Talk:Bobby Fischer (biography)

In accordance with Wikipedia:Peer_review/Bobby_Fischer, I am planning to trim this article and re-merge it with Bobby Fischer (chess career). If there are any objections to this, please speak now or forever hold your peace! --Malathion 1 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)

I think we should make this Bobby Fischer (biography), and move Bobby Fischer (chess career) here. Please let me know what you think at Talk:Bobby Fischer (chess career). —Chowbok 01:25, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

good article!

i corrected the spassky score (perhaps you forgot the forfeited game 2?)

maybe a mention of the Frank Brady biography as a reference book would be suitable, but I'm not sure how much we want to reference outside works. dze27

Oh, I agree, this is shaping up! Most of the facts are getting there, and it just needs a little copyediting for style and readability (the line about his sister is driving me a little nuts especially). Someone else originally put in the Fischer-Spassky score and I didn't notice it was wrong. Just caught the dates as well.

I would like to know something about his family situation. Were the parents supportive?

Good work on the sister sentence. As I recall he was raised by his mother, don't know what happened to his father.

It's wrong to call every chess player from Soviet Union a "Russian". --User:Taw

as to 9/11 attacks Fischer concluded in the radio interview: "What goes around, comes around even for the US", after indeed applauding it. Typical "hate radio" rhetoric. Fischer mania is still quite alive in Europe, though not many follow his current political views. Frank A

I (Camembert) have a couple of questions about some of your recent addtions, Frank A (I've shuffled them around a fair bit, by the way):

What is this "book of the most famous Jews ever" in Israel? Presumably it has a name or something. I've temporarily removed reference to it because I can't find any info about this anywhere and because I'm not sure what relevance it has anyway.
What do these papers from the KGB say exactly, and can we have a reference for them? In what way did the Soviets collude against Fischer? Was it anything more than Soviet players taking quick draws against each other to preserve energy for western players (something which is already mentioned in the article)? Your wording seems to suggest something rather more sinister. --Camembert

You find the "famous jew" (=Encyclopaedia Judaica) list reference on Bobby's own homepage (with fax and answer). It shows what Fischer said in an interview: everybody wanted to capitalize on his name with books, films asf., but didnt get much in return. The KGB papers show that whole number of people had explicit order to work out playing plans against him, not for pay but to avoid being punished. My wording might have helped to undstand why Fischer does appearantly not like the US so much anymore. Who would like work for one's country's prestige only to find he is being spied on by this country, even when for years THEY dont find anything. The KGB material was published in german chess magazines I read in my club. Wy wording basically suggests he had "the world"(well quite many at least) against him but still put up a good fight. Frank A

OK, now you mention the Encyclopaedia Judaica thing, I remember reading about it - I put a mention of it back into the article. I'll try to give this article a bit of structure sometime soon, I think (unless somebody else does so before me, of course). --Camembert

Right, I've stuck some headings in - it still seems quite bitty to me, and of course, there's a lot more that could be done, but I think it's better with headings than without. --Camembert

...(the top four places qualified for the Candidates Tournament), so it was a surprise when, after a good finish, Fischer finished fifth equal and qualified.

Huh? The top 4 qualify and by finishing fifth he qualified?? fvincent 19:41, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

Hm, good point... I'll see if I can sort that out... --Camembert

OK, far as I can make out, it was the top six that qualified, not the top four. I've edited the article appropriately. --Camembert

It was rather complicated. I can't find a clear history on the Web, but there used to be a rule that limited the number of players from a given country who could play in the candidates. That meant that sometimes the qualifiers from the interzonal weren't the same as the top finishers. I thought this was why Fischer qualified in 1958, but http://www.gmsquare.com/Baburin/collectorscorner.html adds a further complication - it says that they increased the number of places in the Candidates tournament at the last minute. Matthew Woodcraft

I don't know exactly what the rules were, but I do know that the top six finishers in the Interzonal (Tal, Gligoric, Petrosian, Benko, Olafsson and Fischer) all played in the Candidates. --Camembert

the article says "In the event of the score reaching 9-9, the champion (Fischer) would retain his title - in effect, this meant that Fischer only needed to win nine games, while Karpov had to win ten. "

i don't quite follow. Just before that sentence, i said that Fisher wanted a unlimited games, with first to win 10 wins.

