CPS Professor’s Book to Become HBO Film on “Chess Match of the Century,” Fischer vs. Spassky
April 07, 2008
When World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer died in January 2008, the media from all over the world immediately sought out Frank Brady, Ph.D. for background information and commentary on the temperamental chess genius. As Fischer’s biographer, Dr. Brady had years ago forged a relationship with the young chess player at the office where he founded and wrote Chess Life magazine. Fischer, the reigning U.S. Chess Champion, continually visited Brady’s office to read all the latest chess literature. They’d dined together, played in the N.Y. Metropolitan Chess League, and competed against each other in speed chess (a chess game with clocked moves) at the Marshall Chess Club) in Manhattan (“It took Bobby two minutes to checkmate, it took me 10,” Brady chuckles).
“Fischer was the Beethoven of chess,” Brady states, “probably the greatest chess player that ever lived.”
Here is the full article.
What on earth does Fischer have in common with Beethoven, apart from the fact that both were among the best in their field? If you were going to compare him to a composer, wouldn’t it be better to pick one whose career ended early?
For that matter, what’s so funny about Fischer beating Frank Brady at speed chess? This is a weird article.
Aside from chess, Bobby Fischer did nothing to contribute to humanity. He was a chess genius. However, he was also a vile man and did nothing for positive future of civilization outside of chess.
Outside of chess, he will never be remembered in the centuries ahead. I wish so much his talent could have been combined with something in addition to chess.
People use his “insanity” to defend his remarks. I don’t think he was as “insane” as people are often led to believe.
Don’t make excuses for him. Don’t say “let’s separate his chess from his remarks.”
Why? Fischer was just a man. A mortal. Not a demi-god. His remarks later in life could very well have been that of a mind, not twisted or “insane,” but his true opinions.
Truly “insane” people will be institutionalized involuntarily, if necessary. He had to have a good grasp of reality and to have a sense of “right and wrong.”
If he was truly “insane,” he would have been in a mental hospital somewhere and not in Iceland.
Now, I’m sure he had problems. I’m sure he probably needed medication. but, I believe he was a bit more clever than people are led to believe.
If he ever posed a danger to himself or others, he would have been put into a hospital indefinitely. He was no threat to himself, nor to others….just his verbal onslaughts.
Did he have a pshychiatrist? If so, where?
People make excuses for him by saying he was insane…yet, insane people can’t function in society (depending upon what the psychiatric diagnosis is).
Fischer not only fuctioned well in society, but he knew what he was doing and knew “right” from “wrong.”
So, in chess…yes, he was a genius. Superb! However, he was not a Paul Morphy that stood so far above his contemporaries in ability that he had to play games at odds.
Fischer was just a man, with some psychological issues, and fundamentally, a spiteful, hateful, rascist, that will be forgotten outside of the chess community.
If America ever had a “chess demi-god” it was Paul Morphy and NOT Fischer.
“If America ever had a “chess demi-god” it was Paul Morphy and NOT Fischer.”
I disagree. Chess in the world during Morphy’s time was not as developed as it is today.
Morphy’s adjusted modern rating would be about 2500 using today’s standards. Anand, Susan, or Kramnik coud easily beat Morphy if he were alive today. One can even say he was a proto-GM, the fist of many to follow after him. He set the standard for the 19th Century. 21st Century chess would make the poor man go into a fetal postion and mutter things like: what the heck is a Neo-Grünfeld?
The man’s dead, for Pete’s sake. He’s not going to play again, not ever. He’s not going to show us any more of the beauty that lurks everywhere in the game we all love. He’s not going to spew venom on Philippine talk radio again, not ever.
Just speaking for myself, I’m glad that I:
— got the chance to see a brilliant mind at work on a class of problems and opportunities that I find fascinating;
— didn’t have to live / work / play every day alongside what seems to have been a thoroughly tortured human being.
>>Aside from chess, Bobby Fischer did nothing to contribute to humanity. He was a chess genius. However, he was also a vile man and did nothing for positive future of civilization outside of chess.
>>
Okay, so what composer would that make him? The guy who invented muzak?
“Morphy’s adjusted modern rating would be about 2500 using today’s standards.”
Chessmetrics gives him a peak of 2747.
