions to Fischer's career. It's nice that Lombardy claims to have been one of the best blitz players around, but I don't know of any evidence that he was in the same class as Petrosian, Tal, or Korchnoi. I've never seen anyone but Lombardy claim that he was the key reason for Fischer's success. When the article essentially claims that "Lombardy made Fischer the great player he would become", that needs a source other than Lombardy himself. Quale (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is no way to know for sure. That is why I stated that Lombardy "might" have been. There were other great Western players at the time, such as Larsen, who might have become the 11th World Chess Champion, if not for Fischer.

Lombardy was not "the key reason" for Fischer's success, nor has he ever claimed to be. He coached Fischer when Fischer was starting out in tournaments. That does not mean that he was the be-all-and-end-all of Fischer. Fischer had to do a huge amount of work on his own. It wasn't just some magic potion or some magic key to something. There is no one key reason; it is an agglomeration of many events and people in Fischer's life: His sister Joan buying the chess set, Carmine Nigro teaching Fischer, teaching him fundamental strategies of the game, and letting him in to the Manhattan Chess Club, Collins providing a chess library for Fischer to read through and a setting to meet and play with other strong players at the time, Lombardy coaching Fischer, showing him how to improve the skills he already had and how to study, Denker for going on adventures with Fischer, helping him to see the joy in sports, something that would be important to his future chess training, Fischer's mother, Regina, for getting financial support for Fischer to play in the Leipzig Olympiad. All of these people, and many others, were essential to Fischer becoming Fischer as the chess player we know of today.

I do not know where your quote stems from. Fischer (at age 11) told Lombardy that he wanted to be World Champion, and Lombardy, even though he was a contemporary of Fischer, helped him out, showed him what worked for him, and then Fischer went on his way, did the work set out for him, and became a great player. Lombardy was six years older than Fischer and had more match and tournament experience. It's like apprenticeship. In time, the student surpasses the master. Fischer worked hard and surpassed Lombardy within a few years. This is a testament to Bobby's hard work and diligence.

As for a matter of citations, I too was skeptical about Lombardy's claim, so I read through every book on Fischer I could get my hands on, and I found evidence from Endgame, Profile of a Prodigy, Bobby Fischer Goes to War, Russians Versus Fischer, the Psychobiography of Bobby Fischer, Bobby Fischer versus the Rest of the World, The World Chess Championship: A History, etc. pointing to Lombardy's role in helping Fischer become World Chess Champion. It doesn't mean he was the only one. As stated, there were many others. That's why all those people are listed on page. Collins was a mentor, as was Denker. They played roles as well in helping to shape Fischer.

From an objective standpoint, it does not seem unreasonable to me to include citations if they have been backed up and confirmed by other reliable sources. That's how we confirm that what Brady writes is accurate; we cross-reference it with other works to confirm. The same thing goes for Schonberg's book, or Kasparov's book, etc.

As for whether or not Lombardy was one of the best blitz players int he world, it is very hard to determine these sorts of things. We can determine his strength in classical games. Lombardy says he did well against Tal in blitz games, but that is not much evidence. How many blitz tournaments did they have back then? Not many, by my count, but perhaps there is some information you can dig up to show otherwise. If so, that would be an amazing treasure trove of information. As it stands now, though, we must take Lombardy at his word, unless we can find a refutation that says that he wasn't good at blitz, or whatever. In general, I believe, that we should take author's at their word by and large, because otherwise every single citation would need an additional citation to prove that the first citation was accurate. It would mean that all the books on Fischer would be copies of each other, each providing the exact same details, with no deviation whatsoever.

Beside, the quote was included so as to demonstrate that he, having played Fischer in many blitz games, was coming from a place of accurate assessment when he stated that how he felt about Fischer winning the 1970 Unofficial World Championship of Chess. Nothing more, nothing less. I simply put the quote in for the context of his assessment, not to prove anything. How can it be proved or disproved anyhow?

If you read this and still find the quote to be out of place, please let me know how best to rephrase. I am open to all thoughts and suggestions, within reason. Thank you. Sirmouse (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The death of Bobby......

The reigining world champ, two defeats over Boris Spassky, in Iceland and Yugoslavia died after a horrible expirience at the hands of the Japanese.

His torture by Pasadena police is documented in his book. His torture by the Japanese immigration police is also documneted in the book "Endgame."

The Soviet aparatus has a very revealing book that explains tactics used by special supplemental attaches of the Soviet Men's team that competes in world wide chess events. Very interesting reading.

The infiltration of the american chess federation and many media/press who report erroneaus info about bobby is fascinating. Soviets can use our free press to have anything they desire printed. lie repeated enough to an idiot becomes the truth.

History will be the judge of Bobby, not any of us! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.46.91 (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, Jewish?

Well, it wasn't a 20-year wait, but the issue has made a comeback; should Fischer be in the category Category:Jewish chess players?

