I mean more that your OPINION didn't mention it. instead you threw it in the news article restatement!

you gave the facts sure but then kind of didn't mention them when talking about what a person he was, and then claimed he was a personal hero; do you not see how that's kind of fucked!?

Well I don't really see it that way. I did mention that Fischer mentioned how he feels America should be invaded and the Jews systematically killed, after all. Do I really need to "add some more" just to make it more obvious that he was a controversial person, or to stress the fact that I myself am not defending him for those things?

I know he was totally crazy. But to me, the interesting thing is his chess legacy. So, logically, that's what I'm going to spend most of my post on, because that's also something most people are likely to not understand. It's difficult to know about his contribution to chess if you aren't into chess, while it's easy to conclude that he was a crackpot.

You know, Inri has a SMALL point here. You mentioned timothy mcveigh kills people. You also said I've lost respect for Chris Benoit. That was like the worst comparison ever to make with Bobby Fischer
who hated jews but didn't particularly cross the line of actually killing people. You should stop using the word monster and save it for the big evil doers.

Yeah, I think this is important too. Fischer was an anti-semite, but he wasn't actually capable of anything beyond just spouting angry rants about them every once in a while.

Besides, the comparison to Chris Benoit is kind of awkward too. What did Benoit ever do besides just being an amusing wrestler, anyway? And Fischer never killed his wife and child. I think the two don't really compare.

@Dada

"Most of the people I admire, they usually smell funny and don't get out much. It's true. Most of them are either dead or not feeling well." -Tom Waits

word!

that and Fischer was an extraordinarily controversial figure in chess; he frequently denigrated the official games and said they were set up in advance, was kind of an ass to his fellow players, and engaged in BLACK MARKET CHESS GAMES. omeg should have realized he was opening a can of worms when he idolized the guy, even as a chess hero.

Well, Fischer was a controversial figure, period. Some people are. It didn't stop people from admiring him and his victory over the Soviet domination in 1972, even if he was a disagreeably smug guy. Nina Simone was a very difficult person too. The two don't really compare since Nina Simone was active in the Civil Rights Movement and Bobby Fischer was a racist, but it shows how one's personality can be overshadowed by his accomplishments.

The same is true for Fischer, and for that reason, the vast majority of chess players admire him. That's what I was hoping to show when I made my original post. I'm not just speaking for myself here, but also for figures like Garry Kasparov, Boris Spassky, Viswanathan Anand, Jan Timman, Susan Polgár, and many others, all of whom have expressed their regret yesterday.

And, you know, I realize that Fischer will be seen by most as that insane man who wished for the systematic execution of Jews and the fall of America. But that's not how I will remember him, and that's why I made this topic. To show that beyond the surface, there's someone who was a source of inspiration to millions. That's what matters to me.

(Also I don't think this topic is ruined, I think this topic is soaring. Like, do we really need to agree with each other all the time?)

If anything, this topic has brought an interesting debate about the definition of a "hero" and the idea of having respect for contribution/talent vs. respect forpersonality/ morality.

Yeah, this is an interesting point. There's a difference in opinion on that matter. That's also why I've said that he's a hero of mine, rather than a hero, period; I imagine he's no hero to most of the world, because most people won't know how to appreciate what he did for chess. I see him in a different way, though.

Dada, from the way you wrote the original post I would never have known the depth of Fischer's repulsive beliefs and opinions.

So, what am I supposed to do? Apologize because you didn't read closely enough?

My original post said this:

Nine years later' date=' right after the September 11 attacks, he was interviewed on a Philippine radio station and proclaimed "the White House and Pentagon have been attacked. This is all wonderful news." He called for the death of George W. Bush and insisted that the US government then "execute hundreds of thousands of American Jewish leaders", "arrest all the Jews", and "close all synagogues". Fischer had been a strong anti-semite for a long time, and had claimed often times that the source of his misfortunes was a Jewish conspiracy.[/quote']

I think I was being pretty clear about Fischer's personality. I didn't mention every single disagreeable thing that he said, sure, but why should I? You should get the point just by reading that.

If you didn't, then I'm sorry, but that's your problem, not mine.

EDIT: also, read the first part of the post I just made before yours. It addresses this already.

Dude, don't be dense, you know what I'm talking about. The rest of your post makes him out to be some kind of amazing man when clearly he was not.

But he was!

If Steel hadn't brought all the other shit he's said to attention, I would have assumed the Filipino radio incident you spoke of was a one-off and he was just a little nutty, and not the repulsive human being he seemed to be.

You consider someone who calls up a radio station right after September 11 and then, while on-air, states he wants America to apologize to the muslim world and then have all Jews systematically exterminated to only be "a little nutty"?

What's wrong with you?

And that's part of what makes this man so incredibly interesting. Like Hundley says, you can be pretty fascinated by someone like that. Why not? People have been examining every last detail of the lives of the various dictators that the world has known, too. (I'm making this comparison because apparently others felt the need to do it.) Even if you don't know anything about chess, you might find that there's something very intriguing about a man who goes to beat the entire chess world on his own, at his leisure, and then immediately retires because the world wasn't interesting to him after that. There's something very thought-provoking about the fact that this same man, who himself is of Jewish descent, goes on to blame his race for all the problems in the world. It becomes even more ridiculous when you learn that he violated a UN embargo for the purpose of playing a highly publicized chess match, and had his photo taken by the international press as he spit on an official order telling him to cancel the match.

I don't know about you, but those are all reasons for me to find him massively interesting. Despite the fact he was a lunatic. Because he was a lunatic. And as a chess player, he was ruthless. He had a fierce and imaginative style. He brought chess to the attention of a much wider audience than ever before, and is credited by Kasparov as having invented the concept of modern professional chess play.

It's pretty clear that his legacy is of no meaning to you, but I'm not you. To me, he was an incredible player who I looked up to a lot. And that's because I know I'll never play chess as well as he could.