Bobby Fischer did his first radio interview in nearly a year and a half. This time, it was from Reykjavic, Iceland. For most part, he seems to be so much more relaxed. He stated that he enjoys his time in Iceland and the Icelandic are very nice.
In the interview, Bobby discussed about his Swiss bank saga. He was asked about the strongest World Chess Champions. He basically said that it would be unfair to compare players from different generations. He mentioned that players today have much greater chess knowledge and opening theories due to more information available as well as having strong computer software.
However, his choices for greatest natural players are Capablanca, Morphy and even Steinitz. Do you agree with Bobby?
Were you nervous playing Bobby in informal settings?
Nice picture, Bobby playing a Fischerandom game, of course.
I do agree with Bobby on this point. How can you compare people like Morphy who were creating theory, with young “super” gm’s raised on computer analysis and memorized lines etc?
I believe what bobby once said, if Morphy was in modern times he’d be just as deadly and that infers that he’d be up to date on modern theory – or even more advanced, as he was more advanced on development than those of his time too.
PS: Is this interview available anywhere?
I certainly agree with Fischer regarding Morphy, Capablanca, and Steinitz…especially Morphy. For natural chess talent, the 19th century saw no one like him.
Though I agree that one shouldn’t compare the chess legends of the past with the super GM’s of today, it is too easy for people not to do so.
I don’t think many would argue that if Morphy or Steinitz came back and played today, that they would be defeated by modern GM’s. They would still be great players, probably still earn a masters rating. In time, they’d learn and probably compete on even terms with todays best. However, this is all pure speculation.
The way I see it, is if players like Morphy and Capablanca could do so exceedingly well with nearly no theoretical knowledge or chessbase or rybka – imagine them with it.
Well abut who is the best, my cooleagues at FRI (see the ChessBase page) did a research (which includes opening knowledge ect …) end made some interesting conclusions. I think it is an interesting read:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455
D.K.
Judit learned a lot from Bobby which gave her the strength to smote the evil Topalov. Thanks Judit and Bobbt Fischer (the true World Champion – still)
Judit never learned from Bobby. Why are you fabricating garbage?
Sounds like a good interview from Fischer, for a change. Mostly about chess, with no talk about the game being dead or played out or pre-arranged.
Not a word about him playing a Gothic Chess match with Karpov. No surprise there.
There is an article on Chessbase about comparing intergenerational chessplayers’ quality of games employing crafty and some high powered statistics.
The result is quite a surprise (to me).
I wonder why Crafty was used rather than Rybka?
Very interesting question from J Wan.
Does anyone know if their exists transcripts of this interview? Can one listen to it online?
Thanks,
Charlemagne
Again very very nice, mistress polgar
Wow, great article. The analysis by the computer Crafty makes very interesting observations, many of which are often debated.
I agree with Bobby Fischer for his choice about Morphy and Capablanca. Less for Steinitz. And I hope he will also indicate who according to him is the greatest talent between Tal, Kasparov, Judit Polgar and Kramnik. René
Susan, where can we read this interview? where did you find it? thanks!
Mr R.J. Fischer is being too shy.
He is one of the greatest talents in the chess history.
Rgds
Chessreader
Anonymous said…
Judit never learned from Bobby. Why are you fabricating garbage?
Don’t call people’s comments “garbage” if you aren’t even aquainted with the basic facts.
Bobby Fischer lived in Hungary and coached the Polgar sisters for some time.
I can’t comment to how much Susan really learned from Fischer or not, but seeing as he was her chess MENTOR for a while it seems quite reasonable to say she learned from him.
Come on people.
—
Anyway, I agree with Bobby about Capablanca and Morphy. No doubt two of the greatest natural talents (i’d add Fischer himself to the list of course)
I agree with Morphy and Capablanca. I would choose Pillsbury over Steinitz, as far as natural talent goes. If Pillsbury would have lived, then he might have challenged Lasker. Who knows?
They were all such high-class players.
Adolf Andersson was a top notch player second only to Morphy.
Perhaps Bobby Fischer’s picks are right. I certainly lack the chess knowledge to dispute him.
