Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 2

message: There is a serious attempt by some people to mislead the users by denying the fact that Bobby Fischer has been a U.S citizen until only relatively recently. That during all his international career in chess, without exception he represented the U.S.A., and when he became world champion, he was certainly a U.S. citizen. Not only he was U.S. born, he was the first U.S citizen to become world champion. Steinitz was not a US citizen when he became world champion.
The article begins:
:Robert James "Bobby" Fischer (born March 9, 1943) is a grandmaster and former world chess champion, who on September 1, 1972, became the first and only American chess player to win the World Chess Championship.
This is incorrect.  William (nee Wilhelm) Steinitz became a U.S. citizen in 1888, after both his matches with Zuckertort (1872 and 1886; it is still disputed which one made him "World Champion") and before his matches with Chigorin, Gunsberg and Lasker.  The second match with Zuckertort was played in the USA.  While one might quibble that Steinitz did not first "win the championship" as an American, I am adjusting the opening to "American-born".  -Wfaxon 19:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about adding the word "official", i.e. "only US-born chessplayer ever to become official World Chess Champion". (Since Morphy is generally seen as an "unofficial world champion"). Rocksong 07:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think "ever" is redundant and smacks of tabloid jounalism. Would you accept "only US-born chessplayer to become official World Chess Champion" Rjm at sleepers 10:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Yes, I agree that is better without the word "ever". Rocksong 10:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I've made the change, but I fiddled slightly with the syntax - I hope the result is OK. Rjm at sleepers 11:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No, not the first U.S. World Chess Champion 

message: Viz. the 1972 match vs. Spassky; "81.157.230.213" added:
:The gamesmanship which many considered unsporting was overlooked in general in the United States.
While some may still see Fischer's behavior as gamesmanship, subsequent events have borne out the contemporary opinion by many that explained it in terms of a (reasonably justified) inflated ego combined with a near-crippling fear of defeat and incipient paranoia.  Or you could just say he was immature.  I don't know of any acquaintances of Fischer who ascribe to him any capacity for "gamesmanship". --Wfaxon 03:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I first saw that sentence appear I too was uncomfortable with it. Delete it I say. Rocksong 03:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gamesmanship 

message: Fischer claims that he never called jews 'niggers'. Instead he merely called them 'murderers'. I have listened to the radio interview and it's a bad line but I certainly can't hear the word niggers. Can you hear it? listen from aboout 18:00 on I will change the quote in the article. Curtains99 02:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-semitism section 

message: This encyclopedia article needs to focus more on Fischer the chess player, because chess is what Fischer is best known for.  For example, the encyclopedia article about Paul Morphy focuses on his chess career first, his eccentricities later on.AaronCBurke 17:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  metacommentary (moved from top of talk page) 

message: The criticicsm of Billrock seems to me obviously biased, perhaps by a bit of chauvinism. Insults, profane and vulgar language, and such, are commonplace for the lay person, remember Fischer is no politician, and  the undefined "hatred speech" of Billrock is used generously in the speechs of, for example, George W. Bush.
If we call Fischer "hatred speaker" and not do the same with Bush who called lately, for example, to overthrow the government of Cuba, there would be no neutrality.
Wikipedia is not a stage for propaganda against anti-americans.
I think if Billrock could define "hatred speech", which sounds as a loaded term, propagandistic bombastic, then it could be decided if it is neutral to characterize Fischer´s actions or words with it.
From his point of view, he is engaging in legitimate dissent against a fraudulent, criminal, oppresing regime, that of George W. Bush. unsigned statement posted by Drcaldev 21:02, 3 September 2006 
:I have no use for Mr. Bush myself, but I wish him a long and happy life, preferably devoid of any future influence on U.S. policy.  Outside of WP, I have repeatedly criticized current U.S. domestic and foreign policy.  I do not recall Mr. Bush calling for death to Cubans.  Billbrock 21:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (OT--put one space between text and the 4-tilde signature; otherwise, it doesn't appear.)  I draw the line at advocacy of genocide. Billbrock 21:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hatred speech" applies to Bush, too, then 

message: I mean, why don´t you define that loaded term of yours: hatred speech. I don´t understand it. Everybody hates, and many people gives speeches... What do you mean by telling and re-telling the obvious on this article? What´s hatred speech, why don´t you give us a close genre and specific difference besides those examples? You can hate but not call to genocide, so instead of sticking to that nicety of your style, you can more precisely say that Fischer makes genocide pleas, holocaust denials, all that stuff... I think that would help more to your goal of revealing the man for the virulent anti-semitic he is.
The problem is one would have to look for rational basis on his anti-semitism... or isn´t there such?
By the way, wouldn´t you advocate for a masssive execution of all genocides?
 Drcaldev 19:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems I missed the fun here earlier.  I don't see any mention of "hatred speech" in the article.  Was it removed?  "Hatred speech" more properly -> "Hate speech."  We already have a definition for it -->  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech   -- Solberg 20:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Solberg, I did indeed use the standard "hate speech," and   Drcaldev edited it out.   I agree with Drcaldev that one "can hate but not call to genocide"; I would ask  Drcaldev whether one can call to genocide and not hate?  (RJF's special way of expressing his love for his people?)  The sentence, "The problem is one would have to look for rational basis on his anti-semitism... or isn´t there such?" is either a historical nonsequitur (did Hitler have a rational basis?) or carries an implication that would make the continued assumption of good faith difficult.  I'll let someone else deal with our friend.  Billbrock 23:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Time to remove the NPOV tag?  I put it there; I'll let someone else make that call.  While I believe that the words "hate speech" are NPOV, I also believe that citing Fischer's hate speech (as well as his rational objections to US foreign policy) is far more effective. Billbrock 20:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Hatred speech ? 

message: I think that characterizing Fischer's comments on 9/11 as excited is a fair and NPOV characterization.  However, the phrase "very excitedly" (edited by me from the original adjectival "very excited") links to hypomania.  I tend to concur; my concerns here are WP:V and WP:NOR. Billbrock 02:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hypomania is pure speculation and should definitely be removed. The words "very excitedly" may or may not be accurate, but are unnecessary. I think it is far better to just insert a bit more of what Fischer actually said. He said "Hallelujah, this is a wonderful day". That speaks for itself. Rocksong 02:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with you, Rocksong, but reductiveness is a concern, too.  E.g., not every antisemite speaks as lovingly of his departed Jewish mother & sister as RJF does.  Billbrock 03:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for Fischer's hypomania? 

message: The article says Fischer complained of Soviet conclusion in 1959. I believe he didn't complain of this until after the 1962 Candidates. Can someone provide evidence of him complaining circa 1959, otherwise I'll rewrite it. Rocksong 05:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with your edit.  Fischer's relations with Tal and Bronstein circa 1960 were cordial. Billbrock 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of Soviet Collusion 

message: Re the featured email from Derek.
Clearly Derek, being average, has no clue to the intricate personality of Mr. Robert James Fischer. And I hope this can be forwarded to him (Derek), although it would amount to casting pearls before a swine.
Mr. Fischer's greatest skill is his stupendous ability to amass, retain, and process data at a speed much higher than the average Joe. He could have applied his genius to anything - to music, to art, and yes even to the stock exchange!  He is not a Jesus Christ, even JS realised the futility of being a saviour to mortals that preferred the path of ignorance and stupidity.
Throughout the ages and from time to time, society in general is fortunate to witness such mental superiority envied and admired by the general populace - a populace, I might hasten to add that is gripped by stupidity in a vengeful cyclic vice and persuing meaningless materialistic manifestations that neither invigorate nor elevate towards the mosaic beauty of creativity. 
Then here comes a dynamic character who finds no use nor need to be cosseted  by the vagaries of an adulating audience merely for wealth and entertainment. The guy could care less, he is a one-man show - he eats, drinks and sleeps chess - he has mastered the complex moves like a traveller charting the intricacies of the great cosmos. He could care less for fame and fortune bestowed by dorks like you. 
You want him to "come clean"?  Come clean of what? He has every right to voice his views, just because they go against your hypocritical perspective doesnt mean he should shut up. And the poor guy has already paid for all that, paid heavily I might add. What more do you want?
You want a people persona, then kiss the ass of the likes of fat-ass dunce Oprah. With an IQ of zilch she is more up your ally and will continue to keep you entrenched in the swirling filth of flatus and ignorance.
/////////////////
ztiets says - Yeah, I can only agree with the above. Bobby stood up for what he believed in as he now clearly does also; judging from his current posts at his website. How many Jews do you know who are willing to make such a stance? The only case I have ever even heard of such a possibility was when the lying jewish controlled media claimed that Bobby was Jewish. Here you have a person who has arrived at a stance via extreme study I am sure, and you place his opinion above the greatness of his deeds and wisdom?
This entry is obviously a bitter Jewish rant and brings away focus from the issues that truly surround us! 14 Words Brethren! 14 Words!
////End of Statement////
 – — … ° ≈ ± − × ÷ ← → · §  geocities.com/fkaysilva: 137.186.172.150 15:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leave the Genius Alone! 

message: I'm delisting this article for the following reasons,
# Refs are badly formatted, and there isn't many, few quotes aren't sourced
# One section has a POV tag
# Needs cleanup, and a good copyedit
# One image needs an fair use rationale
Jaranda wat's sup 01:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  The article would benefit from a complete rewrite, IMO.  Billbrock 01:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisted GA 

message: Have to have something in about the boychik's great showing at the 2nd Piatogorsky Cup.  Billbrock 06:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Krakatoa! Billbrock 06:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  oy 

message: I am trying to compact certain sections to make room for the chess-related expansions on the to-do list Billbrock 06:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of them are fair enough, but I see you've completely delted the controversy over the new edition of My 60 Memorable Games. This is significant and deserves a mention. Rocksong 07:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough; perhaps the restoration could be in the bio section. No question the edn. was bad; sometimes the paranoid are right.  Billbrock 07:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pruning 

message: I dunno how helpful the baseball analogy is.  (I think DiMaggio's 56-game-streak might be better.) Was Steinitz's competition of similar caliber?  Don't really think there's a comparison (though F benefitted from crushing ego of superoptimists L & T). Billbrock 07:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnny van der Meer? 

message: The article claimed that Fischer gave $61,200 of his $200,000 world championship prize money to the WWCOG.  That can't be accurate.  The total prize fund was $250,000, and as I recall the split was 5/8 to the winner, 3/8 to the winner.  No way was it $200,000/$50,000. I've accordingly removed the $200,000 claim. Krakatoa 11:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  prize money 

message: I think the 1970 chronology is a bit off WRT Edmonson's intervention. 
per Russians vs Fischer:
* 29 March - 5 Apr 1970 Match of the Century
* 8 Apr 1970 Herceg Novi World Blitz Ch
* 12 Apr - 7 May 1970 Tnmt of Peace Rovinj-Zagreb (#1 Fischer 13/17, 2 pts ahead of Hort, Smyslov, Gligoric, Korchnoi, 2.5 pts ahead of Petrosian)  It is at this point IMO that Fischer's CLEAR superiority to top Soviet players became obvious.
* 19 Jul - 15 Aug 1970 Buenos Aires (#1 Fischer 15/17, 3.5 pts ahead of Tukmakov; 4 to 6 pts ahead of Panno, Najdorf, Reshevsky, Gheorghiu, Smyslov, Mecking--all except Gheorghiu in this group were former/future Candidates)  Confirming clear #1 status.
* 5-27 Sept 1970 Siegen Olympiad (Spassky's win against Fischer; Fischer's board one performance was solid but not otherworldly like his other 1970 results--calls #1 status into question a bit)
* 8 Nov - 13 Dec 1970 Palma Interzonal--3.5 point margin--confirmation of clear #1 status
Two things: I think this year needs to be fleshed out a bit: one could argue that RJF was #1 as early as 1966-67, but he certainly wasn't dominant until 1970.    
Also, per RvF page 190, Tal said circa April(?) 1970 that USCF was working on the Interzonal problem. Billbrock 21:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1970 chronology 

message: Much as I appreciates Krakatoa's efforts to update the article, I think there's too much wikilinking of words. For words which everyone knows the meaning of, and which have no special meaning for the article (e.g. legend, competition, popular), I think wikilinking adds nothing to the article, and actually detracts from it (because there's so many useless links, you miss the useful ones). As for the work it takes: I'd rather the work went into real improvements to the text. But before I go reverting, I'd like to hear other opinions. Rocksong 03:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so if you see me delinking, now you know why. :) Though I probably won't do it soon, since you and others have been busy on this article lately. Rocksong 06:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done, I think. Krakatoa 08:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Re: wikilinking dates: One reason to wikilink dates is so that you can use your preferences to choose the date style.  That only applies to full dates, however, and there are differences of opinion whether linking bare years is good or not.  My opinion is generally not. WP:DATE and its talk page discuss this. 66.191.124.83 22:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Rocksong is correct.  The Wikipedia Manual of Style, (specifically the article WP:CONTEXT) explains pretty well why excessive wikilinking does more harm than good, and what should or shouldn't be linked. SubSeven 23:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much wikilinking 

message: RJF is an antisemite.  He's chosen to make that the core of his existence.  Were I he, I'd stick to sardines & kefir.  But facts are facts.  
I rv'd recent anon edits (except for one sentence that I thought deserved to go myself--re RJF getting cut off by a Hungarian radio station for his hate speech). 
There is a legitimate issue of emphasis in this article: I've been begging ppl to add chess content for the underrepresented years 1967-1971. If one wants to see one's hero in a better light, start there....  Billbrock 07:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems the same "editor" (read: antisemite) argues that Einstein stole special relativity from Poincaré. Billbrock 15:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hello, anon editors 

message: A recent edit to the column claimed that; I don't believe it.  Larry Evans may have assisted in its writing (as with MSMG), but it seems out of character that RJF would allow his name to be put to ghostwritten analysis.  Also, I believe there was at least ONE column explicitly written by Evans as guest columnist for Fischer, which included a Fischer win against Ratmir Kholmov at Skopje 1967.  This would argue against the claim, I think.  Billbrock 23:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boys' Life column ghostwritten? 

message: This article needs to be broken up into sections for easier editing, if only to save wear-and-tear on the Wikipedia servers... --Wfaxon 18:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sectionize 

message: The text under the subheading "Revenge Match of the 20th Century" begins suggesting that the match was against Spassky, and ends suggesting that the match was against Kasparov. The reason for this transition is not clear. --Amanaplanacanalpanama 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it up a little bit. SubSeven 10:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  clearification 

message: I don't understand why Fischer is listed under "Jewish Chessplayers". Sure, his mother was jewish. So? After all, Judaism is a religion and Bobby was a follower of the Christian World Wide Church of God. He even wrote a letter to the encyclopedia judaica writing that he is not nor has ever been a jew. So why the listing? It DOES matter what Fischer claims! Or are you so racially obsessed that you are going to claim everybody with the slightest drop of jewish blood is a jew? That's simply ridiculous! Fischer even hates Judaism and isn't circumcised. He was born to a jewish mother, okay, but he is not a jew. Get this fact in your head. What's really annoying here is that if Bobby wasn't a chess genius, no single jew would ever claim he's a jew. It's just so typical...
BTW - what's someone with a jewish mother and a muslim father? According to the jews, a jew (if he becomes famous, of course), but according to Islam, a muslim. A muslim jew? You get the point.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.140.220 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 16 October 2006
:While I strongly disagree with the tone of the above comment, I have to agree with the basic point: Fischer clearly does not consider himself to be Jewish, and has gone so far as to write to the Encyclopedia Judaica (in a manner that is sadly typical of his anti-Semitic personality) explicitly denying their characterization of him as Jewish -- see http://www.geocities.jp/bobbby_a/list/p_42/42_0.htm . With this in mind, I think it is appropriate to delete the reference to him as a "Jewish chessplayer" unless and until someone can demonstrate that he has changed his position on his own identity.AlGordonCCD 17:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really a good argument.  Fischer has strongly condemned the U.S.—should he then be removed from :Category:American chess players?  The fact is that Fischer's mother and likely biological father were both Jewish and Fischer is named as a Jewish chess player in dozens of WP:RS sources.  Notice that Fischer is ethnically Jewish, not religiously.  The fact that Fischer does not self identify as a Jew is adequately made in the article and by his inclusion in :Category:Anti-Semitic people.  Since Fischer is categorized as Jewish in multiple sources, for Wikipedia to declare him not Jewish would be WP:OR and fail WP:V.  24.177.112.146 08:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just the sources, but the quality of the sources. For me, the best source (apart from Fischer himself) is Encyclopedia Judaica. When Fischer wrote to them stating he was not Jewish, they complied and removed him from EJ. So the best sources say he's not Jewish. So he's not. Rocksong 09:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's the source that says that EJ removed Fischer?  Is this in fact verified?  How is EJ the best sources?  Surely it counts as only a single source?  Even if that single source no longer includes Fischer, it alone doesn't outweigh all the sources that list Fischer as Jewish, and it certainly doesn't mean that Fischer is not ethnically Jewish.  To say that Fischer is not Jewish does not reflect the dominant point of view, and gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint.  As for quality of sources, how about Profile of A Prodigy, or Bobby Fischer Goes to War: How the Soviets Lost the Most Extraordinary Chess Match of All Time?  There are many many others.  24.177.112.146 07:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "sources" (plural) which I refered to were EJ, and Fischer himself. In any case, here is a reference that EJ complied The Jewish Daily Forward, 23-Jul-2004. And no, you don't count sources, you weigh their importance. Do the books you cite refer to Fischer's religion after the mid-60s? In my library, I've only got two book that do this (ironically both by Jews). From Morphy to Fischer (by Israel Horowitz Batsford, 1973) never calls Fischer Jewish as far as I can see, but on p.232 (describing the events of Sousse 1967) says, "Reshevsky is an Orthodox Jew and Fischer a member of a fundamentalist Christian sect; both observe the Sabbath.". So Horowitz says he's not Jewish. Reuben Fine's "The World's Great Chess Games" (McKay, 1976) never calls him a Jew, but says, "he joined a religious sect some time around 1965 that went back to the fundamentals of the Bible. He has remained true to this sect ever since.". I'll call that one unclear. But that's 3 pretty good sources saying he's not Jewish: Fischer himself, Encyclopedia Judaica, and Horowitz. Rocksong 09:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a semantic argument.  I am not anti-semantics (oy).  We all agree that neither Fischer nor his mother practiced Judaism, correct?  So he's not a Jew in that restricted sense.  Do we all also agree that at least one of Fischer's parents (and possibly both) were of Ashkenazi descent?  So he is a Jew in that restricted sense.  To create a separate category of "self-hating ethnic Jews" seems unencyclopedic.  Billbrock 19:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cf. Mendelssohn and Disraeli. I think the category designation is appropriate. Billbrock 00:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, though RJF's case is a bit different because he has specifically disowned Judaism. But I've cited my references and I'm going to drop it now. I'm coming to the conclusion that categories based on ethnicity or religion are a waste of time, largely exist for racial point-scoring, and should be expunged from Wikipedia. Rocksong 02:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No disrespected intended to Michael Reese Hospital, but the "People from Chicago" cat is fa more problematic.  Brooklyn boy.  Billbrock 00:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jewish Chessplayers" cat. 

