6 ms·

Obviously this raised the issue of Bobby Fischer. The article mentions this but doesn't really go into the details. Fischer beat Spassky in Rejkyavik in 1972 f

by jmyeet 4y ago

Obviously this raised the issue of Bobby Fischer. The article mentions this but doesn't really go into the details. Fischer beat Spassky in Rejkyavik in 1972 for the World Championship. This took almost 3 months (July to September) and there was controversy, disagreement and negotiation about where and how it would take place. This had the backdrop of being a Cold War proxy too of course. Interestingly, Fischer didn't play competitive Chess after this. He was set to defend the title against the eventual challenger, Anatoly Karpov, in 1975. Fischer too didn't like the tendency for draws and proposed a format of first to 10 wins (with Fischer retaining the title in case of a 9-9). This was rejected and Fischer ultimately abdicated and never played competitive Chess again. He also became a semi-nomadic recluse too. But it also wasn't Fischer's first hiatus from the game. There was the 1972-1975 gap but also anotehr in the 1960s. He clearly seemed like a troubled guy. I've always found it fascinating the level of commitment required to play Chess at this level. I certainly have never had any interest in that (nor the ability, to be clear). No one really seems to know how to solve this without going to a more blitz like format. Chess at the highest level seems to revolve around memorizing a whole book of openings and defenses while being able to take advantage of mistakes but also finding novel approaches in standard openings and defenses but now it seems you have to go fairly deep into a game before you go off-book.

rawoke083600 4y ago
>Bobby Fischer For anyone that likes the weird, wacko and genius (all the same thing ?) there are few excellent short documentaries on YouTube about Bobby Fischer. Well worth a watch!
jstx1 4y ago
More like Kasparov because he remained active after the FIDE split. Still a bit different because Magnus isn't running a parallel WC of his own. It's also funny how the only 3 World Champions who have refused to defend a title because of disagreements with FIDE are probably the 3 best chess players ever.
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  Fischer is clearly the goat in my view. But it’s not so obvious to me that Kasparov and Carlsen are better than say Vishy or Morphy or Botvinnik or Capablanca…
  - jstx1 4y ago
    For Anand it's really obvious that both Carlsen and Kasparov are better given that they've beaten him in World Championship matches (Kasparov once, Magnus twice), have positive head-to-head scores against him and have better other achievements like peak rating or time spent at number 1. There's no metric on which Anand comes out on top in comparison to Carlsen and Kasparov.
    - AmericanChopper 4y ago
      There’s also not really any metric where any of them are better than Fischer. Neither Carlsen nor Kasparov challenged Vishy’s title during the peak of his career. He’s also such a phenomenal player, that if he’d been the one to abdicate the FIDE title instead of Kasparov, you’d easily be able to make the same kind of “top 3” comments about him.
      - jstx1 4y ago
        > There’s also not really any metric where any of them are better than Fischer. Off the top of my head - World Championships matches won, time spent as number 1, peak Elo. > Neither Carlsen nor Kasparov challenged Vishy’s title during the peak of his career. When was the peak? He was WC between 2007 and 2013, he wasn't even the top ranked player for most of that time and then he lost the WC to Magnus (then lost the rematch too).
        mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
        Elo inflates over time, and so can't be easily compared like this. More interesting to me is how dominant a player was at their peak, and for that Fischer wins by a mile for modern times, with Kasparov behind him. And historically, Morphy, Lasker and Capablanca come to mind. And Tal could wipe the floor with anyone when his poor health didn't get in the way.
vishnugupta 4y ago
Speaking of Bobby Fisher I found the book End Game fascinating and engrossing.
PeterisP 4y ago
The quote by Paul Morphy, one of the great old chess masters, seems relevant here - "The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life."
- amelius 4y ago
  I hope it doesn't apply to coding too.
  - PeterisP 4y ago
    Perhaps you might say something like that for e.g. competitive coding or leetcode.
    - ctxc 4y ago
      Code golfing!
    - kamaal 4y ago
      >>competitive coding or leetcode Absolutely yes. There is a big difference between inventing solutions to novel problems, and being 75,386th person to solve a problem on a website. The latter just makes you a sophisticated newspaper daily puzzle solver.
      - bosie 4y ago
        > There is a big difference between inventing solutions to novel problems, how many programmers/software developers can claim to inventing solutions to novel problems though? 0.01%? less?
  - camjohnson26 4y ago
    I think it’s because both systems are bounded and cut out a lot of real world complexity, and since these simplified systems are easier to understand than the real world the certainty and confidence they provide become addictive. Similar to video games in that way. It’s not necessarily a bad thing though because we’re always working with a simplified system whatever we’re doing in life, the question is just how much is it helping people. Chess provides entertainment and personal challenge, coding provides ridiculous productivity. All things in moderation though.
pkulak 4y ago
Chess requires rote memorization (gotta know every book opening 20 moves in), short-term memory/visualization (calculation), and general problem solving (tactics); almost in equal measure. It's absolutely crazy to me how hard it is. I can't play it unless I don't have anything else to think hard about that day. It wipes me out. And sure, you can kinda wing it and not give it 100% of your capacity, but then you just lose. It's brutal. And I suck at it. I can't imagine what these high-level folks go through.
jackmott 4y ago
faeriechangling 4y ago
>I've always found it fascinating the level of commitment required to play Chess at this level. There's several intellectuals I could name which were headed towards world class status like Demis Habbasis & Aleister Crowley decided to give up the game and later became remarkable men in their own right. I think of Paul Morphy who is probably the player furthest above his peers in history who decided to quit and be a lawyer and got annoyed whenever people would try to bring up the game. I find it interesting to think of these men who are great enough to become the worlds best at chess, and some decide it's not worth it, some achieve that greatness and then require, and some seemingly are in it for life.