This was discussed in 2005-2010 but I'm not sure there was a conclusion:

Talk:Bobby_Fischer/Archive_1#Fischer_Jewish.3F Talk:Bobby_Fischer/Archive_2#.22Jewish_Chessplayers.22_cat. Talk:Bobby_Fischer/Archive_3#Evidence_for_Fischer.27s_Jewish_Heritage.3F Talk:Bobby_Fischer/Archive_4#Mentioning_that_Fischers_biological_father_was_Probable_and_Likely_Jewish_repeatedly Talk:Bobby_Fischer/Archive_5#His_mother_was_really_Jewish.3F

In 2011 the category was removed for what was, until recently, the last time [7] but now it has been added again.

On the one hand, Fischer actively objected to being called 'Jewish' and asked for his name to be removed from the Encyclopaedia Judaica. One the other hand, he was descended from Jews, perhaps through both parents but certainly on his mother's side, and by some definitions that makes him Jewish whatever he claimed. Basically, what definition of 'Jewish' is the category for?

Ewen (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"Jewish" is clearly being used here as an ethnic group, not as a religious belief. WP:CAT/R states "Categories regarding religious beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate." Clearly we know Fischer did not self-identify as Jewish in a religious sense, quite the opposite. If we are using "Jewish" as an ethnic group, then adding the category "Jewish chess players" seems reasonable, as he did have Jewish ancestry.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's fine but in what sense are the chess players in the category "Jewish" - religious or ethnic? Ewen (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic. As WP:EGRS says, ethnic groups are an acceptable categorization for people.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ewen, I'm sure you will be astounded to learn that this has been discussed on this talk page previously. That doesn't mean that we can't talk about it again, but you might want to look at Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 1#Fischer Jewish?, Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive_2#"Jewish_Chessplayers" cat., Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 3#Evidence_for_Fischer's Jewish Heritage?, Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 3#Category: Jewish Chess Players, Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 4#Bobby_Fischer's Father: To Be or Not to Be....Jewish._That's the Question, Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 4#Jewish, Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 5#His mother was really Jewish?, and Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 5#Is he a jew? Can we get this straight. I think I used to write that you should try to forgive us if old-timers around here seem fatigued by this topic, as for a couple years it came up with depressing frequency. (Yes, I was present for all of those discussions, but I couldn't possibly have mustered the intestinal fortitude to participate in all of them.) I think it's been almost 4 years since the last go around. It's probably time to beat this poor horse again. Quale (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if I can be bothered going through the old discussions... to me it's a matter of simple respect. The guy didn't self-identify as Jewish, and in fact objected to being called Jewish. It's quite likely that Hitler had some Jewish ancestry too, should we include him in the category of "Jewish politicians"? Basically, if inclusion in a category is controversial, we should err on the side of non-inclusion. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that the category for Fischer is controversial. Fischer also renounced his American citizenship. Shouldn't we respect him by not including him in Category:American chess players? This isn't a WP:BLP issue either, although I don't think those concerns would affect whether this categorization is appropriate. One editor in those older discussion suggested that Fischer was not a reliable source concerning the question of his own Jewish ethnicity, and I think that the evidence supports that conclusion. Quale (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Quale, I was involved in those discussions too. Was there a clear consensus, though? Not from my reading of them, which is why I raised it again. I hope we can come to a conclusion this time. Ewen (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

In view of this, it is a rather strange statement to say that one disagrees that this is controversial. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my claim that it isn't controversial deserves some explanation. On the face of it, the fact that it has been discussed repeatedly here would seem to make it seem obvious that it is controversial. First, several of the disputes in the past were caused by antisemitic pot stirrers, at least one of whom had an account blocked for a username violation (Nazi symbolism) but who returned to continue his fight. Those discussions can be discounted. Now in this case, I think that Ewen has a sincere and understandable concern, and I'm familiar with MaxBrowne's work on chess articles and I hold it in high regard, so I respect both of your opinions. This discussion like some of the others is motivated by a genuine and reasonable concern. The sense in which I think that this is not a controversial question is that it is a mistake to confuse a Wikipedia controversy with a real world controversy. Many things generate a lot of heat on Wikipedia that are not issues in the real world. I don't know of any plausible claim in the real world outside of Wikipedia that Fischer was not of Jewish ethnicity. Fischer's Jewish ethnicity is in fact frequently mentioned in writings about him, as reliable sources have found this to be an important detail about his life. As far as the world outside of Wikipedia is concerned, this is a settled question not open to serious dispute. As I mentioned before, Fischer eventually came to hate the US. Do we remove him from Category:American chess players? I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have wanted to be identified in that way. Georgia O'Keefe was born in Wisconsin, but apparently did not have warm feelings about the state. She left in her teens and later rarely acknowledged her birthplace. Should she be removed from Category:Artists from Wisconsin because she didn't like the state in which she was born? Quale (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Short answer; if Category:Jewish chess players is for ethnically Jewish people, then Fischer is in that category. Perhaps we can make it clearer what the criteria are for inclusion in the category? Ewen (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether "Jewish" is a religion or an ethnicity is itself controversial. Furthermore, ethnicity is to some extent a matter of self-identification, for example a Russian child adopted by an American family at age two would probably think of himself as American rather than Russian. Fischer did not participate in any aspects of the Jewish religion or culture, and chose not to self-identify as Jewish. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Quale that we have to draw a distinction between a "real world" controversy and a Wikipedia controversy. The category "Jewish chess players" should not be controversial on Wikipedia - a category is simply a navigational tool. I quote from Quale's post above - "As far as the world outside of Wikipedia is concerned, this is a settled question not open to serious dispute." Can you find a reliable source that seriously questions Fischer's Jewish ethnicity? --Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No, but the actual question is, "What does this category mean by 'Jewish'?" Ewen (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, the question is not "did Fischer have Jewish ancestry?" but "is it appropriate to include him in the category of 'Jewish Chess Players'?". MaxBrowne (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Max: Following your logic, Fischer should not be in any Jewish categories at all. That clearly does not agree with our sources, since our sources say that Fischer had Jewish ethnicity. Why do you think your concerns outweigh what the sources say? Normally Wikipedia depends on reliable sources, and I don't know of any reliable sources that contradict this categorization. Even if one did, I think the weight of evidence has conclusively demonstrated that Fischer was ethnically Jewish.

