Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:53, 25 November 2013

Bobby Fischer is currently a Sports and recreation good article nominee. Nominated by Sirmouse (talk) at 03:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

	Bobby Fischer was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 16, 2005 Peer review Reviewed July 25, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 19, 2005 Good article nominee Listed September 11, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chess Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iceland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on April 3, 2004, April 3, 2005, and September 1, 2012.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 99 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

In popular culture

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)

Also, the HBO documentary does not qualify as "popular culture". It should either be removed from the article or moved to the section "Further reading", which should then be renamed to "Further reading and documentaries". Toccata quarta (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Structure

Why has the structure of this article been massively changed? It's not proper. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Editsums in 2 User:Sirmouse edits say "formatting consistency". (No cheese for Mouse today!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:46, 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)

Grandmaster or grandmaster

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)

Collins section

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)

I agree. Quale (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Robert James Fischer

"My name is Robert James Fischer. Friends and patzers call me Bobby." Heronils (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If you were to speak in English rather than in riddles, your post would not be confusing. Please see WP:UCN. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about Fischer

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 23:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The $2M came from his $3.35M winnings of the 1992 Spassky rematch. Prior to that much of the time he existed on his mother's social security checks, and royalties from his two books (acc. Endgame by Brady). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Greatest chess player of all time?

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)

to say Fischer is "considered by many to be greatest chess player who have ever lived" is definitely an outrageous overstatement of the facts. -- Who are you attributing as "outrageously overstating the facts"?: (1) those who contend Fischer was "the greatest chess player who ever lived"? or (2) those reporting that many say Fischer was "the greatest chess player who ever lived" (e.g. Frank Brady, Endgame, 2011, p. 328: "For chess players, and for people who followed the story of Bobby Fischer's rise to become what many say is the greatest chess player who ever lived, "), or (3) some other entity? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"Carlsen is the person with largest rating achieved" - ratings vary with time. There has been rating inflation and GM title inflation over the past decades. Kasparov is mentioned as being the greatest about as much as Fischer, probably more. But Kasparov was not that much above Karpov, both in terms of rating and the record of their games - it was pretty close (Kasparov's record against Karpov in classical chess was 51.97%). Fischer's rating was about 100 points above the best of his contemporaries. Bubba73 03:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Some people should spend more time studying WP:OR and WP:V. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain to make Fischer the greatest because his domination was greater than the domination of others. Fischer has never dominated chess for a period of time as Anderssen, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Karpov or Kasparov did in their prime. His short-term domination is much comparable to plenty others who were best for two or three years. You may surely say that Fischer would have dominated chess for more than 50 years if he continued playing, but we cannot witness and gauge upon something that has never happened in reality. The problem here is when presenting the sources. Similar sources are used to consider other people "one of the greatest" rather then "consider by many to be the greatest ... who have ever lived". The comment in the article preventing to change it in the previous wording only proves that "one of the greatest" is not the same with "considered by many to be the greatest". Unfortunately, this is the English Misplaced Pages and every single source for an American (in this case, pushing the POV from the Cold War to manipulate with Fischer in order to balance the United States with the Soviet Union in a field where the one side was immensely more dominant than the other) should be overstated to make him much better than the others.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages presents the opinion of reliable sources, and there are plenty of sources that consider Fischer the greatest chess player of all time. The article acknowledges this fact. Your WP:OR is irrelevant. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's work a little bit with some reliable sources:

• Leonard Barden, a highly reputable English chess author and journalist, in his article titled "Obituary of Bobby Fischer" published in The Guardian on 19 January 2008 mentions that "most experts place the second or third best ever, behind Kasparov but probably ahead of Karpov."
• Chernev (1976) ranks Capablanca "the greatest chess player of all time".
• Carlsen (2012) considers Kasparov to be "the greatest chess player of all time".
• Aronian (2012) stated that Alekhine is "the greatest chess player of all time".
• Jeff Sonas, an American chessmetrician, in the fourth sequel of his article "The Greatest Chess Player of All Time" provides a very good analysis on why the largest gap that Fischer attained cannot be compared with other similar records and even mentions that Kasparov is the player with largest gap on average for a long period of time.