Xah P0lyglut 10:16, 2003 Dec 12 (UTC)

My understanding of the situation is this: whoever scored ten wins first would win the match, become World Champion and take the winner's share of the prize money. If the score reached 9-9 the match would be declared drawn, the prize money would be shared and the reigning champion (Fischer) would retain his title (this is analogous to what happened under the old system in the event of a 12-12 tie). So if Fischer reached, say, a 9-8 lead, he would be guaranteed of keeping his title, but would need to win another game to take the winner's share of the prize money. I'm not absolutely certain about this, but I do know that every book I've looked at has phrased Fischer's conditions in a similar to way to how we have it (first to ten wins match, Fischer retains title in event of 9-9 - see [1] for an online source), so we're not wrong, exactly, but we are a bit confusing. I'd make it clearer, but, as I say, I'm not entirely sure I understand the situation correctly (I'm pretty sure, but I'd like to see it spelled out in a book or somewhere first). --Camembert

Searching For Bobby Fischer

I removed a paragraph which was not about Fischer, but about a movie. The paragraph belongs on a separate page devoted to the movie, like all other movies on Wikipedia. Here is the paragraph:

In fact, the personality of this chess player was the basis of an acclaimed film called, Searching for Bobby Fischer. In this film, a young boy's family discovers that he is a gifted chess player and seek to nurture it. They hire an strict instructor who aims to teach the boy be as aggressive as Fischer. The title of the film is a metaphor about the characters' quest to adopt the ideal of Bobby Fischer and his determination to win at any price. However, the main conflict in the film arises when the boy refuses to adopt the misanthropic point of view of Fischer. Furthermore, the boy goes on to win on his own terms with the kind of gracious sportsmanship that Fischer rejects. The film's producers used Fischer's fame to promote the movie yet paid Fischer nothing for it. Fischer has cited the movie as just another example of a "Jewish" conspiracy to make money off him and sully his reputation at the same time. ::

ChessPlayer 16:40, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree on the above - and have copied that info to Searching for Bobby Fischer and linked there from Bobby Fischer --/Mat 16:39, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have changed this "appealing to his patriotism helped save the match; the fact that the British financier donated $125,000 to bring the prize fund up to $250,000 probably also helped." because it is either wrong or very ambiguous. Kissinger is clearly not a British financier so I have removed that bit and made the donation more neutral in origin. If anyone knows the correct source of the money (it may have actually been Kissinger) then by all means correct accordingly. --/Mat 16:39, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It was Jim Slater. I'll add it to the article. --Camembert

I've removed a mention of the California Chess Journal annoucing Fischer had challenged IBM to build 25 Deep Blues for him to take on in a simul. It was an April Fool's joke on the CCJ's part (see the web version of the April 2004 issue available here). --Camembert

No mention of a person's personal traits belongs in an encyclopedia introductory paragraph about them, unless those traits are the reason that person is famous. An introductory paragraph should highlight for the reader what a person has done such that he has an article in an encyclopedia about him. For Fischer, this info is that he was a chessplayer and world chess champion. Fischer's claim to fame is not that he is an anti-semite; he is not famous for that. ChessPlayer 06:16, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Disagree. One reason that Bobby Fischer is well known is that he is a very eccentric person with some very odd political ideas which includes anti-semtism. Roadrunner

