Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

The 64 Numerology

The edit in question

Hi guys

I noticed this deletion just now and to be honest I for one had no problem with that 64 numerology thingy that got deleted but this of course is a matter of policy and such and I would like some input on this from other users if possible. Thanks,--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was the (admittedly cranky) editor. There are 32 pieces in chess: should we reference this for all the great masters who died at 32? Seriously, stuff like this is blatantly unencyclopedic. Billbrock (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
No, in chess terminology, there are 16 pieces and 16 pawns. Neither 16 nor 32 has the same resonance as 64.WHPratt (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
There are three distinct uses of the word "piece" in chess, see chess piece. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 21:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I was only using one definition to argue that the number 32 had no particular significance, since it doesn't even enumerate the standard ration of chessmen unambiguously. WHPratt (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Billbrock - I too think it's unencyclopedic and too trivial for inclusion.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Many people find this interesting. More importantly, its notability is shown by the fact that it was remarked on by CNN (citing GM and former Women's World Champion Susan Polgar), ESPN ("Noted French chess expert Olivier Tridon: 'Bobby Fischer has died at age 64. Like the 64 squares of a chess board.'"), Commentary magazine ("a young but perfect age for a chess genius to die"), and the Huffington Post (which used the same AP story that ESPN did). I think the sentence in question should be put back in. Krakatoa (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I think not... this smacks too much of numerology, astrology, phrenology and the like. There's no esotherical or metaphysical symbolism attached to it. The user above is right about the number 32, if it turns out that his foot size multiplied by Pi equals the age at which he became world champion, shall we include it too? 81.145.166.130 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I suppose if the fact you made up was indeed a fact, and was of sufficient interest that it was cited by Susan Polgar and multiple respected news sources, it would be notable too. It's none of those things. The one sentence now excised from the article says nothing about numerology, astrology, or phrenology. That, like your foot size times pi bit, is your invention. Krakatoa (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
There's a larger issue underlying my cranky edit. As I previously noted, brevity, proportionality, and focus are all missing from this bloated article: the years 1970-71 still get short shrift. Billbrock (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that you guys are missing the point, this is a Chess related article about a Chess player and in terms of interesting from a "chess point of view" then those things fit very well into the article, if he had died at 63 or 68 then this wouldn't be in the article but he didn't he died at the classical chess age of 64 and noting its chess relevance is quite appropriate I think.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no mention in the article on Wilhelm Steinitz that he also died at age 64. I don't want this fact highlighted in either article. It's a trivial coincidence which amused a few journalists but has nothing significant to add to a biography. Ewen (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally am satisfied with the discussion that has taken place regarding this and I don't think that discussing this any more is necessary, the majority opinion seems to be that this does not belong in the article and even if we can't reach any sort of overwhelming consensus I think that a majority opinion is sufficient to just leave things as they are.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, i not only think the fact is relevant and interesting, but that together the fact that he had chosen to not prolongate his life artificially, makes it very curious. the fact is: everyone who knows that a chessboard have 64 squares, and know something about Fischer's personality, will recognize that as, at least, a curious and interesting fact. The life of Fischer is full of symbolic events, and maybe one has to have perspicacity to perceive it. I would suggest that to be include 'en passant' where its said the age he died, just because its beautiful for a chess player. The same with the fact that Alekhine died studying chess. Chess is also an art, and that curiosities are part of the poetry of chess history. Think about it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.74.179.246 (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have also edited "And so it goes" from the "Death" section of Kurt Vonnegut. Doesn't mean I didn't appreciate the editor's sentiment. Just because something is interesting or aesthetically pleasing doesn't mean that it merits inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Billbrock (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Also see Talk:Bobby_Fischer/Archive_4#64 Billbrock (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There used to be a Soviet chess magazine named 64. I note this only to demonstrate the the number already had some mythic quality in relation to chess. It's difficult to think of a number with greater resonance for a chess master's lifespan.WHPratt (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think the age 64 should be mentioned in the article. Whether it's trivial or not is dependent upon public notability. If it was mentioned on CNN and by Polgar, and I'm certain it's being mentioned in many other public forums, then it's no longer trivial. It's also irrelevant that it feels like numerology, because it's also irrelevant that numerology is garbage. I agree with the above comment that "64" does have a special connection to chess.BashBrannigan (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't numerology. It's irony. WHPratt (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Brother Carl?

I undid an edit which said Bobby's birth certificate mentioned a brother "Carl". There were no references for this, plus I thought Bobby only had a sister. I thought I would mention this here in case I'm wrong about this. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like possible vandalism to me. I've read a lot about Fischer, and no one ever said anything about him having a brother. And I wouldn't think that one's siblings would be noted on one's birth certificate anyway. Krakatoa (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
My birth certificate from the 1950s list the previous number of births for that mother, but I've never seen one that listed their names. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 18:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Justine and Jinky Young

Original source, Tim Krabbe's Chess curiosities, has been updated to correct a surname error. He also verified that the first name Justine is correct, not Marilyn, and suggests that the name Marilyn used in some reports is a journalism mix-up with the first name of Eugenio Torre's wife (personal correspondence). —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessEditor4 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

All the non-WP sources I’ve seen list J’s surname as Ong. —Wiki Wikardo 16:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. Samuel Estimo himself (the lawyer of Fischer's alleged daughter) and the Philippine newspapers said that the girlfriend's name is Marilyn Young, not Justine Ong. And the daughter's name is Jinky. See for instance:
But it's true that GM Eugene Torre's wife is also named Marilyn. - 112.201.188.17 (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Update: The name of GM Eugene Torre's wife is spelled "Marilin", not "Marilyn". - 112.201.188.17 (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Update: Marilyn Young's name is also written behind a postcard Fischer sent to her. The message behind the postcard is dated December 14, 2000. See the actual postcard here:

I think I found the original article that stated that Fischer's girlfriend is named "Justine":

However, that Atlantic article was not a news article but an opinion article. The article is dated December 2002. In 2002, it was not yet confirmed that Fischer had a girlfriend and a daughter in the Philippines. So the reports about "Justine", who "gave birth to a baby girl in 2000", seemed to be just inaccurate rumors. Jinky Young, the daughter of Marilyn Young, was actually born on May 21, 2001, and that's for a fact. - 112.201.188.17 (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Chess notation

Caption text Bobby Fischer's scoresheet from his round 3 game against Miguel Najdorf in the 1970 Chess Olympiad in Siegen, Germany. Throughout his career, Fischer used the older descriptive chess notation system when recording his games, never switching to the modern algebraic system.

I have an issue with this wording because while it is true, it paints the picture that Fischer was in some way advocating descriptive chess notation, when actually he was just doing the normal for players at his time. How about sying something more neutral. SunCreator (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Descriptive was indeed the norm in the U.S. at the time of his 1972 match against Spassky, and previously. However, I believe that he kept using it in his 1992 match with Spassky, even after the FIDE rules required the use of algebraic notation to record one's games. Krakatoa (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, DN is the older method in the US now, but it was the norm then. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 18:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

American vs American-born

Currently there is a mini-battle going on over how to designate Fishcer's nationality in the lead. I searched the archive and cannot find a comparable debate. To me, "American-born" seems deceptive. It is usually used when someone spent their childhood in the US, but their adult life somewhere else which isn't Fischer's case. However, can you be "American" if you renounce citizenship? Technically, "was an American Grandmaster" is correct, since even if he died not an American, he was an American Grandmaster at one time. Opinions? BashBrannigan (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you - he was an American citizen for some 61 of his 64 years so to describe him as "American born" would indeed be highly misleading. "An American chess grandmaster" is fine - that's what he was. The last sentence of the first paragraph mentions that he renounced his US citizenship late in life. so it's not as if we're hiding anything.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Also agree. For virtually his entire chess career he was known as an American Grandmaster. The only possible exception that comes to mind was the second Spassky match. Even then I think he was technically still an American though he had been living abroad for many years. It is thoroughly accurate to say that he was an American Chess Grandmaster. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me the issue is being understated a little and requires some work. Saying he was an American chess Grandmaster is clearly accurate but why don't we skip that and just go to saying he was the eleventh World Chess Champion. SunCreator (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Giving this more thought, SunCreator's suggestion has been used before, with Alexander Alekhine whose nationality was also somewhat indeterminate. He's referred to in the lead as "was the fourth World Chess Champion".BashBrannigan (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Number one in lead

I felt there was too much emphasis placed on the no.1 rating in the first paragraph. Official ratings were only introduced in 1971, a year before Fischer retired, and don't know if back then they got the attention that they do now. His 54 months at no.1 was mentioned before we even found out what his nationality was. It didn't comply with WP:LEAD either, as none of it was mentioned in the main body of the article. I also don't think we need to have Kasparov, Karpov and even Magnus Carlsen mentioned in the opening paragraph. Let's keep the focus on Fischer.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

His position on the rating list, and the fact that his July 1972 rating of 2785 remained the highest ever until finally surpassed by Kasparov in the 1980s, definitely deserves a mention somewhere, but should it be in a separate "rating" section, or just contained within the Road to the Championship section?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship?

Quote from the article: "After Iceland granted him citizenship, the Japanese authorities released him to that country, where he lived until his death in 2008." This is correctly quoted from a Gruadian source, but I'm not sure it's correct. According to this photo (released by Reuters, unlikely to be photoshopped), on 22 February 2005, Iceland gave him an "alien passport" that says he was "stateless". He may have been granted full citizenship later, but even in this case the quoted sentence would be incorrect. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the statement is correct. BBC News, amongst other sources, explains "MPs in Iceland voted [in February 2005] against granting Mr Fischer citizenship, offering him instead a special foreigners' passport and rights to residence... Japan, however, refused to release the chess champion on such grounds." The Japanese only released Fischer once Iceland had voted him full citizenship on March 21, 2005. See also this earlier article which has another pic of his "alien passport". Ewen (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, interesting. In this case, the picture of his wife (?) happily presenting the alien passport must have been taken in the time between it was issued and the time Japan declared it would not release him on this basis. Maybe this should be inserted into the article. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic?

Are you people serious? He was anti-himself? I mean really are you fucking kidding us? The next time I disagree with the Chinese Government/state I suppose that I'll be anti-Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The 1972 World Championship Match

It says:

"Fischer would likely have forfeited the entire match, but Spassky, not wanting to win by default, yielded to Fischer's demands to move the next game to a back room, away from the cameras whose presence had upset Fischer.[197][198] The rest of the match proceeded without serious incident. "

This is potentially deceptive. They played the third game in an isolated room, but went back to the stage for the remainder of the match. Someone who reads this as it stands may conclude that "the rest of the match proceeded" via the back room! WHPratt (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Why not be bold and change it:)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Seeing no further comment in this discussion, I just changed it. Please check and refine as necessary. --Pawnbroker (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

His mother was really Jewish?

There are no documents whatsoever to attest that his mother was Jewish. All these press claims that his mother was Jewish all go back to a single 1962 interview of Fischer by Ralph Ginzburg, where Ginzburg claimed that Bobby privately told him that his mother was a Jew. We only have Ginsburg's word, nothing else. And Bobby always otherwise publicly insisted that he had no Jewish ancestry. It should be added to the article some of Bobby's repeated vehement denials that he had any Jewish ancestry whatsoever. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite news articles claiming Bobby Fischer's mother was Jewish, Fischer always denied he had Jewish ancestry even writing a letter to the Encyclopedia Judaica insisting that they remove his name. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. The references to his having Jewish ancestry are compelling.BashBrannigan (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The Forward writes that his ethnic heritage is a matter of dispute, see: http://www.forward.com/articles/5039/ 173.169.90.98 (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
You've taken it out of context. The thrust of the article is that Fischer was Jewish. When the article says it's "a matter of dispute" is was refering to Fischer own belief. When you used it out of context it implied a wide-spread belief. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an important difference between ethnicity/race/genetics/ancestry and religion. The only quote I have seen from his letter to the Encyclopedia Judaica (as quoted on the The Jewish Daily Forward web site at the link above) refers to whether or not he followed the practices and belief system of the Jewish religion. The quote in the article does not discuss his ancestry. The article says that the letter explained that "he was not circumcised". Circumcision is not genetic. The quote says that he objected to the use of his name "to try to promote your religion". That is not a statement about ethnic heritage. Unless someone can show that some part of that letter denies having Jewish ethnic ancestry, there is no reason to interpret that letter as a denial of Jewish ancestry. —Pawnbroker (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Now the question is, what is a jew ? Maybe Bobby's mother was a convert to Judaism. Maybe she was not ethnically a jew. Maybe Ginzburg just made it up. We are playing with words here. The fact remains that Bobby vehemently insisted he was not a Jew and that belongs in the article. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't disagree with that last remark, and I have not reverted your last edit (although I did refine it somewhat). I do disagree with the idea that there is no important difference between genetics and religion. —Pawnbroker (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Fischer himself said that his mother was Jewish (sorry I don't have a reference). Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 05:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Bobby never said his mother was a Jew, apart from Ginzburg's claim, and that belongs in Wikipedia's article. Ginzburg claimed that Bobby said it, and Ginzburg could have just made it up, and I think he did, to vex Bobby. Ginzburg claimed it in an article in 1962. Also, there is no evidence that Fischer's mother was even a Jew, apart from Ginzburg's claims, and that also belongs in Wikipedia's article. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The L.A. Times article "Chasing the king of chess" by Peter Nicholas, September 21, 2009, seems to refute that (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/21/nation/na-bobby-fischer21). Nicholas and his wife Clea Benson filed Freedom of Information Act requests, reviewed extensive FBI material obtained from those, conducted many interviews, and did other extensive research. Nicholas reported as fact that Fischer's mother was Jewish and said that "She would often turn to Jewish social service agencies for advice and financial aid". It seems clear that Nicholas did not rely on Ginzburg alone to reach that conclusion. The article also provides a lot of information about the identity of Fischer's father — strongly indicating that it was Nemenyi. Perhaps Ginzburg was the only one to claim that Fischer acknowledged it, but it seems to be well established by a reliable source that his mother was Jewish (and I haven't noticed any reports that anyone ever really claimed otherwise — at least as a matter of ethnicity, if not religion). —Pawnbroker (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
If true that "She would often turn to Jewish social service agencies for advice and financial aid" it does not necessarily prove she was Jewish. She could have been Catholic. And which "Jewish agencies" and when ? Sounds like a rumor. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
This comes up at regular intervals, sometimes as a question by a well-meaning individual and other times as a challenge by an obvious troll. It's probably tempting to just give up and remove any mention of Fischer's Jewish ethnicity just to avoid the endless argument, but I think you can't cave in to pressure applied by drive-by editors who harp on only a single note. See Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 1#Fischer Jewish?, Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 2#"Jewish Chessplayers" cat., Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 3#Evidence for Fischer's Jewish Heritage?, and Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 4#Jewish for some of the earlier examples. I can't speak for everyone, but as someone who has watched this article for several years, I find this tedious. Fischer's Jewish ethnicity is well supported by reliable sources. Quale (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Wait a minute. Your "reliable sources" are all simply repeating Ginzburg's claim that Bobby had once said it. And Bobby should know better than anyone if he were Jewish and he repeatedly insisted he was not. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
That is not true, and you are simply not paying attention. See what Pawnbroker wrote immediately above about Nicholas. The links I provided to old discussions talk a bit about what Brady wrote about this and also include some interesting things that editors found in old US census records and Ellis Island immigration records. Edmonds and Eidenow is one of several other sources. Even the Daily Forward article you cited does not contradict Fischer's widely reported Jewish ethnicity. Quale (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Nicolas and all the old links you provide are all just repeating Ginzburg's 1962 claim, which Ginzburg probably just made up, to vex Bobby. The same way Hitler's lawyer made it all up at Nurenburg that Hitler was Jewish, which he said just to vex certain people. Fact is, there is no hard proof Hitler nor Fischer's mother were Jews. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, so now we know where you stand. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Bobby denied having Jewish ancestry. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bobby-fischer21-2009sep21,0,1824779,full.story 173.169.90.98 (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Nicholas just made that up, to vex Ginzburg. :-) —Pawnbroker (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, are there any "reliable sources" that actually expressed any real doubt about whether Fischer's mother was Jewish? (Fischer himself would not appear to be classified as a "reliable source", of course.) —Pawnbroker (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
from [1] : When Bobby was 3, Nemenyi visited a social worker to complain about the way Regina was raising him. By then, he and Regina had split, and he was living in Washington. Regina was "mentally upset," and Bobby was an "upset child," he told the caseworker, apparently without results. Two years later, Nemenyi sought help again, telling a social worker that his son was "not being brought up in desirable circumstances, due to the instability of the mother."
It would be extremely unusual for a man to take such an interest in a child when he is not living with the mother, if the child was not his own. I mean, TWO YEARS AFTER LEAVING THE MOTHER he is still concerned for the child. Does anyone seriously think any man would be that concerned if it was not his biological child?
I am sick and tired of re-hashing this issue when it has been dealt with so often before. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, yes. I apologize for the irritation of continuing the discussion. But my question was about his mother, not Nemenyi. There are "reliable sources" (such as Nicholas) that state (as a fact) that she was Jewish. Yet someone (specifically 173.169.90.98) seems to be questioning that reported fact. What I asked was whether there are any "reliable sources" that express any doubt about her being Jewish. I haven't noticed any expression of doubt about that in the referenced articles. —Pawnbroker (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The best source of all is Fischer himself. He for years repeatedly insisted he was not a Jew. Wikipedia's article goes to great lengths to downplay this fact. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of Wikipedia guidelines, I don't think Fischer qualifies as a reliable source. —Pawnbroker (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Pawnbroker. Fischer certainly can't be considered an unbiased source for a matter related to an issue that he was so outspoken about. And Anon 173 is entirely off-based in the comment that "Wikipedia's article goes to great lengths to downplay this fact". There's an entire section on his anti-Jewish statements. Any more would be a serious violation of WP:WEIGHT. Cresix (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia downplays the fact that Fischer repeatedly, and vehemently, denied he was a Jew. Why does Wikipedia so badly want to make it appear the he was one ? He said he was not. Many times over. Wikipedia plays this down. And to the contrary, here is no hard evidence he was a Jew, nor his mother, just speculations by Wikipedia that Wikipedia pretends is fact when it is not. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Rubbish. He said he's not Jewish; there's only so much you can say about that. The article is well-sourced and unbiased. If you want changes in the article let me suggest that you post the information here first (with reliable sources) because you obviously have some sort of agenda and it needs to be toned down here before being added to the article. I see no need for further discussion on this matter. Cresix (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Note to other editors: Anon 173 has been identified as a likely sock of Licorne (talk · contribs), who was blocked for repeated anti-Semitic rants. See here. Cresix (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

His Father was really Hans-Gerhardt Fischer, a German biophysicist?

Reported By Ashley Fantz, CNN July 6, 2010 11:43 p.m. EDT:"FBI documents, according to the Los Angeles Times story, suggest Bobby Fischer's real father was Paul Felix Nemenyi, a Jewish Hungarian physicist, the journalists found. Regina got pregnant with Bobby when Gerhardt was out of the country, the documents showed. And Regina was studying in Colorado the same time Nemenyi was teaching there, though at a different school."Tomandzeke (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like tabloid reporting. No proof for it. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The "Early years" section of the article addresses these allegations - which seem pretty convincing to me. Krakatoa (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

ReginaFischer.jpg

I could not find in the article any explanation of the photo of Regina Fischer demonstrating in front of the White House. The sign seems to say "Ike says YES. The American Chess Federation says NO...". (The rest is illegible to me.) Does anyone know what the question was? If so, I think it should be in the article, or at least in the photo caption. Peter Chastain (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

See page 3 of the Philadelphia Inquirer story "Life is not a board game" by Peter Nicholas and Clea Benson, Sun, Feb. 9, 2003 (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/news/13891951.html?page=3&c=y). Quote: "There may have been friction, but there was also love. The same year Regina moved out, she went to Washington on a mission. Outside the wrought-iron gates of the White House, she staged a solitary five-hour protest, urging President Dwight D. Eisenhower to help send a U.S team to the chess olympics in East Germany." —Pawnbroker (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
That context (including the source) belongs in the article rather than this talk page. Otherwise the image needs to be removed. In fact, there is no fair-use rationale for the copyrighted image if it is not used to illustrate something discussed in the article. I'll give this a couple of days, then remove it as copyright violation if there are no changes. Cresix (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Added relevant material to article and source. This was also crucial to the article as I believe it illustrates that Fischer's mother was supportive. The photo is also crucial, to use the cliche "a picture is worth a thousand words." Fischer's relationship with his mother provides a significant insight into the person. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Problem solved. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

table of tournaments and matches

I think it would be good to have a table summarizing his tournaments and one for his matches. The book "Bobby Fischer for beginners" has a good summary. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you put some effort into it, I added to the table. I added a couple matches and added a column for the tournament. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Good, thanks. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 22:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Tournaments added - please check my typing in both sections. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Renunciation of citizenship?

The article in the "Detention in Japan" section claims that Fischer renounced his U.S. citizenship. Someone rightly added a "citation needed" tag to that. In fact, according to a recent New York Times article, the U.S. government claims that Fischer did not effectively renounce his citizenship. "Indeed, according to the State Department, Fischer died a United States citizen; he was never issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality." As explained here, renouncing one's U.S. citizenship is a formal procedure: just announcing at a press conference "I'm renouncing my U.S. citizenship" doesn't do it. I greatly doubt that Fischer went through the required procedure. Krakatoa (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Could it be said that he verbally renounced his US citizenship but didn't go through the official process? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
That is certainly possible. If there is support for the proposition that he orally renounced (or tried to renounce) his U.S. citizenship, I would be OK with a statement like the following: At a press conference on [date], Fischer said "I renounce my U.S. citizenship." However, the U.S. State Department has stated that Fischer's renunciation of citizenship was ineffective because he did not follow the procedure required by U.S. law. Krakatoa (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally I would rather such a minor detail as that be kept to a footnote.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
By the definition of renounce:"to refuse or recognize or abide by any longer". When you renounce your citizenship it means you no longer believe in the rules of that country. It would be a contradiction to expect someone who renounces their citizenship to then follow the official rules of that country for renouncing. Fischer renounced his citizenship and it's completely irrelevant what the United States government believes. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. First of all, the statement that Fischer renounced his citizenship has been tagged for one year as needing support, and none has been furnished. Second, renunciation of citizenship is a legal concept - if you don't do it right, it's ineffective, whether you like it or not. Analogously, if I announce three times "I divorce my wife," that might suffice under Islamic law, but here in Illinois it has no effect, and it would be erroneous to say "Krakatoa divorced his wife" based on my oral declarations to that effect. Third, the sentence conflicts with the later sentence in the same paragraph (which is sourced) saying that Fischer appealed to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to help him renounce his citizenship. The cited article supports the proposition that Fischer realized that there was a legally prescribed procedure for renouncing one's citizenship, and requested Powell's assistance with that procedure. I have combined the two sentences into the following: "Fischer stated that he wanted to renounce his U.S. citizenship, and appealed to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell to help him do so." How is that? Krakatoa (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I added a citation to the article, but didn't edit since we've already started a discussion. Renouncing citizenship is more than a banal legal procedure. Many who fled Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia renounced their relationship with those countries and they did it without going through proper legal procedures. In the letter cited, Fischer clearly says he renounces his American citizenship. That is clear. The fact that he is also attempting to make it "official" doesn't change that fact. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Fischer legendary?