Your selective approach to use only those sources who claim Fischer was the greatest doesn't hold as this can be easily opposed with the writings of numerous other chess authors who don't agree with that sentiment. In that case, the easiest way to draw any conclusion is to compare it in different chess categories rather than using tin-foil-hat arguments that Fischer was greatest because of his three-month record gap in the history of chess. Sorry if you get this wrong, because it's not intended to put any offence against you, but most of the chess books by American chess authors I've read in English present Fischer as someone who will never be borne on Earth; in contrast, the books written by Russian authors I've read in Russian have never focused solely on that who was the greatest player and why we should distinct him as so. It's understandable for me that you were victims of that "Fischermania", but this is Misplaced Pages that anyone can edit without limitations and borders. Shall we introduce the wording "considered by many the greatest ... who have ever lived" in the articles of every single chess player? My answer on this is no. The only person who somehow merits such regard is definitely Kasparov. Wordings like "one of the greatest" are enough to illustrate the point in the most proper way. Else, you might be interested to consider specifications in any chess category as we have in the article on Anand that he is "considered the strongest rapid player of his generation".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Name the article source you believe is claiming "Fischer was the greatest". Then examine what that source/author is claiming. (I believe you have that part wrong.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC) p.s. It's understandable for me that you were victims of that "Fischermania" -- please stop with the personal/motive suggestions, that's highly inappropriate.

Please don't try to avoid and conclude the matter without any real discussion on this. Fischer was "one of the greatest of all time", but to say "considered by many to be the greatest" is highly disputable. You have enough sources that many people disagree with it. My questions once again are explicit: Do we need to use the same wording in every single article about a chess player who has ever been considered the greatest of all time? Why not to simply mention "one of the greatest of all time" and conclude the case (see the examples from the articles about Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine and Botvinnik for further alignment of the style)?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Another important thing is the definition of "many" in the context of how many consider him to be the greatest. Since there is a note saying Please do not change this to "one of the greatest chess players of all time". The lead says "by many", not "universally". See body of article for more apparently to make distinction from "one of the greatest" I suppose "considered by many" means by more than a half (otherwise, one of the greatest would suffice any lower proportion). Unfortunately, you have only two sources that support your position and all the time you're trying to refer to them as supporting evidence for "many". On the other hand, I've already listed more than two sources in which Fischer is not mentioned as the greatest.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"you have only two sources that support your position"—drop this lie, will you?! Let's quote the article's source:

<ref>Greatest player ever: * Böhm & Jongkind 2003, pp. 47 (] interview), 91 (] interview), 113 (] interview). * Hartston 1985, p. 157. * Levy 1975, p. 9. * Müller 2009, p. 23. * Waitzkin 1993, p. 275 (quoting Kasparov).</ref>

I could also add Anand and Topalov to this list. The lead doesn't use the word "universally", so please stop wasting others' time, like you did a few months ago at Talk:George Gershwin. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't intend to waste your time but to free Misplaced Pages of American jingoistic opinions that every American is greater than any other person in the same field. You still don't have enough sources to justify the word "many" and most of them are before the time of Kasparov. But don't worry, it's not that difficult to find multiple times more sources than those you have to prove that Fischer could not be "considered by many to be the greatest" (working on it). And if you feel insulted or think that someone wastes your time, then you're not compelled to enter such discussions. You also need to understand that Misplaced Pages is not just to edit articles and these discussions are even much more important in order to produce quality content. I can just provide much more sources than you have that Fischer could not be considered by "many" the greatest and leave the discussion to let you decide whether it's worth changing into a more neutral wording or not. It's simply impossible to debate with people from the United States whose primary goal of editing here is to push US-centrism in an article about a person whose success in the past was misused for political reasons. Maybe you wish to encourage me to gather a group of friends to come here and reach a consensus on the grounds of the number of people involved, but no thanks, my intent is not to manipulate with Misplaced Pages in a such way you already use to do.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees on review
• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (sports and games) articles
• Top-importance biography (sports and games) articles
• Sports and games work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class chess articles
• Top-importance chess articles
• B-Class chess articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Chess articles
• B-Class Iceland articles
• Low-importance Iceland articles
• WikiProject Iceland articles
• B-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Low-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• B-Class Chicago articles
• Low-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• Selected anniversaries (April 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2012)