Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World

Main

Date: 12 Dec 2008 12:39:33
From: samsloan
Subject: Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World

Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World

In 1972, an epic chess match took place in Iceland between
representatives of the two great super-powers of the world: Bobby vs.
Boris.

Boris was backed by the Great Soviet Union, with late night phone
calls coming from his handlers in Moscow telling him what his next
move should be. Meanwhile, Bobby stood alone against the might of the
opposing nation.

But, Bobby was not exactly alone. The Americans did not need to tell
him what moves to make on the chessboard. Bobby already knew how to do
that. Rather, what the Americans needed to do was somehow get him to
sit down at the board and play the game.

Here is the story of that titanic struggle: One half of the world
trying to get Bobby to play, while the other half was trying to defeat
him assuming that he did play.

Hence the Title: Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World.

In the end, Bobby won. =C9migr=E9s from the Soviet Union state that, more
than any other single event, this defeat led to the collapse of the
Soviet Union.

The battle was won, not at the chessboard because Bobby was clearly
the better player, but in the struggle to get him to the board that is
so brilliantly described in this book.

Date: 13 Dec 2008 03:02:14
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World

On Dec 13, 2:31=A0am, [email protected] wrote:

--snipped juvenile ad hominem--

(Oops! There seems to be nothing left.)

-- help bot

Date: 12 Dec 2008 23:31:47
From:
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World

help bot wrote:
> On Dec 12, 10:41=EF=BF=BDpm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > "After leaving copies for Spassky and Thorarinsson, Bobby moved on to
> > the Loftleidir cafeteria for a breakfast that would have sedated a boa
> > constrictor. On the way up to his room, he burst out laughing. 'D'ja
> > see that Lothar when he hit his head? Ha! Ha! Ha!'"
> >
> > I'll leave it to the readers to decide whether my characterization of
> > Darrach's characterization was accurate.
>
>
> I see. The laughing, or Ha! Ha! Ha!, has
> been misinterpreted as "giggling".
>
> When I read "ha ha ha", I get "laughing".
>
> Generally, when a writer wishes to
> suggest that someone giggled, he writes
> "they giggled"; but I suppose if one must, it
> could be put as "hehehehe!", which gives
> it a sort of feminine or child-like quality.
> The more masculine "ha ha ha" could be
> attributed with some dignity to even a
> Green Beret, a John Wayne style
> character... .
>
> But my favorite has to be "Ho, ho, ho!"
>
>
> -- help bot

Greg, I'm puzzled. Are you _trying_ to impersonate an oaf? Do you
understand what a trope is? Have you ever even heard the term? You
claim to have read the book, but your comments do not suggest that you
understood any of it. Perhaps you had better stick with "See Spot
run," and leave literary matters to the better educated.

Date: 12 Dec 2008 20:29:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World

On Dec 12, 10:41=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:

> "After leaving copies for Spassky and Thorarinsson, Bobby moved on to
> the Loftleidir cafeteria for a breakfast that would have sedated a boa
> constrictor. On the way up to his room, he burst out laughing. 'D'ja
> see that Lothar when he hit his head? Ha! Ha! Ha!'"
>
> I'll leave it to the readers to decide whether my characterization of
> Darrach's characterization was accurate.

I see. The laughing, or Ha! Ha! Ha!, has
been misinterpreted as "giggling".

When I read "ha ha ha", I get "laughing".

Generally, when a writer wishes to
suggest that someone giggled, he writes
"they giggled"; but I suppose if one must, it
could be put as "hehehehe!", which gives
it a sort of feminine or child-like quality.
The more masculine "ha ha ha" could be
attributed with some dignity to even a
Green Beret, a John Wayne style
character... .

But my favorite has to be "Ho, ho, ho!"