Fischer's fame was at its peak in 1972, when he won the world championship. At that time, his political views were never a major topic of discussion. Fischer's behavior was eccentric...but again, it was always in regards to chess, and mostly centered around wether he would play or withdraw over some grievance. All the hullaballo over things like anti-semitism were issues from the period long after he was a has-been in chess. What made Fischer famous in chess circles was victories over the Soviets at chess, starting while in his teens. Among the general public in the US, Fischer was a nobody until he played Spassky for the world championship. Today, in the US, Bobby Fischer is again not very famous outside the small US chess community; the average American either has no idea who he was, or perhaps, if they are older, know him as a chess genius who beat "the Russians"; his personal views are hardly known at all. He did recieve some publicity during his run in with the Federal government, but few people really followed that. To emphasize his personal views as something of importance is absurd; what Bobby Fischer has done that has put his name in the news is win at chess. His views get publicity only cause they are the views of one of the all time great chess masters... all people have their views and its wrong to put the cart before the horse. ChessPlayer 00:42, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here is an example: Charles Lindbergh was a famous aviator. He also had some personal views which today most would find abhorrent: Lindbergh had favorable views about Nazis before WWII. In the Wikipedia article about Lindbergh, it rightly introduces why he was famous...as an aviator...and keeps the issue of his Nazism to the body of the article, if at all. Lindbergh's fame was in aviation, his personal sympathies for Nazi Germany, while reprehensible, are either don't belong at all in an article, or belong in the body. They do not belong in the introductory paragraph.

Perhaps the argument is that what makes Fischer famous is his personal opinions and anti-Semitism? Ask this...if Fischer had never played chess, would he have an entry in Wikipedia? No. Just having anti-semitic or otherwise eccentric habits and views don't get you an article here. Had he played chess, but never been anti-semite or otherwise eccentric, would he have an article in Wikipedia? yes. Hence, Fischer's fame is that he was a chess player, and other, minor, aspects of his life belong in the body of the article, if at all. ChessPlayer 01:28, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

An introductory statement to a biographical article should answer the question, "Why is this person listed? What's their claim to an article that separates them from people who don't get mentioned?" ChessPlayer 03:48, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't agree. There are dozens of chess players out there and one of *the* reasons that Bobby Fischer is well known is precisely because of his unconventional views. If Bobby Fischer had not been eccentric, yes he would have a wikipedia article, but it would be a one paragraph stub.

I'm not saying that we should make a huge deal over it in the intro. But it seems completely absurd that the fact that Fischer is eccentric is not mentioned in the intro *at all*.

Roadrunner 19:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

>>If Bobby Fischer had not been eccentric, yes he would have a wikipedia article, but it would be a one paragraph stub.

I disagree. Bobby Fischer would have a significant wikipedia article regardless of his eccentricities. Take a look at some of the other recognizable names in Category:Chess_players. I will admit that if he was not an eccentric fugitive, his article would be significantly more chess-oriented. --SeanO 22:49, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with SeanO and ChessPlayer. Nowadays, his eccentricity and anti-Semitism are what keep him in the news, but they are not his reason for being a chess celebrity. When Fischer became world champion he was the most dominant player in the history of the game and his success had a profound impact on the international organization of chess, for example tournament play and player's salaries. Had Fischer been less eccentric, it's possible that he would be more well known, because he may have held his world championship title even longer. His anti-semitism is not important enough to be mentioned in the introduction to this article. --Malathion 13:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is Fischer Jewish?

No. Not by Israeli law. People whose mother was Jewish, like Fischer, but who have renounced Judaism and joined another religion, are not Jewish. Still less if it is by the father, since lineage was traditionally through the mother. The encyclopedica that listed Fischer withdrew its listing of him when he complained. ChessPlayer 08:22, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

By Israeli Law? Wasn't Fischer born in Brooklyn? Is Brooklyn in Israel? -- Cecropia | Talk 15:31, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Er...If you would like to claim that Judeo-tradition determines the Jewishness of Fischer, that is one thing - but Israeli law has nothing to do with Fischer's ethnicity. Jews outside of Israel are not bound in any way shape or form by Israeli law. Kingturtle 23:41, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

...But Israeli law is a commonly used yardstick on the matter - it's easier to look up what Israeli law says than to get wrapped in intricate Talmudic interpretation. - Dan

Searching for Ways to Steal Money From Fischer

Why does a movie which is NOT about Fischer get mentioned so many times on this page? It is bad enough the movie ripped off Fischer, does Wikipedia have to help?ChessPlayer 08:22, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned twice. If you want to remove the first mention of it (immediately under the "Fischer's personality" heading), I wouldn't have a problem with that. --Camembert

Books by Fischer

The article credited him with writing "many best-selling books on chess." I could think of only two, and a quick cruise through USCF's online catalog didn't produce any more. (In fact, My 60 Memorable Games is apparently out of print, so USCF is selling only one Fischer book.) Did I miss any? JamesMLane 02:15, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know of any others, and I can't find any others in the Library of Congress catalog. --Camembert

What does this mean?

Apparently they also suspected that Fischer himself may have been approached by the Soviets, this is in addition to rather more expected KGB material detailing the combined efforts of the Soviet chess sports organization against him. - I can't parse that sentence. Rick K 18:45, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Detention in 2004 / Revocation of Passport

Fisher's passport not merely invalid, but expressly revoked on Dec 11, 2003. Source: http://home.att.ne.jp/moon/fischer/list/p_52/52_0.htm

I thought he had his passport altered in 2004, to add more pages, since he had run out of room. They scheduled an appointment a week later, he came back, and they added 25 more pages...

~ender 2005-04-28 02:40:MST

Why was the Revenge Match in Yugoslavia?

So who set this up, and why was it set up in Yugoslavia, when there were other places which would cause less trouble? It appears BF had some sway with the organizers, and the whole thing wouldn't have been possible had he not been willing to come out of hiding...
~ender 2005-04-28 02:41:MST

Repetition of material

Fischer's anti-Semitism and ramblings about the World Trade Center attacks are discussed under "Fischer's personality" as well as "Disappearance and aftermath". This information is noticably redundant and should be condensed together under one heading. Beginning 21:55, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

"Fischer Watch"

Can anyone confirm that this website is noteworthy enough to merit a mention in the body of the article? I'm in favor of keeping the listing under "External links", but is it so well-known and important that it should be in the article itself? I get this funny feeling the mention of it here is nothing more than someone's self-promotion, but I could be wrong. Beginning 21:55, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

It is not about a single person, it is about a whole System of injustice. FISCHER WATCH should stay in, so the governments wrongdoing will become public.

Hi, Mr. Fischer. Interested in a game some time? Tempshill 00:02, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pal Benko

I thought it was worth noting that Pal Benko received a $2,000 payoff as opposed to just giving his seat up to Fischer out of the goodness of his heart. He probably knew he didn't have a chance at making it very far and figured $2,000 was better than nothing. I got this information from the latest book - "Bobby Fischer Goes to War.

Does the book attribute it? We might want to qualify the statement in the article by saying "According to ____" or "___ reported that". My (dim) recollection from back then is that USCF was kind of close-mouthed about the whole situation, and there were varying reports about what had gone on between Edmondson and Benko. JamesMLane 05:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The book didn't reveal any source of where that information came from. It merely stated it as a fact just as I had. The author did have a way with words and I was tempted to add a litte more. Regarding the $2,000, the author remarks that Fischer's place in the World Championship had been bought for him, and bought cheaply given the potential rewards.

Fischer's Personality

There are appears to be some imperfect sentence merging in this paragraph (emphasis added):

One of the most famous articles dealing with Fischer's personality is a 1962
piece 'written  by Ralph Ginzburg for Harper's Magazine, "Portrait of a Genius
As a Young Chess Master".  Although conducted when he was just eighteen,
the paucity of interviews with Fischer in later years has meant this one is still
widely quoted and alluded to. In it, Fischer is reported as making disparaging
comments about women chess players ("They're all weak, all women. They're
stupid  compared to men.") and Jewish players ("there are too many Jews
in chess. They seem to have taken away the class of the game. They don't
seem to dress so nicely, you know."). He also talks about his estrangement
from his mother (who, it is widely believed, was herself Jewish, though Fischer
denies this - in a Harpers' magazine interview, dated 1962, Fischer had
no problem admitting that his mother was Jewish) and his chess ambitions
(including a desire to build and live in a house shaped like a rook).

