![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The picture on the Wiki predates Fischer's burial there. His headstone would be visible in shot (it's just inside the front gates on the left hand side) had this picture been take post-internment. Further, the church itself is currently (I was there yesterday) in far better condition than in the photo. I have a newer image and will attempt to add this at some point. -- 213.176.144.116 ( talk) 20:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I think this article is pretty comprehensive and could be promoted to FA or GA status. Besides the four "citation needed" passages, what else could be improved about it? Toccata quarta ( talk) 18:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
?? JMRW67 ( talk) 22:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is half of the lead paragraph devoted to Fischer the author? Compared to the rest of his life it is pretty minor. For instance Leonard Barden's long obituary only gives is a short mention. [1] Of course it is in the article, but it certainly doesn't belong in the lead paragraph, and probably not in the lead at all. See WP:LEAD. Adpete ( talk) 00:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
As I have already written elsewhere, it makes no sense to claim that the adjective "famous" is peacock. If fame can't be measured, then neither can be notability. Fischer is famous, and so are his chess games and writings. "The Game of the Century" is as famous as anything in chess. Toccata quarta ( talk) 00:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
[4] The disagreement is with the removal of the word "famous" in this edit. The reason is that it should be removed is because:
There is some comment text explaining the use of the weasel words "considered by many", but I think it would look less like it wants a {{fact} next to it if there were some kind of local link within the text. Crasshopper ( talk) 01:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
"He is considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time." may be a fact (depending on how many "many" is), but "X is the greatest Y of all time" is always a silly thing to say because time has not yet come to an end and therefore all candidates have not been considered. Similarly with other words in place of "greatest". 213.122.59.173 ( talk) 21:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I thought several games, six I think, were played in Belgrade before the match halted for some time (I don't remember if it was after an agreed-upon number of games or because of a disagreement about match conditions), then resumed in Reykjavik? I don't have references I can quote about this, however; it's what I remember from what I read in the press (both chess magazines and general newspapers) and heard on the radio (in "general" news bulletins) at the time. — Tonymec ( talk) 20:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Arinbjorn, Fischer's notability period occurred under American citizenship, his Icelandic citizenship occurred well beyond it near the end of his life. Have you looked at Einstein's notability period and compared with his various citizenship periods? His period of notability was under various different citizenships, so "German-born" has its case there. But that argument doesn't exist for Fischer. Are you arguing that "American-born" is required since Fischer held Icelandic citizenship at time of death? That is not what MOS says ("the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable") and the two bios, as explained, don't compare on that point, so your argument for "consistency" in Fischer & Einstein BLPs specifying "-born" is completely bogus. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 22:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Who influenced the subject of the article? I would suggest John W. Collins, Arnold Denker for starters, but, of course, there are others. Let us reach consensus and then populate the "influences" field of the infobox.-- 76.220.18.223 ( talk) 11:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Why has the structure of this article been massively changed? It's not proper. Toccata quarta ( talk) 17:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
lol. You are free to correct what you want to. I'm just doing my part, adding citations, cross-checking sources, doing research, reading for clarity. I welcome any suggestions as it is a group effort and not just the work of one measly mouse.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirmouse ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
FIDE refers to it as "Grandmaster" (and in some cases "Grand Master"): http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=163&view=article
My limited research shows that Pliestsky, Voronkov, Edmonds, Eidinow, Nunn, and Brady refer to the title as "grandmaster", whereas Lombardy and Silman refer to it as "Grandmaster". Eade and Fischer seem to use the terms interchangeably. Which is it?... Sirmouse ( talk) 03:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
When I was reading this interesting biography, I kept wondering, how did he financially survive as a fugitive? It's not like he had sponsors or a regular job. And then, to get to the end and read he had an estate worth $2M? It's very confusing as it sounds like his family was poor and his chess successes were decades old. If anyone could answer this question and incorporate this information into the article, I think that would be very helpful. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The section on "Collins myth" looks to be a copy/paste from the Collins article, and that is a bad idea. (I hate to say the obvious, but this article is a biography of Bobby Fischer. That section suddenly segues to make it all about Collins, who he taught, who he didn't, and about Collins. That is the wrong idea and bad writing for this bio article on Fischer. That section needs serious reduction and summary, restricted to how it relates to Fischer, and not other players.) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 15:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
"My name is Robert James Fischer. Friends and patzers call me Bobby." Heronils ( talk) 14:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not a bad quote, but where is the primary source from which it derives? Sirmouse ( talk) 17:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
If anyone wants to write a formal A-Class review please feel free. I am too involved in the project to be allowed to write such a review, and do not have the tech savy to go through the wikiproject chess nomination page. It was hard enough to figure out how to put up a GA nomination, and even then I was shown to have done the process completely wrong.
