GameKnot: Chess related, What actually was Bobby Fischers condition?

« TAP TO LOG IN

Chess related: What actually was Bobby Fischers condition?

« Back to forum

From

Message

rehcsifybbob
12-Mar-09, 09:13

What actually was Bobby Fischers condition?

I have always wondered what the reason for Fischer's bizarre behavior was such as his ridiculous demands at tournaments, his inability to get on with people, his monomania about chess, his self-seclusion and his absolute hatred of America and the jews to name but a few. Does it just come with the territory of being a total genius, or did he actually suffer from a medical condition. I do know that some people think he may have been schizophrenic and that would suggest a great deal of his behavior later in life as it is an illness that will get worse if not treated. My personal belief(and this is without any medical knowledge whatsoever)is that he may have been autistic because people with autism no not get on with people and can sometimes be absolute geniuses at certain things. I know it is all speculation now, but your thoughts would be most enlightening.

chessbaker
12-Mar-09, 15:13

Deleted by chessbaker on 12-Mar-09, 17:19.

chessbaker
12-Mar-09, 17:20

rehcsifybbob

very inter resting theory about the autism.never thought of that before.indeed I know a few people who are autistic and they also are at some points genius.maybe you have a point here.

schnarre
12-Mar-09, 19:42

Hmmmnnnnn

...Manic Depression was what I pondered at first (I'm border-lined Manic Depressive myself, so I've been hard to get along with at the best of times), but you make a good case for autism.

tactical_abyss
12-Mar-09, 19:59

Fischer

I doubt that it was autism atleast in 1972.Fischer never beat Spassky in 1966.So he had to find ways to Psyc him out at the Iceland tourney in 1972.You know all the tactics...
Not showing up at the games at first,going back to NY and protesting,board changes,behind the main hall,spooking Spass and the Russians...chem and xray tests of the chairs and lighting and much much more.It was all a game of psychology well played by Fischer against overwhelming odds(Spassky)and Spass was truly unraveled.Imagine sitting at the board waiting and waiting and no one shows up.Fisc was a worldclass genius at this type of ploy.
My older friends at the Manhattan Chess Club,who met Fischer and played him there tell me he used some of the same tactics then.Some say,although there is no direct evidence of this...that he was coached by gov psychologists on how to "spook"the Russians during that time.There was more going on here than a tournament you know!In any case,Spass was truly psyched out and that is what is said "won"it for Fischer MORE than Bobby's actual play!

easy19
13-Mar-09, 00:41

I just think that Genius is close to madness. and that the balance was tipped towards the madness side. by some event

fmgaijin
13-Mar-09, 09:38

Not All Bobby

The Russians participated in the "madness" themselves. The business about x-rays of the chairs, etc., was one of THEIR contributions. Bobby's issue was the claim that the noise of the hidden cameras distracted him, leading to his request to play in the "back" room until the cameras had been removed (guess for Bobby the "threat" of them suddenly coming on during a game was as powerful as the execution, much like the smoke-sensitive Nimzovitch's complaint about Lasker placing a cigar on the table next to the board . . .)

tactical_abyss
13-Mar-09, 13:57

About the

Yes,the Russians did participate in the madness as you say...but the point is what brought them to the madness,and the answer isn't the Russians themselves,but Fischer and his tactics!Fischers complaints,diversions,alternating easy and hard opposition,diet of salty herrings eaten at the chessboard,vocal displeasures and crafty allusions all finally take their toll on Spassky.Bobby wins one game and the rest are draws to the end of the 17th game,when it becomes obvious that Spassky is simply not going to make it.The "mounting"pressures brought down on Spassky CAUSE the Soviets to "reach"the breaking point.Yefim Geller who was a GM and Spassky's second,indirectly accuses Fischer of manipulation of the tourney and inappropriate behavior.Yefim speaks of electronic devices and chemical substances that "might" be influencing Spassky.Yefim comments on the "unusual slackening of concentration and display of impulsiveness"in Spassky and of Fischers "ungentlemanly tardiness" at each game.Due to Yefim Gellers accusations,105 glass plates of the lighting canopy were dismantled and photo's were taken for prematch comparisons.18 X-Rays were also taken,just incase there was something imbedded in the chrome or leather by Fischer or his "cohorts".Nothing of course is found,but don't you see?The "damage"is already done!Everything is simply working "perfect"for Fischer.He even has a mild objection when the play resumes about the "chairs"being too close to the playing area!
3 quick draws later and one final win by Fischer in 41 moves clenches the world title.
Fischer controlled Spassky,the Soviets,the TD,the spectators and the match!
I'm sure he has a good laugh after returning to his hotel room!