The second Harper's reference is, I assume, the same as the first, and an unedited artifact of the original of that parenthetical remark). Or is there a 2nd Harper's interview? --Calton 06:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is just the one Harper's interview. As you suggest, it was, if I remember rightly, a case of merging two bits of text once in different parts of the article, and not quite getting it right. It should be better now.

By the way, if anybody has a specific example of Fischer denying the Jewishness of his mother, it might be good to mention it. I don't doubt the truth of him doing this (I seem to remember reading him denying it quite recently, in fact), but giving an example would certainly be useful. --Camembert

Religious beliefs

Fischer's involvement with the Worldwide Church of God is worth including, but to give that factor a lot of emphasis in explaining his behavior in 1972 is too speculative. Fischer himself doesn't draw such a link in the cited interview. I'm not sure where this section on religion should go -- chronologically it fits in early in his life, so I left it there, but that placement somewhat disrupts the arc of his chess career, which is what most readers will be interested in. JamesMLane 06:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that you must have just posted your comments when I originally replied over on your page. This is what I wrote and then I would like to answer your points:

The problem with making Bobby Fischer into a "chess champion" is that he ceases to be a human being. By taking out the theme which HE clearly makes plain that his life was divided into two parts and the second part governed the first, it is impossible to understand Fischer. These are not just religious beliefs the way they have been restyled they are his life and governed everything. Also removed is the reason WHY Fischer would not play in 1972 and by removing all of that text the article go back to confusion. The reason why he would not play when overlaid on the timetable is because his whole world had just come crashing down and he eventually turned into the hostile and suspicious person that he is today. This article makes Fischer into a cardboard chess piece. I do not wish to get into any sort of revert war so I am writing to you here. Would you like to discuss this a little more? Obviously it is easier and quicker to wade in and delete than it is to create something and by just wiping out half of my text without offering anything new leads to creative frustration on my part. I would like to discuss this matter further with you with a view to resolution that we can both agree with. MPLX/MH 06:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Fischer's involvement with the Worldwide Church of God is worth including, but to give that factor a lot of emphasis in explaining his behavior in 1972 is too speculative. Fischer himself doesn't draw such a link in the cited interview."

Of course not because that is not what he is discussing - he is discussing the money from that same tournament. But what you do not seem to understand is that in February of 1972 his whole life came crashing down and it continued to crash all through the tournament. As for Kissinger - that is ridiculous! Armstrong set the Germans up as being the evil people and Kissinger was German! There are many articles that I could also bring in relating to all of this to show that Bobby Fischer was a wreck who was hiding behind chess to escape reality. If Armstrong's prophecies had come true then there would not have been a tournament in 1972 because Fischer would have gone into hiding with Armstrong and the rest of the church. That is because beginning in February 1972 the end of the world as he knew it was supposed to take place and the USA and UK were to be destroyed by a revived German dictatorship! His religion was quasi-Jewish more than Christian. He did not keep Christmas or worship on Sunday but kept the Sabbath and observed the Feast of Tabernacles! It is incorrect to label this "religious beliefs" because this was his life and that is why I restyled it that way. Fischer has a lot in common with other infamous Armstrong converts. Another was Michael Dennis Rohan who tried to start WWIII to bring about the same end time that Fischer was anticipating! You may have a better grasp of Fischer as the chess champion but I know a LOT more about him as a crazy zealot waiting to explode! MPLX/MH 06:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you and I were never on the same page (literally!). What I wrote on your talk page, I'm now posting here, so the whole discussion is here and other editors can join in.