Every so often, someone removes the phrase "Fischer's exploits are legendary"; currently one of those battles is going on. I believe that it's a perfectly acceptable phrase by Wikipedia's standards. There so many instances of "Fischer" and "legend" used together, in all media, that the only problem is deciding which one to use. Fischer career easily meets the definition of legend and it is backed up by usage in numerous reliable sources. Also, every phrase in Wikipedia need not be exactly worded as the source. It is not synthesis just because that exact phrase is not used in the media, if the phrase is used to represent a variety of phrases all conveying the same idea. So I believe the edit war should stop and we should choose a phrase that sounds best. Like him or hate him, Fischer is legendary. BashBrannigan (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Saying "CNN says he is a legend" trivalises it. He is a legend, and that's a fact. --Michael C. Price talk 18:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Well Fischer might be legendary but one can very well says the same about Morphy, Capablanca, Tal, Kasparov, Anand.. etc. It's somewhat subjective and better avoided on an Encyclopedia.  Dr. Loosmark  18:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
No, you need citations. If you have a few and the opposition none, they violate WP:NPOV and you can revert or whatever. If they have a few but less than yours, they have a minority opinion that should be given due weight. Etc. --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Currently the article states that Bobby Fischer is widely considered a "chess legend." and yet only one citation is provided, the CNN.  Dr. Loosmark  18:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure the sentence is necessary. We already say he's "widely considered one of the greatest chess players of all time" immediately beforehand - isn't that enough? Something needs to change because the repetition of the words "widely considered" is not good style.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Loosmark is correct that many players might all be called "legends." However, I was supporting the specific phrase "his exploits are legendary." The careers of Tal, Kasparov and Capablanca while extraordinary, do no markedly differ from each other or many other World Champions. But, trouncing both Taimanov and Larson in 1970 by 6-0 is one of many examples why "exploits are legendary" is appropriate. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I was the one who put in the "His achievements are legendary." sentence. I (predictably) agree with BashBrannigan. When I get a chance, I'll look for citations for the proposition that F's achievements are legendary. I have no doubt that I will find them. Calling someone's achievements legendary sounds hyperbolic, subjective, POV, yadda yadda yadda. But it's not so in Fischer's case - his achievements really are legendary. Krakatoa (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
A search for "Bobby Fischer" (legend OR legendary) gets 69,800 hits. Come on. Krakatoa (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
There are at least three books about Fischer that refer to him as a "legend": John Donaldson, A Legend on the Road: Bobby Fischer's 1964 Simultaneous Exhibition Tour; Raymond Keene, Fischer-Spassky II: The Return of a Legend; and Eduard Gufeld et al., Bobby Fischer: From Chess Genius to Legend. Krakatoa (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I see part of the problem is that Fischer was an American and much of the English media and publications we would be using as sources are by Americans. Thus there will be a bias towards "G.O.A.T." and "legendary" in our source material. WP:PEACOCK has a specific list of words that should be avoided in Wikipedia articles. The first paragraph ends with "He is widely considered one of the greatest chess players of all time." and is immediately followed by "Bobby Fischer is widely considered a 'chess legend.'". Both are peacocks, and while they could be attributed, I feel the article would be stronger if both were removed simply as Fischer's factual record does not need superlatives.
Thus I'd vote for removing both of those sentences and just did an edit that should help make things flow better with one longish lead paragraph. The goal is to show people reading this article that Fischer was (is?) legendary rather than telling the reader so. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
        • If Bobby Fischer's exploits are not legendary, then the word "legendary" has no meaning. The word "legendary" is intended to describe things like winning the US Championship 11-0, or defeating Bent Larsen 6-0 in a match, or qualifying for the Candidates tournament at age 15. Legendary means exploits that are so extreme it is hard to conceive that the really happened.````Fielding

US Championships results

Is it correct that in the list of US Championships results, Fischer is said to have "won" the 63-64 tournament 11-11? Firstly, surely this is a draw, and secondly, this contradicts the sentence below which says he won that year's tournament 11-0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.13.131 (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The article says "11/11" rather than "11–11". 11/11 is 11 points of 11 games, or a perfect score. 11–11 would be more likely to be used for a match score rather than a tournament score. I can understand how that can be confusing since chess scores can be given in several different ways. Quale (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Issues with the article

1) "Anti-Jewish statements", as slippery and non-committal term as I've ever heard, should be changed to "Anti-semitic statements" in order to reflect generalized Wikipedia standards for terminology, provide a relevant wikilink and bring the article up to basic quality standards. If anybody here wants to have an argument about whether or not the term anti-Semitic fairly applies to Bobby Fischer or whether such statements can be adequately backed up with dozens of independent reliable sources (which they can), please review his adequately quoted statements in the article, particularly as they relate to his wish for the extermination of the Jews and the denial of the Holocaust. 2) WP:WEIGHT is definitely an issue in an article about a world-class chess grandmaster who is better known by many for his hate speech. Considering WP:WEIGHT, we are provided with relatively little space to adequately describe a legacy of unapologetic racist ugliness that dates from the 1960s right up until the year he died. The best and only excuse I've heard from the many Fischer apologists was "He wasn't really an anti-semite, he was just insane!". There's precisely one reference from a non-medical contemporary that even suggests he was insane, and dozens that attest to his hatred for the "international Jewish conspiracy" he devoutly believed was controlling the world and oppressing him. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

RJF was an antisemite with Jewish friends, friends who tolerated his outbursts as an index of his mental illness. He had excellent relations with several of the top Soviet Jewish grandmasters (Stein, Bronstein, Tal). Further, his illness that was shaped by incredible historical circumstances: a Red Diaper baby born during the Holocaust and coming into political awareness during the Rosenberg trial years, having Nemenyi as biological father and the absent H-G Fischer as his legal father. And there seems to be some transparent self-loathing and self-denial: "Robert D. James"? I too don't care for apologias for RJF's hate speech, but I believe it's wrong to reduce RJF to the paranoid antisemite he became. Billbrock (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

new addition

A new addition: "After ending his competitive career, he proposed a new variant of chess, and a revolutionary new form of chess clock." One, FRC is similar to a lot of earlier variants. Two, the "revolutionary" clock is very similar to Bronstein delay - the difference is that one waits the increment before starting to count down, the other adds the increment. So I don't think it is revolutionary. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Is he a jew? Can we get this straight

Becomes someones on wikipedia assumes he isn't, there's a reliable source in the article which claim his mother to be polish-jewish, so by the Halakha law, he's a jew, take it or leave it. Userpd (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not ruled by the Halakha law. Take it or leave it.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know of a Wikipedia editor who has claimed that RJF was an observant Jew, or even that he considered himself Jewish. ("Jew" is polyvalent: it is more than a religious identity.) RJF was of Jewish descent. Had he not been a virulent antisemite, this fact might have been otherwise unremarkable. Billbrock (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC) P.S. See earlier discussion
He is a Jew. I don't understand why this is an issue. His mom is a Jew so he is a Jew. Only the Goyim have "half" English, "half" Italian which in the end are meaningless terms and only means that they are neither...lol. To a Jew to say that Bobby Fischer isn't a Jew is just as ridiculous to a Jew as saying someone is "half" of something. You are one or the other. Bobby Fischer can claim not to be one all he wants, but Jews claim him and it is the group that makes the Jew, not the individual. It is like that with every ethnic group. His "beliefs" about himself are inconsequential. If you are not Jewish ask your Jewish friends if you have any to explain this to you. This is quite funny to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.5.113 (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
...and this is an idiotic thing. If I consider myself not a Jew - it means that I'm not a Jew. Who the hell are the "community" to tell me who I am. There is a worldwide community of a billion+ people who believe in Allah. Another billion+ community believes in Jesus. All of them are wrong - god doesn't exist. So much for communities.
Judaism is a religion, not ethnicity or "race" --KpoT (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this debate can't seem to go away. But I believe the article properly deals with it. It only refers to Fischer as being of "jewish descent" and not that he was jewish. The relevancy of his ancestry is comparable to the fact that he was an American who turned against America. Ultimately Wikipedia must reflect the consensus of reliable sources. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"U.S." -or- "US"