-- help bot

Date: 12 Dec 2008 19:41:04
From:
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World

help bot wrote:
> I've read the book by Mr. Darrach, and I
> don't believe "giggling" was even close to
> the overall impression he gave of Bobby
> Fischer. In fact, I don't think he really
> gave readers a deep look inside the mind
> of BF, but settled for describing his
> awkward behavior, looks, walk-- that sort
> of thing. It was Dr. Fine who attempted
> to craft a picture of BF's psychology, but
> it was Mr. Fischer himself who gave the
> world its best glimpses into his mind.

> -- help bot

1) Any statement about someone's subjective mental state (even when
disguised as psychobabble) is by definition a statement of opinion.
Darrach describes Fischer's _words and actions_, as a reporter should.
The reader must draw his own conclusions about Fischer's "psychology."

2) Two examples:

1) p. 66: Bill Lombardy suggests to Fischer that he might want to
stay somewhere other than Tony Saidy's home, since Saidy's father was
very ill and the family was under a lot of stress. "Oh, no," Fischer
replied. "I don't mind."

2) p. 191. Fischer, with Darrach in tow, visits Lothar Schmid's
hotel room to hand him a protest. This one really needs to be quoted
in full:

"'I want to tell, you, Bobby,' Schmid began, 'about --' All at once,
he jumped up to get something and hit his head on a lamp that hung
over the coffeetable.

"Bobby grinned. I gasped and asked Schmid if he was all right.

"'Yes, thank you very much, Bobby,' Schmid answered. 'I am quite all
right.'

"Many times since, Schmid has told friends how on the morning after he
gave Bobby the forfeit, at a moment when resentment would have been
natural, Bobby gasped in sympathy when he bumped his head, and asked
if he was all right.
...

"After leaving copies for Spassky and Thorarinsson, Bobby moved on to
the Loftleidir cafeteria for a breakfast that would have sedated a boa
constrictor. On the way up to his room, he burst out laughing. 'D'ja
see that Lothar when he hit his head? Ha! Ha! Ha!'"

I'll leave it to the readers to decide whether my characterization of
Darrach's characterization was accurate.

Date: 12 Dec 2008 18:51:53
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World

On Dec 12, 9:28=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
> > =A0 You mean the 1974 book by Brad Darrach? The one Fischer sued him
> > about but lost? It's a fun read, but I'd hardly call it brilliant. I
> > read it a few years ago, in preparation for reviewing "Bobby Fischer
> > Goes to War" by Edmunds and Eidinow (2004; seehttp://www.chesscafe.com/=
text/review431.pdf).
> > Wanted another source for comparison. Compared to the later book, it's
> > chatty, somewhat sensationalistic and superficial, and not nearly as
> > useful to historians. But I agree, it does a pretty good job showing
> > all the hoops everyone had to jump through to get RJF to Reykjavik.

> For what it's worth, I discussed the Darrach book a couple of times
> with Lina Grumette. She didn't like the book, because she thought
> Darrach went out of his way to portray Fischer very unfavorably
> (essentially as a giggling sociopath). However, when I asked her about
> specific incidents where she had personal knowledge, she always agreed
> that it had happened the way Darrach described.
>
> Personally, I'm more inclined to trust an account written at the time,
> when memories were fresh, than one produced decades later, but your
> mileage may vary. Caveat lector.

I would go even further: it is unwise to rely
heavily on mere hearsay, even if the source
is regarded as generally reliable.

What people say about things that happen
rarely match up to what actually happened.
And it is even more unwise to assume, as
Mr. Kingston has done, that hindsight is
more than a match for the warping and
fading of distant memories, plus psycho-
logical issues which themselves impact
what is said to reporters at any given time.

I've read the book by Mr. Darrach, and I
don't believe "giggling" was even close to
the overall impression he gave of Bobby
Fischer. In fact, I don't think he really
gave readers a deep look inside the mind
of BF, but settled for describing his
awkward behavior, looks, walk-- that sort
of thing. It was Dr. Fine who attempted
to craft a picture of BF's psychology, but
it was Mr. Fischer himself who gave the
world its best glimpses into his mind.

As Mr. Evans observed at the time, the
picture was cruel in its accuracy; or so
one gathers from the lack of any attempt
by LE to correct any factual errors by BD.
One is simply taken aback by BD's
candidness.

-- help bot

Date: 13 Dec 2008 09:30:34
From:
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World

On Dec 13, 11:37=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 07:56:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
> wrote:
>
> >However, Edmonds/Eidinow invoke game theory to indicate
> >that Fischer may have been playing a conscious game of brinksmanship,
> >adopting, somewhat like Hitler in the late 1930s, the pose of a
> >reckless madman, as a deliberate negotiating tactic. In contrast, Darrac=
h shows
> >Fischer as an utterly self-centered solipsist so lacking in maturity,
> >practicality, common sense, empathy, tact and even the most
> >rudimentary social skills that he is simply indifferent and even oblivio=
us to the
> >immense problems he causes and the massive, repeated offense he gives.
> >Edmonds/Eidinow allow the possibility that Fischer may have been crazy
> >like a fox, Darrach=92s Fischer is just a jerk.
>
> Crazy like a fox? =A0Fischer's subsequent actions render that
> interpretation ridiculous. =A0

As I recall, E&E's comments in this connection were concerned solely
with the match and its immediate prelude, not with Fischer's problem's
afterwards. They considered it plausible that Fischer might have been
engaging in conscious brinksmanship, but purely as a tactic aimed at
Spassky. They do not argue from this that Fischer was without deep-
seated psychological problems in general.

> He turned his social life and most of his
> fortune over to a religious crackpot, then lived in poverty as a
> recluse when he could have been a millionaire. =A0He let his teeth go to
> hell. =A0He let his health in general go to hell. He shunned most of
> those who wanted to be his friends and admirers.
>
> His behavior during the match, taken in isolation, might be
> *interpreted* as calculatedly manipulative (even here, he couldn't
> have *known* that Spassky wouldn't claim the match as forfeit), but
> this implies that his whole persona then changed, and he lived the
> next twenty years dysfunctionally.
>
> I don't think anybody really knows what was wrong with him, but an
> interpretation that his outbursts were calculated tactics strains
> credulity. =A0What was his strategy when he wandered the streets at
> night in L.A.? =A0What did he *gain* by his later 9-11 and anti-Semitic
> outbursts? =A0
>
> I remember a touching moment when he was on the Dick Cavett show. =A0He
> said he'd devoted everything to chess and now wanted to take time
> develop other aspects of himself. =A0One of the chess mags had a picture
> of him in an amateur ethnic folk dance group. =A0But, in general, he
> didn't seem to do anything else with his life and his immense
> intelligence. =A0

Date: 13 Dec 2008 07:56:52
From:
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World

On Dec 12, 11:52=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> THE BOBBY FISCHER THAT WE LOVED
>
> >As Mr. Evans observed at the time, the =A0picture was cruel in its accur=
acy; or so
>
> one gathers from the lack of any attempt =A0by LE to correct any factual
> errors by BD.
> One is simply taken aback by BD's [Brad Darrach's] candidness.> --
> Greg Kennedy
>
> "As a human being Bobby left much to be desired. His best quality was
> a sense of humor. I hope he still had one. His worst quality was his
> sadism. When Dick Cavett on TV asked him about his greatest pleasure
> in chess, Bobby was brutally frank: "Crushing the other guy's ego." As
> a youngster he blurted, "I like to see =91em squirm."
>
> Brad Darrach, a staff writer for Life Magazine, tried to capture his
> essence in Bobby Fischer vs. the Rest of the World. The book depicts
> him as a sullen, sulking brute without human warmth or contact =96 a
> loner without real friends who never was a friend to anyone. He
> unsuccessfully sued the author, the publisher, and even the USCF for
> selling the book." -- GM Larry Evans (Chess Life, March 2008)

For once GM Evans and I are in substantial agreement. Darrach's
depiction of Fischer was highly uncomplimentary. As I wrote in
reviewing "Bobby Fischer Goes to War" (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/
review431.pdf):

It is interesting to compare Bobby Fischer Goes to War to what is
probably
the most similar earlier book in English, Bobby Fischer vs. the Rest
of the
World (1974), a day-by-day, sometimes minute-by-minute insider=92s
account
by Brad Darrach, who was with Fischer much of the time before and
during
the match. Structurally the books are almost identical, but
stylistically very
different.