Therefore, I will leave the formal A-class nomination and review to basically anyone else. lol
Sirmouse ( talk) 17:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that the wording in the article's intro was discussed in the past (most recently here), but to say Fischer is "considered by many to be greatest chess player who have ever lived" is definitely an outrageous overstatement of the facts. No doubt that he was one of greatest chess players of all time, but there is nothing compelling that puts him above the others in all relevant categories except the fact that he was a brilliant chess player in a relatively short period of time. Most of the chess players and critics agree that Fischer dominated in chess for about two years, Kasparov dominated for almost twenty years, Capablanca was the player with flawless technique and least number of mistakes on average, Tal was the most creative and innovative chess player, Botvinnik was the greatest player excelling in positional play and Petrosian was the one with greatest defensive style; on the other hand, the statistics shows that Lasker is the player with most World Chess Championships won, Karpov is the one with most games and tournaments won, Tal is the holder of the longest unbeaten strike and Carlsen is the person with largest rating achieved as well as the one with the largest rating performance on a top-level tournament. By summarising all of these categories, it becomes evident that the only category in which Fischer was greatest is his dominance in two or three years, which cannot be regarded as something that makes distinction among the greatest in history and normally occurred often than, for instance, Kasparov's long-term domination. Some may say that Fischer was the greatest because of the fact that his domination was greater than any other domination and that his rating at the time would be more valuable now, but such opinions usually come from or have ever circulated in the American media or chess literature and are generally attributed to the tense political ties during the Cold War. Don't forget that in many books and chronicles the World Chess Championship 1972 played between Spassky and Fischer is generally seen as battle between the Soviet Union and the United States. Moreover, the rise of Magnus Carlsen and his dominance in the last two or three years along with all the records he broke in meantime shadows what Fischer did 40 years ago but is yet to be proved if he's capable to reach what the other players did throughout chess history. So, it's much better if the wording in the article's intro says "one of the greatest" (similar to the articles about Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine and Botvinnik) rather than "considered by many to be the greatest" (similar to the article about Kasparov), because Fischer has never dominated chess like Kasparov did and hasn't played even a single chess game as World Champion. Thanks.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 00:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Simeonovski,
Let me first say how much I appreciate the discussion and your enthusiasm for the topic. I especially enjoy that you do your research and cite some interesting sources.
The page lists Bobby Fischer as "considered by many to be the greatest chess player who ever lived", but when one clicks on that link it takes one to a "Comparison of top chess players throughout history" page. This indicates that Fischer is "among" the best players ever.
I believe the confusion stems from you deducing that we believe that Fischer is the single greatest player ever, bar-none. We are not. We are saying he is considered "by many" and cite reputable sources.
Wikipedia is not about OUR opinions. It is about the opinions of reputable (oftentimes published) sources. We work very hard to present the facts from many different angles and perspectives.
I believe I speak for other editors of the Fischer page when I say that we are open to citations and sources, but cannot debate our own subjective opinions about what our research indicates.
I pray that you keep an open mind as we all continue to refine and learn from one another.
Thank you.
Sirmouse ( talk) 16:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Sirmouse ( talk) 20:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the Lombardy section. The influence Lombardy had on Fischer seems overstated in the article, and the entire section based solely on Lombardy's own claims. The claim that Lombardy was Fischer's "teacher and coach" through 1972 is not credible. The idea that anyone could teach or coach Fischer (or that Fischer would permit them to try) after 1960 or probably earlier is absurd. I think this is undue weight caused by over reliance on a single, not disinterested source. Quale ( talk) 07:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
There is also the source from Ponterotto. Well, Fischer DID bring him into the 1972 match to be his sole second and they analyzed games together. Lombardy seems to have had a close enough relationship with Fischer that he only left for the match because of him -- probably due to the fact that he actually had beaten Spassky, whereas Fischer had not --, and only stayed in the match thanks to his persuasion. Lombardy also owns the first autographed copy of Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games", and Fischer was entrusted to Lombardy for the 1958 Portoroz Interzonal, and acted as his second there, analyzing games with him. There are even pictures of the two of them analyzing together at Collin's home.
Sources for these claims stem from "Bobby Fischer Goes to War", "Endgame", "The Psychobiography of Bobby Fischer", as well as "Understanding Chess". I will present citations upon request.
But I do agree on the claim that he coached him through 1972, to the extent that there is simply not enough evidence to demonstrate that. I will correct. Thank you for your comments and suggestions and insight.
Sirmouse ( talk) 20:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Quale. "A Mystery Wrapped In An Enigma" as well as "Profile of a Prodigy", "Endgame", and "Bobby Fischer Goes To War" all state that Lombardy analyzed Fischer's games during the 1972 World Chess Championship. They have a long history of analyzing together which goes back to at least 1956 (see "The Unknown Bobby Fischer", page 45). Sirmouse ( talk) 07:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Sirmouse ( talk) 18:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri ( talk · contribs) 17:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 17:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Good Article Checklist
Good Article review progress box
|
Still some others.