There are lots of occurrences of "U.S." in the article, and lots of occurrences of "US". Can we have it one way or another for *consistency*? Which way? (Or will someone say it s/b "both ways" in the article - "depending"?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. The Manual of Style says that:
In American English, U.S. (with periods) is more common as the standard abbreviation for United States, although The Chicago Manual of Style now deprecates the use of the periods (16th ed.); US (without periods) is generally accepted in most other national forms of English.
The article seems to be in American English, and there are links to articles such as the U.S. Chess Championship, so I'll edit the 'US' references to the consistent 'U.S.'.
Ewen (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of 1972 Fischer vs Spassky photo by J Milburn

"No rationale" for including this photo? Gosh. How about, the photo captures a time and event which represents the pinnacle of Fischer's career and life? And summarizes his accomplisment of his life ambition to be the best. "No rationale" for being in Fischer's biography? Huh?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you be specific about which phot you refer to. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The point though, is does the image convey something that words alone cannot? as mentioned in criteria 1 of Wikipedia's Non-free content policy, we must ask ourselves, "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" It's at least arguable that in this case it could.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I think there is something wrong with the policy. It doesn't make sense. For example, what photos *couldn't* be adequately explained in words instead of a pic? I would say very few, if that is the standard. (In other words, 99 percent of the photos in WP articles, could be eliminated. Words instead! Why not?) Here is another problem with the logic of the argument: Why even have the pic in the bio-box? Can't that be "adequately conveyed by text" too? So, what is the justfication for the pic of Fischer at top of article? Are all bios allowed one exception to the policy rule? I don't know what the answer to that question will be, but, I'd like to point out that Fischer is 17 years old in that bio-box photo. (In the photo under consideration, he is 29 years old - nearly double his age compared to the bio-box photo. Are there any other photos representing Fischer at his World Champ status, age 29, in the article? No.) I think there are other problems with the argument too, regarding text being able to "adequately" supplant a photo, and especially in this case. But that is a different topic. Instead, I'm wondering about the illogic of extreme application of a poorly thought-out policy to begin with, as justification for deletion in specific cases, including this case. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The bio-box picture is a free image so it doesn't need a justification. I'm also at a loss to understand why a picture of him at 29 would be better than one of him at 17. He was aleady a Grandmaster and extremely well-konwn at Leipzig 1960; and it's an excellent quality image.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It isn't just because he was 29. That match was the peak of his career. Most people probably remember him that way. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
That is one of several chess photos that are under attack. User J Milburn proposed that it be deleted because no article uses the photo. The reason that no article uses the photo is that it was removed by .... J Milburn! A clear conflict of interest. Other chess photos that are under attack are:

I uploaded all of these except for Filip02.jpg, and I think that one will survive the attack. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, please take a look at the non-free content criteria, and then take a look at the image page. There is no rationale for the inclusion of this image in this article, and so it cannot be used. That is not in any way controversial, it's simply the case. That is why it was removed, and your reinsertion was clearly contrary to policy. As for the question of whether there could be a valid rationale- yes, I've no doubt that, as you say, "the photo captures a time and event which represents the pinnacle of Fischer's career and life" and "summarizes his accomplisment of his life ambition to be the best." However, that is not a valid reason for a non-free image. Sure, the event is important, so talk about it, but non-free content is used only when its presence significantly increases reader understanding of the topic (among other criteria). Clearly, this event, though important, is completely understandable without the use of an image, and so this one is not required. Bubba, none of that has anything to do with this image, especially your attacks upon me. If you're going to discuss me, notify me, and if you're concerned about my conduct, you know where my talk page is. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

J Milburn, I am not a WP specialist on non-free image-use policy, so I cannot weigh in or comment. (I'll leave it to others, who specialize in that understanding.) But, in meantime, I *do* object to your statement: "Clearly, this event, though important, is completely understandable without the use of an image". What do you really know about history of World Chess Championships? The fact is, this was probably the last *civil* World Chess competition for decades to follow - both players were respectful of one another, polite even, in every respect. (*That*, despite there were disputes conducted re forfeiture, TV cameras, electronic devices being placed in lamps or chairs, etc. And as opposed to later contests, where mind-control experts were placed in spectator audience by Korchnoi to unnerve his opponent, or contestents staring at one another to accomplish the same effect, or general hostility toward one another, refusing to shake hands, etc., etc. Proof is that Fischer and Spassky remained respectful & friendly until the end; whereas several other World contenders remain arch enemies.) This photo records and depicts the actual tone of civility and professionalism of this event and of both players, more than words can. And especially in the context of Fishcer as a whole, with Fischer's later anti-USA and anti-Jewish slanders, leading many to conclude he was a madman of sorts, this photo is necessary and important. The photo records and depicts Fischer at his highest professional achievement, and his professional best, a standard of conduct which ended up being a lost model of perfection really. And you want to eliminate this photo, because "words are adequate". Maybe to your particular narrow or legalistic POV, but, there is a wider context here, which you are seemingly unknowing of, and entirely dismissing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
In my understanding, a "rationale" is the same thing as a "purpose". The images do have a stated "purpose", in the "fair use" section. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The NFCC page states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". I can't see how a photo of the two men sitting at a chessboard does much for my understanding. Which game is it? Who's winning? As for this being a *civil* competition, you have to be joking! Fischer was late for the start of the match, late for every game, failed to show up for game 2 and late for the closing ceremony. Ewen (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Ewen, no I'm not joking. The things you mentioned were habits or characteristics of Fischer, in previous games and in previous matches. None of those things were aimed at tormenting or harrassing his opponent, and proof of that, none of those things were taken personally by Spassky. In later matches, other WC competitors took deliberate action designed specifically to unsettle their opponents, *that* is uncivil. The important element of intent. You missed the point. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Spassky was extraordinarily tolerant of Fischer. Just because he let things go to keep the match going doesn't mean that Fischer's actions weren't uncivil. OK, Karpov and Korchnoi were pretty vicious but Kasparov was fairly decent in all his many matches. Anyway, it's pretty tenuous to claim that the Fischer-Spassky match was civil, and if you want to support that statement I suggest you quote the opinions of those involved. A photo of the two men sitting at the board is totally irrelevant to this issue. Ewen (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
This is abou Fischer in general, not just that match: "Nobody had a single complaint to make about Fischer's behavior once he finally sat down at the board. He was the perfect gentleman. There was no gamesmanship. He never deliberately tried to distract or disturb his opponent. He followed the rules strictly..." Bobby Fischer Goes to War, by Edmonds and Eidinow, pp. 30-31. Now in recent years we have had players in the world championship refuse to shake hands and even announce beforehand that they would not speak to their opponent. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
So what? The photo illustrates Bobby shaking hands or talking politely to Boris does it? No it doesn't. I'd also emphasise the "...once he finally sat down..." part of the quote. Your book also describes how Fischer was late for every game - sometimes up to half an hour. Civil? Ewen (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This is getting a little petty. Fischer had certain habits. (I read for instance, he slept as late as possible, dressed quickly, but caused him to arrive at the board after clocks were started. Perhaps just perhaps, he viewed pre-game thoughts as counter-productive, and avoided them completely that way. Maybe he discovered he could get the best performance out of himself, if he layed off doing a number on his own head with pointless pre-game angst. If that is true, then he was simply managing his own known strengths and weaknesses to maximize his performance, and his top performance was his highest priority. Once the clock is started, it's his time to manage the way he sees best. I believe Fischer was just getting the best out of himself. You rather to deny him that, in favor of your "be on time" etiquette book? This is getting petty. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Fischer is business-professional in that shot, unlike the beard he grew wild and teeth emptied of fillings people like to use to pin madness on him later. There *is* a shot from the match w/ players shaking hands and looking down at the board position, both players wearing smiles. (Wish we had that photo instead!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The point is, we don't "have" any photo of the match. We don't own those photos and they're not free for us to copy. Ewen (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right. It seems sad to have none of these great pics in the article. I don't care to become a "WP attorney". Aren't any similar photos in public domain (does anyone know?). Is anyone asking the owers of the photos, permission to release for WP use? Have these Qs been topics in the WP Chess Project?
Ewen, one last comment from me re our debate re civility. I can't help respond to your "Kasparov was fairly decent in all his many matches" assertion. (You mean like, when he stomped out at the end of the Deep Blue match, calling IBM "cheaters" is his followup press conference? I think he also blamed his coaches for his loss [their openings recommendations]. What a baby, and embarrassment for chess! And what did Fischer say about *his* losses? "I take my medicine." No compare.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Finding some public domain images, or successfully requesting that these ones are released, would of course be the best solution. If you are working to get content released, there are a few things you have to remember (what "free" means according to the Wikimedia Foundation, where to send the emails, etc) and so taking a look at this page may be useful. It's something I've done a bit of, you know where I am if I can be of any help. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
J Milburn, thx. (Don't have time for it personally, maybe someone does. Thx for your guidance! p.s. Wasn't edit-warring w/ you; just ignorant re WP def "rationale". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A "rationale" is something specifically required by the non-free content criteria. See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for more information. J Milburn (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
What is the difference between a "rationale" and a "purpose"? The photos all have a stated purpose? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
A "rationale" is a specific explanation on the image page of why a non-free image meets the NFCC in each in a specific usage, and a rationale for every usage is required by the NFCC. Again, take a look at the guideline. The image in question has a rationale for its previous use on World Chess Championship 1972, but not for its use in this article. That is the reason I have removed it twice. However, as has been explained above, rationale or no rationale, it almost certainly does not meet NFCC#8, as the image simply does not add that much to the article, and the article can survive without it. J Milburn (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Paper encyclopedias such as Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess by Harry Golombek use many similar photos, so they obviously think it helps. So can you write up what would be an acceptable rationale? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and 'paper encyclopedias' are paid for and pay for their content. You're asking when it's OK to use a non-free copyrighted image in an article, without permission from the copyright holder? The NFCC policy makes it pretty clear. The image is interesting and decorative but it's not an essential part of the article we're writing. Ewen (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Fischer Image