I have no desire to turn him into a cardboard figure, and I agree with you that the WCG was an important influence in his life and deserves mentioning. I had these disagreements with your version of it, though:

Fischer is notable because he was a chess superstar, not because of his religious beliefs. I don't think his association with the church is important enough to be in the lead section.
We don't need to give the same information twice, such as that Armstrong's prophecies failed to come true or that Fischer made $200,000 in 1972. I left those facts in, deleting only their repetition. This also removes the juxtaposition that you introduced with "However", as if the statement that the total prize fund for the big match was $250,000 is inconsistent with Fischer's statement that his income that year was $200,000. I don't see it as inconsistent because it wouldn't be at all surprising for the prize fund to include a share for the loser.
As I commented here before I saw your note to me, to link his general eccentricity to his disillusionment with the church is quite a stretch. Fischer was known for odd behavior before February of 1972. There was, for example, his boycotting of the 1969 U.S. Championship, which meant that he wasn't even qualified for the 1972 FIDE championship cycle until Edmondson brokered a deal. In general, Fischer's obstinacy about match conditions in 1972 was consistent with his attitude throughout his career (including the match with Reshevsky and the 1975 FIDE championship cyle). If there's some knowledgeable source for the suggestion that the church's affairs (no pun intended) affected Fischer's conduct in 1972, then I have no problem with including that idea, attributed to that source.
I see no point to including this article in the "Religion" category. From a quick glance at that category, I get the impression that it's not the general practice to include the categorization in an individual bio article. In fact, it looks like the two you added are the only ones. There are subcategories for religious leaders and religious workers, but Fischer wouldn't qualify as either of those.
Speaking of the two individuals you added, I don't think that Fischer's and Rohan's membership in the same church is enough to warrant mentioning either of them in the other's article. There would have to be more of a direct tie between them.

As for the Kissinger intervention, I think it's generally believed that Kissinger made a call. I don't know whether such a phone call affected what Fischer did. Any reliable information on that point should be added. JamesMLane 06:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks James! I have not touched the first part and neither have I retitled the "Religion" sub-head although I have added more to the Kissinger bit and lower down I also added more following comments concerning the 1962 interview. You may, or you may not agree with those comments which I posted before writing this.
On the subject of Kissinger. First of all it is necessary to understand what kind of a church we are talking about. We are talking about TOTAL domination of every part of your life. The beliefs were more in keeping with the Jewish faith than Christian, although there was a similarity to the Mormon faith as well in its views about God. But the church did not vote at all in anything. There was no patriotism involved. Kissinger is German and according to Armstrong the Germans were waiting for a new Adolph Hitler to dominate a United States of Europe which would launch a nuclear attack on both the USA and UK and destroy them. The Pope was the Antichrist who would lead this new superpower with its German dictator. If everything had gone according to the way Armstrong laid it out, the end would have started in February of 1972! Michael Dennis Rohan got the same message and was trying to destroy the mosque so that the Jews could rebuild the Temple in order for Jesus to return to Earth and stop WWIII. That is what Fischer believed and he would have known of Rohan!
The mess that Fischer developed into was because he had been cut loose from everything and every anchor except chess. He was part Jewish but Armstrong taught that the USA and UK were part of the Lost 10 Tribes of Israel and that God had turned his back on the Jewish tribe. Do you begin to fathom the lost world that this man was groping around in during that tournament?
A lot of people have written a lot of things about Fischer but they all lacked basic information that explained why he acted the way he did. Fischer did not celebrate birthdays and there is some news footage that I have seen somewhere of someone trying to give him a birthday party and him reacting to it in a negative way. Fischer is almost a savant who knows how to do one thing extremely well and after that his mind is shot. But to understand why, you have to understand what made him that way and he is not the only mental wreck created by Armstrong. MPLX/MH 07:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

James: I will catch your reply later - it is snooze time for me. MPLX/MH 07:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Many things written about Fischer, of course, mention his association with the Worldwide Church of God, but have there been any articles or books published which make such a strong link between the Worldwide Church of God's beliefs and his behaviour in 1972 as we seem to be doing in this article? If there are, then there's no problem: we can just say "in the opinion of so-and-so, writing in Book X, Fischer behaved like this because he'd expected the world to end last week" or whatever. So are there, and if so, what are they? --Camembert