Comments: This will take me a few days to do. For now, I will begin by pointing out the reference matter so that it can be fixed while I prepare the rest of the review. The 404s should be checked for archival. The 403 should be fixed or backed up as well. Several of the sources, included the dead ones, seem to be unreliable sources. Some of the dead sources have been dead for years as well. Please go through the Checklinks list and resolve as many as you can. This review will likely go beyond the hold for 7 days following its completion for the sheer size and depth of the article, even a month would be acceptable in my eyes. This article is extremely important to Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 07:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I went through all the 404s and fixed the deadlinks. I also went through the 402 and 302. I'm not sure what you mean by a 301 in terms of what we can do to improve it. I must admit that the technical computer numbers are not something I am too familiar with, but I can assure you that we have been making the desired corrections to the page since you started the review process. Sirmouse ( talk) 05:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the "unsourced" claim as it is not specific in its supposed accuracy, as well as being, obviously, without any sort of citation. I will look into the issues regarding the Osama bin Laden letter as well as the "Fischer clock". I will keep you posted. Thank you so much for your thoughts any insight. Your review of this article is greatly appreciated by its contributors. Sirmouse ( talk) 23:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I have removed an additional 5,380 bytes from the main article, that keep its integrity intact. I have checked the readable prose of the Fischer article, using the DYK check tool, and it reads it as 12104 words. By comparison, the "Roman Empire" article (which holds GA standing) has a readable prose of 19858 words. In the last 30 days, the Fischer article has been viewed "76955" times, whereas the "Roman Empire" article has been viewed (in the last 30 days) "225484" times. Based on this data I think it is safe to conclude that it is unnecessary to split the article. It may even detract from viewership, and it certainly won't enhance the comprehensiveness of the article, since longer articles tend to suggest substantive research. Sirmouse ( talk) 19:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Notes
Bibliography
I've again removed some of the unsourced trivial mentions of the subject found in the "In popular culture" section per WP:BURDEN. Even with reliable sources, most of these do not appear to be worth mentioning in the article; an In popular culture section is not meant to be a catchall for any and every time a subject has ever been mentioned, even in passing. It's starting to look more like a trivia section than what it's supposed to be, which is a section showing the individual's impact on popular culture. - Aoidh ( talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 14:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
It's been over 100 days (30 August 2013) since the last edit on the "In popular culture" conversation. The bot is supposed to "automatically archive discussions inactive for 99 days". I guess the bot broke down or something....
Sirmouse ( talk) 08:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
An editor placed a "too long" tag on this article. I explained that without specific suggestions as to what should be condensed or removed the tag is unhelpful. Rather than following WP:BRD, this editor is intent on revert-warring the badge-of-shame back into the article. When asked a second time to explain what, exactly, should be condensed or removed, the editor refused, insisting he would "leave that to the article's authors". This is the epitome of laziness. I will again offer this editor the opportunity to propose any specific changes to improve this article. If this is not done within a reasonable amount of time, the tag will again be removed. Joefromrandb ( talk) 06:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:TOOBIG for guidance on optimal article lengths; at over 13000 words, this looks like a candidate for splitting. Perhaps dividing his life into pre- and post-1972 might be a logical way to divvy it up? Sasata ( talk) 06:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. They can't be bothered to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about. |
There's a large number of unattributed quotes in this article. Our MoS on quotes suggests: "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote." I also suggest that many of these quotes would be better paraphrased or trimmed. As an example, "For Lombardy, whom Bobby had played many blitz games with,[328] Fischer's 4½-point margin of victory "came as a pleasant surprise".[329]" Why is it essential for the reader to know that Lombardy was pleasantly surprised? Another: "Despite Botvinnik's remarks, "Fischer began a miraculous year in the history of chess."[341]" Is this unattributed quote necessary? His miraculous year is described in detail in the following paragraphs. I can provide additional examples if desired. Sasata ( talk) 15:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Sirmouse ( talk) 16:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Sasata, there are at least nine "biography" articles that exceed the length of the Fischer page. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:LongPages&limit=500&offset=0). I do not think it unreasonable to have a biography article of this length. I am completely open to adding sub-articles on various sections of Fischer's life, but I do not see the point in adding a tag at the top of the page, listing it as "too long". I can find no precedent for this, but then again I am a relatively new editor on Wikipedia. None of the nine "biography" articles that are longer than Fischer have such a tag. (Citations available upon request). I appreciate the work you are doing for the page. Also, thank you to Joefromrandb. Sirmouse ( talk) 18:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the tag can be renamed so as to state that the article contains "unattributed quotations"...? Just a thought. Sirmouse ( talk) 22:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Sirmouse ( talk) 19:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Lombardy was not "the key reason" for Fischer's success, nor has he ever claimed to be. He coached Fischer when Fischer was starting out in tournaments. That does not mean that he was the be-all-and-end-all of Fischer. Fischer had to do a huge amount of work on his own. It wasn't just some magic potion or some magic key to something. There is no one key reason; it is an agglomeration of many events and people in Fischer's life: His sister Joan buying the chess set, Carmine Nigro teaching Fischer, teaching him fundamental strategies of the game, and letting him in to the Manhattan Chess Club, Collins providing a chess library for Fischer to read through and a setting to meet and play with other strong players at the time, Lombardy coaching Fischer, showing him how to improve the skills he already had and how to study, Denker for going on adventures with Fischer, helping him to see the joy in sports, something that would be important to his future chess training, Fischer's mother, Regina, for getting financial support for Fischer to play in the Leipzig Olympiad. All of these people, and many others, were essential to Fischer becoming Fischer as the chess player we know of today.
I do not know where your quote stems from. Fischer (at age 11) told Lombardy that he wanted to be World Champion, and Lombardy, even though he was a contemporary of Fischer, helped him out, showed him what worked for him, and then Fischer went on his way, did the work set out for him, and became a great player. Lombardy was six years older than Fischer and had more match and tournament experience. It's like apprenticeship. In time, the student surpasses the master. Fischer worked hard and surpassed Lombardy within a few years. This is a testament to Bobby's hard work and diligence.
As for a matter of citations, I too was skeptical about Lombardy's claim, so I read through every book on Fischer I could get my hands on, and I found evidence from Endgame, Profile of a Prodigy, Bobby Fischer Goes to War, Russians Versus Fischer, the Psychobiography of Bobby Fischer, Bobby Fischer versus the Rest of the World, The World Chess Championship: A History, etc. pointing to Lombardy's role in helping Fischer become World Chess Champion. It doesn't mean he was the only one. As stated, there were many others. That's why all those people are listed on page. Collins was a mentor, as was Denker. They played roles as well in helping to shape Fischer.