message: I removed the "racism" section recently added to the article: go to www.fischer.jp and search for "Wikipedia" on the page.  User:Curtains99 (Greg Shahade?) made a similar correction earlier; see talk archives.  (Do you expect the source you cited to quote accurately?  Heh.)  Billbrock 16:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  no evidence for "n-word" 

message: An IQ test at school I can believe, though I wonder how it became public. An anonymous user has now written that he was tested again as an adult. Knowing what we do about the beahviour of the adult Fischer, I won't believe that without a cite and I propose deleting it. Rocksong 10:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, no objections, so I'm going to remove the uncited claim of an adult IQ test. Rocksong 10:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fischer's IQ (again) 

message: I'm not a big fan of the ephemeral crapola that goes into such sections.  OTOH, I recall some ephemeral crapola, and it is an index of the pervasiveness of the Fischer myth: the "I'm Bobby Fischer" scene in The_Unbearable_Lightness_of_Being, Chess_%28musical%29 and an episode of Columbo, "smart as Bobby Fischer" in Extra_Ordinary , blah blah--there must be many more. Now if someone who likes chess could add all the obvious missing stuff from the bio, that would be nice.   Billbrock 09:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is it with Wikipedians' desire to insert ephemera in every biography? :-) Billbrock 01:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! I propose removing it all, except for Searching for Bobby Fischer. And possibly the Law & Order episode (because it's quite a major show (the ads keep telling me) and it's obviously heavily based on Fischer). My opinion on this: when someone less famous (e.g. some obscure band) references someone more famous (like Fischer), then it doesn't deserve a mention. Rocksong 05:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture 

message: Shouldn't that title be applied to USSR-Rest of World, Belgrade 1970?  Or best not applied to any match (unencyclopedic cheerleading)....  Billbrock 17:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I always thought the 1970 match had the title. I'll change the refs in this article, and eventually change Match of the Century to a disambigiation page pointing to both.  Rocksong 09:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Match of the Century? 

message: As mentioned previously, I felt sure I had read an opinion of Fischer's mental condition in CHESS magazine or British Chess Magazine. Having now waded through ten or so lengthy articles, probably the best, most direct reference comes from a transcript of a Larry Parr - GM Larry Evans interview (CHESS; Nov. 2004, p.30) which goes ...
:Parr: When asked on CNN whether Bobby Fischer is crazy, you responded that he was "delusional". What do you mean by that? How is that different from being crazy?
:Evans: Crazy is too broad. Bobby functions well until it comes to his pet peeves. He still denies that the Holocaust ever took place, and he blames a Jewish conspiracy for stopping him from playing chess for 20 years between 1972 and 1992. If that's not delusional, what is? Another sign of his mental state is that Bobby seldom has a good word to say about anyone and makes wild charges without a scintilla of proof. Here's how he describes Karpov and Kasparov, the two champions that came after him, "These criminals have been ruining chess with immoral, unethical, pre-arranged games. They are the lowest dogs around". We're still waiting for the book he promised to back up these charges.
Brittle heaven (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately wikipedia isn't based on what one might hear from giving phone calls to people who know something about the subject of the article but rather published sources. If this person who you claimed knew Fischer very well publishes something reliable about him then by all means it should be inlcuded in the article. As for Fischer's comments about Kasparov and Karpov I have never heard Karpov, Kasparov or Kramnik ever saying bad things about Fischer and most certainly none of them ever even dreamed of saying that Fischer pre-arranged games, that he's a criminal or the lowest dog. Loosmark (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment I don't just claim it, he is mentioned twice in the article and it's a well sourced fact. I'd like to add that while Karpov, Kasparov and Kramnik may have become FIDE champions they never actually did capture Fischers linear WORLD championship which traces it's lineage to 1948 when Mikhail_Botvinnik won the World Chess Championship tournament and ends in 2008 with the death of Robert Fischer.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

