Talk:Bobby Fischer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Tal's anecdote about Barcza-Fischer[edit]

I have removed Tal's anecdote of Barcza-Fischer, where he claims that Fischer played the game down to bare kings till move 103. The anecdote is funny, but it is almost certainly not true. See Edward Winter's comment here.

Exactly where Tal (who was a participant in the tournament; indeed, he won it) made these remarks is unclear, but we have found no contemporary source suggesting that the game continued to move 103. For example, pages 118-119 of the special issue of the Schweizerische Schachzeitung devoted to Zurich, 1959 stated that the game ended in the following position, when White had just captured his opponent’s queen with 95 Qxa4+:

Mr Elderhorst commented in C.N. 4594:

‘It is hardly likely that another eight moves would be played in a game between masters of such a level. Moreover, for a bare-kings ending to occur Black would have had to allow White to take his pawn.’

Here's the score of the game; it ended on move 95. Kingsindian   07:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Rather than removing the whole thing, I would have added something to the effect of, "however, according to the published scores, the game ended on move 95" and source that to Winter. Whether it is true or not is not actually our concern; we cite the sources on both sides in order to maintain a neutral point of view.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is not at issue here, but rather, WP:VERIFY. Thanks for removing this apocryphal anecdote. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer claimed as the greatest chess player in his wiki page with out any proof[edit]

This page claims Bobby Fisher as the greatest chess player ever. This is against wiki policy and clear indiation of NPOV dispute. You have to provide actual sources and supportive documents to verify this claim. As per wiki policy you can't publish personal point of views.This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. You have to ammend this statement. I have added the violation points given below.

