On Mar 3, 8:42 pm, (SAT W-7) wrote:

I started to read that at the library and it seem interesting...Just
wondering what you think of it..

I mite check it out next time i go..


Well, one reviewer at Chessville.com was *forced* to read
it by his (cruel?) editor. Another book along similar lines is
Russians vs. Fischer.

------------

A lot of these books seem to include mindless regurgitations
such as the story about how the 1972 match was a showdown
between evil empire Russia and the good ol' USA; or the version
where GM Fischer is described as taking down the Russian
Bear "singlehandedly", which I'm sure would come as quite a
shock to his many facilitators.

On another tack, I recall reading a while back about some
new works by GM Kasparov, in which the great grandmaster
attempted to rewrite the history of chess to better suit his, uh,
tastes. Just as in days of old when sitting at the chessboard,
the resourceful grandmaster simply swept the facts before him,
and forcibly shifted the pieces and facts about to suit his fancy!

In view of so many book reviews pointing out a plethora of
mediocre quality stuff being stamped onto paper these days,
I have taken to allowing myself the luxury of doing without the
"wisdom" of recently printed chess material, except when it is
free.

Much of what is sold today is churned out for the primary
purpose of making money, by whatever method is deemed
efficient. And the rare exceptions seem to fall into a category
of fulfillment of some political agenda. In sum, it is better to
get the bare facts and think for oneself.

In this vein, let me point out that one after another of the
talking heads have determined (or are aping) that GM Fischer
has snapped; that his mind broke free from reality and this
explains why he says the things he does. But there are
other possibilities, apparently never even considered before
leaping to over-eager conclusions such as this.

Many of the things talked about have developed gradually
over the course of many years, and it makes little sense to
posit a sudden "snap" to explain them away. Others are of
the sort which it is not even allowed to discuss, let alone
examine with an objective eye to seek their grass roots.

Here, I will simply toss out an idea, and let the reader sift
through the many possibilities: Suppose, I say *suppose*
that GM Fischer is desperate for attention, that he may
feel sidelined, ignored, or forgotten. Now would this not
offer an alternative "explanation" as to his ranting and raving
and deliberate tossing out of offensive, uncouth jokes? I say
it does, and in fact, I believe the jokes cannot be properly
explained by the "snap"-doodle theory, whereas they are
perfectly suited to a man desperate for attention, or just
desperate to convince others of his supposed lunacy.

Too much of chess writing is of an unsupported, purely
ape the party line type. And this applies the more so when
considering the subject of GM Fischer, which is a very
emotional one for many Americans. In fact, one can almost
"feel" a certain discomfort, a certain displeasure in the fact
that the Russians, so to speak, have taken back the crown
and held onto it. But all this proves is that the game of
chess is very popular, and taken more seriously there than
here, and this is no big deal -- or at least it oughtn't to be.

-- help bot