Of course one can, but the discussions will always have a component of the man himself.

I'm wondering about the veracity of the filling story now. I always suspected that his renal failure, at such a young age, was partly due to an infection that likely arose from his poor denal care.

https://en.chessbase.com/Portals/Al...

Of course not. With players who seem to have achieved less than they could have, there will always be questions about what they could have done. It's like asking people not to care how long Morphy could have stayed on top if he'd tried. Good luck.

C.N. 8461

Yeah, here's Petrosian's version of that story:

PETROSIAN: <It was suggested to hold the Fischer-Petrosian match in either the Soviet Union, America, Yugoslavia or Argentina. As might have been expected, it soon became clear that neither side was willing to play on his opponent's home ground.

It always gives me great pleasure to be in Yugoslavia, I like the country, and its hospitable people. It can even be said that the countryside is very similar to that in the Caucasus, and to my beloved Armenia. Similar too, are men's natures, even the food ... in Yugoslavia there would be no language barrier for me, since Serbo-Croat is very like Russian. Finally, it is well known that the Yugoslavs are brilliant tournament organizers.

But I nonetheless declined to play in Yugoslavia, and here is why.

From 1955 up to the match with Fischer, I have played 13 times in Yugoslavia. I have played in official and friendly, team and individual events. I have played as a young grandmaster, as a world championship challenger, and as World Champion; even as ex-World Champion. . . .

Yet in those 17 years, my best results in Yugoslavia have been no higher than 3rd. I have clear memories of terrible blunders in those tournaments, even of putting queens en prise. In such an important competition the memory of these games could have very bad consequences. So I decided that I did not have the moral right to play the match in Yugoslavia.

That left Argentina. From a sporting point of view my results there have been quite good. At the same time I realized that our match would coincide with the extremely damp, suffocating Argentinian spring. I am now no longer so young as to be indifferent to climatic conditions. I can't stand dampness, and I have never been able to rest in our Black Sea resorts. So Argentina was by no means an inviting prospect for me, but there was no alternative. . . .

Just at that moment an unexpected telegram arrived from Greece. The members of that country's chess federation wanted to know why we had not replied to their invitation to hold the match in Athens.

In fact we had never received any invitations from them. As it I turned out, it had got as far as Euwe, but he did not think it was necessary to pass it on to us, since he reasoned that Argentina should be given the preference, as chess is very popular there, and, most important, the financial conditions were better.

About that time the Yugoslav grandmaster Gligoric rang me and asked if I didn't want to speak to Fischer over the phone? I said I didn't mind, but that my English was probably insufficient, as was no doubt Fischer's Russian. Gligoric offered to help us here. As a result an unusual conversation came about, on one end, in Moscow, myself, on the other, Fischer in New York, and in the middle, in Belgrade, Gligoric, working as interpreter for both of us.

The conversation lasted quite a long time, and the main topic was the choice of venue for the match. Fischer said that he wanted to play in Argentina, since the money was good, and they prepared good steaks there. I replied that the conditions in general were more important to me, particularly climatic conditions. Gligoric then said 'Fischer says it doesn't matter, FIDE will anyway decide to play the match in Argentina.' I replied angrily that no-one was able to force me to play in Argentina, and in that event Fischer could play with anyone else, but not with me.

Soon the Greek chess federation announced that it was prepared to provide the very best match conditions, and to top anything that Argentina could provide in the way of money. It appeared that, following Euwe's and Fischer's declared principles, their offer should be given the preference.>

I have clear memories of terrible blunders in those tournaments, even of putting queens en prise. >

The whole thread is dotted with the Fischer sane or insane question and none of us are qualified to answer it.

From someone who actually met and spent some time with him.

"I threw most of what I’d ever read about Bobby out of my head. Sheer garbage. Bobby is the most misunderstood, misquoted celebrity walking the face of the earth’.

I formed the opinion he was clearly not well when the ranting started.

Rueben Fine, a psychiatrist who knew him well predicted in 1973 Fischer would never defend his title by making impossible god like demands and with the weight of finally winning the title lifted his inner demons would surface.

They were even worried about him when he was young and seriously considered getting him treatment but at a meeting held in the late 50's when discussing young Fischer's behavior;

"...someone raised a question: What if therapy worked? What if treatment sapped Fischer’s drive to win, depriving the United States of its first homegrown world champ? Meeting adjourned. No one, Kaufman recalls, wanted to tamper with that finely tuned brain.”