by jmyeet 4y ago

rawoke083600 4y ago

>Bobby Fischer For anyone that likes the weird, wacko and genius (all the same thing ?) there are few excellent short documentaries on YouTube about Bobby Fischer. Well worth a watch!

jstx1 4y ago

More like Kasparov because he remained active after the FIDE split. Still a bit different because Magnus isn't running a parallel WC of his own. It's also funny how the only 3 World Champions who have refused to defend a title because of disagreements with FIDE are probably the 3 best chess players ever.

AmericanChopper 4y ago
Fischer is clearly the goat in my view. But it’s not so obvious to me that Kasparov and Carlsen are better than say Vishy or Morphy or Botvinnik or Capablanca…
- jstx1 4y ago
  For Anand it's really obvious that both Carlsen and Kasparov are better given that they've beaten him in World Championship matches (Kasparov once, Magnus twice), have positive head-to-head scores against him and have better other achievements like peak rating or time spent at number 1. There's no metric on which Anand comes out on top in comparison to Carlsen and Kasparov.
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    There’s also not really any metric where any of them are better than Fischer. Neither Carlsen nor Kasparov challenged Vishy’s title during the peak of his career. He’s also such a phenomenal player, that if he’d been the one to abdicate the FIDE title instead of Kasparov, you’d easily be able to make the same kind of “top 3” comments about him.
    - jstx1 4y ago
      > There’s also not really any metric where any of them are better than Fischer. Off the top of my head - World Championships matches won, time spent as number 1, peak Elo. > Neither Carlsen nor Kasparov challenged Vishy’s title during the peak of his career. When was the peak? He was WC between 2007 and 2013, he wasn't even the top ranked player for most of that time and then he lost the WC to Magnus (then lost the rematch too).
      - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
        Elo inflates over time, and so can't be easily compared like this. More interesting to me is how dominant a player was at their peak, and for that Fischer wins by a mile for modern times, with Kasparov behind him. And historically, Morphy, Lasker and Capablanca come to mind. And Tal could wipe the floor with anyone when his poor health didn't get in the way.

vishnugupta 4y ago

Speaking of Bobby Fisher I found the book End Game fascinating and engrossing.

PeterisP 4y ago

The quote by Paul Morphy, one of the great old chess masters, seems relevant here - "The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life."

amelius 4y ago
I hope it doesn't apply to coding too.
- PeterisP 4y ago
  Perhaps you might say something like that for e.g. competitive coding or leetcode.
  - ctxc 4y ago
    Code golfing!
  - kamaal 4y ago
    >>competitive coding or leetcode Absolutely yes. There is a big difference between inventing solutions to novel problems, and being 75,386th person to solve a problem on a website. The latter just makes you a sophisticated newspaper daily puzzle solver.
    - bosie 4y ago
      > There is a big difference between inventing solutions to novel problems, how many programmers/software developers can claim to inventing solutions to novel problems though? 0.01%? less?
- camjohnson26 4y ago
  I think it’s because both systems are bounded and cut out a lot of real world complexity, and since these simplified systems are easier to understand than the real world the certainty and confidence they provide become addictive. Similar to video games in that way. It’s not necessarily a bad thing though because we’re always working with a simplified system whatever we’re doing in life, the question is just how much is it helping people. Chess provides entertainment and personal challenge, coding provides ridiculous productivity. All things in moderation though.

pkulak 4y ago

Chess requires rote memorization (gotta know every book opening 20 moves in), short-term memory/visualization (calculation), and general problem solving (tactics); almost in equal measure. It's absolutely crazy to me how hard it is. I can't play it unless I don't have anything else to think hard about that day. It wipes me out. And sure, you can kinda wing it and not give it 100% of your capacity, but then you just lose. It's brutal. And I suck at it. I can't imagine what these high-level folks go through.

jackmott 4y ago

faeriechangling 4y ago

>I've always found it fascinating the level of commitment required to play Chess at this level. There's several intellectuals I could name which were headed towards world class status like Demis Habbasis & Aleister Crowley decided to give up the game and later became remarkable men in their own right. I think of Paul Morphy who is probably the player furthest above his peers in history who decided to quit and be a lawyer and got annoyed whenever people would try to bring up the game. I find it interesting to think of these men who are great enough to become the worlds best at chess, and some decide it's not worth it, some achieve that greatness and then require, and some seemingly are in it for life.