Is this photo of use to the article? I noticed it has suitable cc usage. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that user is uploading their own work. I question the legitimacy of that license. J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't question the legitimacy. This picture looks much better than the current one. I vote we use this one instead.Averagejoedev (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I vote no. That photo sucks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree. I prefer the photo we have now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Anti American

I find that the anti american section attempts to justify Fischer's statements. For example 'radio broadcasts show that he was out of his mind', they don't 'show' anything! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Gaon (talk • contribs) 21:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Sometimes-outrageous" radio interviews

Michael C. Price reverted my edit, saying "if that is what the sources say", and, "(the radio interviews) *were* outrageous". It seems to me, his personal opinion, asserted as fact, is both irrelevant, and inconsistent w/ WP:POV. (I don't see any references for the "sometimes-outrageous", and, what Michael thinks the world should know as "fact" because it is how *he* feels, seems the height of perposterousness.

My dictionary defines "outrageous" as "grossly offensive". I, for one, was not "grossly offended" by Fischer's radio interviews. (Why not? Because, I did not take them "seriously". I took them as "theater". Fischer often made comments intended to rile people's emotions. It has/had nothing to do w/ chess.)

If Michael feels it is a fact that the radio interviews were outrageous, and Wikipedia as encyclopedia, needs to say so, then I'd ask him why he, and why does the encyclopedia, decide to take such remarks seriously.

Heavy-weight boxers (Ali etc.) said lots of stuff in pre-match interviews, which could be considered outrageous and inflamatory. Because it is theater. Fischer was a chessplayer, he dedicated his life to chess study. Why would anyone take him seriously on political matters/views, when he is only pulling their chains?

"Sometimes-outrageous" is a POV. Michael's agreement w/ the POV is irrelevant. In my view his decision to take Fischer seriously is his mistake. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Photos

Can someone find free photos of Fischer especially photos of when he was a kid/teen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Gaon (talk • contribs) 17:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Shortly after Fischer won the world title in 1972, he was a guest on a Bob Hope television special. Hope himself played Boris Spassky as a stereotypical Mad Russian, sitting at the board in fur hat, swilling vodka while awaiting the tardy Fischer. This went on before every commercial break. Finally Fischer arrives and sits at the board. "Spassky" moves, Fischer moves. Again. Again. Before too long, Hope is insanely jumping Fischer's men like checkers. I think the punchline has Bobby saying "I think that's 'gin'."

That's from memory. Maybe it's mentioned in a preview or review of the show somewhere. WHPratt (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Icelandic American?

I had wrote previously that he was an Icelandic American instead of American and an user undid it on the grounds that he didn't have an Icelandic origin. While is it common to refer to an American citizen of Icelandic ancestry as an "Icelandic American" it is also accurate to refer to a person who holds both American and Icelandic citizenship as an "Icelandic American" with no other term being more appropriate to refer to such a person's nationality other than that one.
        • This is extremely misleading. Fischer was an American. He was born in the United States, grew up there, and represented the US in numerous Olympiads and other tournaments. Late in life, with the likely onset of mental illness, he left the US and spent the rest of his life abroad, with stops in Hungary, The Philippines and Japan. When no other country would accept him, he turned to Iceland, where he lived for his final few years. Nonetheless, he died a US citizen.