As might be expected from a Life magazine writer, Darrach took a
somewhat
sensationalist slant typical of a celebrity-oriented weekly,
alternating
between serious journalism, human interest, local color, personality
caricatures, gossip and scandal-sniffing, all described with more
punched-up
prose and colorful similes than a Mickey Spillane novel. Edmonds/
Eidinow
treat the match more as an historic event; Darrach treated it as a pop-
culture
phenomenon, with Fischer like a rock star overdosing on ego. Darrach
seems
to have tape-recorded every juicy conversation extant, and his
apparently
verbatim retellings, with their eavesdropper quality, show him eager
to dish
the dirt. Those who enjoy being a fly on the wall when shit hits the
fan will
like Darrach, those favoring a more reflective, sober (though hardly
boring)
style will prefer Edmonds/Eidinow.

Another difference is in their interpretations of Fischer=92s behavior.
Both
Darrach and Edmonds/Eidinow seem to agree that much of Fischer=92s
hesitation and demanding, provocative behavior before the match
stemmed
from a sort of stage fright that sometimes seized him before major
competitions. However, Edmonds/Eidinow invoke game theory to indicate
that Fischer may have been playing a conscious game of brinksmanship,
adopting, somewhat like Hitler in the late 1930s, the pose of a
reckless
madman, as a deliberate negotiating tactic. In contrast, Darrach shows
Fischer as an utterly self-centered solipsist so lacking in maturity,
practicality, common sense, empathy, tact and even the most
rudimentary
social skills that he is simply indifferent and even oblivious to the
immense
problems he causes and the massive, repeated offense he gives.
Edmonds/Eidinow allow the possibility that Fischer may have been crazy
like a fox, Darrach=92s Fischer is just a jerk.

Date: 13 Dec 2008 08:37:07
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 07:56:52 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
wrote:

>However, Edmonds/Eidinow invoke game theory to indicate
>that Fischer may have been playing a conscious game of brinksmanship,
>adopting, somewhat like Hitler in the late 1930s, the pose of a
>reckless madman, as a deliberate negotiating tactic. In contrast, Darrach shows
>Fischer as an utterly self-centered solipsist so lacking in maturity,
>practicality, common sense, empathy, tact and even the most
>rudimentary social skills that he is simply indifferent and even oblivious to the
>immense problems he causes and the massive, repeated offense he gives.
>Edmonds/Eidinow allow the possibility that Fischer may have been crazy
>like a fox, Darrach�s Fischer is just a jerk.

Crazy like a fox? Fischer's subsequent actions render that
interpretation ridiculous. He turned his social life and most of his
fortune over to a religious crackpot, then lived in poverty as a
recluse when he could have been a millionaire. He let his teeth go to
hell. He let his health in general go to hell. He shunned most of
those who wanted to be his friends and admirers.

His behavior during the match, taken in isolation, might be
*interpreted* as calculatedly manipulative (even here, he couldn't
have *known* that Spassky wouldn't claim the match as forfeit), but
this implies that his whole persona then changed, and he lived the
next twenty years dysfunctionally.

I don't think anybody really knows what was wrong with him, but an
interpretation that his outbursts were calculated tactics strains
credulity. What was his strategy when he wandered the streets at
night in L.A.? What did he *gain* by his later 9-11 and anti-Semitic
outbursts?

I remember a touching moment when he was on the Dick Cavett show. He
said he'd devoted everything to chess and now wanted to take time
develop other aspects of himself. One of the chess mags had a picture
of him in an amateur ethnic folk dance group. But, in general, he
didn't seem to do anything else with his life and his immense
intelligence.

