From: tafrakes@athena.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Subject: Re: Listen Up, Bobby Bashers
Keywords: bobby, champ
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:47:24 GMT

In article <Bw487C.EH8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, met48546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc E. Talbot) writes:
|> Yes, at the time Fischer was the best.  That's what being world champion means.
|> That's why Kasparov is now world champion.  Because HE is the best.  If
|> Fischer wanted to play Kasparov, he could have.  He chose Spassky
|> because he was fairly sure he'd win.

Being the "best" and being the "World Champion" are two different
things.  "World Champion" is just a label handed out by a chess
organization that tries to give it to the "best" player (and usually
does).  How come the second highest rated player in the world
isn't always the one to challenge the "World Champion?"  Anyone
can have a run of bad games.  Look at baseball, for instance.
Sometimes the best pitchers in the world get shelled in the World
Series.  That doesn't mean he's not the best pitcher in the world
an more, just because he threw a couple bad pitches, but it COULD
mean that his team doesn't get crowned as "Champions."

|> of money.  As for Bobby's "valuable time", what's he been doing with it for
|> the last 20 years?

He's been doing whatever the heck he feels like doing, I'd imagine,
instead of doing what people are telling him to do (like play in
Candidates Matches).  It doesn't matter what he's been doing for the
past 20 years, anyway.  The point is that you don't think his time is
valuable and it seems like you are letting your dislike for Bobby
cloud your judgment.  Who else could get the purse that Bobby is
getting for playing a guy like Spassky?  And do you think Spassky
would be getting paid this kind of money for playing anyone other
than Fischer?  This isn't even a title match!  I think playing in
a $5M match that lasts about two months is pretty good money if you
ask me.  Why don't you go dig up a list of people with more valuable
time than that and tell me what you find out.

|> >As far as contributions to chess....Bobby has made far greater
|> >contributions to chess than Kasparov.  Playing lots of games
|> >and being "active" in tournaments is all well and good, but not
|> >if nobody is playing or interested.  Bobby increased interest in
|> >chess far more than Kasparov.
|> 
|> Fischer increased interest in chess in the United States.  He wasn't
|> nearly as much of a boom in Europe (except for Iceland).  Kasparov has
|> at least been an active and visible world champion who has done a great
|> deal to promote chess, something that Fischer did only by acting
|> outrageously enough to  call attention to himself.

I never said that the boom in Europe was as big as the one in the
U.S.  Being "active and visible" shows that Kasparov is at least
"trying" to promote chess, but "trying" and fifty cents will get you
a candy bar.  "Succeeding" is another matter -- one where Fischer
clearly outshines Kasparov.  If acting outrageously is the best way
to bring attention and excitement to the game so that more people
want to become involved, so be it.  At least he's DOING something
good for chess instead of TRYING to do something good for chess.

-- 
T. Andy Frakes (tafrakes@athena.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess