Are you a fan of Bobby Fischer? In your opinion, what is the most special part about his game? Is he a genius or is it pure hard work? Would you rank him among the greatest 3 ever?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Genius or hard work?
I am a fan, Is he a genuis or did he just work really hard. I personally don’t know, though I put my money on genuis. If not, then he is a genius of hard work. Best three? Depends on what time frame you are talking about. Definetly best in America though. America’s history at least.
Californian
Yes, he IS a genius and what I admire most from his games are his deep understanding of the positions and his desire to win and dominate!
And remember that he was alone against the world coming from a country without tradition in chess.
Sure, he was a great talent – a talent for concentration, hard work and determination and during that period 1970-1972, his form was so good that he could claim to be among the very best. But let’s also be realistic, he wasn’t born in that form; his natural abilities were fully developed. Of the great USA players (Morphy, Marshall, Pillsbury, Reshevsky, Fine) he is the best.
The intriguing part is the importance of that development. Would Karpov been as great without his work with Furman? Would Tal have been even better if he had just someone whom he trusted to keep him from his other excesses in better physical shape?
Fischer’s teenage years was about chess. But Fischer’s adult life was not. It was about proving a point to the Russians. Chess was merely his tool to achieve this. By the time, he qualified as challenger grinding several GMs in the process, Fischer was very close to having “nothing to prove to anyone anymore”. And when he took the title from Spassky, on a subconscious level, that was it for him. The Russians were defeated. He was world champion. The appeal for competition was gone. Chess could now become for him a mere pastime, no longer a preoccupation. If there was a way to legally remain champion and not have to defend one’s title, Fischer would have opted for that. The pursuit was more fun to him than the quarry itself.
Yes, he is a genius and I rank him a share of first with Kasparov. In his time, he has to deal with the formmidable Russians all by himself.
Manila
Definitely genius (not hard work).
Most chess super-talents appear as children or teenagers at most. At that stage, it can’t be the result of “hard work”. Chess talen is a matter of genetics. If it wasn’t like that, the super-chess players would be in their forties. They are not. The talent “breaks out”, the person studies on top of it and they shine in their twenties typically.
People without the talent, could study hundred years, they would never become super-chess players. Absolutely never.
The interesting part of all this: there can be no such thing as “chess genes”, because chess is an artificial invention by humans. So, it has to be some other capability of the brain which also results being a great chess player. A good material for some nice research.
Gabor
His IQ was Over 180 (genius starts at 130) and he worked harder than anybody else, if you do not believe this then ask Kasparov who himself said that if it wasn’t for Fischer there wouldn’t have been no Kasparov altough I consider Kasparov the Greatest of all time. Kasparov took chess the extreme combining his powerful mind with the power of the silicon…the computer. I think chess knowledge escalated from Fischer to Kasparov to the max cause they commited much less mistakes than anybody else to date.
IMHO:
Capablanca was the last genius in chess, even if he seemed to start working chess(his openings) after he was defeated by Alekhine for the world title.
All the World Champions after him would be both: genius and hard worker in chess.
Nowadays, a genius can work efficiently, but he need to do so in order to improve.
Look at Topalov, Kramnik, Kasparov, Karpov,Anand: all of them are chess genius! There is no doubt about it! But one thing: all their trainers can tell a lot of stories about how hard they can work.
Tal was famous to work all day long with his pupils( like Shirov!). Botvinnik is also famous for his work to retake his lost title.
The Polgar sisters are all chess genius and famous to their working abilities.Judith had a hard work to become the first woman in the world amongst 2700+ players and still be!! And you Susan to become a World Champion!
Am i right or not Susan? to do so much work in the us,playing chess with the results we saw(us team etc), giving lessons, making videos, books, updating this site and so and so: you are showing us a little part of all the job you can do.
I don’t know if there is someone who can contredict myself on this point.
One thing that i am sure: you can do a great job in the uscf .
So: genius and hard work, or hard work hard work hard work: are the keys to become a good player.
Me too, I’m a fan of his chess games! To me he is a chess genious and genious of study too..
Montrealer
Talent does easily what is difficult for the normal. Genius does what is impossible for the talented.
(I don’t know who said this)
Mere talent cannot do what Fischer did.
To all young players in the 60’s Bobby Fischer was an inspiration. He put Americans on a par with the Russians all by himself. As a competitive sport we always knew that he could win, and it wouldn’t be a fluke. Genius without hard work is tragedy, but genius with hard work is success. He won the World Championship winning four matches decisively in a period of less than one year. What more can one say?
Fischer definitely is the number 1 best chess player of all time and far better than Kasparov who relied on other people and the computer. Fischer did it all on his own. No computer and no help from other GrandMasters. He is a Genius and he worked super hard at chess. That combination made him the best ever.