naamloos
14-Mar-09, 15:11

Bobby's Condition

Although I can certainly see grounds for the theory that Fischer was indeed autistic, I - acknowledging that my personal knowledge about Fischer's behaviour or Psychiatry is very limited - have my doubts.
Symptoms typical for autism ( I guess we are speaking about a light form of autism as - for instance - The Asperger Syndrome) are quite similar to a number of other disorders. Further, I have not seen evidence that Fischer possessed those symptoms which are almost unique for autistic people.
To continue, as his delusions are not particularly bizarre, I don't think he can be classified as a schizophrenic.
My diagnosis would be that he suffered from a personality disorder, to be more precise a paranoid personality disorder.

vulpecula
15-Mar-09, 04:55

Fischer v Spassky

I read with interest winds_of_wisdom's comment on Fischer v Spassky 1972. I wondered winds, have you read "Bobby Fischer goes to war" by D.Edmonds and J. Eidinow ?

It is by far the best account of the 1972 contest with regard to the political situation at the time. The book does not go into great detail of the chess, but more on what it was in reality - USA v USSR.

The cold war was still very much with us then, and USA - in particular H.Kissinger - saw it as a great chance to gain a victory, particularly as USA finally had a player who could challenge USSR for the title and win.

As Fischer said in a BBC interview in 1972 "It is really the free world against the lying, cheating, hypocritical Russians.... this little thing between me and Spassky, it's a microcosm of the whole world political situation".

Regards, Guy

tactical_abyss
15-Mar-09, 07:39

Deleted by tactical_abyss on 08-May-09, 22:03.

tonlesu
15-Mar-09, 22:45

winds of wisdom wrote:

"Its possible that I read the Edmonds and Eidinow account or quotes from the book,but to tell you the truth,I can't remember anymore,it was a long time ago."

The book was published in 2004---you must be really young if you think thats a long time ago!

Regards, Jim

tactical_abyss
16-Mar-09, 02:06

To tonlesu:

What I meant above was that the "match" was a long time ago,including looking over any books or info that I did,was a "long time ago".I have NO idea when the actual "book"(Edmonds)was published.I assumed it "MAY"have been written years or decades ago,since i have briefly looked over many reports,mostly in the mid to late 1970's and early 1980's.
Not knowing about Edmonds/Eidinow book,with many other reports and books and magazines out there,and because most of books and reports were almost ALL published decades ago,it was "natural"to assume incorrectly or not,that the Edmond book was one of those books also published decades ago.

Best Regards,
Winds

archduke_piccolo
16-Mar-09, 13:10

I do recall at the time...

... That Fischer played up his rivalry with Spassky as a microcosm of the Cold War in general. I thought that was interesting: in the past Fischer had got on quite well with Spassky, and indeed had reason to feel some gratitude towards him. During one of the Piatogorsky tournaments (1966, I think) Fischer kept switching accommodation arrangements and it was affecting his play. It was Spassky who got him to settle somewhere, whereat Fischer's play improved sufficiently to bring him, I think, to second.

It seems to me that Fischer had to transform Spassky into a deadly enemy, someone to be exterminated, in order to feel that he could give of his best. As for the "lying, cheating etc" Russians: they too had to be the mortal foe, again something against which Fischer felt he had to put forth all his strength. Anything less might have evoked in him an insufficient response.

