Bobby Fischer - Most understood person

Title EDIT: Bobby Fischer - Most Misunderstood Person

I love bobby fischer and I think he's the most misunderstood person maybe in the history of the world. 

As for his objective talent. His championship of 72' was almost 45 years ago, and many of his games were 50+ years ago. We've had the help of super computers for 20 years now too. Going ahead 20 years from now how would the best players today hold up????

There are inaccuracy's of course but there is also intuition and resourcefulness.

All I need to know about Steve Jobs is he kidnapped Doraemon to get all those useless devices.

Good to read this.  I thought I was the only person with this opinion.  The movie misrepresented Spassky quite badly as well.

Don't get me started on how Hollywood managed to ruin the central moral of every Roald Dahl story that they made into a film.

Or even how Hollyweed managed to do it.

I was watching Pawn Sacrifice online the other day and could only make the 45 minute mark before turning it off.  That is one awful, awful movie.  The only good thing I could say about it is that they got some of the names right.  Other than that, the more you know about the chess scene of the sixties the less you will like the movie.  Horribly inaccurate, like when they said that Morphy committed suicide--that was enough for me.  It's really sad, you know?  The true story was dramatic enough, but they had to put all the nonsense in; too bad.

Sounds a bit like that Christopher Lambert's movie where a GM was literally wearing a tinfoil hat...

alexm2310

To overlook the historical inaccuracies is to overlook the whole movie.  Like I said, the more you know the less you will like it.  There are several places where they show GMs talking about the game to each other while the game is in progress.  I think you would notice something like that.  I couldn't get past the total bs they were handing out as GM chess.  But if you still want to watch, it's on putlocker for free.  Check it out and make your own judgement.

I did not think "Pawn Sacrifice" was a "horrible movie".   It was a filmmakers, screenwriters interpretation of  the  Fischer vs Spassky   epic confrontation.  

All historical films which need to tell a story (history) in 2 hours are going to be flawed.   There is just no getting around that.  One of my favorite films "Lawrence of Arabia", was really a patchwork of history that, in my opinion, conveyed the essence of the subject...T.E. Lawrence.  If you do the research on Lawrence you will find that the film was not historically accurate but conveyed who he was and in what times he lived. 

I think "Pawn Sacrifice",  while having "historical inaccuracies"  captures the essence of what happened.

 There's a difference between historical inaccuracy and total fiction.  Regina Fischer was portrayed as an unfit mother who slept around and abandoned Bobby.  Total bs.  Bill Lombardy was the only player to ever beat Spassky; are you kidding me?  That must have been news to, say, Tal, Larsen, Geller, Petrosian, among others.  Bobby was shopping his virginity around.  C'mon, man; seriously?  Paul Morphy committed suicide; again, seriously?  And that's just in the first 45 minutes, and I didn't list all the flaws here.  Compare that to "Lincoln", where Daniel Day-Lewis nails it.  Saying Phil-del instead of Philadelphia, which Lincoln used, telling stories (and one about Ethan Allen that Lincoln loved to tell), even his walk--if you'll notice, DD-L does not bend his ankles when he walks, the same as Lincoln.  That's paying attention to detail.  There are a few minor things, like the troops reciting the Gettysburg Address, which wasn't embraced by the public until after the war, but that's minor.  Being completely wrong in every scene--that's not telling a story, that's inventing one.  Like I said, they managed to get some of the names right, and that's about it.  I'd give it more than two thumbs down, if I could.

It was highly inaccurate; however, I found the movie as a whole to be rather entertaining. They weren't saying Bill Lombardy was the only player to beat Spassky, just that he had, which would make him valuable to the team. The movie was more to delve into Fischer's mental health, which none of us can honestly say was stellar. His mother, whether she was a good parent or not, cultivated his sense of paranoia that only grew into larger issues. While looking nothing like Fischer physically, I thought Toby Macguire did an excellent job of portraying Fischer's mannerisms. My biggest complaint is the lack of actual chess. You see a couple moves but not the entirety of such splendid games such as games 3 and 6 of the '72 championship. All in all I'd label it a decent movie but by all means feel free to form your own conclusions.

Did you guys forget how Bobby Fischer had rednecks from the FBI outside his window when growing up? How they would usually follow him and ask for his mom? He was literally harrased all day by the FBI when he was a kid.

The US never helped him on anything, he lived in a trashy appartment in Brooklyn together with rats and other instects, yet he single handedly changed the American sterotype from a big fat man that likes to watch baseball to a country hosting the world champion of a "highly intellectual game".

Then he is supposedly jailed in Pasadena, and forced to stay in a cold cell where he freezed his ass. (The cops supposedly took out his clothes and didnt not feed him)

And then the US wants to fine him for playing damn chess.

I would also probably be mad at my country, and in the heat of the discussion talk trash about how the 9/11 was great.

Some artistic license is fine.  Getting the entire story wrong--not fine.  Compare "They Died With Their Boots On" and "Tora, Tora, Tora."  TTT went out of their way to be accurate, even going so far as to build scale models of the ships involved.  Boots, on the other hand, got some names right and that's about it.  It's shown on the Navajo reservations as a comedy, with some of them telling me that it is the funniest movie ever made.  Both are "based on a true story" but only TTT is cited by historians.

If you want an example of my using artistic license, read my short story here on chess.com about the Morphy-Lowenthal encounter of 1850.  I took more than a few liberties with the story, but tried to keep it as accurate as I could--a difficult task, considering that, of several versions of the meeting, no two versions are alike.  Is my story historically accurate?  Only to an extent--but it's more accurate than, say, "The Chess Players."  That's why I like TTT over Boots--one lets the story tell itself, the other does a disservice to everybody involved by letting Hollywood tell what Hollywood thinks should have happened.

Most understood person??    Yeah, like Trump,  most people understand that he's crazy.

The function of "hollywood" is to make entertainment. If it's not a documentary, why does it matter how much they change?

That's my attitude about movies anyway. I had no problems with Pawn Sacrifice.

Problem is, why do they assume authenticity is not entertaining?

BronsteinPawn

Yeah, there was every reason for Bobby to be paranoid, both of the US and USSR governments.  And don't forget the Ginzburg hatchet job interview.  But I draw the line at praising the murders of 3,000 people.  He could have stopped at "the US had it coming" (which I agree with), but he didn't--he crossed the line.  It's a shame, because I was just beginning to study chess (1969) when he began his title quest and he was one of my heroes.  I still respect his talent and his accomplishments, but I no longer respect the man.  But, anyway, Bobby--RIP.