On the other hand, more and more cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists are beginning to doubt that such a thing as “natural talent” for chess (or nearly any other life skill) really exists in any meaningful way. The recent cover story in Fortune, which actually talked about Fischer, is only the tip of the iceberg. The professional journals are full of studies of this stuff. The growing verdict? The key to mastery is not a birth-gift, but practice, practice, practice.
susan use to wear weird cloths that time…..
Bort,
I am sorry but you are mistaken. Bobby never taught any of the Polgar sisters. He used to analyze games and play blitz Fischer random chess with me. That’s about it. The anon was right.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
yes i agree, these people were well ahead of thier time.
Jdreader:
I diagree. There have been plenty of articles that have been saying the opposite about natural talent and all the smart people in the field agree that it is a combination of nature and nurture.
And really, how can anyone deny this?
There are plenty of people who spend years studying an artform or a game like chess and fail to become masters.
or luck at it another way: What seperates Karmnik from someone ranked ~50th in the world who is the same age? In this case, both are Chess geniuses, but one is patently more advanced than the the other?
The logic of the Fortune article would be that it is merely a matter of practice, but are we really going to say that the only difference is parctice? I find this somewhat insulting to people who aren’t #1 in their field. Are you really going to tell me that the reason Shirov (or anyone else devoting their life to chess) isn’t as good as Kramnik is because he is lazy and hasn’t devoted enough practice time like Karmnik?
To say that the key to success is “practice” is just an odd thing to say. Obviously practice of your sport/craft/art is essential to being great, but it is NOT the only factor. Natural talent is equally important.
It may suck that this is the case, but I doubt anyone is going to claim that they could train someone with an IQ of 70 to be as talented in science as Stephen Hawkings, even if they were given identical training and practice.
So is practice “the key”? That isn’t how we should look at it. You need both talent and practice. Talent without practice leads to nothing, and practice without talent is futile. The key to a tree is both water AND sunlight.
Susan, Obviously Fischer analysing games with you was a great way to help you improve at chess.
Mark
There are three things. Natural talent, work ethic and theory available at the time. In terms of Bobby’s comments, I am surprised to see Steinitz on the list, and not to see Kasparov. But maybe Bobby and Garry don’t really like each other to much … LOL
I don’t think much of the Chessbase article. Alekhine beat Capablanca but is rated far below him. In addition, Kasparov beat Karpov numerous times, but somehow, Karpov is rated above Kasparov. Doesn’t add up!
Susan:
My apologies then. I’ve read that before, but maybe I shouldn’t trust sites like Wikipedia for this kind of info.
Although, like Mark, i’d think analyzing games with someone would teach you things, no?
Anyway, again, my apologies.
–
I don’t think much of the Chessbase article. Alekhine beat Capablanca but is rated far below him. In addition, Kasparov beat Karpov numerous times, but somehow, Karpov is rated above Kasparov. Doesn’t add up!
I have my resevations too, but remember it was a statistical model they made, not their opinion.
As for your examples, I’d say Capablanca was easily better than Alekhine. Yes, Alekhine beat him, but as the story goes Capablanca didn’t really practice for it and just assumed he would win easily. Alekhine studied Capablanca’s style and games intensely and was able to beat him. But, and this is key, he refused to ever let Capablanca get a rematch and avoided playing him after taking his title.
So I’m not sure I’d say Alekhine was a better player than Capablanca just because he beat him once in one match then hid from him.
As far as Karpov/Kasparov. I’d rank Kasporav higher myself, but lets remember that while Garry did beat Karpov mutiple times, they were all very close. IIRC, other than the match that Karpov was leading in but was cancelled by FIDE, they had three world championship matches together.
Two of them Kasporov won by 1 point and the third was a tie, but Kasporov kept the crown in the case of a tie. So one tie and two very tight games… those alone don’t necessarily prove Kasporov was vastly superior to Karpov. Seems like they were pretty evenly matched.
Bort,
No apology needed. I just wanted to state the facts. Yes, I enjoyed my analysis with Bobby.