The full story here: https://psmag.com/social-justice/a-... (now you can win bets that Fischer once lived with his mum in Moscow.)

Okay, so let's assume sane, and judge his actions on their own merit. But that means he literally tried to have a man murdered in one of those Radio Bombya interviews, without having the insanity defense to justify it.

<"I threw most of what I’d ever read about Bobby out of my head. Sheer garbage. Bobby is the most misunderstood, misquoted celebrity walking the face of the earth’.>

I'm not sure what exactly what Seirawan is even talking about here. The part you've quoted is just a vague vote of confidence.

One problem with Fischer is not so much his being misquoted, as other people arguing in his name. For example, the 10 Wins match system. Fischer made no public case for it at all, other people did it for him. Is Fischer responsible for Charles Kalme's mathematical errors and fudges? No. On the other hand, without the work of Kalme and others, Fischer gave virtually no explanation at all for giving up the title without a fight. He gave us no case to accept, and so can't complain too much if he's condemned for it.

Fischer was clearly unwell when doing those radio interviews, he should never have been allowed near a microphone. He was ranting gibberish.

<Also, Fischer contradicted himself frequently.>

He reportedly contradicted himself. He was probably asked 'why' loads of times and gave different reasons depending on how he was feeling or who was asking.
A lot of what he was meant to have said and done is open to speculation. It has got to stage the only thing you can really trust is his games. There is nothing false about those.

Larsen had severe doubts Fischer would ever play again after beating Spassky and I've already gave what Fine wrote. Fine nailed it by saying he would place so many demands in the way the match would never go ahead.

Okay, but a few posts back you said none of us were qualified to make that determination, and quoted Seirawan as saying that Bobby was just misquoted and misunderstood.

My feeling about why Bobby didn't play in Amsterdam is that Curacao had exposed some serious flaws in his play. Bobby the person wasn't big enough to admit it, and made excuses, but Bobby the chess player knew, and wasn't going to make another attempt in the Candidates until he was sure they'd been corrected. For all the excuses, nobody loses 7 games and wins a Candidates Tournament.

At one point, Karpov, Fischer and Campomanes were all together, with contracts ready to sign for a match. Fischer had the pen in his hand, and made up a new demand at the last second. He wanted to call the match "The Professional Chess Player's World Championship", knowing that the Soviet Federation would never allow it (The party line says that their players are amateurs). Campomanes said just sign the contract and we'll come up with a name that everyone can agree on later. Fischer said he couldn't do it that way, in stages, and walked out. That's why it wouldn't have helped to give him 9-9. He simply wasn't going to play Karpov or anybody else. I don't think that part is crazy, though. It sounds very calculated.

On the other hand, I don't think Fischer intended to give up the title over 9-9, it's just all that was left. He wanted to give it up over the Unlimited Match, but FIDE crossed him up and gave it to him.

Bobby's radio rants were what Seirawan was possibly hinting being 'misunderstood.' As Stone Free says you do not need to be an expert to figure out something has snapped especially when you compare those outbursts with his TV appearances in the early 70's when he comes across as friendly and charming. Surely with the world looking on was to time to let his views be known.

His anti Jewish rants appeared after he won the title when to quote Evans in ; 'Bobby Fischer Against the World ,' 'He went off the rails,'

What bears this out was in 1967 he was invited too, took part in and won A tournament organised to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel. Netanya (1968) So it would appear having won the title more critical issues surfaced regarding his state of mind and he became mentally ill.

You could well be right regarding Amsterdam as a crisis of confidence after his performance at Curacao. He 'apparently' was still on his Russians have rigged games kick;

"I'll never play in one of those rigged tournaments again. They clobber us easy in team play. But man to man, I'd take Petrosian on any time." Life Magazine, Feb 21, 1964.

But yet again The authenticity is questioned. Edward Winter writes he hesitates to quote from such articles as they may not be 'safe.' (file this under the possibly misquoted and made up section.)

C.N. 5200

Disregarding all the fixing and collaboration claims and possibly 'I'm not playing till they change the rules' scenarios The opinion that his poor play shocked him and needed time to lick his wounds is valid.

His comment above regarding Petrosian, some of which I'm sure took place - it does not read as something you would not make up, is possibly regarding the game Fischer vs Petrosian, 1962 (kibitz #26) and your post which I only just discovered when recalling Petrosian beat him Curacao and had a look at it. (Petrosian was at his peak then, Fischer's boast needs taking with a pinch of salt.)