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Good research:Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources. If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkadira (talkcontribs) 03:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You have edit warred over this numerous times. Wikipedia is not making the claim that Fischer is the greatest chess player of all time. Wikipedia is making the claim, and supporting it with references in the "Legacy" section of the article, that many consider him the greatest chess player of all time. Why are you unable to comprehend this distinction? MaxBrowne (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually I read that Legacy section. There is no actual resource or article(Not in Chessbase or any where)validated to the claim him as the greatest chess player even though you say there are many. In Legacy section most of them say he is visionary, important figure, original ideologist or revolutionist. Then Caplabanca is the greatest if you read his legacy section in his wiki page. Being a fan is fine but don't be a blind fan and mislead community. This is infant clear violation of wiki. While as an active chess player I admire Fishers contribution but being called his greatest is absurd. It's like Nadals' fan add a statement to his wiki page citing he is the greatest tennis player even though he had some remarkable achievements. But every one generally agree Feeder is the best. Any way after numerous attempts you don't like to accept the facts so I will report this to the next level. I am pretty sure not all the arbitrates are die hard fan of Fisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkadira (talkcontribs) 05:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Take it to WP:RFC if you want. It has nothing to do with being a "fan". The current wording is the result of a hard-won consensus, and your continued misrepresentation of the article is disruptive. Wikipedia. Is. Not. Saying. Fischer. Is. The. Greatest. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hkadira, curious to know, what kind of source ref w/ you consider acceptable as support for that article assertion ("Many consider ...")? Please be specific. (For example, there are various sorts of citations at article Comparison of top chess players throughout history. Do you consider none of them acceptable for the purpose per WP standards?) p.s. You previously posted "Fisher is not the Greatest but Kasparov is. It's known fact." [1] So you s/b careful about mixing and/or shifting what your issue is. --IHTS (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hkadira has a point. I've added the weasel-inline tag (not really related to this discussion) because that's literally what that sentence is without any information on what this "Many" refers to. Chess players, chess enthousiasts, media, general population etc.? And almost nowhere on Wikipedia do we use "greatest of all time", even in cases where it would be much more applicable than here, because it's severely POV. Being the first among all of humanity is an extroardinary claim that requires extraordinary sources. We almost always use "one of the", along with sufficient references. And the fact that it's so blatantly stated here in the very second sentence of the article makes it seem like puffery. Almost patriotically so, even, as most of the sources claiming this do seem to originate from the United States. Why is it so vital that someone looking up Fischer is immediately told that he is the greatest of all time, when only an unspecified "many" consider it to be so? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
PS: I recommend people read WP:PEACOCK, because that fits this to the T. Instead of making sure everyone knows many consider him to be the greatest ever, give actual examples of notable sources placing him there. The reasoning of "Wikipedia isn't saying this, sources are" is moot because "Wikipedia" is now deciding that this is so vital that it should be mentioned immediately and in the strongest way possible. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
We could instead mention the views of his fellow World Champions, for example Anand "Bobby Fischer was the greatest chess player who ever lived" or Carlsen "the precision and energy that he played with is just unmatched in the history of chess."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I think the section is fine as it is. The statement "many consider him..." is linked to the relevant article where these opinions are discussed at length. Giving details of who exactly rated him as the best would add unnecessarily to the lead section. Ewen (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Fischer's status in the chess world is roughly comporable to that of Muhammad Ali in boxing. Muhammad Ali is one of the few boxers that most non-boxing fans have heard of, and Fischer is one of the few chess players that most non-chessplayers have heard of. No doubt training methods, overall fitness, conditioning and fighting techniques have improved since Ali's day, and a top heavyweight like Anthony Joshua today would probably beat Ali if he could hop into a time machine and go back to the 70s, but still nobody would seriously dispute the statement that "many consider Ali the greatest heavyweight of all time". Anyway I'll just move the cites which mention multiple authors up to the first paragraph, since so many want to take issue with the statement. It's not a parochial American thing, it's a widely held view among respected chess commentators.MaxBrowne (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Ewen, that seems logical, but doesn't it violate WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source? --IHTS (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I think MaxBrowne has added a good set of non-WP references now, anyway. I agree, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but I was thinking along the lines of the "See also" links that many articles contain - How people view Fischer is a digression from the main article and it is covered in detail in the Comparison of top chess players throughout history. Ewen (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem of WP:PUFFERY is still there. I've never heard of Fischer (I don't know much about chess, but still know about Nadal, Federer, Michael Jordan, Ronaldo etc). Is there even any other biographical article where a (modern) person is called "the greatest ever" in the very second sentence? Can someone find one for me? Alternatively, what makes Fischer unique among all of these? There'z an entire article of people considered to be the best in chess. There are sources for all of them. Should they all have this? And how much is "many", which depending on context can mean 20 people or 1 billion? It sounds like a poll was held. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
"Is there even any other biographical article where a (modern) person is called "the greatest ever" in the very second sentence? Can someone find one for me?" Huh?! What am I missing? How about those you named that you "know"?:
  • Nadal BLP, second sentence: He is widely regarded as the greatest clay-court player in history [...]
  • Federer BLP, second sentence: Many players and analysts have called him the greatest male tennis player of all time.
  • Michael Jordan BLP, third sentence: His biography on the NBA website states: "By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time."
  • Ronaldo BLP, second sentence: [...] he is widely considered to be one of the greatest football players of all time.
--IHTS (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Prinsgezinde: Same answer I gave Hkadira - raise a WP:RFC if you think it's an issue. In my opinion quoting what several writers have said and citing them comes well within wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
By moving the reference to the list of citations up to the lead paragraph, MaxBrowne has significantly reduced the possibility of confusion, and this placement appears similar to what was done in the articles about other sports figures quoted by IHTS.
It should be noted, however, that in following these practices, we and other editors of articles about sports figures are implicitly assuming that while a sentence like "Fischer was the greatest ever" would be bad for many reasons, "Many consider Fischer to have been the greatest ever" (with citations) is OK and even good. Making this distinction is popularly known as "weasel wording". It is evident, from the Talk pages I have looked at for other famous chess players, that less-experienced Wiki editors often have a problem with this; and for every complaint I see on a Talk page, I have to assume that many other readers had similar reactions but didn't bother to complain. So, yeah, this is still an issue, no matter how hard we try to nail it down. I will consider a WP:RFC when I can figure out what I really want to recommend. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I guess people's visceral reaction does count for something when assessing NPOV; probably not a coincidence that the two objectors here are non-native English speakers too. Maybe we should tone it down slightly with "some consider". MaxBrowne (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Income tax?[edit]

The lead section says, regarding the 1992 match, that "[Fischer's] participation led to a conflict with the U.S. government, which sought income tax on Fischer's match winnings, and ultimately issued a warrant for his arrest." But the rest of the article does not support the claim that the gov't was going for income tax -- it only mentions the warrant for Fischer's arrest for violating economic sanctions. Am I nit-picking careless wording, or is there an actual mistake here? Bruce leverett (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)