“Anand, Susan, or Kramnik coud easily beat Morphy if he were alive today.”
If the standard is dominance, then Morphy is a bit better than Fischer (even Fischer wasn’t so far ahead that he could give odds to his closest rivals). And Philidor is a LOT better. (Nobody, not Fischer or anyone else will dominate the chess world for 50 years ever again.)
If the standard is overall playing strength, Kasparov is a bit better, partly for the reason you gave yourself, that the game itself had advanced since 1972.
So really, Fischer isn’t quite the best in either category. What makes him legendary is his Lone Wolf status. The One Guy vs. The System is a classic tale. It’s not any less classic or any less worth telling, if Fischer should be slightly less than the greatest player who ever lived.
“Chessmetrics gives him a peak of 2747”
Yes, that was his performance against 19th century players.
The point I’m making is, the class of GM Morphy was compared to today’s players is very different!
It’s like comparing an ancient Greek olympic runner to Carl Lewis. Carl Lewis devour the ancient running man.
Our modern chess players would devour Morphy because of the advanced chess tactics that have been developed over the last 100 yeas after Morphy’s death.
Morphy was a Fischer surrounded by a world filled with Nigel Shorts. No wonder Morphy quit chess and went into law.
To say that Fischer was the greatest player ever is not supported whatsoever by the evidence.
Fischer burned brightly for a short period of time and then flamed out. After winning the championship from Spassky (who only held it for a brief time himself), Bobby Fischer spent the remainder of his life — 35+ years unable to validate any claim of being the best ever.
His games against Spassky in the 1990’s irrefutably disprove his claim of being the best ever.
In contrast, Karpov and especially Kasparov, have the career evidence to support their arguments that they might have been the best ever. After they won their titles, they continued to play against old and new players to demonstrate their continuous prowess and might on the chess board.
Quite frankly, I am tired of these undeserving accolades for Fischer.
First, you MUST compare any player (such as Morphy or Fischer) with the best players they played against…or existed at the time they played.
Considering this, and this is all we have to go by, Paul Morphy was light years ahead of his competition…even the best…Adolf Andersson (he never got to play Chigorin..but Morphy still beat the best either Europe or the U.S. had)…he was so far ahead of the “best” players of his day that he had to play odds games.
Fischer was a brilliant. But, he was never THAT far ahead of the very best Europe had to offer. Again, we have to place the player within historical context. Of course, Susan could defeat Morphy…she has more than a century of theory to go on.
But, it all comes down to who you defeat, during your career as a chess player, that are considered the “best in the world.”
Morphy did this and did in such a manner that it proved he was light years ahead of any of his contemporaries. Now, Fischer was great. but, we can’t compare honestly how todays GM’s could beat those of the last century. Just like it would not be fair to compare the chess GM’s of 200 years from now to todays best. Of course future GMs’ will be better because as Isaac Newton said:
They stand on the shoulders of giants.
Fischer studied and learned from Morphy’s games. He never said a negative word of Morphy. And we must be fair and only compare the player with the competition he/she faced during their lifetime. Otherwise, it isn’t really a fair comparison at all.
A direct quote from Bobby Fischer about Paul Morphy from the web site(a really wonderful chess site:
http://batgirl.atspace.com/quotes.html)
Fischer said of Paul Morphy:
“A popularly held theory about Paul Morphy is that if he returned to the chess world today and played our best contemporary players, he would come out the loser. Nothing is further from the truth. In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today… Morphy was perhaps the most accurate chess player who ever lived. He had complete sight of the board and never blundered, in spite of the fact that he played quite rapidly, rarely taking more than five minutes to decide a move. Perhaps his only weakness was in closed games like the Dutch Defense. But even then, he was usually victorious because of his resourcefulness.”
We just can’t compare in any meaningul manner the chess giants of the distant past with those of the preset. I think just about any current GM would agree that, compared to his best chess playing contemporaries, Morphy was (for whatever reason) much further talented than his nearest rival.
Today, we have many super-GM’s. However, none are so “superior” to any other in the sense that Morphy was to his best contemporaries.
And with Fischer, he was a chess genius. Yet, he was never so far advanced above the best GM’s of his time as compared to Morphy.
This is just the facts.