From an objective standpoint, it does not seem unreasonable to me to include citations if they have been backed up and confirmed by other reliable sources. That's how we confirm that what Brady writes is accurate; we cross-reference it with other works to confirm. The same thing goes for Schonberg's book, or Kasparov's book, etc.
As for whether or not Lombardy was one of the best blitz players int he world, it is very hard to determine these sorts of things. We can determine his strength in classical games. Lombardy says he did well against Tal in blitz games, but that is not much evidence. How many blitz tournaments did they have back then? Not many, by my count, but perhaps there is some information you can dig up to show otherwise. If so, that would be an amazing treasure trove of information. As it stands now, though, we must take Lombardy at his word, unless we can find a refutation that says that he wasn't good at blitz, or whatever. In general, I believe, that we should take author's at their word by and large, because otherwise every single citation would need an additional citation to prove that the first citation was accurate. It would mean that all the books on Fischer would be copies of each other, each providing the exact same details, with no deviation whatsoever.
Beside, the quote was included so as to demonstrate that he, having played Fischer in many blitz games, was coming from a place of accurate assessment when he stated that how he felt about Fischer winning the 1970 Unofficial World Championship of Chess. Nothing more, nothing less. I simply put the quote in for the context of his assessment, not to prove anything. How can it be proved or disproved anyhow?
If you read this and still find the quote to be out of place, please let me know how best to rephrase. I am open to all thoughts and suggestions, within reason. Thank you. Sirmouse ( talk) 05:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The reigining world champ, two defeats over Boris Spassky, in Iceland and Yugoslavia died after a horrible expirience at the hands of the Japanese.
His torture by Pasadena police is documented in his book. His torture by the Japanese immigration police is also documneted in the book "Endgame."
The Soviet aparatus has a very revealing book that explains tactics used by special supplemental attaches of the Soviet Men's team that competes in world wide chess events. Very interesting reading.
The infiltration of the american chess federation and many media/press who report erroneaus info about bobby is fascinating. Soviets can use our free press to have anything they desire printed. lie repeated enough to an idiot becomes the truth.
History will be the judge of Bobby, not any of us! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.46.91 ( talk) 20:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't a 20-year wait, but the issue has made a comeback; should Fischer be in the category Category:Jewish chess players?
This was discussed in 2005-2010 but I'm not sure there was a conclusion:
Talk:Bobby_Fischer/Archive_1#Fischer_Jewish.3F Talk:Bobby_Fischer/Archive_2#.22Jewish_Chessplayers.22_cat. Talk:Bobby_Fischer/Archive_3#Evidence_for_Fischer.27s_Jewish_Heritage.3F Talk:Bobby_Fischer/Archive_4#Mentioning_that_Fischers_biological_father_was_Probable_and_Likely_Jewish_repeatedly Talk:Bobby_Fischer/Archive_5#His_mother_was_really_Jewish.3F
In 2011 the category was removed for what was, until recently, the last time [7] but now it has been added again.
On the one hand, Fischer actively objected to being called 'Jewish' and asked for his name to be removed from the Encyclopaedia Judaica. One the other hand, he was descended from Jews, perhaps through both parents but certainly on his mother's side, and by some definitions that makes him Jewish whatever he claimed. Basically, what definition of 'Jewish' is the category for?
Ewen ( talk) 07:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
No, but the actual question is, "What does this category mean by 'Jewish'?" Ewen ( talk) 18:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Not very memorable, but it does exist: Bobby Fischer Live (2009)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1407053/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
WHPratt ( talk) 03:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure. "Many [...] fans regard Fischer as the greatest" has a bit of circular logic. (Fischer gained fans by simply being the best, dominating the opposition, winning tournaments & matches by big margins. "The greatest" presumably means relative talent demonstrated by successes. So there's redundancy/circular logic. [Unless it means fans evaluate Fischer's skill as historically the greatest, but "chess experts" would be a better determiner, than fans, of same.]) IHTS ( talk) 05:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Re your other Q re the def of "many", that text was originated by another editor (not me), and there have been discussion(s) about it elsewheres. (The same language is used in lede to Garry Kasparov: "considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time".) IHTS ( talk) 07:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know what it would take for this article to be listed as A-class? Does it need a peer review? Is it already at A-class level? Please advise. Thanks. Sirmouse ( talk) 17:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
in article it is shown that "many consider him the greatest ever..." and shown 3 sources/references. what about adding views of very famous players who sees him as the greatest?
it seems that Korchnoi also sees him to be the greatest player ever or greater than Karpov and Kasparov: http://chess-news.ru/en/node/18174 it is reasonable to deduce that Korchnoi sees him to be greater than Kasparov and Karpov if not the greatest ever.