text: This should be added to the article somehow, it's a well known fact that Fischer claimed that he was still world champion since he never lost a world title match and it's as honorable an opinion as any other and factually correct.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So basically Fischer was the last real world champion we ever had? Loosmark (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can see that you are unfamiliar with the term "Lineal champion" so I suggest you look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lineal_champion basically no Fischer wasn't the last real world champion we ever had but Kasparov, Karpov and Kramnik never held an undisputed title cause Fischer made a legit claim to the world championship since he never did actually lose it. With the death of Bobby Fischer and the apparent lack of criticism regarding Viswanathan Anand's championship status a new lineage of an undisputed world championship held by Viswanathan is born. But you can't for example somehow recognize Garry Kasparov's status as champion from 93 to 2000 just because he formed some organization to recognize his status and completely dismiss Bobby Fischers status as champion from 1975 to 2008. Now all of this doesn't mean that simply nothing happened between 1975 and 2008 those matches they did take place but they were not for The World Championship, they were rather matches for organization championships and also a sort of an elimination tournament for the undisputed real world championship which Viswananathan came to hold on January 17th 2008.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  With the death of Bobby Fischer and the apparent lack of criticism regarding Viswanathan Anand's championship status a new lineage of an undisputed world championship held by Viswanathan is born. Oh, I see. So Anand had to wait for Fischer to die for an "apparent lack of criticism" regarding his championship status to become the undisputed world championship? Just asking. Loosmark (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

text:  That sounds like a sarcastic question but tell me can you recognize Kasparovs status as champion from 1993 to 2000 while Completely ignoring Fischers status as champion from 1975 to 2008, how would that be possible?
If the answer to that question is No then when exactly can you ignore any and all claims made by Fischer to this end? in 76,77,78 it's hard to pinpoint a day so the fact remains that nobody ever beat the man to become the man and therefor Viswananathan only held fragments of the world title until he became the undisputed world champion over Bobby Fischers dead body so to speak.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Why are you asking me about Kasparov's status from 1993 to 2000, according to your logic you should rather ask 1985 to 2000? Loosmark (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's like this, some people want to give recognition to Garry Kasparov as champion from 1993 to 2000 due to the fact that he did not lose a championship match despite the fact that he like Fischer did not hold the FIDE championship at that time, do you see the similarity?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really, had Kasparov refused to play against Short there would have been similarities but he did play and beat Short. Loosmark (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So if Fischer had played against Karpov in 2006 and beat him then those similarities would have been there but since that never happened then these things are in no way comparable? No it's very simple, both were stripped or forfeited their FIDE championships but they never lost championship matches therefor one can't be considered to have enjoyed a championship status for years after he was stripped while the others reign simply ended when he sent a letter.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So if Fischer had played against Karpov in 2006 and beat him then those similarities would have been there but since that never happened then these things are in no way comparable? Karpov in 2006? lol. Man Karpov in 2006 was already lightyears from the top, he was practicaly semi-retired. Had Fischer played against Karpov during the late 70s, even outside FIDE and had he backed that up with many tourney victories then yes, the chess community would probably have still considered him de-facto champion. Loosmark (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

text:  Fair enough, I shall look for some good sources regarding this and make a suggestion for a proposed sentence or paragraph regarding the matter here on the talkpage.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Generally if you don't play, you are not considered the champion.  For instance, if the supposed best US player doesn't play in the US Championship, he isn't considered the US Champion.  A better case would be to look at USSR Chess Championship and compare it to the world champions since 1948, especially the Soviet ones.  Notice that when the current world champion was a Soviet player, the USSR champion was never (or almost never) the world champion.  The world champion usually didn't play in the USSR championship, therefore he was not the USSR champion.  Fischer didn't play for the 1975 world championship, so he can't be considered the world champion.  In fact, Fischer resigned the world championship title before the match would have taken place.  Bubba73 (talk), 06:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very good point, Fischer himself resigned his title so there can't be no doubt that he wasn't the world champion anymore. Of course one could argue that he was still the strongest player but that's another matter. Loosmark (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

text:  That's right.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this is wrong in that RJF resigned the FIDE World Championship, but still claimed to be WC outside of FIDE (compare the Kasparov-Short break from FIDE). Billbrock (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: 194x144x90x118 have you considered the idea of making your own webpage about Fischer? that way you could write about how he was the world champion till he died, about how he wasn't an antisemite, that he only kept that ugly book for a third person, that the things he wrote he didn't really wrote etc etc etc etc etc. Loosmark (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a personal attack. Please strike it out thank you.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, i thought you were arguing all that, if you weren't i sincerely appology. Loosmark (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fischer's mental condition in later years 

message: While doing some research on Ralph Ginzburg I read about the interview with Fischer. Says one writer:
*In late 1961, just before he played in and won the Stockholm Interzonal, Bobby Fischer gave a notorious interview to Ralph Ginzburg which was published in January 1962 of Harper's Magazine. He was only 18 years old and was a bit too candid with the journalist. Anyway, I quote a very controversial portion of that interview...
Ginzburg had an odd obit in a chess publication:
*MAN WHO MADE BOBBY HATE MEDIA
* To chessplayers, he was simply "the guy who did the Fischer article." In August 1961, when Ginzburg was virtually unknown, he interviewed Bobby Fischer for several hours, some of it tape- recorded. Until then, 17-year-old Bobby had enjoyed nothing but positive press and had rarely been quoted except in "What's your favorite opening?"-type interviews. ... Fischer's relations with the media were never the same after that, and he became obsessed with controlling his public persona. This indirectly led to subsequent lawsuits, his adopting a virulent anti-U.S. attitude and ultimately the federal indictment that made him an exile.
The current description of the interview merely mentions the clothes. (The rook-shaped house is probably interesting too.) If this assessment is true, should we add a half or whole sentence about him becoming more guarded after it was printed?   Will Beback  talk   11:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ginzburg interview 

