Bobby Fischer Online?

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.

Comments

Anonymous Coward Online

[pubudu]

This story from /. suggests that Anonymous Coward is posting online against +1 bonus level posters. 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".)

I hate chess.

[Anonymous Coward]

I constantly lose to chess programs. I hate that damn game.

Some things never change...

[Robber Baron]

On September 1, 1992, Bobby Fischer came out of his 20 year retirement and gave a press conference in Yugoslavia. He pulled out an order from the U.S. Treasury Department warning him that he would be violating U.N. sanctions if he played chess in Yugoslavia. He spit on the order and now faces 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine if he returns to the U.S. In addition, he most forfeit his $3.65 million to the U.S. Treasury and forefeit 10% of any match royalties earned.

Some things never change. How many stories have we had now featuring the blockheaded American government foisting asinine rules on individuals? 10 years in prison and 3.8 million in penalties for playing chess??? They're lucky he only spit on the order...

Celebrity sightings

[tpledger]

Flying back from Lubbock, I saw Jesus on the plane.
Or maybe it was Elvis. Y'know, they kinda look the same.
-- Don Henley, "If Dirt Were Dollars"

Re:Depressing in a way

[blue trane]

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.

I think Al Gore lost because he was trying to present himself as something he's not. His advisors told him to be "an alpha male" and aggressive and to act confident and all that crap, when really I think he is an introvert who would rather rely on the truth in an argument rather than what will play well to the audience. He should have just been himself, and trusted that the public would be able to overcome obsolete ideas of what makes a good leader (dating from more primitive times).

Of course, Bill Bradley tried to be himself, and Al Gore's "alpha male" personna beat him. So being able to be yourself and get elected, if you're an introvert, may still be a ways off.

sigh.

denied the holocaust

[tobi_pinkjuice.com]

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/7378/fi scher.htm
says Robert James Fischer denied the holocaust of the Nazis in an interview to Baguio Radio in the Philippines on On January 14, 1999. If he did that, it's higly wrong, disgusting, and evil. I'm sad such a person is considered worthwile discussing as a "chess legend"; his denying the holocaust clearly makes it impossible to just talk admiringly about his chess skills.

Nonetheless

[FallLine]

My wife's adviser for her PhD in geology was called to testify on global warming to some government committee a few years ago. In this, he was questioned by a number of respected individuals in the science field, many of whom were geologists (although not of the same specialty as my wife's adviser). At the end, Gore came in for a short 5-minute Q&A period. My wife's adviser said that the questions Gore put forth were the most intelligent and thought provoking of the bunch. Obviously he had been well briefed by his aides, but my wife's adviser says that it was clearly his own thinking (follow-up questions to his answers and such). He would most surely disagree with your opinions about Gore.

In that particular situation, I could see Gore performing well. However, that does not really demonstrate a significant intellect. I would not at all be suprised if Gore were very prepared for this meeting. Firstly, he's very good at spitting out facts and figures. Secondly, environmental policy is his meat and potatoes. While I don't agree with him, I can see combination of his conviction to the issues and his familiarity as being impressive to some. Thirdly, as you indicated, the man would have, presumably, already heard all the arguments. Gore may have said something that your conservative fellow may not have heard before, that may have impressed him, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Gore really thought of it or even that he understood it. Fourthly, the man is a career politician, he has a great deal of practice in that kind of environment.

Furthermore, even if this man had every reason to believe Gore was as intellect from this meeting, it was just ONE 5 minute meeting, I've personally seen and heard of many examples contrary to his supposed intellect that I simply refuse to believe Gore is a "real" intellectual, let alone intelligent. Also, most people have not had the opportunity to see him personally like that. I really don't see how the general public _honestly_ develops that perception of him.

The real reason, in my opinion, is because the media has a very definite liberal bias and because Bush is not impressive intellectually. Gore is arguably more intellectual than Bush (However, I would say that he's overall less intelligent than GW, despite the fact that many would disagree.) Another major reason is because a lot of people do not truely understand what intellect is. They confuse the ability to recite facts and figures with intellect, conviction with comprehension, preparation with insight, and so on. Nonetheless, I do not believe that makes a really convincing picture for most the public.

The press says Gore is intellectual and few individuals take the trouble to see through it. The press says he's intelligent and intellectual, because he's the best choice to further their politics, given the fact that the other Democratic candidates were un-ellectable and that GW is a Republican.

You can be quite intelligent and now be an excellent orator. In fact you can be quite intelligent and not be very good at English. Don't put down Gore's intelligence. In fact, all the democrat presidents (and Gore) from the last half century stack up as wonderfully intelligent. However, most of them performed as president very poorly. Intelligence is not strongly correlated with the quality of one's presidency.

I agree very much with you on the fact that intellect doesn't necessarily equate with intelligence and that neither necessarily equate with being a capable leader. This is part of the reason why I voted for Bush. This is also the biggest reason why Gore would be one of the last candidates on my list, even if I were a Democrat; Gore, at best, has an average intellect and he has little else to offer.

Re:Nonetheless

[The Mayor]

Just out of curiosity, how do you come up with this opinion? It really flies in the face of the conventional wisdom of Gore's and Bush's relative levels of intelligence and intellect.

Also, it sounds like you've got more first (or second) hand experience with Gore. Have you or these folks you know spent much time with him? More than 5 minutes? I want to know--if I should change my opinion of Gore, I want it to be substantiated on something other than heresay.

And don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say intellect != intelligence. I said that oration skills != intelligence. I'm not sure I understand your distinction between intellect and intelligence.