It seems that Wishy Anand also considers him to be the greatest ever: http://www.thehindu.com/sport/other-sports/article3486974.ece
there is a footage of Carlsen answering the question but I found it difficult to understand, the voice was too low but another wiki page says Carlsen considers Fischer and Kasparov as the greatest and says Fischer may have been better at his peak.
and one more wiki article says "according to computer analysis, up untill 10 best years period Fischer made the most number correct moves". /info/en/?search=Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history#Moves_played_compared_with_computer_choices
all of these can be added to his legacy. I can find more. -- Sir artur ( talk) 15:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The picture on the Wiki predates Fischer's burial there. His headstone would be visible in shot (it's just inside the front gates on the left hand side) had this picture been take post-internment. Further, the church itself is currently (I was there yesterday) in far better condition than in the photo. I have a newer image and will attempt to add this at some point. -- 213.176.144.116 ( talk) 20:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I think this article is pretty comprehensive and could be promoted to FA or GA status. Besides the four "citation needed" passages, what else could be improved about it? Toccata quarta ( talk) 18:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
?? JMRW67 ( talk) 22:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is half of the lead paragraph devoted to Fischer the author? Compared to the rest of his life it is pretty minor. For instance Leonard Barden's long obituary only gives is a short mention. [1] Of course it is in the article, but it certainly doesn't belong in the lead paragraph, and probably not in the lead at all. See WP:LEAD. Adpete ( talk) 00:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
As I have already written elsewhere, it makes no sense to claim that the adjective "famous" is peacock. If fame can't be measured, then neither can be notability. Fischer is famous, and so are his chess games and writings. "The Game of the Century" is as famous as anything in chess. Toccata quarta ( talk) 00:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
[4] The disagreement is with the removal of the word "famous" in this edit. The reason is that it should be removed is because:
There is some comment text explaining the use of the weasel words "considered by many", but I think it would look less like it wants a {{fact} next to it if there were some kind of local link within the text. Crasshopper ( talk) 01:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
"He is considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time." may be a fact (depending on how many "many" is), but "X is the greatest Y of all time" is always a silly thing to say because time has not yet come to an end and therefore all candidates have not been considered. Similarly with other words in place of "greatest". 213.122.59.173 ( talk) 21:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I thought several games, six I think, were played in Belgrade before the match halted for some time (I don't remember if it was after an agreed-upon number of games or because of a disagreement about match conditions), then resumed in Reykjavik? I don't have references I can quote about this, however; it's what I remember from what I read in the press (both chess magazines and general newspapers) and heard on the radio (in "general" news bulletins) at the time. — Tonymec ( talk) 20:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Arinbjorn, Fischer's notability period occurred under American citizenship, his Icelandic citizenship occurred well beyond it near the end of his life. Have you looked at Einstein's notability period and compared with his various citizenship periods? His period of notability was under various different citizenships, so "German-born" has its case there. But that argument doesn't exist for Fischer. Are you arguing that "American-born" is required since Fischer held Icelandic citizenship at time of death? That is not what MOS says ("the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable") and the two bios, as explained, don't compare on that point, so your argument for "consistency" in Fischer & Einstein BLPs specifying "-born" is completely bogus. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 22:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Who influenced the subject of the article? I would suggest John W. Collins, Arnold Denker for starters, but, of course, there are others. Let us reach consensus and then populate the "influences" field of the infobox.-- 76.220.18.223 ( talk) 11:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Why has the structure of this article been massively changed? It's not proper. Toccata quarta ( talk) 17:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
lol. You are free to correct what you want to. I'm just doing my part, adding citations, cross-checking sources, doing research, reading for clarity. I welcome any suggestions as it is a group effort and not just the work of one measly mouse.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirmouse ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
FIDE refers to it as "Grandmaster" (and in some cases "Grand Master"): http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=163&view=article
My limited research shows that Pliestsky, Voronkov, Edmonds, Eidinow, Nunn, and Brady refer to the title as "grandmaster", whereas Lombardy and Silman refer to it as "Grandmaster". Eade and Fischer seem to use the terms interchangeably. Which is it?... Sirmouse ( talk) 03:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
When I was reading this interesting biography, I kept wondering, how did he financially survive as a fugitive? It's not like he had sponsors or a regular job. And then, to get to the end and read he had an estate worth $2M? It's very confusing as it sounds like his family was poor and his chess successes were decades old. If anyone could answer this question and incorporate this information into the article, I think that would be very helpful. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The section on "Collins myth" looks to be a copy/paste from the Collins article, and that is a bad idea. (I hate to say the obvious, but this article is a biography of Bobby Fischer. That section suddenly segues to make it all about Collins, who he taught, who he didn't, and about Collins. That is the wrong idea and bad writing for this bio article on Fischer. That section needs serious reduction and summary, restricted to how it relates to Fischer, and not other players.) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 15:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
"My name is Robert James Fischer. Friends and patzers call me Bobby." Heronils ( talk) 14:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not a bad quote, but where is the primary source from which it derives? Sirmouse ( talk) 17:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
If anyone wants to write a formal A-Class review please feel free. I am too involved in the project to be allowed to write such a review, and do not have the tech savy to go through the wikiproject chess nomination page. It was hard enough to figure out how to put up a GA nomination, and even then I was shown to have done the process completely wrong.
