< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 106 OF 106 ·
|Oct-22-16|| ||thegoodanarchist: <but Fischer's idea of being reasonable was for him to have absolutely everything he wanted, without exception, and his opponent to have nothing. >|
Thank you for the reply, but I am not sure what it has to do with the topic we were discussing, i.e., facts we know regarding why Fischer stopped playing.
|Oct-22-16|| ||maxi: Fischer justifies himself to some lady why he is not playing. This does not tell us at all that he was serious about playing. It is the same situation as with jailbirds being all innocent. Everybody has a justification.|
|Oct-22-16|| ||maxi: I love Fischer's games and annotations, but the man just did not want to play.|
|Oct-23-16|| ||DrNyet: <thegoodanarchist>'s comment about Betty Roberts' book prompted me to look it up. FWIW the account begins on page 74 of the first edition (1991; I don't know if there were any others) of "How to Get Better at Chess: Chess Masters on Their Art", by Larry Evans, Jeremy Silman, and Betty Roberts (in the chapter "Anecdotes").|
It's a book that may be of interest to those who like to read personal accounts and opinions of players.
|Oct-23-16|| ||Everett: All, save psychopaths, feel fear, especially in competition/confrontation.|
In my opinion, the very greatest move through and channel those feelings of fear.
And because of its ubiquitous nature, feeling fear should not be considered shameful. It's a part of life.
|Oct-24-16|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Yep, the Fischer drone chickened out.|
|Oct-24-16|| ||WorstPlayerEver: First of all: a 'psychopath' becomes then a psychopath at the police station; no single influence of a psychiatrist here or it must be failure: the police caught the 'psychopath' more than once.|
Second, if a psychopath would have no fear they would be caught immediately. No fear does mean: no care.
They facts are: the average psychopath fears and cares more than an average person, ironically enough; otherwise they can't become a psychopath. They have to care for their ego an awful lot.
The whole point is: all you 'know' about psychopaths is that you don't know about them. Happy now? ;)
|Oct-24-16|| ||Everett: Sociopath is perhaps better:
"A sociopath can be defined as a person who has Antisocial Personality Disorder. This disorder is characterized by a disregard for the feelings of others, a lack of remorse or shame, manipulative behavior, unchecked egocentricity, and the ability to lie in order to achieve one's goals."
And further from WebMD:
"It’s not easy to spot a <psychopath.> They can be intelligent, charming, and good at mimicking emotions. They may pretend to be interested in you, but in reality, they probably don’t care.
“They’re skilled actors whose sole mission is to manipulate people for personal gain,” Tompkins says.
<Sociopaths> are less able to play along. They make it plain that they’re not interested in anyone but themselves. They often blame others and have excuses for their behavior."
Both lack normal empathy. It's likely easier to be cool-headed and calculated without empathy.
besides people with these characteristics, specifically a lack of empathy, it's safe to say that anxiety, fear and the rest are felt by everyone to varying degrees, and healthfully managed per the individual's ability to do so. The best manage it the best.
Where Fischer falls in all of this is for others to figure out. I make no claim, though it seems others think I am.
|Oct-24-16|| ||Everett: <They facts are: the average psychopath fears and cares more than an average person>|
Not quite. They care and fear about <themselves> an awful lot, yet nothing for anyone else. The issue of <more> in absolute terms is likely unknowable. The percentage of how much they care for themselves vs others is the difference between socio-/psychopathology and normal individuals.
|Oct-24-16|| ||maxi: I would like to add to what <Everett> says that these disorders are neurological and physically detectable.|
|Oct-24-16|| ||Petrosianic: <thegoodanarchist>: <Thank you for the reply, but I am not sure what it has to do with the topic we were discussing, i.e., facts we know regarding why Fischer stopped playing.>|
It demonstrates rather conclusively that Fischer didn't stop playing because of a failure to get the conditions he wanted.
|Oct-25-16|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Fischer was a non conformist. I think that's the whole point; when he became the champ, he wanted to dictate the conditions of the WCC.|
And, in hindsight, he probably was right.
Now we have a champ who is still acting like a schoolboy, has no outstanding personality, plays 12 games to *defend* his title, in an organization which is probably as corrupted as when Fischer took the stage.