I've always wondered what Efim Geller was really thinking when he made those accusations about X-rays and what-not. I formed the impression he was under instructions, and had no belief in them at all. Another possibility, suggested by what I've heard of his sense of humour, was that such charges were somewhat - not entirely - tongue in cheek, possibly to demonstrate how silly Fischer was being, but perhaps also simply by way of retaliation against Fischer's unsporting behaviour.

My own attitude to that match was that FIDE should have stood up on its hind legs and given Fischer the boot. I've always been convinced that after Fischer's non-appearance in game 2, Spassky had mentally packed his bags and gone home. It took him half the remainder of the match to get back into the proper mental state, by which time his 2-game lead had become a 3-game minus.

Many have said that Fischer would have won regardless. Well, we'll never really know. My view that it would have been close, Spassky was very competitive at his best, and Fischer might well have fallen at the final hurdle. I would have given the odds about 55-45 in Fischer's favour; no more.

Many regard Bobby Fischer as the best ever. I don't. Fischer promised a more regular and open competition for the world title. He delivered neither. Nor did he defend his title. Not once. FIDE did right to take it from him. Incidentally, I read a "Chess Life" (I think it was) article in which someone in the psychiatric professions predicted, shortly after Fischer won the title, that he would never defend it. Too afraid of losing. I remember being rather struck by this, and was not at all surprised when Fischer set such impossible conditions for his title defence that FIDE gave up in disgust. Of course he had no intention of playing...

Cheers,
Ion

tactical_abyss
16-Mar-09, 14:36

I agree Ion

with everything you say.It was basically all cold war psychology,as far as I see.The timing in USA/USSR history is really what made most of the whole thing so famous.
I wonder today,if Fischer was in his prime and assuming he kept up with all the modern opening theory...what the outcome would be if Fischer would have played against Garry Kasparov?
Heres something alot of players do not know....
Fischer actually stumbled and played fairly bad quite alot when playing white in the French Defense!
Thats why he avoided it in his later years.

blake78613
16-Mar-09, 19:22

When you talk about best ever, how do you factor longevity into the equation. Fischer during the period of the candidates matches in 1971 and through the 1972 World championship match was unbeatable. He had found a sound defense against 1 d4 and had conquered the French. But after beating Spassky, I think he was burned out and would have lost to Karpov. Tal is a similar case. I rate Fischer high because he did not have the support teams that Karpov and Kasparov had.

archduke_piccolo
18-Mar-09, 02:18

A very interesting thesis...

... It never occurred to me that Fischer might have burnt himself out in achieving the World Title. But now that you mention it, it's seems more than likely. That would explain a lot. And, give Fischer his due, he did put a heck of a lot of himself into his games.
Chess history is full of people who seem to "burn out" one way of another. McDonnell did not long survive after his matches with Labourdonnais; Zukertort also after his inaugural title match with Steinitz. Alekhine, I think, was the unusual sort of character who could bring himself back from burnout, which enabled him to recover his title in 1937.
And something of the motivation that will bring you to the title is lacking in the motivation to defend it. This was probably why many Champions never really wanted to defend the thing at all. Did Bobby Fischer recognise this before, or after, he won the title?
Food for thought!
Cheers,
Ion

tonlesu
18-Mar-09, 03:42

I have a theory---doesnt everybody! I dont think I would buy the burnt-out theory, although its possible. But he was, after all, only 29 and in his prime. I think he wanted to emulate Morphy. Conquer the world and then quit. Surround himself with the mystery, intrigue and myths that surrounded Morphy. Morphy played a big match in Paris with Daniel Harrwitz.
Morphy lost the first two games and Harrwitz was making crude and insulting remarks. "who said this guy could play chess---why I wont lose a single game to this man!" Morphy beat Harrwitz so badly in the rest of the match that Harrwitz abandoned the contest. I was thinking about Fischer giving Spassky a two point lead and then coming back to win easily. And, I can hear in my mind's ear Spassky telling the Russian Authorities that he will not come home after the second game---that he will stay and win. I have played the man many times in international tournaments and I have never lost. I have a two game lead in this championship and I will not lose!!