@Ewen: Making it clear that the category refers to ethnically Jewish chess players rather than being restricted to chess players who practice Judaism would be fine. I thought that Jewish atheism, or nonreligious Jews was a reality that was pretty well understood, and I'm afraid that even making that point clear won't prevent this from being raised again, and again, and again. There are also fine chess editors who haven't commented here who have made it clear in the past that they don't agree that there is anything interesting to be found in examining the intersection between chess and Jewish culture and ethnicity. I respect that opinion, but many chess writers outside of Wikipedia have found reason to consider Jewish culture and chess. Quale (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that's clear enough. Thank you! It wasn't that Fischer was not a practising Jew, but that he was very clear about not wanting to considered to be a Jew. However, if it's a question of ethnicity then it's a matter of fact, not one of self-identification. I disagree with @Max here - if a White child were adopted into a Black family then they'd be pretty silly to describe themselves as Black. As we've now established that the category is for ethnically Jewish people, Jewish by descent and not by belief or by religious practice, then the only reason Fischer should be excluded is if someone can show that his parents were not themselves of Jewish descent. Ewen (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually wikipedia categories do make a distinction between Category:Jews and Category:People of Jewish descent. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer on Film

Not very memorable, but it does exist: Bobby Fischer Live (2009)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1407053/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

WHPratt (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"Chess fans' opinion isn't relevant to the claim? I think it's very relevant. Would you care to explain why it isn't?"

Sure. "Many [...] fans regard Fischer as the greatest" has a bit of circular logic. (Fischer gained fans by simply being the best, dominating the opposition, winning tournaments & matches by big margins. "The greatest" presumably means relative talent demonstrated by successes. So there's redundancy/circular logic. [Unless it means fans evaluate Fischer's skill as historically the greatest, but "chess experts" would be a better determiner, than fans, of same.]) IHTS (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Re your other Q re the def of "many", that text was originated by another editor (not me), and there have been discussion(s) about it elsewheres. (The same language is used in lede to Garry Kasparov: "considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time".) IHTS (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

A-class?

Does anyone know what it would take for this article to be listed as A-class? Does it need a peer review? Is it already at A-class level? Please advise. Thanks. Sirmouse (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

case for his legacy

in article it is shown that "many consider him the greatest ever..." and shown 3 sources/references. what about adding views of very famous players who sees him as the greatest?

it seems that Korchnoi also sees him to be the greatest player ever or greater than Karpov and Kasparov: http://chess-news.ru/en/node/18174 it is reasonable to deduce that Korchnoi sees him to be greater than Kasparov and Karpov if not the greatest ever.

It seems that Wishy Anand also considers him to be the greatest ever: http://www.thehindu.com/sport/other-sports/article3486974.ece

there is a footage of Carlsen answering the question but I found it difficult to understand, the voice was too low but another wiki page says Carlsen considers Fischer and Kasparov as the greatest and says Fischer may have been better at his peak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history#Magnus_Carlsen_.282012_and_2015.29.

and one more wiki article says "according to computer analysis, up untill 10 best years period Fischer made the most number correct moves". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history#Moves_played_compared_with_computer_choices

all of these can be added to his legacy. I can find more. --Sir artur (talk) 15:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be merely referring to the second sentence of the article, which for the lede is fine as it is. There is a substantial Legacy section later on that already contains the views of several famous players on Fischer.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

yes, I am talking about his legacy and I think views of Kornoi and Carlsen are at least as worthy as those of that are present. I do not mean the present should be deleted, just Korcnoi and Carlsen's views should be added which are not added yet. It would be good for the readers. --Sir artur (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)