Talk:Bobby Fischer (chess career)
Splitting this off was a good idea, but I think this should be the main Bobby Fischer page, and what's now the main page should be moved to Bobby Fischer (biography). After all, the only reason anybody's interested in his biography is because of his chess career.
Any thoughts/objections? —Chowbok 01:19, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
I created this separate article because the original article had exceeded the Wikipedia length for articles. Previously there was no way to expand upon the chess career aspect of this subject, nor the biographical aspects. This separation now allows for both. Undoubtedly some editors will want to further tweak this article as well as expand upon it now that the space has been created. MPLX/MH 00:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Iam unhappy with this article, when it states that all Soviet players declined on principle to fight it out amongst each other early on in the stages of tournaments so they could solely force their attacks on the non-Soviet contingent. Where's the proof in this? I have read copious materials about the likes of Tal and Botvinnik, and they played not only for the glory of their country, but also themselves. Unless sufficient proof of this is given, I am slamming an NPOV warning on it pronto. --Knucmo2 18:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If you have the knowledge (and you seem to), just go ahead and rewrite it because it takes more energy and time debating stuff than correcting errors. Just remember your to cite your own sources. MPLX/MH 23:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It is, of course, virtually impossible to prove such claims beyond all doubt, but I don't believe the article states it as fact anyway; rather, the way I read it, it says that it was possible in principle, that Fischer believed it happened, and that rules in later cycles were changed in response to his complaints. Perhaps a little rewriting could be done to make it clearer we're dealing with an opinion (albeit a rather widely held one) rather than definite fact, but I don't find the article terribly misleading as it stands. --Camembert
- Hello, and thanks for your response. Firstly, I always appeal to the talk pages if there is any dispute about something, to inhibit the possibility of an edit war, in other words, seeking others' implicit permission to do so. These errant claims need to be stated in the form of a claim, the article does not read as such, it reads more as a given. I do not know where you quote the terribly, it was not mentioned in my article. Nor did I suggest that the overall article, whatever can be meant by that, is misleading and deceptive. However, usually NPOV disputes usually mean the 'whole' of an article. Furthermore, an opinion widely held may be one worth stating for the history books, but it is certainly not one which increases its validity, which I am sure you will know.--Knucmo2 23:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1992 Purse
[edit]A $1m purse in 1992 is inconsistent with the following paragraph that states that Fischer took a $3.3m prize. I've changed it from $1m to $5m as that seems to be correct based on a few searches (and references at the bottom of the article.) I am in no way an expert; if someone knows better, feel free to improve (and explain!) Blorg 14:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The total prize fund was $5m, of which Fischer, as the winner, was due $3.35m, the remainder going to Spassky (see, for example, Davies, Pein and Levitt, Bobby Fischer: The $5,000,000 Comeback). I believe there is some question-mark over whether either player actually received this amount, however--somebody might want to look into that. --Camembert 20:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) (copied from Talk:Bobby Fischer)