Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 8

Citations ... can be provided
Are you going to provide one?

I felt that it was necessary to either provide a citation, or remove that language altogether. We're already linking to the Wiki for My 60 Memorable Games, and that Wiki has judicious and well-chosen quotations about the quality of the book.

An additional consideration was that this is the opening paragraphs of the Fischer page. At that point in the page it is appropriate to be brief. There are several more references to the book in the rest of the page, and at least two of them go overboard (or if you prefer, "do it justice"). Bruce leverett (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead is intended to summarise the material that follows, and does not usually contain citations itself. Wikipedia is not saying "My 60 Memorable Games is a great book", it's saying "reviewers say 60 Memorable Games is a great book". It's on virtually every all time top 10 chess books list; it's like Casablanca or Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band or The Great Gatsby in their respective fields. It's status as a classic is undisputed in the chess world and merely saying it's "highly regarded" doesn't convey this. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a single citation about the quality of MSMG would be appropriate. The lead sections of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band or The Great Gatsby do indeed cite sources about the reputation of their subjects. I agree that "highly regarded" is an understatement that doesn't convey its famous status. Ewen (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the lead "does not usually contain citations itself." I should not have challenged you to produce one.  Instead, the correct thing to do is to tone down the peacock language.  If we can't blame it on somebody else, it's ours.


 * Note that in the "Writings" section, we have this:
 * My 60 Memorable Games (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1969, and Faber and Faber, London, 1969; Batsford 2008 (algebraic notation)). Studied by Kasparov at a young age, this is widely considered one of the best chess books ever written. "A classic of painstaking and objective analysis that modestly includes three of his losses."
 * I am happy with the quotation from Hooper and Whyld. Notice that their own use of peacock language is limited to the single word, "classic", which is hard to disagree with.  Our addition of "widely considered one of the best ..." is just plain puffery.


 * Anyway, given that we are already quoting Hooper and Whyld, and throwing in our own puffery along with that quote, I don't see the point of adding yet more (duplicate) puffery in the lead paragraphs.


 * What bothers me most here is that you (both) are upset that my phrase "highly regarded" wasn't sufficiently ecstatic. Frankly, I was hoping to edit encyclopedia articles, not fansites.  I never, in any of my writing on chess or other subjects, use language like you are recommending; and when I read that kind of language, my eyes glaze over, because it robs the text of any credibility.  It appears that I am going to have to give up on the Fischer Wiki page.  Nice knowing you.  Bruce leverett (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Apologies, Bruce, I should have been clearer. I didn't think we needed a (more) hyperbolic description, but rather that "highly regarded" doesn't seem to reflects the book's quality and fame. Simply "A classic of painstaking and objective analysis" would fit the bill, I would say, and we can cite the source of that opinion. That sort of comment in the lead wouldn't take much space, is measured and sourced, and it echoes similar lead comments about the reputation of works such as Max mentioned.


 * And can I just say thanks for your careful edits and comments? Thanks. Ewen (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

My position is that I don't mind changes to the wording so long as it reflects the stature of the book. It said "revered" before, IP thought that was a bit much (probably right) and substituted "popular" which nowhere near reflects its importance. "One of the most acclaimed" is my attempt, IMO "highly regarded" doesn't do it. I'm sure we can come up with something agreeable to all. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Iconic"? Bruce leverett (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If "highly regarded" was okay, and "classic" is okay, then try this: "'Fischer's book My 60 Memorable Games (published 1969) is regarded a masterwork in chess literature.'"Ok, IHTS (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How about: "Garry Kasparov described Fischer's 1969 book My 60 Memorable Games as a 'masterpiece' and 'a great influence on my chess'." ? Ewen (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That could go into the body if you like, but in the lead I'd prefer something like "universally hailed as one of the greatest chess books ever written". There's such a thing as justifiable "peacock" in my opinion. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps back off a little bit on "universally." The Universe is never going to agree on anything. Maybe "widely" or "internationally"? WHPratt (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sheepishly returning to the discussion after supposedly taking my leave, but you guys are making it interesting!


 * I had an allergic reaction to "... one of the greatest ... ever written", because it is basically book-jacket blurb language, not encyclopedia language. I mean really, do you expect people to believe you when you say stuff like that?


 * I am amused to read that at one time we had "revered". O holy Bobby!  I agree that "popular" is a little weak.


 * I have at one time owned, and read cover to cover, a few good game collections. Steinitz's book of the 1890 American Chess Congress; Lasker's book of St. Petersburg 1909; Alekhine's, New York 1924; Alekhine's two volumes of his best games; Botvinnik, Soviet Absolute, 1941; Euwe's best games; Reshevsky's best games; and not least, My 60. Some of these I have read cover to cover several times.  I am most reluctant to single out any one of them, even Fischer, for exalted status.  But reading the story of Batsford's algebraic re-issue of 1995, in which the English-speaking chess community threw a collective fit over a few edits (including at least one error), the word "icon" popped into my head.  Fischer's book is considered a "must have" among my generation and some of those following -- so much so that I finally bought it, long after it could have helped me improve my game.