How anyone can say Kasparov is better because he used a computer seems backward logic to me. We are talking about the person and what he himself accomplished.
Fischer heritage is tops also. He transformed chess from a hobby to a profession. Kasparov was extremely destructive of chess. He was exceedingly selfish and damaged chess for his own selfish desires. I have very little respect for Kasparov. The best thing about Kasparov was that he defeated Karpov who stole the title from Fischer and did not play fair against Korchnoi. Karpov I have no respect for. He has no legacy.
No one will ever be as good as Fischer now because everyone now relies on the computer. Fischer had to work every move out on his own. The modern chess player does not even know what that was like. No way to know the correct move without thousands of hours of work. Fischer did it all on his own. He is definitely the GREATEST CHESS PLAYER TO EVER LIVE AND ALWAYS WILL BE.
I guess you could say I am a Fischer fan.
“Doing easily what others find difficult is talent; doing what is impossible for talent is genius.” –
— Henri-Frederic Amiel
Henri Frédéric Amiel (September 27, 1821 – May 11, 1881) was a Swiss philosopher, poet and critic. In 1849 he was appointed professor of aesthetics at the academy of Geneva, and in 1854 became professor of moral philosophy.
the one book by which Amiel is still known, the Journal Intime (“Private Journal”), which, published after his death, obtained a European reputation. It was translated into English by Mary A. Ward.
Capablanca, Fischer and Tal. Those are my top three. If they had the coaching of a Botvinnik or a Furman I wonder how much better they could have been. Also, no one should underestimate the power of computers which are responsible for the new teen-age mutant grandmasters like Negi and Carlsen. It will be interesting how much imagination and creativity these new super-duper GM’s will show and if they will burn out at age 22.
Although he worked very hard, hard work alone would not have done it. He was a genius (who also worked hard). Genius first.
Fischer’s lagacy is that he inspired a generation of young people to play chess so in that regard he must be considered great. Improving the professionalism of chess. The 3 best Fischer, Kasparov and Capablanca. Why? Everyone was afraid of them.
Q: Are you a fan of Bobby Fischer?
A: Yes
Q: In your opinion, what is the most special part about his game?
A: His will to fight for the initiative, his strength to squeeze the maximum out of a position and his exceptional ability to sense the opponent’s slightest hesitation on the board.
Q: Is he a genius or is it pure hard work?
A: A true GENIUS who was also a great example of hard work. He didn’t need anyone – genius is individual.
Q: Would you rank him among the greatest 3 ever?
A: Absolutely.
I agree that Fischer was both a genius and put in a lot of hard work. Most prodigies fail because they don’t put in the necessary hard work. Hard work equals success, but you also need the talent and the genius to be a world beater, in any profession. See this article in Scientific American: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000A850C-8135-14C3-813583414B7F0142&sc=I100322
One must also look at Fischer’s achievements in life after 1975. There is a distinct lack of emotional intelligence in many of his actions. Goes to show that just talent, genius or hardwork are not enough: a well rounded personality is as much necessary.
Regards,
Ravi Kulkarni
My link in the previous post was incomplete. Here is the correct one:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B7F4945&sc=I100322
Regards,
Ravi Kulkarni
i think hes a genious although i think genious and hardwork are not seperate but one in the same. genious is a combination of talent and hardwork. nobody had more talent or worked harder than fischer. he will always reign supreme as the greatest chess player in the world. fishcer was dominant in every aspect of the game. opening, middle game and end game. positionally and tactially. he had no weakness on the board. kasparov would have had no upper hand in openings because of how much work and knowledge fischer had in openings. tactically the two are comparable although it seemed fischer liked bishops while kasparov seems to like to use his knights. both had killer instict in finishing off opponents but where fischer would have beaten kasparov was his strategy and end game. therfore i rank fischer number one alltime kasparov would be second alltime.
wolverine
I think that he is both a genius and a hard worker – at least he was when he was young and all the way through until crowned World Champion.
I think also that there is a bit of a “legend” or “romance” that still to this day swirls around him – almost as if crowned with a halo of chess luminence.
What IS it about Bobby Fischer that makes him such an irresistible figure? He is, I think, different from most in that his brain is wired differently – perhaps somewhere on the spectrum of autism – maybe Asperger’s Syndrome – maybe closer to being Bi-Polar – all of which would also explain his social behavior to some extent.
I know some who have Asperger’s Syndrome. They often tend to be in the “genius” category. They tend to think in terms of black and white. They often channel all of their creative energies into something “safe” – whether that be a game or a computer – but usually something that is distant from the vagueries of human interaction.