I am not sure when Camembert posted the question because I have only just noticed it and there is no time and date attached to your name. Anyway, yes, a lot has been written about all of this in the past when all of this was going on. There are some key links on the article page to follow but you can also insert "Ambassador Report" in Google. The problem is that the article was written by chess fans who initially created a single dimension Bobby Fischer who appeared to be only concerned with the world of chess. That of course was not true. For instance it was stated that Fischer played the 'Match of the Century' after Henry Kissinger inspired him. But since Kissinger had German origins and Fischer had a religious disdain for Germans and since Fischer was not patriotic in 1972 because his religion did not vote or let its members serve in the military and since his religion had led him to believe that by 1972 he would be in Petra, Jordan (Armstrong's version of the rapture) which caused Fischer to come unglued, then it seems that he dithered in 1972 wondering whether the prophecies had just been delayed a little. The patriotic version is completely wrong. I guess someone should write a book and bring all of these sources together in one place. MPLX/MH 05:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing about Kissinger being German is introduced to refute a conclusion that isn't advanced, namely that Kissinger's call was the key factor. If there is some dispute on the point, it wouldn't be appropriate for the article to take one side by saying that the other side's explanation "falls flat". That Kissinger may have called is an interesting vignette, worth including, but we have no basis for speculation about the impact of such a call, so I'm rewording the passage accordingly. JamesMLane 09:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I still don't see any support, of the kind Camembert requested, for the claim that the whole WCG imbroglio was of significance in influencing Fischer's attitude toward the 1972 match. I've removed that passage. It can be re-inserted if there's a credible source that can be cited, with an appropriate attribution -- i.e., a source that draws the connection between the failed prophecy and Fischer's conduct. I note again that Fischer acted this way about match conditions throughout his career, not just in 1972. JamesMLane 10:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do as you wish JamesMLane because I am not into revert wars with people who want to dispute hard evidence. I walk away. All I add is that when I recorded my own response to the note about Kissinger, the item about Kissinger had already been inserted by someone else without any supporting documentation. As for Fischer, well here are the facts: 1) starting in 1962 by his own admission and in his own words he became a disciple of Armstrong and he remained a disciple through the 1972 'Match of the Century'. That is stated fact by Fischer. Go argue with that, not me. 2)Armstrong's teachings are well documented and I can give you a zillion sources - but this is about Fischer and not about Armstrong. 3) Because Fischer was a disciple of Armstrong he believed in the 1972 to 1975 prophecies and this meant that a) Fischer thought he would be fleeing to safety in 1972 - probably to Petra, Jordan (not playing chess!!!!!) and b) that one third of the USA was about to nuclear bombed by a Nazi United States of Europe, one third would die of disease and starvation and the remaining third would be stuck in concentration camps. Did Fischer still believe all of this in 1972? Yes he did, he just thought that the timetable was a little off. My proof? He gave a big chunk of his 1972 winnings to Armstrong!!!!! When Fischer finally figured out that it was all untrue he turned on everyone and became the nutcase that he is today! Now those are the well documented facts. But if you don't like the facts then you are welcome to turn Fischer back into a cardboard cut-out who was only a chess player that had no personal life and no personal beliefs that made him tick. As I stated, I am not into revert wars so if you want to make my input go away you are of course free to do so. MPLX/MH 17:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

American chess champions

The article states Fischer is the second American world chess champion (following Paul Morphy). But Wilhelm Steinitz was also an American citizen, albeit not a native one like Fischer and Morphy. MK2 04:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer (Chess career)