The article should describe him as American, but should accurately note his final years in Iceland.

````Fielding


Well your edits simply aren't accurate. You changed the article to say that Fischer "was an Icelandic American chess player". He wasn't. He never played competitive chess while holding Icelandic citizenship as he retired after his second match with Spassky over a decade earlier. There are also undo weight problems and the like but we've been over that many times here before. It isn't unusual for someone to stumble across this again for the first time not having been through the earlier discussions. Check the Talk archives for more. Quale (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I, the person who changed the post to "Icelandic American" instead of American, beg to differ from all of you. The european convention on nationality to which Iceland is signatory states that "Each State shall determine under its own law who are its nationals", even if you argue the USA isn't a signatory to that Iceland is. Even if it wasn't, the notion that every nation says by its own rules who are its citizens and nationals is widely accepted saying he wasn't an Icelandic is to deny somehow Iceland's sovereign power of giving/taking its nationality to its people. Besides all that, all the arguments I read that were against listing him as an Icelandic American were due to the fact that he represented the USA on tournaments his whole life but Chess Tournaments, I must tell you, have no legal saying on anyone's nationality. The other argument against listing him as an Icelandic American was the fact that he became an Icelandic shortly before his death, also unnaccepted because how long one has held one's nationality doesn't alter one's nationality in any legal or factual way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.17.27.238 (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the sentence you wrote says "Icelandic American chess player" which is simply not true as explained to you before. Quale (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
To support what Quale is trying to explain to you. The issue is not citizenship. Yes, he may be considered Icelandic and you'll notice in the category box at the bottom of the article lists Fischer as "Icelandic people". But you are missing the point. You simply cannot say he was an "Icelandic American chessplayer". Again, he was not an active chessplayer when he was a citizen of Iceland, so "Icelandic American chessplayer" is misleading and just plain wrong. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

So in the end you all agree he was an Icelandic American person just not an Icelandic American chessplayer, however, one cannot change the fact that he was both, he was an Icelandic American chessplayer who acquired a world fame when he was solely American still in the end he was both an Icelandic American and a chessplayer (even if a retired one), to me this article is inacurate and the attempts to keep it this way are biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.17.27.238 (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh and btw, after a few lines of arguments pro changing that sentence to "Icelandic American" the best thing Quale came up with to refute it all was "simply not true", is that how disputes are solved in Wikipedia? I thought the ultimate goal was accuracy, oh well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.17.27.238 (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

One last remark I have that should please both sides (or so I think) is to edit that to say "an Icelandic American chessplayer (originally American, naturalized Icelandic in his late years)" or "an Icelandic American chessplayer (originally American, later naturalized Icelandic)" or anything similar to that. 177.17.27.238 (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Your suggestion is too convoluted. And I'm sorry, but your arguments aren't persuasive. BashBrannigan (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am the one who is sorry because Bob Fischer being Icelandic American isn't some sort of argument or discussion it's simply a fact, but whatever keep this innacuratepedia the way it is. I just ask you to keep this discussion here where it is so people who are really interested in the truth and the facts know that Bob Fischer was an Icelandic American even though those extremely biased torwards an American point of view for some reason choose to keep the article innacurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.17.27.238 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

nonsense. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You're the non-sense for refusing to call an Icelandic man Icelandic...whatever... 177.17.38.41 (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Quale and BB - the article clearly explains the convoluted issue of Fischer's citizenship in his last years. To head the article by stating his dubious dual nationality gives undue weight to this coda to his biography when his fame comes from his activities when he was undoubtedly a citizen of the USA. I suppose we should list Karl Marx as English or Pablo Picasso as French. I don't know why it would be American bias to claim Fischer as American anyway - apart from his chess there's not much about the man that I'd want to be associated with. Ewen (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

To call Fischer "Icelandic American," one might as well describe Oscar Wilde as a French Englishman or Napoleon as an African Frenchman, because they all managed to die somewhere else. WHPratt (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon didn't die in France, he did die however as a French citizen. Fischer did not only go to Iceland in his late years but also was a full Icelandic citizen (the government of Iceland granted him full citizenship), I'm not saying here he wasn't American, I'm just saying he was ALSO an Icelandic, he was an Icelandic American, that's a fact. 177.17.24.140 (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fact recorded in the article, and given as much emphasis as it deserves - as a late addition to a life that was almost entirely lived as an American citizen. Ewen (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
To explain this again, Fischer's citizenship is NOT the issue. The Wikipedia article for Charlie Chaplin describes him as an "English comic actor". The fact that he spent a good portion of his life in Switzerland and was a Swiss citizen is not relevant. What is relevant for the lead of a Wikipedia article is that he was a famous as a comic and was also famous as English. Likewise, Fischer was famous a chessplayer and was just as famous as an American at the time. Calling Fischer an "Icelandic American chessplayer" is completely wrong since Fischer had not played a single competitive game in Iceland. As Ewen says above, his Icelandic citizenship is given the proper emphasis.. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that should read Fischer had not played a single competitive game for Iceland because of course he played the 1972 World Championship match in Reykjavik. But for sure, he never represented Iceland over the board. Ewen (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I meant "for Iceland". BashBrannigan (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to Bobby Fischer as an American-Icelander? Naturalized American citizens hyphenate with their native origin first, followed by their adopted country. I am not arguing for any kind of hyphenation, but since Bobby Fischer technically emigrated from the United States to Iceland, wouldn't it be more accurate to reverse the order of "Icelandic American" to something like "American-Icelander," or whatever adjective/noun Icelandic nationals use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.124.239 (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself, but here goes...

The issue is with the relationship between nationality and profession. Yes, Fischer was Icelandic, but he was never an "Icelandic chessplayer", nor was he an "Icelandic-American chessplayer", nor an "American-Icelandic chessplayer", because in all cases he never played serious chess when he was a citizen of Iceland. However, it is correct to say he was an "American chesplayer" since that is exactly what he was when he was active. For those who argue that the Icelandic nationality must be included, I direct them to the Wikipedia feature article on Charlie Chaplin which refers to him as a British comedian even though he had Swiss citizenship for many years. We could leave off his nationality, but I haven't heard a credible argument to do so. BashBrannigan (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

An "Icelandic American" is an American of Icelandic ethnic or/and national origin. (Helgi Thomasson of the San Francisco Ballet is an Icelandic American; he was born and raised in Iceland and is now an American.) That label cannot logically apply to Bobby Fischer.

Rather, he was an Icelander of American national origin and Ashkenazi ethnic origin. (Both his mother and his biological father were Ashkenazi Jews; thus, Fischer was ethnically an Ashkenazi Jew - or if Gerhardt Fischer really was his father, then he was half-German and half-Ashkenzi; but he was born a Jew in any case under Jewish religious law and Israeli secular law.)

Thus, Fischer is correctly described by any of the following four labels:

1. Ashkenazi American - an American of Ashkenazi ethnic origin

2. Ashkenazi Icelander - an Icelander of Ashkenazi ethnic origin

3. Ashkenazi American Icelander - an Icelander of Ashkenazi ethnic origin and American national origin

4. American Icelander - an Icelander of American national origin

Bobby Fischer died a dual citizen of Iceland and the United States. Although he stated, in 2004, that he wanted to renounce his American citizenship, he never formally did so.

As a Jew by birth, he also qualified for Israeli citizenship under the 1949 Law of Return. But he never claimed Israeli citizenship; and the fact he so clearly and obviously renounced his Jewish heritage and identity (if he ever psychologically accepted either of them) may have nullified any claim to Israeli citizenship that he might have attempted to make.

71.198.146.98 (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

First, do NOT edit content on talk pages. I reverted the heading, but left your content as is. As to your comments, it appears to me you are ignoring the comments of others and just giving us your views. You suggestions are wrong, for reasons already stated. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, please put all new comments at the end. BashBrannigan (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC) The problem is also that this would be considered as "original research" unless you provide a published source which describes Fischer this way. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Telephone/cable TV installer???

I thought I read years ago that during his years of obscurity in California that he worked as a telephone/cable TV installer, but there is nothing here about that. Did he? Thanks in advance to anybody that knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt Fischer ever had a real job. Wikipedia doesn't include "urban legends". BashBrannigan (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Funny! ("Bobby the Cableguy". I'm sure, with friends around the world, he'd work for some dumb company to pull down a bluecollar paycheck each week. Maybe for the medical/dental insurance!? Funny!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if there's ever a movie done about Fischer (why isn't there?) it will probably include the cable guy part, even if untrue. BashBrannigan (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Column problem