message: It's true that Bobby Fischer have never played for Iceland, but he had citizenship of Iceland. Also, his statements were Anti-Jewish and Anti-American. Maybe, the fact that his origin was Jewish and he was born in the United States makes him Jewish American, but it's clear that he had dual citizenship and that must be registered in the article as many other famnous people became Americans, getting the citizenship. In same occasions, if he was for example Icelandic, who got American citizenship, he would be declared as Icelandic-American. In the articles about dual citizenship is noted that those people were born or have origins form the country where they do not live (ex. German-Americans are Germans in the United States). It's ridcilous to say that Bobby Fischer wasn't American in Iceland. Maybe the current occasions caused this, but it happened and is the real situation. Also, in the article aren't categories that categorized him as Icelandic.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You make excellent points. Fischer however wasn't Icelandic he was just an Icelandic citizen who lived here for a few years instead of rotting away in jail for the horrible crime of playing chess. Most people will remember Fischer for being that crazy American chess champion, I once edited the article to the end that I inserted that he was an American chess grandmaster when a nationality/origin was previously not mentioned. Please make some sort of a proposal for a change and lets see if we can't make this article better.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The lede states that later in life he became an Icelandic citizen. That is enough to say. The fact is that during his playing career and for almost all of his life he was an American citizen. It would be undue to give equal weight to his American and his Icelandic citizenship. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Nobody said that he would be categorized as "Icelandic chess player". The propose would be to categorize him as Icelandic, because he asked for this citizenship and got it. As I said above, it's clear that he was just American chess player. The category that I propose to be add is "Icelanduc people", because he had Icelandic citizenship. In the introduction is written that he had Icelandic citizenship, it is noted in the infobox, but it is not categorized. There is the Category:German Americans, which for me is disputed, because it is known that he was from Polish Jewish parents from Switzerland. This category should be deleted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please explain what precise change(s) to the article you are proposing (change such-and-such wording, add such-and-such category, etc.)? This isn't clear to me. Krakatoa (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with any of those three things, including adding Fischer to the American-Icelandic category if there is one. Given the evidence that Fischer's biological father was the Hungarian-American Paul Nemenyi, and the lack of evidence that the German Gerhardt Fischer (whom Bobby never met) was Fischer's father, it seems appropriate to me to delete Fischer from the "German Americans" category. Krakatoa (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: "American Icelandic" would have been appropriate but it turns out that there is no such category. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Given the discussion that has taken place I support the restoration performed by Sbowers3 at this point. Furthermore I propose that we remove the American Jews catagory and instead add the Americans of Jewish descent catagory classification per the discussion that can be seen at the top of this talkpage. If there are any objections to this then please voice them.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fischer a "German American"? Is that some joke? Loosmark (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The :Category:German American "lists articles on American people of German descent (ethnic ancestry or national origin), including naturalized immigrants and their descendants as well as American people born to binational parents and their descendants." Do you disagree that Fischer qualifies? Sbowers3 (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The Category:Americans of Jewish descent has been deleted. Discussion here. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read that discussion it seems to me as if the thing to do in this case is then to only remove Fischer from the American Jews category. Not wanting to participate in any sort of an edit war regarding this matter I ask that if anyone disagrees with this that they voice their objection here on the talkpage. The way I see this working out now is that the only thing that would take place if this proposal of mine is put into action is that a single category would be detached from this article namely the American Jews category.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree with that. I would also remove Fischer from the :Category:German American, since there is no evidence that Gerhardt Fischer, who was refused admission into the country several years before Fischer was conceived, was in fact Fischer's biological father. Nor did Gerhardt participate in raising him - Fischer never met the man, and Fischer's mother divorced Gerhardt a few years after Bobby's birth on the ground that he had deserted the family. Bobby's only real connection to Gerhardt Fischer is that he got his surname from him; Gerhardt didn't conceive him, never met him, and as far as I know didn't contribute to his support. (Paul Nemenyi, apparently Bobby's biological father, made monthly child support payments to Regina.) A shared surname is a rather tenuous basis for categorizing someone as a "German-American". Krakatoa (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the evidence that Fischer's father was in fact not Gerhardt is abundant but in my honest opinion it is still only an unproven theory and as such I don't think that we can state that it is a fact that Gerhardt Fischer wasn't Fischers father. I must say that I doubt anyone really feels strongly about this German American categorization of Fischer and I for one certainly don't, I therefor change my position to neutral regarding the issue, I neither support nor oppose the categorization being removed or kept in place.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: But Fischer himself claimed that his father was German. It might have been a false claim but that claim along with Fischer's birth certificate are strong legal evidence. I don't see how we can legitimately ignore it but I won't fight over it. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt Fischer's mother told him Hans-Gerhardt was his father, and I assume had the same information entered on his birth certificate. Fischer's mother was an unconventional woman in a lot of ways, but it would hardly be surprising if she didn't want her son and the authorities to know that her son was the product of adultery. However, facts are facts. As the article says (with sources): Bobby Fischer was born at Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago, Illinois on March 9, 1943. ... A 2002 article by Peter Nicholas and Clea Benson of The Philadelphia Inquirer suggests that Paul Nemenyi, a Hungarian Jewish physicist, was Fischer's biological father. The article quotes an FBI report that states that Regina Fischer returned to the United States in 1939, while Hans-Gerhardt Fischer never entered the United States, having been refused admission by US immigration officials because of alleged Communist sympathies. Regina and Nemenyi had an affair in 1942, and he made monthly child support payments to her. If, as certainly appears to be the case, Hans-Gerhardt wasn't Fischer's father, then he's not "German American". Krakatoa (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just remember Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." I just took a quick look in google for "Bobby Fischer father". There are numerous reliable sources stating that Gerhard Fischer was his father. There are other reliable sources stating that his father most likely was Nemenyi. My guess is that the sources stating Fischer was the father were a little lazy in their research; the sources suggesting - but not stating definitively - Nemeny was the father dug a little deeper. But it's not my job to guess. There are reliable sources on both sides, so the category:German American is neither right nor wrong. You would be right to remove it; another editor would be right to add it back. If you remove it, then it might be a good idea to add a hidden comment advising other editors to read the talk before adding it back in. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not Icelandic? 