I believe that this is one reason that Bobby Fischer remains an attractive enigma to most of us. He begins with a brain unlike that of most people, and a brain that is also incredibly powerful. And then he worked hard at chess. As he himself said: “Chess is all I ever want to do!”
Dr. Rene Ochoa
Yes, Fischer is obviously a genius, and Asperger’s seems to be clearly indicated.
Of course he also had to work hard, but his obsessiveness was part of his genius.
Don’t underestimate the chess culture of New York. Fischer in Iowa or Ethiopia would never have made it. Fischer had outstanding learning and practice opportunities in NYC and unequaled chess information resources (such as chess books).
It is plain wrong to think of Fischer alone against better resourced Russians.
Genius, work and environment/ opportunity.
Of course, that’s all about chess. Otherwise he is vile human being. Lucky he is not an American anymore.
I am not a fan. He is both genius and a hard worker. I don’t know if he is among the best 3 ever because I am not qualified to judge that. But for me it is fun to go over many of his games.
why is it that whens someone is good at something they are automatically crazy or have something wrong with them. humans are inherantly jealous of people that are really good at anything. so in order to make themselves feel better they try and bring that person down with some charatcter flaws or behavorial problems. the fact is genious people like fischer think differently and without people like him we still be living like neandrathals. i have a good friend whos great uncle was nikoli tesla. they said the same about him that he was crazy and totally insane because all he obsessed about was electricity. ill tell you this that without him obsessing about electricity we would not have ac current or wirless communication. he developed the tesla coil he developed wirless commincation. he took us from the dark ages and gave every person in the world elcetricty. you know what happened to him. the same thing that happened to bobby fischer. he became broke and penilesss while edison got all the glory. the world rejected him as a crazy person when he gave so much to the world. the world took from him and gave him nothing but pain. i make the comparison becasue humans do nothing but take from genious like fischer and tesla and then when there done with them they throw them away like garbage. fischer is the best and will always be the greatest player of alltime.
wolverine
I am a fan of Bobby Fischer. In my opinion every part of his game was special, but most exciting to me is his ability to intuitively derive advantages and concretely execute them with amazing accuracy. He is a chess genius and the hard work was enough to take him to the top, and yes is the greatest player ever. my top 3 is
1) Fischer
2) Kasparov
3) Morphy
in the crazy top 3 for sure. seek help bobby, seek help.
Capablanca
Lasker
Tarrasch/Fischer
Capablanca, Tal or Karpov are History of Chess: nobody knows them apart chess players.
Fisher is History!
On the IQ comment:
People with IQ only at 130 are not classified as geniuses. For example
the average IQ of american college professors is 130.
Q: Are you a fan of Bobby Fischer?
A: Absolutely.
Q: In your opinion, what is the most special part about his game?
A: His will to win and his positional undestanding; his games remind me the strength and brightness of Mozart’s music.
Q: Is he a genius or is it pure hard work?
A: 50%/50%. He is a genius and he worked more than the other GM.
Q: Would you rank him among the greatest 3 ever?
A: Of course. The first one.
Ma da mu je IQ stvarno 180 probao bi zavesti
Susan dok je jos slobodna…
Ali kukavica je pa nece ni igrati sah ,a kamoli ozbiljnije “igre” u zivotu.
E blago onome tko rano poludi (ili mozda ipak ne?)
today : a match karpov vs Fischer ?
i think that Karpov win …
today a match Kortchnoi vs Fischer ?
i think that Kortchnoi win …
because Fischer is only a chess legend (like Spassky) and not an active chess player
A. Yes!
B. Find out what Taimanov said after 0-6 match against Fischer!!
C. A true genius!
D.1. Fischer
2. Kasparov
3. Capablanca
4. Karpov
Really a silly question as Fischer had wonderful results from early age.
Many brilliant games before the age of computers and the move by move preparation of today’s players.
Several unique achievements (6-0. 6-0) and head and shoulders No1 in world in his time.
Also Fischer did what he did on his own without coaches.
Genius.
The most special part of his game was his relentless obsession with beating the Russians (and succeeding)
The worst chess player in the world 🙂 says:
I think in the end Bobby Fischer will be remembered as the great enigma of chess; the chess problem that no one was ever able to quite understand. His influence is undeniable as a well worn and much prized book about 60 games sitting in a place of honor in my home demonstrates, but I can not help but to feel that any discussion about Fischer will always be both about triumph and tragedy.
Fischer’s game had a clarity about it that unlike Capablanca left us thinking that somehow he always was able to see a truth that was hidden to the rest of us until it was revealed for all to see.
What was that quality that made Fischer great? Was it genius or was it instead something else? Endless pages have and will be written trying to define what is was that took him to the greatest heights. With Fischer I think it was more than hard work, for instead he was driven by his inner demons past the point where many of us would have been satisfied with our efforts. Yet there was something else as well for hard work alone could not have been the only reason for his results. He found the answers that eluded others and perhaps true genius is nothing more than that.
