Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bobby Fischer Online?

Posted by michael on from the on-the-net-no-one-knows-you're-a-grandmaster dept.

talilee writes "This story from AP (but I found it at SFGate.com) suggests that Bobby Fischer is playing online chess anonymously against champion level players. I'm glad to see that he has an opportunity to express his genius without having to deal with the overwhelming attention (and without exposing his, um, "eccentricities".)" The BBC has a slightly more informative story.

10 of 428 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Depressing in a way by selan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    No one forced Fischer to become a recluse. He chose it for himself and has gone to extreme measures to stay hidden. Read Searching For Bobby Fischer by Fred Waitzkin for details. It's a fascinating read about the chess world, a father and his chess prodigy son, and the search for Bobby Fischer. Also was made into a decent movie.

    Regarding the rumor that Bobby is playing chess online, I've heard it before and I think it has been going around for a while. Could be true, but really total speculation.

  2. Interesting, hoax or not! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I have to admit, the evidence that Fischer is really out there is much better than I expected it to be before I read the articles. Still, it is very hard to have any idea of who your opponent is in internet chess.

    Maybe it's an American Fischer fan who learned all the "Fisher-related facts." The only evidence against that is just the quality of play.

    Still--can we rule out it was a very powerful experimental chess computer or a very talented and reclusive chess star? Maybe Kramnik or Kasparov has an odd sense of humor and was making all the moves while his American buddy was doing all the typing.

    Unless it's one of the current greats incognito, this story is interesting even if the opponent really isn't Fischer. It sounds like there's someone out there with an incredible chess talent!

  3. Pawns shifted forward? by rokicki · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This seems incredible to me, that anyone playing someone of the caliber of Short can move all his pawns one square forward (giving Short 8 moves to develop his attack, essentially)---and still win!


    Any chess experts want to comment on this unconventional play?

  4. Re:Rounders. by whatever · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just b/c his typing, his use of language, knowledge, etc reminds you of someone that does NOT mean it is.

    From bbc :

    Despite his misgivings, Short eventually arranged to play the unknown opponent, and in October last year lost the first of their four confrontations 8-0.

    Now, my question is, how many people in the world can beat Short 8-0, and who can they be?

  5. Re:Depressing in a way by dragons_flight · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Intellect isn't everything.

    I know very little about Bobby Fischer so I'm speaking in general, not about him in particular.

    Intellect can do a lot, but there are other skills that one needs to be successful, especially in the public eye. These are things like stage presence, speaking ability, charisma, style, bearing and common sense, which are only tangentially connected to intelligence. A smart person might be able to develop them faster than your average Joe. On the other hand intelligence might hinder their development, especially if that person is arrogant because of their intelligence.

    To take a high profile example, by all accounts Al Gore is a pretty learned guy, but he still hasn't figured out what he wants his appearance to be, and the last election suggests that he has had only mediocre success connecting with the public. The stereotypical closed-in scientist (and I've known a few) can be far worse.

    Bobby Fischer is, at least to my limited knowledge, something of a one trick wonder. He is exceptionally good at chess, but clearly doesn't want to be a public figure, and perhaps he wouldn't be very good at it?

    The thing I wonder most about is what kind of a life is he living now? Chess isn't easy to make a profession of and it must be nearly impossible if you don't want people to know who you are. So does he program computers by day and trounce chess masters at night, or what?

    My name is also Bobby and I'm pleased to hear that Mr. Fischer might be having some fun. For my part I've grown to realize the value of that other skill set, and I'm ever so slowly trying to cultivate it.

  6. 0riginal Usenet Post by elzahir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Short's full story was posted on usenet. A bit more information than in either of the press stories.

    --
    For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled - R Feynman
  7. A problem with the evidence by e_lehman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wanted to test my antagonist further so I thought of a number of tricky questions as we gossiped. For example, I asked him: "Do you know Armando Acevedo?" Senor Acevedo is an obscure Mexican player, not remotely of Grandmaster strength.

    My opponent's reply came instantly, if cryptically: "Siegen 1970". Now if you look in the tournament book of the Siegen Chess Olympiad of 1970 you will find that Bobby Fischer played a certain Armando Acevedo in a preliminary round. He was obviously trying to tell me something.

    Typing "Fischer Armando Acevedo" into Google turns up a reference to the 1970 Siegen match on the 3rd link. (The 2nd link is a consequence of Short's article.) It's in Spanish, but the exact phase "Siegen, 1970 appears explicity next to the first occurrance of "Fischer". See for yourself. The point is that one need not have access to a thirty year old tournament book, as Short suggests, to quickly generate the reply that he received. Thus this particular piece of evidence is a lot weaker than it appears.

  8. Yeah, right. by Carnage4Life · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As for this guy being a good chess player - good for him, it doesn't mean he's fischer. I'm sure there are people of world-class quality at chess who choose not to go pro for a variety of reasons - again, it doesn't make them bobby fischer.

    You're kidding right? This player beat Short a lot worse than Short has been beaten anyone in the world including Garry Kasparov. The likelihood that there is someone out there able to defeat the best players in the world who happens to be so good he plays up to 8 bad moves at the beginning of the game and still defeats them who has never revealed himself is so unlikely as to be absurd.Maybe you'd feel better if you saw exactly what Short had to say about the incident.