Fischer dressed himself, which was a part of his personality, while Magno gets dressed by funny companies. Notice the difference.
|Oct-27-16|| ||Everett: <maxi: I would like to add to what <Everett> says that these disorders are neurological and physically detectable.>|
I'm interested in how that is determined. I don't doubt it, just curious.
I have heard that schizophrenics have a particular eye-movement pattern that "outs" them. Here's an example article: http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/1...
|Oct-27-16|| ||WorstPlayerEver: The Russians have held my title for ten years and they're going to be in for it when I win the Championship. They're going to have to wait and play under my conditions. -- Bobby Fischer|
|Oct-27-16|| ||maxi: <Everett> I am not an expert, perhaps one can comment here, but I understand both electroencephalograms and magnetic resonance imaging of the brain are diagnostically valuable in subjects that show antisocial personality disorders associated with the psychopath description.|
|Oct-27-16|| ||WorstPlayerEver: I'll give it a try ;)
"Reshevsky and I are the only ones in America who try (to earn a living from chess). We don't make much. The other masters have outside jobs. Like Rossolimo, he drives a cab. Evans, he works for the movies. The Russians, they get money from the government. We have to depend on tournament prizes. And they're lousy. Maybe a couple hundred bucks. Millionaires back this game, but they're all cheap. Look what they do for golf: thirty thousand dollars for a tournament is nothing. But for chess they give a thousand or two and they think it's a big deal. The tournament has to be named after them, everybody has to bow down to them, play when they want, everything for a couple thousand dollars which is nothing to them anyhow. They take it off their income tax. These people are cheap. It's ridiculous." -- Bobby Fischer
|Oct-27-16|| ||TheFocus: How right you were, Bobby.|
|Oct-27-16|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Lol, you know what's so funny? Some people have no clue about other people and they have made up studies for this little inconvenience. |
So, eventually, it brings them -the students, so to speak- to an *insight* of: "When a person moves like this, it's probably related to what WE have observed as th@t#.." You don't say..
How does this relate to chess as an analogy?
Well, if a person plays this move, we know everything. Well.. almost everything =)
O tempora, oh irony!
|Nov-01-16|| ||Mr 1100: http://tinyurl.com/z42c2nu|
|Nov-01-16|| ||HeMateMe: <Reshevsky and I are the only ones in America who try (to earn a living from chess). >|
They, and the hustler Asa Hoffman?
|Nov-01-16|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Hopeless attention seeker Ponterotto and his "post-mortem" psychoanalysis of Fischer. His call to *fame*. What on earth is a post-mortem psychoanalysis? |
Masturbating on a corpse. That is what it is.
|Jan-04-17|| ||The Boomerang: "Fischer was a non conformist. I think that's the whole point; when he became the champ, he wanted to dictate the conditions of the WCC."|
Narcissistic more like it...
|Mar-22-17|| ||The Boomerang: " diceman: <maxi: For several days this was a very interesting discussion, and I was learning a lot. Unfortunately many people have entered now who believe Fischer was some kind of chess god.>
Karpov beat Korchnoi by 1 game in 74,
and 1 game in 78.
You don't have to be God to beat that."
Since Fischer had an even score with Korchnoi you have to be atleast better than Fischer to beat Karpov:)
|Mar-22-17|| ||Lambda: Korchnoi was incredibly strong during that period. For three world championship cycles, Karpov was the only person capable of beating him in a match, and even in the one after that, he only fell to Kasparov.|
|Mar-22-17|| ||Petrosianic: <Since Fischer had an even score with Korchnoi you have to be atleast better than Fischer to beat Karpov:)>|
That's a pretty silly argument to think that games played in 1962 are going to tell you who's going to win in 1975.
People often make that mistake, assuming that playing strength is consistent throughout one's career. One I've heard a lot is the claim that Botvinnik was much better than smyslov because he has a hefty winning score against him. Of course that winning margin is entirely based on games from the early 40's when Smyslov was just starting. From the early 50's onwards, they played dead even.
You can almost never tell how a match will turn out by comparing both players results to a third player. Because there are so many cases where A beats B, B beats C and C beats A. Everybody knows things like this, but are so tempted by the lure of an easy answer that they make themselves forget.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 106 OF 106 ·