It’s the night of March 24, 2005. 11th World Chess Champion Robert James “Bobby” Fischer was traveling on a jet from Japan to Iceland, just after his release from a Japanese immigration detention centre. A video interview was taken, and Fischer, among other matters, spoke about “old” and “new” chess. Here are some excerpts (Fischer’s words in bold):
— You can learn Fischerandom in five, ten seconds practically, so there is no impediment. You have the same pieces, the same board; all you have to do is get an electronic shuffler and in one second you have a position. Of course, you can create more creative games than Fischer Random: maybe an extra piece or a bigger board or all kinds of things. People think I’m anti-chess. No, I’m not anti-chess, I’m pro-chess. I’m trying to keep it alive. I’m not coming up with anything radical at all.
— Being asked about who is the greatest player ever, he replied:
— I want to get back to Fischerandom. [...] First you have to understand something about chess. Of course, I’m better than Morphy. Why am I better than Morphy? I don’t say I have more talent than him. I just know much more theory, right? If he came back today, and he couldn’t open a book (let’s say), he wouldn’t do badly even against masters maybe. That has nothing to do with his talent though. So when you say I’m better than someone, it doesn’t mean anything, because of all this theory in chess. Now if you want to say am I the most talented player, that’s something else.
— Are you the most talented player?
— I think so, but that’s just my opinion. Morphy was fantastic, Capablanca was fantastic.
— What about later World Champions? Kasparov?
— As I say, I don’t like to delve too much into the old chess, because I hate it so much. By delving into it, I’m promoting it in some way. I don’t want to promote this [bleeping] game. I have only one interest in the old chess: to expose the pre-arrangement. People are living in a dream world.
— Don’t you think that’s paradoxical coming from the best player that ever was?
— Life is like that. It’s not really paradoxical. Chess is basically a search for truth, right? So I’m searching for the truth. The truth is that chess is no good any more. Chess hasn’t been a good game, objectively, for 150 years, since all this theory developed. It was a good game maybe 200 years ago, in the time of [Philidor].
— So you’re saying that already when you became World Champion, already by then, it was a bad game.
— Yes, it was a bad game. On the other hand, it wasn’t as bad as today. No comparison, but it was a bad game. At the time I was fired with ambition to win and I was willing to overcome all of these idiotic obstacles that block a talented person from winning. As you get older, if you don’t get better, you have to get smarter. I’m much smarter now than I was then. Much, much smarter. Now I don’t want to do things the hard way. Why do things the hard way when there’s an easier, better way? The old chess is that you’re banging your head against the wall with this theory. You’re trying to find some little improvement on move 18, or 20. It’s ridiculous. It gets harder and harder and harder. You need more and more computers, you need more and more people working for you.
— And less and less talent?
— Yes, less and less — it’s ridiculous. Why?
— Did you gradually start to hate chess or did it come suddenly?
— That’s a good question. [Pauses] I think it came gradually, but then at a certain point I was hating it, but didn’t know. I was still trying to make it work. Now I realise I was gradually hating it all along.
— You can learn Fischerandom in five, ten seconds practically, so there is no impediment. You have the same pieces, the same board; all you have to do is get an electronic shuffler and in one second you have a position. Of course, you can create more creative games than Fischer Random: maybe an extra piece or a bigger board or all kinds of things. People think I’m anti-chess. No, I’m not anti-chess, I’m pro-chess. I’m trying to keep it alive. I’m not coming up with anything radical at all.
— Being asked about who is the greatest player ever, he replied:
— I want to get back to Fischerandom. [...] First you have to understand something about chess. Of course, I’m better than Morphy. Why am I better than Morphy? I don’t say I have more talent than him. I just know much more theory, right? If he came back today, and he couldn’t open a book (let’s say), he wouldn’t do badly even against masters maybe. That has nothing to do with his talent though. So when you say I’m better than someone, it doesn’t mean anything, because of all this theory in chess. Now if you want to say am I the most talented player, that’s something else.
— Are you the most talented player?
— I think so, but that’s just my opinion. Morphy was fantastic, Capablanca was fantastic.
— What about later World Champions? Kasparov?
— As I say, I don’t like to delve too much into the old chess, because I hate it so much. By delving into it, I’m promoting it in some way. I don’t want to promote this [bleeping] game. I have only one interest in the old chess: to expose the pre-arrangement. People are living in a dream world.
— Don’t you think that’s paradoxical coming from the best player that ever was?
— Life is like that. It’s not really paradoxical. Chess is basically a search for truth, right? So I’m searching for the truth. The truth is that chess is no good any more. Chess hasn’t been a good game, objectively, for 150 years, since all this theory developed. It was a good game maybe 200 years ago, in the time of [Philidor].
— So you’re saying that already when you became World Champion, already by then, it was a bad game.
— Yes, it was a bad game. On the other hand, it wasn’t as bad as today. No comparison, but it was a bad game. At the time I was fired with ambition to win and I was willing to overcome all of these idiotic obstacles that block a talented person from winning. As you get older, if you don’t get better, you have to get smarter. I’m much smarter now than I was then. Much, much smarter. Now I don’t want to do things the hard way. Why do things the hard way when there’s an easier, better way? The old chess is that you’re banging your head against the wall with this theory. You’re trying to find some little improvement on move 18, or 20. It’s ridiculous. It gets harder and harder and harder. You need more and more computers, you need more and more people working for you.
— And less and less talent?
— Yes, less and less — it’s ridiculous. Why?
— Did you gradually start to hate chess or did it come suddenly?
— That’s a good question. [Pauses] I think it came gradually, but then at a certain point I was hating it, but didn’t know. I was still trying to make it work. Now I realise I was gradually hating it all along.
No comments:
Post a Comment