From: edd@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (ed.knowles)
Subject: Re: This Bob Guy speaks on F-S II and GM Joel Trembles
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:45:27 GMT
Summary: relevant opinions

In article <92327.142426RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>, <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
> one was that the general consensus is that fischer is currently somewhere
> between weak international master and best in the world, inclusive.
> either way, that's pretty great, even though he's messed up.  why can't
> he then become greater, with practice, even though he's messed up?
> 
> the next was that there has been a long history of messed up, yet
> great, chess players.  do you care to deny that?
> 
> the final one was that one of these messed up, yet great, chess players
> was the pre-retirement fischer.  do you care to deny that fischer was
> not messed up? do you care to deny that fischer was great?

Actually, I kinda agree with you that nothing prevents a messed-up player
from being a good player. I don't think that Fischer will reach the heights
he reached before because of the particular forms his mental abberations
take. His paranoia actually prevents him from playing alongside his peers
in the strongest tournaments and taking part in FIDE or GMA offical matches.
Even in the past, this threatened Fischer's chess career, leading to
long retirements. He dropped out of the Sousse interzonal while leading
and playing the best chess of his career (I think his games in the Sousse
Interzonal were better than his games in the Palma De Majorca interzonal
which he won). He skipped the U.S. Championship zonal tournament, but was
allowed to play through some political machinations at Palma De Majorca.
Even earlier he had dropped out of chess after a reasonable showing at
Curacao (he would have had quite an impressive score had he done a little
better against the soviets). His mental condition (if indeed it is a
"mental condition" and not just a bad attitude) has gotten worse and not
better, and now, after twenty years of weird hibernation comes back to
play an almost surreal match in, or all places, Serbia, under conditions
unlike any other professional chess match ("Fischer clock", "no adjournments"
etc...). Never mind that along the way he has managed to become a fugitive
from the U.S. State department and has insulted the best chessplayers in
the world and alienated those chess officials who could have arranged a
"real" world chamionship challenge for him. Fischer's rise in the chess
world was not due to his chess ability alone, but to the unselfish aid of
tolerant friends (like Larry Evans, Ed Edmondsen, Anthony Saidy, S. Gligoric
and others) who helped him maneuver through the political minefields of
his own making. Obviously, he still has friends, but the obstacles his
"condition" is creating are more formidable in than in the past -- and if
he should manage to actually get by them to even more formidable opponents
over the chessboard, they are still bound to create distractions for him
(real and imagined).

> 
> yes, i've never heard of gm joel benjamin.  do you care to explain why
> that makes my opinion less relevant?

Joel Benjamin has been one of the best chessplayers in the United States
for some time. He's won many national titles, including the U.S. championship.
Recently, he  missed regaining the U.S. Championship by narrowly losing
a match to GM Gata Kamsky. I believe his USCF rating is currently over or
close to 2700. He was already a strong master at age 12.

Of course, not knowing who Joel Benjamin is doesn't make your opinion any
less relevant, but it does give the impression that you don't know much
about American chess and so your opinion about Fischer is probably not an
"informed" opinion based on anything other than newspaper and magazine hype.
It's hard to believe that you could have read any American CHESS publication
over the last 10 years and not know who Joel Benjamin is (if you had, you
would even know what he looks like, since he has graced the cover of a few of
them more than a few times). Your opinion isn't less relevant -- well, actually
maybe it is less "weighty". Joel's opinion is more substantive because not
only does he know chess history and have contact constantly with people
who knew Fischer and played Fischer, but he is also strong enough give an
accurate assessment of play.
> 
>   2) the person was too much of a dolt to realize what my point
>      was.
> 
> my money's on #2, by the way.

> bob vesterman.

 ark can respond to this himself . But I think that you and Fischer
mave a lot in common. And I don't mean that you play like a weak
international master.
                                      -Ed Knowles