He was still very informative about chess. At that time, he was clearly a strong player, not as in 1972 but not bad at all.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
http://bobbyfischerpage.tripod.com/index.htm
I read an article by Grandmaster Larsen when they asked him a similar question.His response was that human intelligence has not excelled or greatly changed in the last 100 years. Humans are still humans. Chess theory has evolved or advanced. He reckon if Alekine time travel to the future it would take him 6 months to learn all the new theoretical stuff in the openings if he played today. You cannot compare apples with oranges or players from past eras of today and yester year. I imagine a similar fate for Capablanca who relied on his natural talent (chess is his mother’s tongue) and was said to be lazy; would have to work a lot harder (study) to secure positional advantages in the opening and middlegame if he was playing today on the professional circuit.
I wonder why Crafty was used rather than Rybka?
It was written in the article. Because Crafty open source and the experimenters could change the program to their needs.
Gabor
Kinda funny how the interviewer puts up with his crap for 40 minutes before he starts slipping in questions about chess
Susan,
Do you feel bad for him now that he seems to not be around his friends as he used to be?
I listened to the whole thing. Unfortunately, it’s not till rather late in the interview that they finally talk about chess—the only topic on which Fischer says anything that we really care about.
His chess insights are reasonably lucid and always interesting. It makes you realize what fun it would be if he were commenting on the current game.
But he spends most of his time on topics that don’t interest us, like holocaust denial, hatred of Jews, the theft of his alleged multi-billion-dollar fortune, and so forth.
“He was still very informative about chess. At that time, he was clearly a strong player, not as in 1972 but not bad at all.”
It is interesting to hear someone who has never reached Bobby Fischer’s strength nor has his unparalleled genius talk about him in this way. I am sure in the 90s when he lived w/ the Polgars, he was still smoking them on the chessboard more often than not. Not like in 72 just means he allowed a few draws instead of winning them all 😉
As for learning from him, I’m sure just playing with such a genius would have been an educational experience.
Thanks for your comment but please do not insult my chess ability. I promised Bobby I would not reveal our score but I am quite proud of my results. I am willing, ready and able to play a match against him at any time.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
We have too many idiots who don’t have anything better to do than insult people. How pathetic of these anons coming here hiding behind their keyboards. Forget about them losers Susan.
Susan you don’t have to defend yourself. Who cares if Bobby beat you in every game or you beat Bobby in every game? That’s a memory for you two. A promise is a promise, keep your word and do not reveal the results. We are only as good as our word. Your word was good enough for Bobby and its good enough for us.
Susan,
The anon was trying to provoke you into saying how well that you did against Bobby. Judit beat Boris Spassky by a odd game 20 years after he lost the world championship. She deserved her victory. Spassky lost with grace. Great woman players can beat world champions in their 50s. (We note Karpov’s recent result as well.) This is not surprising considering Judit’s strength and the rise in strength of women’s chess as a whole. Ironically, senior men’s and women’s chess have a common bond as the underdog. I note that there is not a truly successful senior tour in chess as in golf. This, along with a growth women’s chess, would enhance the popularity of the game.
Bobby Fischer is the Greatest Chess player to ever live.
That says it all.
It has been said that Bobby Fischer felt women could not play chess. But I bet that he treated you with dignity and respect and knew you were a good chess player. Can you comment on this. Did he treat you with dignity and respect as a good chess player.
Yes, you are correct. He was very kind and respectful toward me.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
Crafty obviously is biased towards Classical style player. May be it is easier for the computer to grasp the logical progression of a classical game. So we end up with a bunch of classical players at the very top while the chaotic style of Romantics like Alekhine, Kasparov, Tal gets short shrift.
Mr R J Fischer needs more adulation and hero worship as is his rightful due.
As all the chess champions become old, weak, and feeble anyone can beat them. It says more of a player’s weak mentality if they gloat over beating an old feeble, wounded warrior than about their chess ability/accomplishments.
Man oh man oh man….
I’d like to see a Bobby vs. Susan Chess960 match. 🙂
Fischer never gives Emanuel Lasker his due as one of the greatest all time chess champions and without a doubt, one of the natural talents. And that was only one of the games he was great at.He was also great at bridge and Go.He held the championship longer than anyone.At the same time he was a noted philosopher and mathematician. He was good friends with Einstein.To sum it up, the man was the greatest genius to ever hold the championship. Period.