Therefore, I will leave the formal A-class nomination and review to basically anyone else. lol
Sirmouse ( talk) 17:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that the wording in the article's intro was discussed in the past (most recently here), but to say Fischer is "considered by many to be greatest chess player who have ever lived" is definitely an outrageous overstatement of the facts. No doubt that he was one of greatest chess players of all time, but there is nothing compelling that puts him above the others in all relevant categories except the fact that he was a brilliant chess player in a relatively short period of time. Most of the chess players and critics agree that Fischer dominated in chess for about two years, Kasparov dominated for almost twenty years, Capablanca was the player with flawless technique and least number of mistakes on average, Tal was the most creative and innovative chess player, Botvinnik was the greatest player excelling in positional play and Petrosian was the one with greatest defensive style; on the other hand, the statistics shows that Lasker is the player with most World Chess Championships won, Karpov is the one with most games and tournaments won, Tal is the holder of the longest unbeaten strike and Carlsen is the person with largest rating achieved as well as the one with the largest rating performance on a top-level tournament. By summarising all of these categories, it becomes evident that the only category in which Fischer was greatest is his dominance in two or three years, which cannot be regarded as something that makes distinction among the greatest in history and normally occurred often than, for instance, Kasparov's long-term domination. Some may say that Fischer was the greatest because of the fact that his domination was greater than any other domination and that his rating at the time would be more valuable now, but such opinions usually come from or have ever circulated in the American media or chess literature and are generally attributed to the tense political ties during the Cold War. Don't forget that in many books and chronicles the World Chess Championship 1972 played between Spassky and Fischer is generally seen as battle between the Soviet Union and the United States. Moreover, the rise of Magnus Carlsen and his dominance in the last two or three years along with all the records he broke in meantime shadows what Fischer did 40 years ago but is yet to be proved if he's capable to reach what the other players did throughout chess history. So, it's much better if the wording in the article's intro says "one of the greatest" (similar to the articles about Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine and Botvinnik) rather than "considered by many to be the greatest" (similar to the article about Kasparov), because Fischer has never dominated chess like Kasparov did and hasn't played even a single chess game as World Champion. Thanks.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 00:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Simeonovski,
Let me first say how much I appreciate the discussion and your enthusiasm for the topic. I especially enjoy that you do your research and cite some interesting sources.
The page lists Bobby Fischer as "considered by many to be the greatest chess player who ever lived", but when one clicks on that link it takes one to a "Comparison of top chess players throughout history" page. This indicates that Fischer is "among" the best players ever.
I believe the confusion stems from you deducing that we believe that Fischer is the single greatest player ever, bar-none. We are not. We are saying he is considered "by many" and cite reputable sources.
Wikipedia is not about OUR opinions. It is about the opinions of reputable (oftentimes published) sources. We work very hard to present the facts from many different angles and perspectives.
I believe I speak for other editors of the Fischer page when I say that we are open to citations and sources, but cannot debate our own subjective opinions about what our research indicates.
I pray that you keep an open mind as we all continue to refine and learn from one another.
Thank you.
Sirmouse ( talk) 16:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Sirmouse ( talk) 20:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the Lombardy section. The influence Lombardy had on Fischer seems overstated in the article, and the entire section based solely on Lombardy's own claims. The claim that Lombardy was Fischer's "teacher and coach" through 1972 is not credible. The idea that anyone could teach or coach Fischer (or that Fischer would permit them to try) after 1960 or probably earlier is absurd. I think this is undue weight caused by over reliance on a single, not disinterested source. Quale ( talk) 07:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
There is also the source from Ponterotto. Well, Fischer DID bring him into the 1972 match to be his sole second and they analyzed games together. Lombardy seems to have had a close enough relationship with Fischer that he only left for the match because of him -- probably due to the fact that he actually had beaten Spassky, whereas Fischer had not --, and only stayed in the match thanks to his persuasion. Lombardy also owns the first autographed copy of Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games", and Fischer was entrusted to Lombardy for the 1958 Portoroz Interzonal, and acted as his second there, analyzing games with him. There are even pictures of the two of them analyzing together at Collin's home.
Sources for these claims stem from "Bobby Fischer Goes to War", "Endgame", "The Psychobiography of Bobby Fischer", as well as "Understanding Chess". I will present citations upon request.
But I do agree on the claim that he coached him through 1972, to the extent that there is simply not enough evidence to demonstrate that. I will correct. Thank you for your comments and suggestions and insight.
Sirmouse ( talk) 20:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Quale. "A Mystery Wrapped In An Enigma" as well as "Profile of a Prodigy", "Endgame", and "Bobby Fischer Goes To War" all state that Lombardy analyzed Fischer's games during the 1972 World Chess Championship. They have a long history of analyzing together which goes back to at least 1956 (see "The Unknown Bobby Fischer", page 45). Sirmouse ( talk) 07:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Sirmouse ( talk) 18:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri ( talk · contribs) 17:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 17:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Good Article Checklist
Good Article review progress box
|
Still some others.