    The time limit was three minutes per player, per game. My unseen opponent
    began with some highly irregular, if not totally absurd opening moves -
    shifting all his pawns forward one square. These were moves that that no
    Grandmaster would ever play. I immediately felt that I was the victim of an
    elaborate practical joke. But then I became aware of something else.


    From this deliberately unpromising position emerged moves of extraordinary
    power. In this first game I was totally crushed. I took a little more care
    in the second game, but met with the same result. His openings became even
    more cocky - 1....f6 followed by 2...Kf7 and 3...Ke6, exposing his own king
    to immediate assault - was one of his bizarre and unprecedented gambits. It
    was as if he was deliberately trying to handicap himself. However, I was
    beaten again.


    I played the man I believe to be Bobby Fischer on a couple of further
    occasions - a total of 50 games, the last time in May - never getting
    remotely close to scoring 50 per cent. By comparison, I scored 50 per cent
    (six points from 12 games) the last time I faced Garry Kasparov at blitz
    chess, in France in 1995.


    I was going to keep this story a secret, but it has become obvious that
    Fischer's activity on the ICC is slowly becoming known. (The English
    Grandmaster Jim Plaskett has told me that he, too, has played Fischer on the
    ICC. Jim also found that his opponent played fantastically weak openings in
    order to create a level playing field, or rather chess board. Alas, Jim,
    like me, was crushed like a beetle.) It was only a matter of time before
    someone else published something.

  9. On being a recluse by dannywyatt · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So it's way too late for anyone to read this, but I'll post it nonetheless.

    This is from Thomas Pynchon, when CNN tracked him down and filmed him--and maybe, sort of, in a way, "threatened" to show the film.

    "my belief is that recluse is a code word generated by journalists ... meaning, 'doesn't like to talk to reporters.'"

    And this from a reporter who previously stalked him:

    "He shops at neighborhood stores. He lunches with other writers. He spends weekends in the countryside with his family,"

    http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/05/pynchon/

    Just because someone's not in the news, doesn't mean he or she is a shut-in. Of course, this may be different for Bobby Fischer, but it's a perspective we need to keep.
  10. Hey, my specialty... by migstradamus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > Fringe murmurs hit the major media this weekend when Nigel Short declared that he believes he has been playing Bobby Fischer online. (Another report of the report here from AP.) Rumors of Fischer playing internet chess have been going around for months now and have caused a furor amongst the usual fans and foes. Most of these stories go as follows: 1) Mr. X insists that both players log on as guests and all communication is handled by way of an intermediary. 2) Mr. X plays crazy openings, often moving his king back and forth to intentionally waste time. 3) Despite this, Mr. X destroys top GMs in these blitz games, making virtually no errors. 4) The games are never published, Mr. X never says he is Fischer or makes comments suggesting he is. 5) Mr. X occasionally answers trivia questions about Fischer's life.

    You don't need to be Johnny Cochran to know the difference between concrete and circumstantial evidence, and what we have above is a wheelbarrow full of the latter. Nigel Short, speaking in the Sunday Telegraph Review article that is also devoid of substantiation, says that he is "99 per cent sure" he has "been playing against the chess legend." This is based on four sets of games, none of which are given or commented on, other than to say that Short lost the first set 8-0. (The article also says Short went 6-6 in a blitz match with Kasparov in 1995. From the context of Short's actual words these were apparently casual games.) The Telegraph doesn't call the evidence circumstantial, it calls it "overwhelming." Johnny Cochran would be proud.

    Short was also impressed by Mr. X replying "Siegen 1970" when the Englishman asked him if he knew Armando Acevedo. Well, I not only know of him, but I met the simpatico Mexican master in the flesh 10 years ago. But that's another story. Acevedo lost to Fischer in the 1970 Siegen Olympiad. That many a Fischer fan and anyone with a database would also know this seems to have been overlooked in this latest continuation of the rampant desire to believe Fischer is not only alive and well, but just biding his time before coming back to take his rightful crown at the age of 58. (It is not as if the person playing these games, Fischer or not, would be unaware of the intense speculation that has been ongoing in the chess community. Fischer was the only Grandmaster the Mexican faced, at least as far as his published games are concerned.) Who is qualified to ask Fischer a question that only Fischer would know? Not many people, and probably not Nigel Short. (Here's one for Bobby: Buenos Aires, 1996. What did you say Mickey Kantor was too busy doing to protect your rights? The rude comment the interpreter wouldn't translate, but you caught her and repeated it several times? But most people at that press conference would know this one...)

    Personally I have no problem at all believing Fischer plays online anonymously. Despite the obvious decline in his mental health, he was still very animated by chess when I met him in 1996. I do not doubt that if he played into shape he would be a tough opponent for the top 10 today and more than a match for Armando Acevedo. But acting as though he would be an invincible demigod after 30 years of almost complete removal from competitive chess is silly. He played a few dozen games against Spassky in 1992 and the rare flashes of brilliance only glimmered brighter due to the thick layers of rust on his game. His knowledge and insight helped Peter Leko several years ago when the two would meet in Hungary, this we know. We cannot imagine a Fischer who has left chess behind.

    As I said above, if you have good arguments you don't need junk. A master playing with strong computer assistance would have little trouble demolishing a top GM in blitz, we know this from experience. Even in rapid games humans make too many mistakes to compete successfully against CPU power on a consistent basis. I'm quite willing to believe that Bobby Fischer is "out there" and playing blitz online, but it will take published games, and more than just a few, to make this into anything more than a rumor.