message: One hopes this will be slightly less controversial.  Any reason for retaining the various Chicago categories?  For practical purposes, RJF's connection to Chicago ends at birth.  Written one block from Willis Tower. Billbrock (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What an outrage - you should be banned forthwith!!!! Just kidding. Yes, I'm inclined to agree. I can't even tell when Fischer's family moved away from Chicago, but it was evidently long before he even learned chess. Written from Park Ridge, Illinois, four blocks from Chicago and two blocks from the girlhood home of Hillary Clinton. I now agree, as to Chicago, with  Quale's comment below. Krakatoa (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which various Chicago categories do you mean?  I see only :Category:People from Chicago, Illinois, which seems appropriate to me since it was his birthplace.  I think it odd that this page is included in the Chicago Wikiproject, but that's really their business I suppose and is not an issue for the article itself.  I'm not clear why the article is in the New York City cat in addition to the Brooklyn cat as the more specific Brooklyn seems sufficient.  Quale (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Chicago categories? 

message: If we're going to have these two opinions in the article then we might also want to add the opinion of Susan Polgar or perhaps even more people and well the article didn't look too nice with the two opinions inserted and I doubt that it would look any better with a third one too.
I ask that we come to a consensus on either keeping these opinions out of the article or on how they should be represented/worded but that we keep them out until we have done so.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinions, whether one, two, or three opinions, don't flow smoothly from that paragraph. At the very least they should form a new paragraph. But then they don't really fit into the subject of the section. Perhaps they would fit better into the "legacy" section. In that section we already have the opinion of the current world champion. Adding the opinion of former world champions (Kasparov and Spassky) would seem a reasonable fit. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's also the way I saw it. Perhaps a new paragraph or a section could be made for this material but I don't think that the specific opinions on that one match would belong very well in the legacy section. Only solution I see to this at the moment is to keep them out all together.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think giving the opinions of Kasparov and Spassky are reasonable and would not lead to other opinions being added. Also, I checked the history and the quote by Kasparov had been in the article about two years. It began life in the section on the 1975 World Championship, which is now the "Forfeiture of title". Perhaps it could be returned to there.BashBrannigan (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think both opinions are pretty lame. Spassky did nothing but 'big' Fischer up all his life; after all, win or lose, he'd make larger paychecks while Fischer was high profile or claiming he was still the world champion. Kasparov on the other hand, had to 'tough it out' in some bruising encounters with Karpov to become world champion. So he's hardly likely to say that Fischer was stronger than Karpov is he? That's like admitting he didn't deserve the title. These are the two people who are least likely to have an objective opinion, so I'm not convinced these entries would add anything encyclopedic to the article. Besides, it's all just guesswork - psychological factors, coolness under pressure, best preparation, best backroom team, who's in form, how their styles clash etc. etc. - all these things (and more) would have influenced the outcome, so predicting a winner with any degree of certainty is just plain foolhardy. Brittle heaven (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The fact that such none NPOV stuff survived in this article for two years is sad really. But yes if anybody has any change suggestions for the inclusion of this material then feel free to propose them and we'll take it from there.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Brittle heaven i don't understand your comments very well. Kasparov's opinion was an educated guess, he never said that Karpov would win 100%. He also never said that Karpov was stronger than Fischer as you seem to claim above. Loosmark (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't deny that Kasparov has a valid opinion on most things, but probably not this. Suggesting that Karpov might have won, I think implies that he considered Karpov the stronger. His criticism of both sides' play in Sveti Stefan was just another subtle reminder that he didn't fear Fischer at all—maybe rightly so given the time lapse. But generally, I just think that world champions either side of the guy under the microscope will have agendas, so I'd personally go with truly objective opinions, if any at all. It's questionable whether idle speculation, or in your words ... an educated guess ... has any real worth in the article. Brittle heaven (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMO suggesting that sb would win a match doesn't necessarily imply that the winner was a stronger chess player. Btw Kasparov's criticism of both sides' play in Sveti Stefan match was well deserved because the quality of play was poor by modern top GMs standards. Loosmark (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree. Incidentally, I believe that Korchnoi also opined on this somewhere, saying that he was trying to beat Karpov in their 1974 match "to save him from Fischer" - on the assumption that Fischer would have crushed Karpov. I know Robert Byrne also opined on this in his book Anatoly Karpov: The Road to the World Chess Championship, saying that Karpov wouldn't have had a chance. But I would be inclined to stick to opinions from world champions (Kasparov, Spassky) and possibly Korchnoi, who twice came within a point of becoming champion (he lost to Karpov by a point in their 1974 match, and lost 6-5 to Karpov in 1981). Krakatoa (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Crikey, I've heard it all now. You would also put Korchnoi in the frame for an impartial opinion? He wouldn't be a tiny bit tempted to wind up Karpov and the Soviet machine after they trashed his reputation, took back his medals, refused his wife an exit visa? Sheer arrogance on my part I suppose, to suspect he could be anything other than a genuine, straight down the line, fan of Bobby's chess skills. Brittle heaven (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Korchnoi's not impartial, either. Sure, he hated Karpov. From a chess perspective, Kasparov, Spassky, and Korchnoi are three of the most qualified persons to opine on the issue, but they all have various axes to grind. I would say that Byrne does, as well - as an American, he could be expected to have a bias in favor of his countryman. Let's face it, practically anyone in the chess world is going to have some sort of bias - in favor of Fischer because they like his style better than Karpov's, in favor of Karpov because they think Fischer's a loon, national bias, etc. If you demand commentators who (a) are qualified to opine from a chess perspective (preferably strong GMs who - unlike Kasparov - have played both Fischer and Karpov) and (b) hold no biases in favor of or against either player, you have to forget about the "who would have won?" discussion altogether. Krakatoa (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My point exactly. This type of feature is excellent fodder for an entertaining, yet bias-laden magazine article. It just doesn't fit the profile of a factual, impartial encyclopedia entry. Brittle heaven (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. Moreover, in addition to the issue of bias, any opinion on the subject is highly speculative. Historically, such speculation has not fared particularly well. For example, Steinitz was expected to beat the upstart Lasker in 1894, Lasker to beat Schlechter in 1910 (instead, Lasker drew the match by the skin of his teeth by winning the last game), Capablanca to thrash Alekhine (to whom he had never lost) in 1927, Alekhine to beat Euwe in 1935, Euwe to beat Alekhine in 1937, Tal (who had crushed Botvinnik in 1960, winning by four games) to win their 1961 return match (instead, Tal lost by five games), Spassky to beat Petrosian in 1966, etc. I am not 100% sure, but both because of bias and the speculative nature of any such judgment, I think I am now inclining toward your view. Besides, the article is very long as it is - if material is of questionable value, as I think these opinions are, it's probably best to leave it out. Krakatoa (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia did include speculative opinions in the Morphy article. This quote is included by Anderson after his loss to Morphy: "Anderssen also attested that in his opinion, Morphy was the strongest player ever to play the game". The reason this quote is included is the Staunton match never occurred. Is this not a comparable? If we are to remove speculation on a Fischer-Karpov match, shouldn't we remove the one on a Morphy-Staunton match?BashBrannigan (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, revisiting the Morphy-Staunton saga may open old wounds, but I think it's a good question and it is difficult to know where to draw the line. We have an article Comparing top chess players throughout history, which I'm sure raised a few eyebrows at the time it was written. However, it seems to be accepted that a player's strength can be measured in a number of valid ways i.e. results-based analyses, whether driven by Elo, Chessmetrics, tournament victories, Championship tenure or otherwise. So, on balance, I think if someone is labelled the "strongest player ever", the inquisitive reader can decide whether the various analytical approaches support the claim. It's transparent, scientific and within certain parameters, verifiable. I certainly take your point about the motivation for the remark though. Brittle heaven (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Krakatoa, I think you've made a solid argument and I'm now inclined to think these opinions should be left out. It comes to what has informational/knowledge value and also is it a consensus?. The Anderson opinion is appropriate because it clarifies, and does it succinctly, that Morphy would have likely defeated Staunton and therefore the quote has value and serves a function in the article. It is also satisfies that it's a consensus of opinion. However, there is NO consensus of opinion that either Fischer or Karpov would have won and also what value does it really have? Anderson's opinion is information/knowledge while any opinion a Fischer-Karpov match is almost more in the category of trivia.BashBrannigan (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - without being told, the reader would assume that had Fischer-Karpov 1975 occurred, it (like almost any world championship match) could have gone either way. Saying essentially, "According to Kasparov, the match could have gone either way" is not very enlightening. Krakatoa (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kasparov and Spassky Opinions 