Fisher once said (about 30 years ago) that Lasker even though while he was world champion for 27 years the later champions were far superior ..he also commented that Lasker kept the standard of chess down by holing the title for so long…and that the change at the top is good for chess
I think Bobby is right about Morphy and Capablanca – Capablanca did not work much at home on openings etc, has one of the 4 all time highest winning percentages (72,4%) and the least number of games lost. Morphy has a winning percentage of above 80%, which is unique in chess. I dont know about Steinitz.
Fischer is right that it is difficult to compare the achievments of players from different epoques in a living game that is still under development. Personally, I like to compare the players from different times through their winning percentage – this, in my opinion, puts a player in his or her competitive environement at the time he or she played.
Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games
1. Morphy 84.6%
2. Alekhine 72.9%
3. Fischer 72.5%
4. Capablanca 72.3
5. Kasparov 69.2%
6. Steinitz 67.6%
7. Botvinnik 66.9%
8. Lasker 65.5%
9. Karpov 65.2%
10. Tal 65%
So Fischer is absolutely right about Morphy and Capablanca as natural talents because the rest of the best – himself, Alekhine and Kasparov – worked a lot more at home than those two.
The one thing about Paul Morphy that I remember reading about was, that he could remember every move of every game he ever played, he also remembered every page of Louisiana State Law, and easily passed the bar exam. He was quite proficient in getting off to an early start in his games, as if he could direct the theatrics of play much better, by using force and tempi to his advantage. He was one of the ones who first introduced transferance into play, with forceful integration, whereby at times his offensive piece would take on the role of the defender, a similarity to his court room character analysis. His knights, had a file bound consideration, and were utilized like weapon holders, supporting the thrust of Bishop missiles, who inturn returned the favor back to the knights on ocassion. He would harness double duty work forces, in both camps for the thrill of their use. He savored the skewer pin, while with wet appetite delectably deflect to clear lines of communication, sacrificing for diagonals when in need of adding a little spice to the game.
Most of all Paul Morphy loved meeting points, for that was when operations became more swift and to the point. As far as openings were concerned, he loved to break a count with a counter pin, finding tempo with every step along the way. A Fred Astaire of the chessboard. He was the King, and so it should be, that everyone feels as good about themselves as he felt about himself. Elvis Presley, had that quality, and through music his own individuality shone through. These are rare individuals, they have reached the summits of their professions, and took the slings and arrows, glories and applause, along the way. Paul Morphy if he were alive today, would still dance and charm, and clean away all comers on the chessboard where he lives. Paul Morphy is alive and living on every chessboard in the world, if only you could see him. Susan’s had a peek, I’m sure.
Hoddy,
No matter what Fischer says, if you look at Lasker’s career in chess , it would be unfair to not place him in the greatest of all time list.Chernev listed him 3rd in his 12 great chess players book, behind Alekhine and Capa.Even with the greats that have shown themselves in the last 30 years since he wrote the book, he still has to be put into the top 20.
Everything moves on. Tennisplayers nowadays are better than the elite from the past and it is the same with chess. If you analyse the games of the great of the past you will more mistakes. In my view Kasparov is the best player ever. But as said before that is simple evolution (in every sport) and that does not take away anything away from the great players of the past.
anon..Re Lasker I sort of agree with you… I think Laskers games are fun to replay he was not a boring player…How good or what standard his play was only a good chess player could say(which I’m not)
I agree with you that he should get a mention World Champion for 27 years says a lot…cheers
To anon:
“Everything moves on. Tennisplayers nowadays are better than the elite from the past and it is the same with chess. If you analyse the games of the great of the past you will more mistakes. In my view Kasparov is the best player ever. But as said before that is simple evolution (in every sport) and that does not take away anything away from the great players of the past.”
The statistical analysis shows us that Capablanca didn’t do as many errors as Kasparov or Tal … (and if you read the study arefully you will see that the nature of the player was considered (tactical or positional) The statistical results shows us that in very complicated positions Kramnik is less likely to make a mistake then any other player folowed closely by Capablanca! Capablanca was first in almost everything else!
(go to Chessbase or the FRI site to get the whole article!)