From this we can surmise (and with Bobby Fischer surmisation is a key word) that added to the list of things not to be trusted was Russian Chess literature. ( 😉)

Spassky.

Well, the book you quoted was published in 1993, long before the Bombya interviews. But if he went off the rails right after winning the title, then Seirawan should have known it. Or maybe he did know, and didn't feel free to say so. The only way to stay in Bobby's good graces was to repeat what he wanted to hear.

<"I'll never play in one of those rigged tournaments again. They clobber us easy in team play. But man to man, I'd take Petrosian on any time." Life Magazine, Feb 21, 1964.>

One of Fischer's reasons for not playing in Amsterdam is that the prize fund was too small. But at other times he said money wasn't an issue at all. Another reason he gave was that it conflicted with his exhibition tour, which USCF officials considered so weak that they thought he must have decided to play after all. Another reason he gave was that the process was too long. Eliot Hearst quoted him as saying at the USCF offices that qualifying would involve more than fifty games, and "that's about one-half the games that Capablanca played in his entire life!" (This seems unusually funny for Fischer, and unusually dumb, all at the same time). Fischer did want to arrange a direct, pre-war-style challenge to Petrosian, but even that early he wanted a 10 wins match (WITHOUT a 9-9 clause, as far as I know.)

Of course, that's how Fischer often contradicted himself. On the one hand, he wanted CANDIDATES MATCHES to be first to 10 wins, and on the other hand he complained that the qualifying process was too long.

<In 1964 he won the U.S. Championship 11-0 so perhaps it was not a lack of confidence just his beef with FIDE and the Russians. After Curacao he did play in the 1962 Varna Olympiad so one could say the bone he was chewing on was the World Title qualification process after all.>

He did pretty poorly at the Varna Olympiad too, only breaking even in the Finals. That couldn't have encouraged him.

He did win the US Championship, but he was used to doing that. I remember Larsen wasn't too impressed by the 11-0 (!), saying that other Americans always played against Fischer as though they were beaten before they started.

That is correct the radio interview came way later than 1992 (I did not pick up that. My brain in neutral again, which is happening a lot these days, - GM Torre being involved in both events possibly got me. )

I reckon Yasser might be having a change of mind after hearing Bobby's own words. Though he must have known about or seen the spitting indent which was in 1992.
But I'm to blame for involving Yasser wrongly though he is correct in saying Fischer has in the past been misquoted.

Possible Saidy did not feel too bad about losing to Fischer and that 1963/64 crowd knew Fischer and how pleased he would be. A confidence booster? It's a could be, but having thoughts about a GM deliberately losing to get Fischer back interested in Chess - long shot.

That was the only game he played in 1964. He went around the country giving simuls.

Still on the subject of Fischer.

I think that Fischer's greatest legacy to the game of chess will be Fischer960 random.

Not that I like chess variants, but I know that classical chess is coming to an end. Although I prefer the chess of the times of Isabella and Columbus, Fischer random is still fun.

At the turn of the 20th century, Korchnoi declared that chess would probably last another 100 years, and that's already been about 20 years. Perhaps Viktor is wrong about the date, but the end seems as certain as the end of the planet Earth.

We know Sissa's story and we are aware of the almost infinite possibilities of the game. Otherwise, it seems to me that when the title of GM becomes commonplace, it will be necessary to venture into unfamiliar positions.

That may be because I'm not wild about his time controls. They kind of put training wheels on, and keep GM's from having to manage their time well.

Of course, shuffle chess has been around forever, but Fischerrandom does make more of an effort to preserve the feel of a regular game.

I remember the old US Chess Live site had some wild variants that I've never seen anywhere else. Like 7 Queens Chess, with all the pieces changed to Queens. And Assymetrical Shuffle Chess, where both sides pieces were shuffled separately. I remember once getting such an advantageous shuffle that I felt I had a won game before the first move had been made. All my pieces were trained on his King, while my own was fairly safe.

They also had a variant called Losers Chess that's much better than Giveaway (you're supposed to lose all your pieces EXCEPT your King, which still has Royal powers, so you can't move it or leave in check You had to be careful, because if you just gave everything away indiscriminately, you might be left with one pawn that you can't get rid of, allowing the other guy to feed you all his pieces.