Date: 12 Dec 2008 20:52:41
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World

THE BOBBY FISCHER THAT WE LOVED

>As Mr. Evans observed at the time, the picture was cruel in its accuracy;=
or so
one gathers from the lack of any attempt by LE to correct any factual
errors by BD.
One is simply taken aback by BD's [Brad Darrach's] candidness. > --
Greg Kennedy

"As a human being Bobby left much to be desired. His best quality was
a sense of humor. I hope he still had one. His worst quality was his
sadism. When Dick Cavett on TV asked him about his greatest pleasure
in chess, Bobby was brutally frank: "Crushing the other guy's ego." As
a youngster he blurted, "I like to see =91em squirm."

Brad Darrach, a staff writer for Life Magazine, tried to capture his
essence in Bobby Fischer vs. the Rest of the World. The book depicts
him as a sullen, sulking brute without human warmth or contact =96 a
loner without real friends who never was a friend to anyone. He
unsuccessfully sued the author, the publisher, and even the USCF for
selling the book." -- GM Larry Evans (Chess Life, March 2008)

help bot wrote:
> On Dec 12, 9:28?pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > ? You mean the 1974 book by Brad Darrach? The one Fischer sued him
> > > about but lost? It's a fun read, but I'd hardly call it brilliant. I
> > > read it a few years ago, in preparation for reviewing "Bobby Fischer
> > > Goes to War" by Edmunds and Eidinow (2004; seehttp://www.chesscafe.co=
m/text/review431.pdf).
> > > Wanted another source for comparison. Compared to the later book, it'=
s
> > > chatty, somewhat sensationalistic and superficial, and not nearly as
> > > useful to historians. But I agree, it does a pretty good job showing
> > > all the hoops everyone had to jump through to get RJF to Reykjavik.
>
> > For what it's worth, I discussed the Darrach book a couple of times
> > with Lina Grumette. She didn't like the book, because she thought
> > Darrach went out of his way to portray Fischer very unfavorably
> > (essentially as a giggling sociopath). However, when I asked her about
> > specific incidents where she had personal knowledge, she always agreed
> > that it had happened the way Darrach described.
> >
> > Personally, I'm more inclined to trust an account written at the time,
> > when memories were fresh, than one produced decades later, but your
> > mileage may vary. Caveat lector.
>
>
> I would go even further: it is unwise to rely
> heavily on mere hearsay, even if the source
> is regarded as generally reliable.
>
> What people say about things that happen
> rarely match up to what actually happened.
> And it is even more unwise to assume, as
> Mr. Kingston has done, that hindsight is
> more than a match for the warping and
> fading of distant memories, plus psycho-
> logical issues which themselves impact
> what is said to reporters at any given time.
>
> I've read the book by Mr. Darrach, and I
> don't believe "giggling" was even close to
> the overall impression he gave of Bobby
> Fischer. In fact, I don't think he really
> gave readers a deep look inside the mind
> of BF, but settled for describing his
> awkward behavior, looks, walk-- that sort
> of thing. It was Dr. Fine who attempted
> to craft a picture of BF's psychology, but
> it was Mr. Fischer himself who gave the
> world its best glimpses into his mind.
>
> As Mr. Evans observed at the time, the
> picture was cruel in its accuracy; or so
> one gathers from the lack of any attempt
> by LE to correct any factual errors by BD.
> One is simply taken aback by BD's
> candidness.
>
>
> -- help bot

Date: 12 Dec 2008 18:28:29
From:
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World

[email protected] wrote:
> You mean the 1974 book by Brad Darrach? The one Fischer sued him
> about but lost? It's a fun read, but I'd hardly call it brilliant. I
> read it a few years ago, in preparation for reviewing "Bobby Fischer
> Goes to War" by Edmunds and Eidinow (2004; see http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review431.pdf).
> Wanted another source for comparison. Compared to the later book, it's
> chatty, somewhat sensationalistic and superficial, and not nearly as
> useful to historians. But I agree, it does a pretty good job showing
> all the hoops everyone had to jump through to get RJF to Reykjavik.