Because this article was already 40 kilobytes in length it exceeded the normal length of a Wikipedia article and there was no way to expand its content in either the chess or biographical areas - both of which seemed to be separate but related subjects. I have therefore created a new and linked article called: Bobby Fischer (Chess career) and attempted separation of most information into their respected classification. I have not attempted editing, or deleting text by intention. I have only added some new sub-heads on this page - but that is all. I am sure that editors will want to transfer material to and fro and add to the articles as they now stand. However, this arrangement does provide the ability to expand upon this topic. MPLX/MH 00:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added back a paragraph summarizing some of Fischer's early chess career. After all, Fischer is best known as a chess player and some crucial history is missing. IMO, this article needs more chess in it, but a lot LESS chess than is in the Bobby Fischer (Chess career) page. Specifically, it could use some discussion of the ways in which Fischer was a peculiar and unorthodox personality in his early career. mangojuice 17 Mar 2005

I have no objection to putting in original text, but not in duplicating texts because the entire point of separating the two was to conserve space since the one article was over the Wikipedia limit. So if you want to write a new "bridge" that further references the companion article that is fine, but the duplicated graph and secondary photograph should go since they aready exist on the linked companion article. MPLX/MH 21:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:BobbyFischer.jpg

If anyone has any information on the source, date (eg, is it from the 1972 match?), copyright status, etc of Image:BobbyFischer.jpg could you please add it to the image page or comment on it here? Thanks, -- Infrogmation 17:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mr.Fischer will go to Iceland. Acording to Japanese news medias, Icelandic government gave a citizenship to Mr.Fischer, and Japanese government admited that he goes to Iceland. He will leave from Japan on 24, March.--Mochi 16:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Icelandic-American"

The article now calls him an "Icelandic-American". Is this really correct? Usually the form [whatever]-American usually means an American of [whatever] descent, or a person from [wherever] becoming a naturalized citizen, rather than the other way around. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to American-Icelandic and added the Icelanders caterfory. (Alphaboi867 23:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC))

1992 Purse

A $1m purse in 1992 is inconsistent with the following paragraph that states that Fischer took a $3.3m prize. I've changed it from $1m to $5m as that seems to be correct based on a few searches (and references at the bottom of the article.) I am in no way an expert; if someone knows better, feel free to improve (and explain!) Blorg 15:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

Poor English usage in this article

I realize Fischer is a fascinating figure. However, many of the ongoing contributions to this article come from people whose mother tongue is not English. Glaring errors in spelling, syntax, word order, and consistent style greatly compromise this article's overall quality.

He had a lawsuit against Time Warner

"He traced the origins of his troubled relationship with his homeland to his failed lawsuit in the 1970s against Time Inc., now Time-Warner, for defamation of character, breach of contract and other issues; a U.S. District Court threw it out as groundless." [2]

Fischer may have filed a lawsuit but it was obviously not heard because it was, according to the story, dismissed. Fischer makes all of this stuff up as he goes along. His trouble began with his upbringing and according to his own detailed admissions he then became hooked on Herbert W. Armstrong who controlled his life and his money into the Match of the Century. It was only after the Armstrong prophecies failed in 1972 - which caused the Armstrong empire to begin to crumble - that Fischer found himself on his own again. That is when he began lashing out at Armstrong and Stanley Rader who was Armstrong's lawyer and adviser. Rader, who had been with Armstrong since the 60s, was a Jew who had one foot in a synagogue and one foot in Armstrong's church as a baptized member! Fischer who was also split religiously along similar lines to Rader, then tilted to lashing out at both Christianity and Judaism which put him into the camp of anti-semitism and just about every nutty conspiracy theory that is floating around. Hence the current Bobby Fischer who has been used and abused and is now very confused himself. MPLX/MH 17:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reference please?

He is also well known for his eccentricity, unconventional behavior, and—curiously, given his Jewish heritage and upbringing—virulently anti-Semitic comments.

Does this mean his upbringing was Jewish, and if so where is that specifically mentioned? -Wikibob | Talk 00:52, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

Picture

I dont object to having a different picture than the one in the chess career article, but it would be preferable to have one that actually gives some idea of what he looks like. I'll see if I can find a better one. --Malathion 22:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)