Comments: This will take me a few days to do. For now, I will begin by pointing out the reference matter so that it can be fixed while I prepare the rest of the review. The 404s should be checked for archival. The 403 should be fixed or backed up as well. Several of the sources, included the dead ones, seem to be unreliable sources. Some of the dead sources have been dead for years as well. Please go through the Checklinks list and resolve as many as you can. This review will likely go beyond the hold for 7 days following its completion for the sheer size and depth of the article, even a month would be acceptable in my eyes. This article is extremely important to Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 07:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I went through all the 404s and fixed the deadlinks. I also went through the 402 and 302. I'm not sure what you mean by a 301 in terms of what we can do to improve it. I must admit that the technical computer numbers are not something I am too familiar with, but I can assure you that we have been making the desired corrections to the page since you started the review process. Sirmouse ( talk) 05:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the "unsourced" claim as it is not specific in its supposed accuracy, as well as being, obviously, without any sort of citation. I will look into the issues regarding the Osama bin Laden letter as well as the "Fischer clock". I will keep you posted. Thank you so much for your thoughts any insight. Your review of this article is greatly appreciated by its contributors. Sirmouse ( talk) 23:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I have removed an additional 5,380 bytes from the main article, that keep its integrity intact. I have checked the readable prose of the Fischer article, using the DYK check tool, and it reads it as 12104 words. By comparison, the "Roman Empire" article (which holds GA standing) has a readable prose of 19858 words. In the last 30 days, the Fischer article has been viewed "76955" times, whereas the "Roman Empire" article has been viewed (in the last 30 days) "225484" times. Based on this data I think it is safe to conclude that it is unnecessary to split the article. It may even detract from viewership, and it certainly won't enhance the comprehensiveness of the article, since longer articles tend to suggest substantive research. Sirmouse ( talk) 19:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Notes
Bibliography
I've again removed some of the unsourced trivial mentions of the subject found in the "In popular culture" section per WP:BURDEN. Even with reliable sources, most of these do not appear to be worth mentioning in the article; an In popular culture section is not meant to be a catchall for any and every time a subject has ever been mentioned, even in passing. It's starting to look more like a trivia section than what it's supposed to be, which is a section showing the individual's impact on popular culture. - Aoidh ( talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 14:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
It's been over 100 days (30 August 2013) since the last edit on the "In popular culture" conversation. The bot is supposed to "automatically archive discussions inactive for 99 days". I guess the bot broke down or something....
Sirmouse ( talk) 08:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
An editor placed a "too long" tag on this article. I explained that without specific suggestions as to what should be condensed or removed the tag is unhelpful. Rather than following WP:BRD, this editor is intent on revert-warring the badge-of-shame back into the article. When asked a second time to explain what, exactly, should be condensed or removed, the editor refused, insisting he would "leave that to the article's authors". This is the epitome of laziness. I will again offer this editor the opportunity to propose any specific changes to improve this article. If this is not done within a reasonable amount of time, the tag will again be removed. Joefromrandb ( talk) 06:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:TOOBIG for guidance on optimal article lengths; at over 13000 words, this looks like a candidate for splitting. Perhaps dividing his life into pre- and post-1972 might be a logical way to divvy it up? Sasata ( talk) 06:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. They can't be bothered to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about. |
There's a large number of unattributed quotes in this article. Our MoS on quotes suggests: "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote." I also suggest that many of these quotes would be better paraphrased or trimmed. As an example, "For Lombardy, whom Bobby had played many blitz games with,[328] Fischer's 4½-point margin of victory "came as a pleasant surprise".[329]" Why is it essential for the reader to know that Lombardy was pleasantly surprised? Another: "Despite Botvinnik's remarks, "Fischer began a miraculous year in the history of chess."[341]" Is this unattributed quote necessary? His miraculous year is described in detail in the following paragraphs. I can provide additional examples if desired. Sasata ( talk) 15:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Sirmouse ( talk) 16:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Sasata, there are at least nine "biography" articles that exceed the length of the Fischer page. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:LongPages&limit=500&offset=0). I do not think it unreasonable to have a biography article of this length. I am completely open to adding sub-articles on various sections of Fischer's life, but I do not see the point in adding a tag at the top of the page, listing it as "too long". I can find no precedent for this, but then again I am a relatively new editor on Wikipedia. None of the nine "biography" articles that are longer than Fischer have such a tag. (Citations available upon request). I appreciate the work you are doing for the page. Also, thank you to Joefromrandb. Sirmouse ( talk) 18:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the tag can be renamed so as to state that the article contains "unattributed quotations"...? Just a thought. Sirmouse ( talk) 22:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Sirmouse ( talk) 19:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Lombardy was not "the key reason" for Fischer's success, nor has he ever claimed to be. He coached Fischer when Fischer was starting out in tournaments. That does not mean that he was the be-all-and-end-all of Fischer. Fischer had to do a huge amount of work on his own. It wasn't just some magic potion or some magic key to something. There is no one key reason; it is an agglomeration of many events and people in Fischer's life: His sister Joan buying the chess set, Carmine Nigro teaching Fischer, teaching him fundamental strategies of the game, and letting him in to the Manhattan Chess Club, Collins providing a chess library for Fischer to read through and a setting to meet and play with other strong players at the time, Lombardy coaching Fischer, showing him how to improve the skills he already had and how to study, Denker for going on adventures with Fischer, helping him to see the joy in sports, something that would be important to his future chess training, Fischer's mother, Regina, for getting financial support for Fischer to play in the Leipzig Olympiad. All of these people, and many others, were essential to Fischer becoming Fischer as the chess player we know of today.
I do not know where your quote stems from. Fischer (at age 11) told Lombardy that he wanted to be World Champion, and Lombardy, even though he was a contemporary of Fischer, helped him out, showed him what worked for him, and then Fischer went on his way, did the work set out for him, and became a great player. Lombardy was six years older than Fischer and had more match and tournament experience. It's like apprenticeship. In time, the student surpasses the master. Fischer worked hard and surpassed Lombardy within a few years. This is a testament to Bobby's hard work and diligence.
As for a matter of citations, I too was skeptical about Lombardy's claim, so I read through every book on Fischer I could get my hands on, and I found evidence from Endgame, Profile of a Prodigy, Bobby Fischer Goes to War, Russians Versus Fischer, the Psychobiography of Bobby Fischer, Bobby Fischer versus the Rest of the World, The World Chess Championship: A History, etc. pointing to Lombardy's role in helping Fischer become World Chess Champion. It doesn't mean he was the only one. As stated, there were many others. That's why all those people are listed on page. Collins was a mentor, as was Denker. They played roles as well in helping to shape Fischer.
