Author: James Robertson
Date: 10:16:54 05/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2001 at 13:07:48, Graham Laight wrote: >On May 01, 2001 at 10:59:48, Albert Silver wrote: > >>On May 01, 2001 at 10:49:01, John Smith wrote: >> >>>Fischer was one of the strongest players in history; why shouldn't he be a >>>proper subject of discussion, notwithstanding his views? >> >> >>Unless there was an outstanding revelation, beyond the oft repeated belief by >>his most ardent fans that he would beat everyone in sight and crush them to >>little pieces after he had stomped them to a pulp, I fail to see the relevance >>with this group. For example, I don't see anything on Tal, Smyslov, or Alekhine > >Hint: check the nationality of these players. > >Then check the nationality of Bobby Fischer. > >Likewise - ever wondered why prosaic battles like Gettysburg are so heavily >discussed, when so many more interesting battles have occured throughout the >world throughout history? Interest is in the eye of the beholder. As Americans, who's country was dramatically influenced by this battle, we are of course very interested in Gettysburg. I understand why you might be more interested in other battles, but don't assume that that is sufficient reason to say that Gettysburg is by definition less interesting. Same with Mr. Fischer. He is the greatest player to ever come from this half of the globe, and the only non-Russian to capture the modern WC title (excluding Anand's win of the FIDE WC title). Of course we are very interested in him. =) James > >-g > >>(other than references to positions or games), which is just as well, as it >>would have very little to do with the proposed subject matter of this message >>board. So I don't see why Bobby, however wonderful his stomping techniques may >>have been, would be an exception to this. >> >> Albert
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.