D.K.
you can find the whole interview, but only with the english parts on http://www.deep-chess.de
“””
Are you really going to tell me that the reason Shirov (or anyone else devoting their life to chess) isn’t as good as Kramnik is because he is lazy and hasn’t devoted enough practice time like Karmnik?
“””
Kramnik would have to prove that in the match. Till then, Shirov has his number.
Btw. the main difference between top players is their mentality, which determines which continuation they will choose.
Fischer never gives Emanuel Lasker his due as one of the greatest all time chess champions and without a doubt, one of the natural talents….To sum it up, the man was the greatest genius to ever hold the championship. Period.
Bald pronouncements that end in “Period” are always wrong. Count on it.
Susan, No disrespect to you or to your chess abilities. But Fischer would never play a match with any women.
He once claimed that he could give a Knight odds to any women, including the then Women’s World Champion Nona Gaprindashvili.
You like him or hate him, that is Fischer for you.
It saddens me to read comments like this. This is precisely why the chess world has so many problems. How do you know this?
For your information, Fischer’s representative have contacted me several times in the past few years about a possible match against him.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
“He once claimed that he could give a Knight odds to any women, including the then Women’s World Champion Nona Gaprindashvili.”
He said that in 1962. It’s possible that even someone as inflexible as Fischer has modified his views a bit in the last 44 years.
He did play a semi-public game with one woman (Cathy Forbes, was it?) during the Sveti Stefan match, which was published in at least one of the books of the match.
Fischer is a shy, humble, mostly polite, not talking very much and very vulnerable person, who does not like to be called “Bobby” anymore. I wish, he will find his peace in Iceland …
he is not that over-hero, that overall genius, that chess maniac, that woman hater
he is also not that felon, that turncoat, that antisemitic ashole…
and – i am quite sure, among the “Fischer – omniscent” in this blog here, there is only a handful, who met him personally, even less who talked to him and more less played a little chess with GM Mr. Fischer …
I’m sure to be right…
Fischer is a shy, humble, mostly polite, not talking very much and very vulnerable person, who does not like to be called “Bobby” anymore.
Did you listen to the same interview the rest of us did? It was full of insulting stream-of-consciousness rants and tirades — many of them imaginary. Though not necessarily bragging, I wouldn’t call it humble either.
I do agree with Susan that he seemed a bit more relaxed than in past interviews, probably because, for the first time in many years, he’s living where U.S. authorities can’t get to him.
He was indeed very polite to the interviewer (who called him “Bobby”), but that’s because the interviewer never challenged him and agreed with most of his positions (or, at least, never disagreed).
This Fischer challenge nonsense is gross. The way it is going, we should all wait until he is completely senile and then challenge him to a match.
Then we can all claim to have beaten a world champion.
Gross…completely gross…its like picking a fight with Ali, or challenging a 95-yr old ex-Olympic sprinter to a foot race.
This Fischer challenge nonsense is gross. The way it is going, we should all wait until he is completely senile and then challenge him to a match.
I am sure that, even at his current age, he is still a very strong player. I mean, even Boris Spassky is still playing simuls–or was, until his recent stroke.
I believe Fischer would only play Fischerandom, or some variant where the importance of opening prep is minimized.
That said, rumors of a Fischer match resurface at least once a year. I’ll believe it when I see it.
Wasn’t Reshevsky one of the greatest natural players of all time?
Of course Reshevsky might not be in the category of Capablanca and Morphy but I wonder if he doesn’t deserve at least some mention.
marc shepherd,
I thought I should make myself more clear that when Isaid Lasker was the greatest genius ever to hold the championship, I meant all around.He was a great academic as well.Ididn’t mean chess genius.
I always wanted to play bobbby fischer in a normal chess game, it would be a dream come true. He was the first GM I learn’t from through games; which I really admired.
Susan since you know him so well, can you please ask him to go to freechess.org occasionally? I really want to by any chance meet him on a chess server, and play him in a blitz or something.
I heard Nigel Short claimed that he played Fischer many times on a chess server and lost, I just hope I get the opportunity to play him too.
The timing of his interview is uncanny. Could this interview be the start of Fischer’s return to the public? With the upcoming gothic chess and everything I mean… Even the FIDE president was recently talking about inviting Fischer to a match.