Fischer was headline news everyday all around the world. Everynight he was on the tv news. he was on the cover of every chess magazine in the world. Mothers were bringing there young sons to the local chess clubs by the thousands---all over the globe!

I think Fischer felt it was not going to get any better than this and withdrew like his idol Morphy. I think he knew in 72' he would not defend his title. From 72' to 75' he played no public chess. No tournaments, no matches, nothing. He was following through on his plan to follow Morphy. It probably didnt hurt that they were both a little dippy.

archduke_piccolo
18-Mar-09, 12:08

Well, that is a point of view also -

But to revert to the "burn-out" theory, that Fischer was only 29 would not have obviated that possibility. Apparently even younger people have burnt themselves out in over-zealous pursuit of academic studies. Achieving their goals, they aren't much good for anything else after that.

But we will never really know, will we?

tonlesu
18-Mar-09, 17:44

Well, the fact that he was 29 and in the prime of his chess life tends to discredit that theory---dont cha think?? He had just conquered the chess world by storm. Larsen and Taimanov didnt even get a draw in their match and Petrosian went down fairly easily. And, to top it off, Fischer gives Spassky a two game lead and annihilates him. It dont get better than this. Morphy got out when he was at the absolute top and now Fischer was even higher than Morphy and the mystery and intrigue would be even greater. I'm sure he thought we would be talking about him for a thousand years---and he might be right.

But we will never know, will we?

archduke_piccolo
18-Mar-09, 22:04

No.

I don't think his age and achievement does "discredit that theory". It doesn't even make it particularly unlikely. But it's not really a theory at all, merely a conjecture. We don't actually know. Your own theory, or conjecture, or hypothesis - what you will - is just as plausible, but I wouldn't attach any greater likelihood to it than any other, because, as you rightly observe: we don't really know.

Mind you, conjectures along these lines can be a lot of fun.
Cheers,
Ion

tonlesu
19-Mar-09, 02:13

Absolutely---its a lot of fun!!!

By the way, I didnt say it discredits the theory---I said it tends to discredit the theory. When you say Lasker was probably burnt out---its got a ring of truth to it. He was in his 60's and still playing in top flight Grandmaster chess tournaments---but only because he had to. When the Nazis took over Germany he lost everything. When you say Botvinnik was burnt out it sounds logical---he was in his fifties and tired! He would play Smyslov for the title and win and then he would play Smyslov and lose. Then he would utilize the rematch clause and beat Smyslov for the title. Then he would play Tal for the title and lose and use the rematch clause and beat tal for the championship. Are you still with me? Then he would play Petrosian for the title and lose. And then, he would use the rematch clause---uh-oh---no more rematch clause and being in his fifties he is not going to fight his way through the tough candidates cycle, and being in his fifties, and tired and burnt out---he quit. Now that makes sense---thats logical.

Kasparov a burn out---indeed. We could see the man age before our very eyes. We could watch his hair turn grey before he was forty. The man put his heart and soul in his chess.
I could buy a Kasparov burn out. He was glad to go on to other things in his life.

I cant buy a Fischer burn out---it doesnt have the right feel to it. Fischer reached the top of the mountain and it felt good and he didnt want to come down and so he decided to remain at the top by disappearing. He always referred to himself as the world chess champion until the day he died. Its in the book---you can look it up!

Good chess is good fun!

rahallen
29-Mar-09, 00:20

Bobby`s Life was shortened mostly when his Renal condition was not treated in Japan Jail

STOP SUGGESTING HE WAS MENTAL PLEASE>>>>> perhaps ask yourself what you may be leave behind... AMEN RA~ Allen

lighttotheright
29-Mar-09, 10:13

I'm not taking any sides on this issue; but I would like to point out something.

Thomas Edison said that "genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration". So if Fischer was above and beyond the genius of any other world champion, then he must have been under extreme stress indeed. That must have been an awful lot of extra work for him to get to that kind of pinnacle of success so quickly. Why couldn't he have been burnt out by the age of 29?

