Bobby Fischer - The Player, Not the Man

I recently had a rather controversial article published on a topic that hits home for many of us here at Chess.com, and in the chess community in general.  I did not write the article to create enemies or upset anyone, but rather to offer another view on what is surely one of the most famous chess topics of all time: Bobby Fischer.

Here is the article, take a few minutes to read it and tell me what you think!  Thanks!  :)

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1870403/bobby_fischer_the_chess_player_not_pg2.html?cat=47

Fischer excelled as a chess player.

I think I agree with you, on the whole. There have been lots of great artists, scientists, what-have-you, who have been destructive people, either of themselves or others, or both. It shouldn't be so hard to hold both truths about someone in mind. I think in a lot of US writing about Fischer, because writers are so elated about 1972 etc on patriotic grounds they feel a need to deny one side or the other of Fischer. The chess games will survive (partly because so many of them have that beautifully instructive clarity) after the rants and the anguish have faded from mind.

um...Your point is weak because you incorrectly identify why people dislike him. His anti-semitism is a much bigger issue to people than Anti-Americanism.  There's no way people will forget his chess games, but there is also no way he will be a role model.

A racist and an anti-semetic is the product of personal experience, culture or indoctrination. Nobody seems to remember that in the old days organizers thought of chess as merely a parlor game.  And as such a world championship match was not deserving world attention. Bobby Fischer by himself brought chess into the attention of the media - TV, the Press, and Radio when Fischer fought the myth of Russian invincibility, Russian propaganda, and the Russian chess machine.

The tragic demise of Fischer was triggered by the Chess World, the Media, and World Opinion fed by Russian propaganda when Fischer was to defend his title.

Everyone needs to remember that all the champions before Fischer received the courtesy of retaining the title in a match that ends in a draw.  Even in boxing this is true.  Yet in the terms for the championship match after 1972 where Fischer sought to retain the title when a match is drawn (9-9 tie), the chess world, the media, and world opinion fed by Russian propaganda found Fischer's 9-9 tie as unacceptable, as giving the champion too much of an advantage over the challenger. Result, FIDE rejected Fischer's 9-9 tie.

As a result, Fischer refused to defend his title and let Karpov win by default.

Now the irony of it all is that the Chess World, the Media, and World Opinion were silent when the terms that Karpov gave in defending his title was that the challenger had to defeat Karpov twice to become champion.

If a 9-9 tie was too much of an advantage for Fischer did anybody ever thought that Karpov's automatic return match clause which was akin to the challenger having to defeat the champion twice to become champion as an abomination? No. Nobody spoke up.

And therein lay the tragedy of Fischer.  Fischer was unlike Kasparov who defied the FIDE by creating his own chess organization.

if religion were a chess position, would it be playable?

Does a pizza taste less if the person who baked it in the oven is a racist or an anti-semite?  Does Fischer's activities outside of chess make his brilliant games any less brilliant? That is exactly what "Fischer the player not the man means". It's much the same as with the games of Alekine, the player, not the alcoholic.

100% correct - and I happen to be a huge Alekhine fan. I understand he was a drunk, and that he probably didn't do too well in relationships or the social scene; however, he was a brilliant and dangerous chess player, and that is why I like him!

The alcohol is just a plus! 

Fischer wasn't the first to present this kind of dilemma. For example the classical composer Richard Wagner was a virulent anti-Semite, very much in the pre-Nazi mold -- yet he wrote glorious music. Should the music be shunned because of the man's character? Does the music (now) exist independent of the man (now long dead)? For decades the Israeli Philharmonic did not play Wagner because of this issue (now they do). So can we enjoy Fischer's chess games, regardless of the man who made the moves on the board? I say yes, but it's not necessarily easy to do.

I dont see the corolation between driving Japanese cars and hating Jews and other groups of people?

It means that these people who got angry at his "Pro 9/11" comments, or his anti-America attitude will happily send literally thousands upon thousands of dollars to a country who attacked us so that they can drive a Toyota or Honda.  I just find it more than a little ironic is all. 

If you're going to judge Fischer as a chess player, he was brilliant: you can't look at his games and say "well that move was done by and antisemite so it's not good". If you're going to judge Fischer as a man, he was a racist, sexist, unbending stubborn man who made himself appear even worse than he was and therefore made things worse for himself, but he was strong, determined, and single-handedly defeated the most powerful chess country in the world (short version: he was a flawed but brilliant man).

People make such a huge deal about Fischer's antisemitism and I admit it's pretty nasty, but it's not like he acted on it. He just had the poor taste to be outspoken about it (and endlessly quoted).

perhaps only so few knew that bobby fischer spent his recluse years somewhere in baguio city, philippines where he met the mother of his child.  despite his eccentricities, bobby was a good friend of filipino cheeseplayers and the rest of us fiilipos.  simply stated, he was a good friend and a good man.  he eccentrities perhaps made him a racist, but it doesn't make him less of a human like the rest of us.  we all have shortcomings because we're not perfect. so was bobby.  despite his limitations, he gave us one of the best, if not the greatest moments in chess. and for that, we should be thankful.

Bobby was the best. We all have our flaws.He will always be remembered as one of the best that ever played the game. Bobby was chess!

I am not sure people are suggesting "shunning the music", to borrow your analogy, or dismissing Fischer's chess playing. It's about not glorifying the man as "great" because he played greatly and broke ground. There are those who argue that he was only a product of his environment/upbringing/world ideologies etc. so he should not be judged --- but truly great men and women are those that rise above prevailing ideologies and environments and forge new paths. Fischer did that on the chess board = great chess player. Not great human being. That is a distinction worth preserving.

 Hey !  I drive a Honda and I only buy Japanese cars now ! I am not being patriotic ?! I served in the US Army. I would gladly buy American cars IF they ever make any decent cars to buy ! I have owned many in my life and all but one was junk. I havent had a bad Japanese car yet and for the same money I dont believe they can be beat.

Fischer's chess games remain among the best. Hist style and approach and competitive spirit made him a fierce competitor.

His personal life was a mess. However,it does not in any way take away from his chess genius. Even he was full of contradictions hating Jews as a group but having many Jewish friends. Taken as a whole he had serious personality defects yet people that knew him one on one said he was a good person--As chess players we should look at his games and marvel at his genius. His personal life is/was not my concern as I never knew him.

Point taken, but how far does that point stretch? Hitler, for example, was an exceptional orator -- should students on forensic speech and debate teams study his oratory and forget his personal life and views? Study his greatness and technique and effect on his audience and disregard everything else? It's not really that cut and dry.

Absolutely - and especially since his oration was an incredibly important part of history. It really is that cut and dry.

One point is that of a  private person versus a public individual--while Fischer was a chess champion and well known he was not a public official. Most of his rants also appeared in private conversation.

Also his rants were not followed through by the behavior they suggested.

There are not a whole lot on the record of Bobby's views in public until much later in his life while his behavior and hatred started roughly in the early 60's

Chess out Edward Winter's latest chess note were he reviews a friend of mine's book on Bobby which offers lots of insight into his personal correspondence.