>>
The timing of his interview is uncanny. Could this interview be the start of Fischer’s return to the public? With the upcoming gothic chess and everything I mean…
>>
Nah. In 60 minutes of interview, Gothic Chess never came up once. One starts to wonder if the Gothic Chess people might not have just been having us on. You know, publicity stunts, and all? The fact that even after 35 years, a certain number of people tend to believe Fischer rumors on the spot must be a big temptation.
>>
Even the FIDE president was recently talking about inviting Fischer to a match.
>>
He was joking. He also talked about playing in the tournament himself. If you listen to the actual interview, Fischer still has his same old party line that chess is dead, played out, and pre-arranged. If he can’t be the best at it any more, he’s not going to play at all. That should be obvous by now.
I don’t know if the gothic thing is a publicity stunt, i think they are genuinely trying to bring Fischer out of seclusion but he is as kookie as ever, still talking about the “Jew controlled US”
I’ll play old senile Bobby. I’ll even give him pawn and move odds. If I don’t win by at least 3 points in a match to 10 games he can claim victory.
Anytime, anyplace
“Crafty obviously is biased towards Classical style player. May be it is easier for the computer to grasp the logical progression of a classical game. So we end up with a bunch of classical players at the very top while the chaotic style of Romantics like Alekhine, Kasparov, Tal gets short shrift. “
It is good to see the latest Chessbase article backing up my previous post that the Crafty ranking of top players is close to garbage.
Tal and Morphy is most natural talent ever before Fischer with chess inspirations and strange ideas
capablanca is the best chess player in the history of chess championships and competition…who can compare to the great capablanca upon seeing his wife and being enamored by her left the board and lose… He doesn’t even own a chessboard in his home. Chess is not the priority there’s more to life than chess to him and yet he went on beating opponent upon opponent… think about it.
What a sad situation this has all become. Arguably the greatest chess player of all time embroiled in what amounts to a bitter divorce from the County he once loved and the citizens who found hope and pride in his every move.
There is no justification for his hurtful comments, but hopefully history will remember him for his talent and not things that were said by an obviously bitter imperfect man.
I agree with fischer also. The same goes for ratings, for example rating inflation. However without regard to rating inflation ratings go up or down based on playing other people from one’s time. GM’s learn from previous GM’s. What if Morphy was alive today and he wasn’t good at memorizing opening lines, or what if Krammik was alive in the 1800’s he might have gone unkown, due to the style of the game changing from time period to time period.
we can compare players of different times or era…
THE GAME OF CHESS IS A THINKING MAN’S GAME…
if the game of chess is just memorization and familiarization of certain patterns and more so about arranging draws then we are to agree that it will soon die out and fade into oblivion..
BUT THINK about this if any of you REALLY IMMERSED YOURSELF IN PLAYING THE GAME… you should have experienced that during your struggle while playing the game an idea will come to you like a light for just “that moment” that moment irregardless of anything you ever studied about chess (separate from the basic rules of chess)that will make you win.
if anyone honestly struggles to play the game to win and wins then he truly is a MASTER of the game.
Greater is the man plays all series of game in a competition and wins them all…
Do you know such a man?
Opening theories do not dictate them (as proven by Capablanca who would occassionaly left to board to attend to the needs of his wife). His loss to Alekhine may also be regarded to such occasions(his mind not on the game) If Alekhine thought otherwise he would have graced Capablanca a rematch. But he is too scared…
So in the annals of chess… a man not drawing or losing a single game in a competition against Masters(by title) is the GREATEST OF THEM ALL.
You can force yourself to a draw but to win them all no matter what SEPARATES that MAN.
Chess History Ranking:
1) Fischer
2) Kasparov
3) Karpov
4) Capablanca
But everything is questionanble.
Morphy excelled in the open game. In fact, he was an attacking genius. He also understood some positional theories which his contemporaries did not appreciate.
All that being said the modern game is so theoretical and so nuanced, I think he would struggle.
Basically, what would happen is this… he would crush people occasionally, but then he would get ground down in positional play. Morphy could never beat a guy like Karpov un match play for instance. On the other hand, against a player like Tal or Keres, I think he would win more than his fair share.