message: 194x144x90x118 removed from the article Kasparov's opinion that Karpov would have won against Fischer and replaced it with Spasski's opposite claim. I reverted this change telling him that he's free to add Spasski's opinion but there is no reason to remove Kasparov's. To this 194x144x90x118 just removed Kasparov's opinion again with this crazy comment: Cramming both opinions into the article didn't look too pleasing for the eye. Opinions? Loosmark (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree "didn't look too pleasing to the eye" is hardly a compelling reason and it's fairly subjective. He said "perhaps it could be reworded". It's fairly short already and I don't feel it needs rewording. I honestly was surprised 194x144x90x118 undid my edit as I thought he would be pleased that I included his contribution. Deleting both seems more like a "my edit, or no edit at all" attitude. I'm debating undoing his deletion and reverting back to mine, but I'm uncertain if I wish to start an edit war over this. Perhaps 194x144x90x118 could give better justification here.BashBrannigan (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think that it's appropriate to discuss this matter under this section with all these accusations of bad faith floating, in the section above I point to the fact that if we are going to describe the two opinions of those men that maybe we should also mention Susans opinion but then the article would look like even more of a mess. I am ready to listen to all proposals and don't intend to do anything else than to just handle this civilly but I will not answer any more questions or comments under this unpleasant section.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Let's put aside the question of which editor did what, where, why. The better question is whether or not to include one or two or three expert opinions and if so where. I've made a suggestion in the section above and I ask that this discussion be continued up there rather than in this section so that we concentrate on that question and not on editors' personalities. Thanks. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of sourced material 

message: A section has just been added "Cruel and unusual treatment suffered in Japan". However the two references are not in English. Perhaps it going to be edited further, but right now I only see those two non-english references. Does anyone know the Wikipedia rules for this? Maybe this isn't a problem, but it doesn't seem right to me. I know you can use Google translate, but that unreliable.BashBrannigan (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi the rules are that if English references are not available that none english references are aokay if they are reliable. Discounting that what do you think of the section?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The section, as written, was POV and far too long. I have deleted it. There is a ChessBase article in English regarding Bosnitch's efforts on Fischer's behalf, with a lot of links. Krakatoa (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-English references on Wikipedia English??