For what it's worth, I discussed the Darrach book a couple of times
with Lina Grumette. She didn't like the book, because she thought
Darrach went out of his way to portray Fischer very unfavorably
(essentially as a giggling sociopath). However, when I asked her about
specific incidents where she had personal knowledge, she always agreed
that it had happened the way Darrach described.

Personally, I'm more inclined to trust an account written at the time,
when memories were fresh, than one produced decades later, but your
mileage may vary. Caveat lector.

Date: 12 Dec 2008 16:15:14
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World

On Dec 12, 6:38=A0pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:

> > After the fiasco in 1972, critics
> > wondered if the Russians did not need a
> > replacement-- a younger man, with a deep
> > psychological (or rather, illogical) /need/ to
> > win; someone with "issues" to match the
> > likes of a Bobby Fischer. =A0 They got their
> > wish eventually, when the young Gary
> > Kasparov appeared on the scene.

> Gary? You sure mean Anatoly Karpov.

Well, if you are trying to suggest that AK
was a match for BF, I'm game. But no, I
was referring to the idea that chess seems
to be dominated by paranoid nutters like
BF and GK, for instance. If the whole
world is not out to get you, then you may
find yourself limited to a meager 2700 or
so rating points. To create a 2800, you
need /cracked eggs/, as with real mayo.

-- help bot

Date: 12 Dec 2008 15:38:49
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World

On Dec 12, 3:07 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:

> After the fiasco in 1972, critics
> wondered if the Russians did not need a
> replacement-- a younger man, with a deep
> psychological (or rather, illogical) /need/ to
> win; someone with "issues" to match the
> likes of a Bobby Fischer. They got their
> wish eventually, when the young Gary
> Kasparov appeared on the scene.
>
> -- help bot

Gary? You sure mean Anatoly Karpov.

Wlod

Date: 12 Dec 2008 15:07:53
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World

On Dec 12, 4:19=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:

> > In 1972, an epic chess match took place in Iceland between
> > representatives of the two great super-powers of the world: Bobby vs.
> > Boris.

Hmm... military might is equated to great-
ness by Mr. Sloan-- how strange.

In the movie series "Star Wars", the queer-
looking Yoda tells us that it is not wars that
make one great. (Then he leaves us in the
dark, not bothering to inform us what does.)

> > Boris was backed by the Great Soviet Union, with late night phone
> > calls coming from his handlers in Moscow telling him what his next
> > move should be.

Presumably, this advice was to take his
forfeit win, pack up, go home, and then
breathe a deep sigh of relief.

> > The battle was won, not at the chessboard because Bobby was clearly
> > the better player, but in the struggle to get him to the board that is
> > so brilliantly described in this book.

> =A0 You mean the 1974 book by Brad Darrach? The one Fischer sued him
> about but lost? It's a fun read, but I'd hardly call it brilliant. I
> read it a few years ago, in preparation for reviewing "Bobby Fischer
> Goes to War" by Edmunds and Eidinow (2004; seehttp://www.chesscafe.com/te=
xt/review431.pdf).
> Wanted another source for comparison. Compared to the later book, it's
> chatty, somewhat sensationalistic and superficial, and not nearly as
> useful to historians. But I agree, it does a pretty good job showing
> all the hoops everyone had to jump through to get RJF to Reykjavik.
>
> > In the end, Bobby won. =C9migr=E9s from the Soviet Union state that, mo=
re
> > than any other single event, this defeat led to the collapse of the
> > Soviet Union.
>
> =A0 Right. And when Joe Louis KOed Max Schmeling it was the most
> important single event in defeating Nazi Germany. Heck, in retrospect,
> we probably needn't have bothered with WW II. Also Capablanca's defeat
> of Lasker caused the hyper-inflation that devalued the German Mark in
> the early 1920s, and Paul Morphy's triumph at the 1st American Chess
> Congress was the reason the South won the Civil War.