From an objective standpoint, it does not seem unreasonable to me to include citations if they have been backed up and confirmed by other reliable sources. That's how we confirm that what Brady writes is accurate; we cross-reference it with other works to confirm. The same thing goes for Schonberg's book, or Kasparov's book, etc.
As for whether or not Lombardy was one of the best blitz players int he world, it is very hard to determine these sorts of things. We can determine his strength in classical games. Lombardy says he did well against Tal in blitz games, but that is not much evidence. How many blitz tournaments did they have back then? Not many, by my count, but perhaps there is some information you can dig up to show otherwise. If so, that would be an amazing treasure trove of information. As it stands now, though, we must take Lombardy at his word, unless we can find a refutation that says that he wasn't good at blitz, or whatever. In general, I believe, that we should take author's at their word by and large, because otherwise every single citation would need an additional citation to prove that the first citation was accurate. It would mean that all the books on Fischer would be copies of each other, each providing the exact same details, with no deviation whatsoever.
Beside, the quote was included so as to demonstrate that he, having played Fischer in many blitz games, was coming from a place of accurate assessment when he stated that how he felt about Fischer winning the 1970 Unofficial World Championship of Chess. Nothing more, nothing less. I simply put the quote in for the context of his assessment, not to prove anything. How can it be proved or disproved anyhow?
If you read this and still find the quote to be out of place, please let me know how best to rephrase. I am open to all thoughts and suggestions, within reason. Thank you. Sirmouse ( talk) 05:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The reigining world champ, two defeats over Boris Spassky, in Iceland and Yugoslavia died after a horrible expirience at the hands of the Japanese.
His torture by Pasadena police is documented in his book. His torture by the Japanese immigration police is also documneted in the book "Endgame."
The Soviet aparatus has a very revealing book that explains tactics used by special supplemental attaches of the Soviet Men's team that competes in world wide chess events. Very interesting reading.
The infiltration of the american chess federation and many media/press who report erroneaus info about bobby is fascinating. Soviets can use our free press to have anything they desire printed. lie repeated enough to an idiot becomes the truth.
History will be the judge of Bobby, not any of us! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.46.91 ( talk) 20:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't a 20-year wait, but the issue has made a comeback; should Fischer be in the category Category:Jewish chess players?
This was discussed in 2005-2010 but I'm not sure there was a conclusion:
Talk:Bobby_Fischer/Archive_1#Fischer_Jewish.3F Talk:Bobby_Fischer/Archive_2#.22Jewish_Chessplayers.22_cat. Talk:Bobby_Fischer/Archive_3#Evidence_for_Fischer.27s_Jewish_Heritage.3F Talk:Bobby_Fischer/Archive_4#Mentioning_that_Fischers_biological_father_was_Probable_and_Likely_Jewish_repeatedly Talk:Bobby_Fischer/Archive_5#His_mother_was_really_Jewish.3F
In 2011 the category was removed for what was, until recently, the last time [7] but now it has been added again.
On the one hand, Fischer actively objected to being called 'Jewish' and asked for his name to be removed from the Encyclopaedia Judaica. One the other hand, he was descended from Jews, perhaps through both parents but certainly on his mother's side, and by some definitions that makes him Jewish whatever he claimed. Basically, what definition of 'Jewish' is the category for?
Ewen ( talk) 07:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
No, but the actual question is, "What does this category mean by 'Jewish'?" Ewen ( talk) 18:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Not very memorable, but it does exist: Bobby Fischer Live (2009)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1407053/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
WHPratt ( talk) 03:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure. "Many [...] fans regard Fischer as the greatest" has a bit of circular logic. (Fischer gained fans by simply being the best, dominating the opposition, winning tournaments & matches by big margins. "The greatest" presumably means relative talent demonstrated by successes. So there's redundancy/circular logic. [Unless it means fans evaluate Fischer's skill as historically the greatest, but "chess experts" would be a better determiner, than fans, of same.]) IHTS ( talk) 05:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Re your other Q re the def of "many", that text was originated by another editor (not me), and there have been discussion(s) about it elsewheres. (The same language is used in lede to Garry Kasparov: "considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time".) IHTS ( talk) 07:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know what it would take for this article to be listed as A-class? Does it need a peer review? Is it already at A-class level? Please advise. Thanks. Sirmouse ( talk) 17:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
in article it is shown that "many consider him the greatest ever..." and shown 3 sources/references. what about adding views of very famous players who sees him as the greatest?
it seems that Korchnoi also sees him to be the greatest player ever or greater than Karpov and Kasparov: http://chess-news.ru/en/node/18174 it is reasonable to deduce that Korchnoi sees him to be greater than Kasparov and Karpov if not the greatest ever.
It seems that Wishy Anand also considers him to be the greatest ever: http://www.thehindu.com/sport/other-sports/article3486974.ece
there is a footage of Carlsen answering the question but I found it difficult to understand, the voice was too low but another wiki page says Carlsen considers Fischer and Kasparov as the greatest and says Fischer may have been better at his peak.
and one more wiki article says "according to computer analysis, up untill 10 best years period Fischer made the most number correct moves". /info/en/?search=Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history#Moves_played_compared_with_computer_choices
all of these can be added to his legacy. I can find more. -- Sir artur ( talk) 15:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)