He will forever be regarded in the arguments for greatest player of all time, but how can one really define if such a player exists and what’s more who that player should be. He achieved his goals in chess and with nothing left to prove he moved on. By so doing he has become a legendary figure, almost mythical really, and we may never be able to solve the riddle of Bobby Fischer and his place is chess history.
Till next time, enjoy:)
He is not a genius. He was helped by a secret computer program and hardware created by CIA for a special purpose like this.
Fischer was certainly a genius, combined with the passion to defeat the Soviet Chess Machine that had a death-grip upon the chess world at the time, and a desire to work hard to achieve his personal goal of defeating the soviets at their own game.
I would further disagree that Topalov and Anand are ‘genius’ chess players – Kramnik less so. Topalov is wreckless at times, Anand, lazy and has never achieved the highest award. Kramnik has proven his genius over and over again in true match play, defeating the highly touted Topalov and the cannot be beaten Kasparov.
Fischer shows a deep understanding of the game that borders on simplicity at times, something that very few GM’s historically have done.
http://chess-training.blogspot.com
His ‘genius’ is based on VERY HARD WORK!
He’s a bit nuts too, but that’s no big deal 🙂 most artists are a bit nuts, hehe 😉
No, not in the top 3!
Regard chess under tecnical point of view i don’t put in doubt that was one of the best.But not the best chessplayer in History.
In my opinion for evaluate a champion you have to judicate him in ALL THE ASPECT OF HIS LIFE.And i have a similar opinion about Alechine.
Fischer,was a chess champion of course,but NOT MORE THAN THIS.It is necessary to distinguish between “The Chess champion” and the Man.Sure he is one of the best chessplayers of every time,but i evalutate other parameters too for tell who is A Champion in Life.
I Couldn’t agree with a lot of opinions of Alechine,his substain to Nazi regime,was horrible.And Fischer too has a way of thinking that i couldn’t condivide.I Strongly disapprove his worlds about september 11th.
You and your sisters Are TRUE CHAMPION,you and Your sisters are the best in the world,while Fischer is really Small and Little respect you,and your Sisters.You with Zsofi and Judith are True Champion in Life,in every aspect,Fischer NO.Because the dimension of Fischer is Chess and no more than chess,while you and your sisters have an importance that goes much much more over chess.
And AFTER YOU,and YOUR SISTERS i put Lasker,Tal,Kasparov,Karpov,Spassky,Petrosjan,Many Hungarians,Smyslov,Kortchnoi,Anand,Kosteniuk,and many Others.Remember,for ME you and your sisters are 100000000000000 times GREATER RESPECT HIM.
Probably my voice is outside of the mass,but i evalute every person in All of his aspects.
For growing chess it is necessary be a Complete man(or woman) in every field of the life as you and your sisters are.It is important to have not only a chess dimension but a global dimension.And You with Susan and Judit are part of global history.The connection of chess with other fields,and give importance to other aspects of this extraordinary game and sport,it is privilege not only the agonistic aspect but even the creative,artistical,historical,psicological aspect and many other aspects too
Kisses
Antonio
I’m still a big fan of his after all these years. He is the greatest ever. It’s sad about his personal hangups but he is still an absolute genius. He was never after wealth or political power like Kasparov. But he made unbelievable sacrifices for chess and wanted society to recognize it.
I consider Sammy Reshevsky a true chess genius. Sammy displayed tremendous chess skills at a very early age, much earlier than even an above average person would have had the emotional and intellectual maturity to become such a good player. And even though he was an amateur, he rose to become one of the top 2 or 3 players in the world during the 40’s.
Fischer, on the other hand, through a maniacal level of focus and dedication, became one of the very best players of all time. He devoted his life, all of it, to chess. So, I say that his success came more from hard work, than from genius.
I consider him a genius, because if he weren’t, there would be no excuse for being nuts.
I think he is one of the best 4 of all time.
I think it would have to be hard work. In a normal day he would spend 14 hours studying chess. His genius is born of hard work.
He himself said he wasn’t very good until one year when he started taking off. Fischer was probably the hardest working World Champ/GM of his time.
“Geniuses are made, not born,”!!!
László Polgar
Victor F.
Dear Susan, there is no doubt possible Fischer IS a genius ! Chess is his greatest (and perhaps only passion), so it’s normal he devoted all his timeto chess. In that case you cannot speak about “hard working”, it was and is still, I’m convinced, a real pleasure not a “work”. I think 1. Fischer 2. Morphy 3. Kasparov. René
Yes, he has been the genius and was working on chess. He is in the 3 best players in my opinion number one.
I am his fan.
P.