There are things you say that I find sad, Acirce, but I don't mention them unless I'm attacked first. Like when you called me a "shameless liar" out of the blue... Stop hating.

I treat everyone with respect, unless they don't show me respect. Then I have to b-slap them (a la MichAdams, who started the cycle with several racist, insulting posts).

But since you probably agree with what MichAdams said about Americans, Jews, Hispanics, and other ethnic groups, you didn't find his posts 'sad'.

And that, Acirce, I find sad.

Ironically, a true prodigy, mentioned in the movie title, gave up the game having actually achieved excellence within the field whereas Waitzkin gave it up presenting the idea that he was somehow on a similar path. A prodigy? Not even close. Self-publicist? Top marks.

We've already discussed this in earlier posts. Waitzkin was a talented junior player, not a prodigy.

Don't blame Josh Waitzkin for this...He didn't promote himself. His father wrote the book about him. And I don't think Josh ever claimed to be a prodigy. That label was placed on the cover of the book by the publishers, probably just to sell books: Most of them know little about chess, and would probably call any kid who checkmated them with the Scholar's Mate a 'prodigy'.

<a reasonably competent, not even outstanding really, master level player will continue for deacades.>

I don't know how fair this is. Josh was an IM at sixteen, and won the US Junior Championship twice. That makes him more than a 'reasonably competent master level player'.

I find a lot of people bash Josh Waitzkin unnecessarily. The only explanation I can find is jealousy. The fact is, Josh was a nice kid who made something good out of his life, and all these people who have accomplished much less in life want to tear him down.

The movie SFBF was good for chess in general - it made a lot of parents around the US want to sign their kids up for chess lessons, and made chess teaching a worthwhile profession where someone could actually make a living.

A repeat of the ridiculous comment you made before. Can't you find new idiotic statements, instead of repeating old ones?

I used to think willful stupidity was one of the worst traits a human being could reveal. Now you've shown me the light...It'a possible to be willfully stupid AND redundant (though the two traits are most likely related)

<Well I did post the explanation and it has nothing to do with Jealousy or resentment. I just think that the guy is way over-rated. >

He's probably a better player than you.

You also wouldn't be saying anything about him being 'over-rated' if a book and a movie hadn't been made about him. So you probably feel like the attention wasn't 'deserved'.

Probably. And?

<You also wouldn't be saying anything about him being 'over-rated' if a book and a movie hadn't been made about him. So you probably feel like the attention wasn't 'deserved'.>

No...because the book and the film was a look at the chess world in general, and the story of a kid who played chess - a story which captivated a lot of people.

So, in your experience, all IM's and/or Junior Champions get bashed a lot? If not, that theory doesn't really fit the facts.

I don't know what you're talking about...You seem to be arguing with yourself.

I didn't say ALL IM's and junior champions get bashed a lot, I said Waitzkin in particular. And I think jealousy re: the movie, and his fame, has a lot to do with it.

i would like to say this though - waitzkin's commentary on the Chessmaster program was very helpful to me and i appreciate his contribution.

kramnik, for example, might wipe the floor with waitzkin, but waitzkin has contributed more to my understanding of chess through his commentaries than kramnik ever will, unless he decides to start writing.

LOL. It's always funny when people don't realize the implications of their own words.

<And I think jealousy re: the movie, and his fame, has a lot to do with it.>

There you go, you're getting warmer again.

I haven't read the book, and I only saw the movie once. But my recollection from thumbing through the book is that "Searching For Bobby Fischer" is the last chapter in the book, and looked like a collection of Fischer rumors superfluous to the main story (mind you, I developed that opinion not from reading the book, but from just thumbing through it in a bookstore once).

<The other meaning is searching for the next Bobby Fischer.>

Yes, and I think that's another reason why Waitzkin gets heat. That meaning, combined with the unfortunate label "Prodigy", which the publishers stuck on, may lead the casual listener to think that the book is saying "America is looking for the next Bobby Fischer, and here he is: My son Josh!"

I know Josh Waitzkin, and I know many of the players in NYC who resented him ("I'm a better player, and nobody made a movie about me!")

Trust me, jealousy has a lot to do with it.

Your other points, about bad marketing decisions, is just a repeat of what I said earlier.

People have to understand that to many people who don't play chess, Josh was a prodigy of a sort. He was the highest rated player in the US at his age.

I agree. This seems like terrible hairsplitting. He was as a kid, a very good chessplayer for his age. Some would say he was a prodigy. Some might not. Who cares. The movie was enjoyable.

I wonder, though, if the resentment towards him has everything to do with jealousy. I wonder if people resent him because he quit (not wanting to spend 12 hours a day for the possibility of the privledge of spending 2 weeks competing for a top prize of 10,000 Euros). He had talent (how much is open for debate) and he gave up the game that so many on this site love.

This I don't get:

<I just think that the guy is way over-rated>

OK, I just saw SFBF for the first time, and it was cute - not spectacular, not life-changing, but cute. The best part was how the chess content was factually correct (compared to typical pop culture references), and it was quite compelling to watch his progression and improvement through his father's eyes. All of the characters were recognizable (loved the cameos), and even the key combination at the climax was believable (Both Sides Queen + Skewer). The worst parts were their protracted conversation OTB during the big game (totally fake), nobody shaking hands or taking notation for major events, and their strange pronunciation of "patzer" as "potzer" (like Pottsie from "Happy Days") which might be correct for all I know. From a filmmaking perspective, the pace was not only slow but plodding (I daresay unbearably plodding) and could easily turn off non-chessplayers long before the movie ended.

I sensed the father slyly included several stock stereotypes of other parents just to make himself look good: overbearing, must-win, nervous to the point of psychotic, signalling, fighting, living vicariously through their child, etc. It was somewhat implausible how a sports reporter could afford $60/hour for his son to play "Clue" in his room, and parts of those "lessons" were hardly productive (master points?!). Presumably Bruce Pandolfini was fully aware of his portrayal, which didn't at all match the kind gentle encouraging patron displayed in his writings. Instead this "teacher" was an oddball stalker who showed up at the strangest times in the strangest places just to say something profound. The child acting was very good overall, although the main character overdid his "spaced out eyes" look too often.

Frankly the highlight was the Fischer documentary material which I could watch for hours, especially after his death. I totally disagree with "not some tacked on storyline" as it was clearly some tacked on storyline. I can see how Bobby Fischer would object to people using his name like that (and profiting like that), even though it was a grand compliment.