Maybe he was or maybe he wasn't. I don't know.

potus
30-Mar-09, 12:58

Deleted by potus on 30-Mar-09, 13:00.

harpazo
31-Mar-09, 13:16

Crazy.

I just think the guy was a nut job. Period. He was an incredible chess player but he was just plain right off the deep end.

Speaking of Morphy, I read a book about him one time and his chess life was spectacular! I was (and still am) very, very impressed with him. I don't remember the name of the book though.

Good day!

tonlesu
03-Apr-09, 02:57

Well, I dont think Edison was talking about chess genius---there have been too many lazy chess geniuses. Capablanca was probably 1% perspiration and 99% inspiration. He was not known for reading books---chess books that is. Nor was he known for studying chess. He probably played less chess than any other world champion except Lasker, who occassionally would disappear from the chess world for years. Spassky was, according to Karpov, not a hard worker. Reshevesky didnt break a sweat in his study of openings---he was rather mediocre in that area. He admitted that this probably kept him from the world championship in his book---Great Chess Upsets---1977.

Well, thats three geniuses who didnt break sweat very often!

Soujrnr, I agree with your assessment of Fischer---But, for every goofy Fischer story you can come up with---I can give you one about Morphy!

qwkslvr
17-Jul-09, 06:26

Bobby just wanted to play chess

The US government tried to make Fischer a political pawn. Bobby just wasn't interested. I think he was a hero for refusing to put up with that nonsense.
Was he the greatest chess player of all time? Certainly! Without the help of modern day data-bases he knew opening theory so well, it bored him and he created "Fischer Chess".
Well, the majority of us have a hard enough time wrapping our brains around conventional chess to be much interested in "Fischer Chess", so it hasn't really caught on.
If world championship games were played in this style where memorization of lines are rendered moot; we would have true thinkers as champions rather than people with mere photographic memories.

nyctalop
17-Jul-09, 23:54

Insanity...

Psychologists put us all at one step-away from madness, we all have tendencies towards some form of "mental illness".

I think Fischer's curse was his obsession with chess and little concern with anything else. A more recent example was Gata Kamsky, who was raised and trained to be the next Bobby Fischer. Luckily for him, he realized that he needed more than chess in his life to be a "functioning member of society".

I still wouldn't call Fischer crazy, he definitely didn't have autism, he, like many other geniuses before and after him, couldn't conform to the shallow rules of society and was deemed an outcast because of it.

I don't know how widely known is the following article, wrote by Fischer himself, after being locked up in jail in Pasadena. bobbyfischer.net

It makes a point of his inability to interact with society around him and follow the simplest rules of common decency. Maybe that's why he was such a genius, because of his refusal to comply to anything he didn't adhere to. Maybe that's why he was called a nutjob. Or perhaps, a little of both.

lighttotheright
18-Jul-09, 15:47

Well, this was one side of the story.

I can relate to police officers going too far. This story seems a bit extreme, but that would explain why few took it seriously even if it was accurate. Crazy? Maybe.

Bobby rambled on like a madman with all the detail but that was part of his personality that gave him the ability to excel in chess. Given how detailed and extreme the story was, I was surprised that he wanted to give an even more detailed revision. That is the part that may point to true psychosis.

This sounds like accusations under the patriot act...whether they are true or not. Many tales of abuse by police in the 1970s and 1980s were not believed, unless video tapes of abuse surfaced. When many tapes were eventually exposed in the late 80s and early 90s, these types of abuse accusations began to have merit. The fact is that some American abuse stories that have been verified would make American Military Abu Grab guards look like 'angels'. Police abuse like this, although rare, did occur. Bobby may have been a victim of such abuse before there was video evidence that might have supported his version.

It is entirely possible that the incident was provoke because Bobby acted a bit erratic. He seemed crazy. But that is no excuse if abuse did occur. Abuse of the mentally ill on the streets was quite common during the early 1980s. The police may have mistaken or presumed he was mentally ill and took advantage. Bobby's story is not all far fetched as it initially may sound.

« Back to forum