“Historical context….” so easy to forget because we want so much to compare and wish we could see how Morphy would do against Pillsbury or Fischer…but it’s not fair. Future GM’s (say, in the year 2100…in exactly 92 years from now) will no doubt be far better than the best GM’s now.
Why? They will have studied and learned from todays GM’s, computers, and past GM’s.
You can only compare a player with the best in the world DURING his lifetime.
Great topic, though!
The topic is the movies which are being made or peoples opinions on who is the greatest?
I look forward to the movies.
My opinion is Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov were dominant over their peers even though Mischa struggled but still overcame them all in the rematch.
I would also include, Keres, Reshevskey as players which should have been champion but never got a chance. Greatest of all time, all I can say in my lifetime Fischer was a more dominant champion over his peers from 1970-1972 than Karpov or Kasparov ever achieved during their reign. Still I am so grateful to have lived during Karpov/Kasparov era reminded me of Capablanca/Alekhine era.
I am happy there is a movie being made about Fischer. It’s easy to get side-tracked when someone states that Fischer (or any player) was the “best ever.”
Fischer was the greatest at the height of the Cold War. Morphy was particularly great in the years directly preceding the American Civil War. It is interesting, historically, that Morphy, a Southern slave-holder, was so popular amongst Northern abolitionist due to his chess prowess and how he represented the U.S. with his outstanding play in Europe. Upon his return in 1858, as tensions were building toward Civil War, this frail young Southerner was hailed as the “Chess Champion of the world” by the son of President Van Buren!
For a cultural historian, this is quite remarkable.
Anyway, Morphy….Fischer…they were both the greatest during their careers. I’m just happy chess will be promoted in a film.
As far as “the best”…Morphy was just simply so far ahead of all of his contemporaries that he must be considered “the best”.
We can’t compare todays GM’s with him. It’s only natural that they would defeat him. Yet, without Morphy would there have been a Fischer?
I truly regret that Fischer never played Karpov. I also regret that Mr. Staunton refused to play Morphy and also that he never got to play the Russian Master Chigorin. What epic battles those would have been!
Just think…what we could have learned from all of the aformentioned matches if they had happened.
Perhaps the film will lead to a new interest in Chess within America. I hope so.
To the post who said Fischer was no harm to himself or others. Bobby Fischer had his fillings removed for fear the Russians could control his mind. Is that rational thought? Plus destroying ones teeth is harmful. There are many mentally unstable people who walk the streets, ride public transportation, and live alone who are no threat to anyone but none the less are mentally ill. Having seen Bobby Fischer as a young man with that boyish laugh and a much more congenial social attitude, for instance his appearances on the television shows Dick Cavett and Johnny Carson Fischer was nothing like the anti semetic raging psychotic he became. You dont have to be a psychiatrist to know Fischers mind was not well at all!
Bobby Fischer himself once said “Paul Morphy was probably the greatest genuis of them all”. In his later years, in fact the last year of his life Fischer stated that Capablanca was amazingly talented, and that all the guys from the Marshall Chess Club in the 1950’s would talk about how Capa would always find the right move. I think in all sports there are greats of every era, so it is extremely hard to compare and say who was the definitive absolute best, because of so many factors, such as known theory of the day, compiled data on theory of a century studied by generations, and the advent of super computers. But I think Morphy, Capablanca or Fischer had that special talent to be great in any era given the chance to catch up on the most recent theory. I know for a fact Bobby Fischer was 1 of the greatest or the greatest chess player ever by studying his games and the opinion of Garry Kasparov who stated, Bobby Fischer was theoretically ahead of his chessic peers by at leat 15 years in his own time period! He achieved this without the use of computers, but through hard work around the clock studying mostly Russian chess books and magazines. I think without these super computers players like a Vladimir Kramnik could not exist.
I am disappointed that Hollywood wouldnt do a major motion picture on Bobby Fischer and spend the right kind of money and do the film right. I read the book ‘Bobby Fischer Goes To War’ and it deserves an outstanding production with big name stars, and not a made for tv movie. This goes to show Hollywood bean counters believe American audiences are not interested enough in a movie about chess and the genuis who played it. But didnt ‘Searching for Bobby Fiscer’ do extremely well? Come on Hollywood use your head?!