Can someone fix the problem in the "References" section? The last several references have their own column way over to the right, expanding the whole article to an unreasonable wideness--I don't know how to remedy this. Thanks! Blake Burba (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

looks ok on an iPad with safari. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm using a MacBook Pro w/ Safari, and there's definitely an issue. Blake Burba (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

naming book titles in Fischer's library doesn't belong in article

Am continuing to review the discussion and RfC in Talk Archive 1, and so far I agree with all editors expressing view that stating Fischer's library belongings (without a sourced, qualifying comment) doesn't belong in the article. Because it is laden with undeniable innuendo. (194x... was right, it doesn't belong.)

He was also right about disincluding unsubstantiated handwritten notes. And comment over disappointment Fischer can't be branded insane, since no medical diagnosis. Because these ideas don't fit comfortably with other editors' predisposed, personally-held POVs. So persecute 194x... !? (Fair? It seems in a way to be a small, twisted parallel to persecution Bobby faced throughout his life. Which is twisted, because perhaps this is what 194x... was after. The "nail-me-on-a-cross-like-Jesus syndrome". A shame.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Consistent with the position I took in that discussion, I don't agree. What sourced qualifying comment do you want? The paragraph I see in the article is referenced. If you can find another reference that covers Fischer's personal library and unpublished writing the article might be improved by adding it. But 194x was a troll who received a one year ban from arbcom, and we are much better to be rid of him. Quale (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Even if 194x... is Osama Bin Laden's clone, or cannibalizes children, it has no bearing re his arguments about exclusion of Fischer's library possessions, unsubstantiated notes, or statements about Fischer being insane, from the article. Continuing to attack him is purely ad hominem and clouds any evaluation re inclusion vs exclusion. The fact arguments can't be evaluated on their own without continued attacks on 194x... is unnecessary and unhelpful and suggests reason might be taking a back seat to some degree in discussion. No more ad hominem, please; I feared I couldn't put an opinion here without drawing more ad hominem arguments, and sure enough your response justified my fear. Even after I asked to exclude it. (I do not want to write any more about ad hominem, but will continue to object if others inject it in discussion.)

Let's get specific on the reference. What exact reference are you referring to, and, what do you think it is reporting? (We might be discussing two different things. Again.) Just because some fact has a source, doesn't mean it is appropriate for inclusion. Are you using sourcability as justification for inclusion? (Because that, obviously, would be a logical fallacy.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, what kind of reference I "want" to justify inclusion, that would be a qualifying comment which removes the naked innuendo when just the "fact" is included in isolation. I agree with this idea, copied from the Archive 1 discussion:

I agree that there is a consensus to include the material, but would also note that several users (me included) are concerned that BF's anti-semitism is not conflated with Nazism or white supremacism. It appears that there is an RS that clarfies this, and I think the wording should be such that the reader is not left with a false impression. --FormerIP (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

anti-Israel statements

I don't see the point of specifically mentioning "anti-Israeli" statements (in the title for that matter). I understand "anti-American" and "anti-Semitic". It is a noteworthy biographical fact that someone has denounced his own country/ethnicity, etc. But Israel? How is that important? If Fischer had made antagonistic remarks about Denmark, would you have specified "anti-Danish" statements? By the way, I'm sure Fisher made slanderous statements about other countries. By the same logic, this should be stated too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.99.58.153 (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. With Fischer there was a special coupling of America and Israel. He basically saw them as one and the same. (And BTW, in the article it says "anti-Israel" not "anti-Israeli", which are different things. Fischer hated policies, not individuals. For example he was friends with the Polgars, who were Jewish.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Misleading article change/sentence: "Despite the outstanding arrest warrant in the U.S., Fischer said that he believed the passport was still valid."

That sentence makes it look like once someone knows there is an outstanding arrest warrent against one, one should always believe his passport to be invalid. (And it's not even proven he knew about the outstanding arrest warrent.)

That's just misleading, and there were better versions before.

Fact is the following which was publisied by Fischer himself (and if I remeber were stated in this article in previous versions with original Fischer audio-files and copies of papers as source - the dead link now in the sources section) :

1. ) Some year(s) before he went to the USA embassy in Switzerland and got more pages inserted into his passport. Despite a possible arrest warrant.

2. ) The alleged copy of the letter informing Fischer of the passport revocation shown to him by the USA embassy while he was in detention in Japan, that the USA said was sent to Fischer on the Phillipines had either no date or the wrong address (can't remember which one it was), and the letter was said to be sent at a date while he was in Japan.

The sentence is nothing less than putting the blame on him, while actually the 'USA just not dared to try to seize him while he was in Switzerland.' (Fischer)


I'm not going to change anything, I know it's Wikipedia. (It was already enough to read the "discussion" about him being an "American chessplayer", which is just misleading for all readers who look for the real - and this means legally binding in the real world - pieces of information.)

At least I have learned that - according to some people here - I'm not a chess player, as I never played professional chess. Darn! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.136.55 (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Searching for Paul Nemenyi

In the section labeled "Early Years," the following sentence occurs: "Regina and Nemenyi were reported to have had an affair in 1942. Additionally, Paul Nemenyi made monthly child support payments to her, and paid for Fischer's schooling until his own death in 1952."

The problem is, the writer makes no mention of who this Paul Nemenyi is, or what his relationship to the family might be, before diving into a discussion of the affair and child support. Oddly, it also mentions this guy by last name only in the first sentence, and then refers to him as Paul Nemenyi in the second sentence. This needs to be cleaned up so that readers know what the heck this is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.226.142 (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it earlier in that paragraph, the one that starts "A 2002 article..."? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

For self-admitted vandal 89.204

"American":

adj. 1. Of or relating to the US.
n. 1. A citizen of the US.

— The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition

So, please go away now. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"... of all time."

Dick Shane, what is it you are objecting to? That "... of all time" is an exaggeration? Or that it is an unencyclopedic expression? Or something else?

These articles on top players use "... of all time" too:

Garry Kasparov:

Garry Kimovich Kasparov [...] is a Russian (formerly Soviet) chess grandmaster, a former World Chess Champion, writer, political activist, and one of the greatest chess players of all time.

Judit Polgar:

Polgár is by far the strongest female chess player of all time.

Are those "ludicrous hyperbole" in your view also? Please explain. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Europe and Eastern Europe

"In the early 1980s, Fischer stayed for extended periods in the San Francisco-area home of a friend..." True enough. But he also pent a lot of time in Europe and was seen in Eastern Europe. I'd like more information on him during this period. I met him in Hungary in the early 1980s. Gingermint (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Lede - FIDE rating

"He became the first official World Chess Federation (Fédération Internationale des Échecs) (FIDE) number-one rated chess player in July 1971, and his 54 total months at number one is the third longest of all time."

This statement is misleading on at least two points:

1. Fischer was unofficial #1 in ELO long before July 1971. Arpad Elo had been compiling unofficial lists for some years. Fischer probably was clear #1 from Havana 1966 to Reykjavik 1972 (cf. Sonas).

2. As Fischer effectively retired from play after the 1972 Spassky match, roughly 3/4 of the "54 total months at number one" was not much of an accomplishment. Billbrock (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Anti-American?

Fischer has criticised the American government and legal system. So do many Americans. Does that make him - or them - anti American? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

he declared himself anti-American.BashBrannigan (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This article implies Fischer's political statemnts came before the retribution from the Bush and Clinton presidencies. You have the facts correct but forgot the time-line and in effect you have put the cart before the horse. Most Chess players aren't thinking about politics as they play chess. They just want to play chess and cannot understand why it should be made political. The negative comments from Fischer came after being denied re-entry for playing chess with the person he defeated - Spaasky in Yugoslavia. I doubt either of them really cared that much where they played. As Fischer was booted from one country to another due to the political pressure from the USA State Department, the more acerbic his statements about the USA became. It finally came to an end only after Iceland intervened and gave him a home. He probably would not have made them if he had been allowed back into the USA. hhhobbit (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed (except about country-hopping other than leaving Japan, those may have been his preferences). What specific article text(s) do you think s/b changed to remove the false implication of timeline? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Dick Schaap

Why is Dick Schaap's role in Fischer's life ignored in this article? LHM 16:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Fischer's relationship with Schaap is relevant for a biography, but unless Schaap impacted Fischer's chess career, his problems with US government, or helped him in some other significant way, etc., difficulties with a friend may not relevant for Wikipedia. Others editors might feel different. Opinions? BashBrannigan (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bobby_Fischer/Archive_5&oldid=645985010"