Uh-- the war for Southern independence,
you mean. As outlined in the Declaration
of Independence... a state derives its just
powers /from the consent of the governed/.
Hence, justice prevailed (with a bit of help
from Yankee military incompetence and
General Staunton's Limeys being held at
bay by the young Captain Morphy).

> =A0 What emigres from the Soviet Union have said this?

My question is: why on Earth would you
wish to presume that a few dissidents, who
have abandoned their homeland in favor of
a country whose political ideology is dia-
metrically opposed, could somehow take
any other stance than that of attacking that
which they abandoned? Is this any way to
get an /unbiased/ picture of reality?

Sadly, when the Russians sent their man,
Boris Spassky to tangle with ours on his
own turf, Passadena California, our man
fought well but still lost; agent Spassky
was then in his prime-- not unlike the early
James Bond movies, starring Sean
Connery. After the fiasco in 1972, critics
wondered if the Russians did not need a
replacement-- a younger man, with a deep
psychological (or rather, illogical) /need/ to
win; someone with "issues" to match the
likes of a Bobby Fischer. They got their
wish eventually, when the young Gary
Kasparov appeared on the scene.

-- help bot

Date: 12 Dec 2008 14:50:48
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World

On Dec 12, 1:10 pm, [email protected] wrote:

>
> This is not a bad post by Sam Sloan.

Right, it was not a bad post from Sam,
it was horrible. You'd think that Sam is
in general somewhat intelligent. On this
occasion one would never guess.

Wlod

Date: 12 Dec 2008 13:19:31
From:
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World

On Dec 12, 3:39=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World
>
> In 1972, an epic chess match took place in Iceland between
> representatives of the two great super-powers of the world: Bobby vs.
> Boris.
>
> Boris was backed by the Great Soviet Union, with late night phone
> calls coming from his handlers in Moscow telling him what his next
> move should be. Meanwhile, Bobby stood alone against the might of the
> opposing nation.
>
> But, Bobby was not exactly alone. The Americans did not need to tell
> him what moves to make on the chessboard. Bobby already knew how to do
> that. Rather, what the Americans needed to do was somehow get him to
> sit down at the board and play the game.
>
> Here is the story of that titanic struggle: One half of the world
> trying to get Bobby to play, while the other half was trying to defeat
> him assuming that he did play.
>
> Hence the Title: Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World.
>
>
> The battle was won, not at the chessboard because Bobby was clearly
> the better player, but in the struggle to get him to the board that is
> so brilliantly described in this book.

You mean the 1974 book by Brad Darrach? The one Fischer sued him
about but lost? It's a fun read, but I'd hardly call it brilliant. I
read it a few years ago, in preparation for reviewing "Bobby Fischer
Goes to War" by Edmunds and Eidinow (2004; see http://www.chesscafe.com/tex=
t/review431.pdf).
Wanted another source for comparison. Compared to the later book, it's
chatty, somewhat sensationalistic and superficial, and not nearly as
useful to historians. But I agree, it does a pretty good job showing
all the hoops everyone had to jump through to get RJF to Reykjavik.

> In the end, Bobby won. =C9migr=E9s from the Soviet Union state that, more
> than any other single event, this defeat led to the collapse of the
> Soviet Union.

Right. And when Joe Louis KOed Max Schmeling it was the most
important single event in defeating Nazi Germany. Heck, in retrospect,
we probably needn't have bothered with WW II. Also Capablanca's defeat
of Lasker caused the hyper-inflation that devalued the German Mark in
the early 1920s, and Paul Morphy's triumph at the 1st American Chess
Congress was the reason the South won the Civil War.

What emigres from the Soviet Union have said this?

Date: 12 Dec 2008 13:10:44
From:
Subject: Re: Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World