On Oct 24, 4:57 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 24, 7:14 am, Rob wrote:
http://www.chessville.com/misc/Quotes/moreFischer.htm

You might want to reconsider whether you should post the stories
about (1) Fischer having his dental fillings removed, and (2) his
remembering all the moves of his 1958 blitz games with Vasyukov years
later. Regrettably, I do not have the contradicting sources at hand
right now, but I recall reading some time within the past few years
that:

Whereas, you know the name of the individual in your own town, who after
playing that game v Ivanov discussed Fischer with Ivanov and myself!

Here in the green mountains i went to see a tournament and
watched an Ivanov [Boston] game. After, his playing partner and I started
talking Fischer and the playing partner said he used to organise university
simuls which fischer attended.

so.. after their individual game, and all games had finished, fischer said
that he saw some possibilities in their game and would our friend [Alain]
like to
look at them?

well, of course he said yes, but then fischer started setting up a
completely unknown position, and talking about it. at length our friend
realised that this game was not the one just playes but from a /previous/
simul that he had played against fischer more than 6 months before! and
fischer had probably played a 1,000 games in between

What I don't understand about Taylor Kingston posts, is that he even /knows/
who volunteered this anecdote, and previously acknowledged it, but can't put
that together with this overwhelming evidence of a prodigious memory.

The stories about the fillings and the Vasyukov games can be found
all over the Internet, with few if any sites ever naming a reliable
source. Try as I might, I could not find where the contradictions were
made, though I distinctly recall reading them. Any rgcm readers know
where they can be found?

Some time ago, when I directly answered your own private question to me
about a certain infamous interviewee, I cited my sources, one of which was
Vasyukov. You did not follow that up directly, and now want 'internet'
citations? ROFL

You should retire from chess commentary or take it seriously! At least do
not pretend in public that you do other than 'question' things which is
merely passive, when you pretend to some journalistic credibility which is
an active stance.

And you should stop attacking those who do write beyond your knowledge. Real
questions are indicated, not this usual ****.

Phil Innes


I see that IM Innes is still stuck in ad hominem gear,
"arguing" to the person of Taylor Kingston, whilst always
missing the real issue: what is there to reliably back up
such claims? (I said reliably.)


Here's my take (and it would be nice if those who knew
BF well would comment on their own experiences, even
if we know they are horribly biased on all things relating
to BF):

Sometimes I play five games in a tourney, and yet
many of these are of little concern afterward. But when
I am concerned with a particular game, there is a strong
possibility that any comments I make regarding that
game are not just from my memory of the original game,
perhaps played weeks, months or even years earlier;
no, my comments may well relate to study or analysis
conducted *much more recently* than the game itself.

Now I don't see why it is always *assumed* by fans
that Bobby Fischer must not have looked at any game
he comments upon after that game was originally
played. To me, this is self-deception, fired by a deep
psychological need to worship at the BF altar. It
certainly does not follow from logical reason or even
from common sense.

That being said, idiot savants (or just plain idiots, who
happen to be really good at something) can do amazing
things. By obsessing over just one thing, it may well be
possible for someone like BF to recall, move for move,
many, many games he played years earlier. I have seen
far lesser chess players reconstruct games they have
*not* seen from illegible score-sheets, using their deep
familiarity with chess and a bit of common sense, so
long as the errors are not extensive.

What is wrong with TK's objection? He says that he
knows he has read somewhere, but knows not where,
that these accounts are unsubstantiated, and thus they
should be removed. Yet he offers no substantiation of
his own -- just anecdote! What a loon. Yet he is not
far off the trail of what is wrong with these anecdotes.

I have repeatedly pointed out that the widely-quoted
"fact" that BF's IQ was 200,089 or some slightly lower
figure is backed, as far as I can tell, by nothing but one
fan's unsubstantiated claim; no one seems to care if it
really is true -- to the contrary, the more stuff they can
pile onto the altar, the better. These people almost
certainly equate BF's bragging about the size of his
privates with scientifically established fact! LOL

Many writers seem to know very little about the real
Bobby Fischer, and make bold assumptions based on
some offhand comments or other he made, like the one
where he refused to finish a meal because someone
may have "put something in it". The trouble here is
that not only is this shallow stuff, but it lends itself to
crafting the "story" to fit preconceptions, not reality.

The problem of shallow stuff is compounded by those
writers who just ape their predecessors, copying such
things as "women's shoes" in the case of Paul Morphy,
for instance. There is precious little reason in the world
of chess writing, and far too much in the way of the
crafting of "facts" to fit a mold.


-- help bot