 * I would not object to "...regarded a masterwork...", though I personally would prefer something like "...is an icon of American chess literature...". My original idea of "highly regarded" is perhaps too formulaic -- it doesn't hint at the motivation for the 1995 blow-up.  Bruce leverett (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

How's this?:"At age 20, Fischer won the 1963–64 U.S. Championship with 11/11, the only perfect score in the history of the tournament. His book My 60 Memorable Games (published 1969) became an icon of American chess literature and is regarded a masterwork. Fischer won the 1970 Interzonal Tournament by a record 3½-point margin and won 20 consecutive games, including two unprecedented 6–0 sweeps in the Candidates Matches. In July 1971, he became the first official FIDE number-one-ranked player, spending a total of 54 months at number one."Ok, IHTS (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not veto this, but I'd like to hear from the others at this point.


 * On an unrelated point, I have two problems with the last sentence of the paragraph. It doesn't explicitly mention ratings.  So I suggest changing "number-one-ranked" to "number-one-rated".  Also, the figure of "54 months" in the last sentence is highly artificial, since Fischer didn't play any rated games after 1972.  It might be better just to drop everything after the comma.  Bruce leverett (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Fine by me (as were the other suggestions, tbh). Just one point, though; we seem to be trying to avoid citations in the lead section... why? WP:CITELEAD says only to avoid redundant references. A direct quotation from an authoritative source would avoid the accusation of puffery. Ewen (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have used the language proposed by . Of course, as always in Wikipedia, this isn't the last word.


 * , if I tried to answer your question, it would be like the blind leading the one-eyed. I notice that in Boris Spassky and Bobby Fischer, the lead sections do not have any citations, but in Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov, there are some citations.  Bruce leverett (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If it's true that My 60 Memorable Games is "widely considered one of the best chess books ever written," it should be easy enough to find multiple references to attest to that. Cobblet (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The subject of this encyclopedia article is the life of RJF. Brevity, proportionality, and focus are useful conventions. MSMG is indeed one of the greatest chess books ever written, but one doesn't see the comparable books by Alekhine, Botvinnik, and Kasparov (also shortlist classics, also written as preparation for world championship run) overemphasized in their biographies. Billbrock (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Game score issues
While converting Fischer-Taimanov from the notation used in chessgames.com to standard algebraic notation, I found that the score given in chessgames.com (and also in the Kopec & Kostovetsky article, but that is not necessarily an independent source) differs in two places from the score given in Brady 1973 (and also in Chess Life & Review, July 1971; again, I am not sure that these are independent sources). On move 57, Brady has Taimanov playing Ng8 (instead of Nc8); the knight returned to e7 the following move, but with 57 ... Nc8, White has to consider 58 ... Nd6, while with 57 ... Ng8, White has to consider 58 ... Nf6. Then, on moves 59 and 60, Brady has Taimanov playing Kc6 and then K back to c7, while chessgames.com has him playing Nc6 and then N back to e7. This website: from chess.com, with game scores and analysis supposedly taken from old issues of 64, agrees with Brady at move 57 but with chessgames.com at moves 59 and 60. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Wade & O'Connell's collection The Games of Robert J Fischer has 57 ... Ng8 and 59 ... Nc6 - agreeing with score annotated by Tal. Kevin O'Connell collected Fischer's games as they were published, so it should be reliable. They mention consulting Brady's Profile of a Prodigy but it was the 1965 edition, so the score would have been from the "many tournament books and magazines" they consulted. Ewen (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This site has 57 ... Nc8 and 59 ... Nc6 but notes that 57 ... Ng8 is given in "some sources" (including Andrew Soltis 2003 book Bobby Fischer - rediscovered). There is no mention of Brady's 59 ... Kc6. Ewen (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Chess Notes 9991 discusses the matter and it looks like 57 ...Ng8 and 59 ...Nc6 are correct. (And sorry, Bruce, but you didn't get a namecheck!) Ewen (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * These issues can not ultimately be resolved by reference to secondary sources. I interpret Winter's comments as not coming down firmly on either side of either question, and that is also my own position.  But in the absence of a really authoritative source, we have to make choices here, and I am OK with what you have done.  Bruce leverett (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Bruce. I agree, there can't be a definitive answer unless someone has a signed scoresheet or something. The alternative moves look reasonable (to me, but I'm such a patzer it would have to be a glaring error for me to spot it). So, failing that we have to judge which secondary sources are more likely to be correct. 59 ...Kc6 is an unusual version, found only in Brady and that earlier Northwest Chess report. There seem to be more reports of 57 ...Nc8 but Winter doesn't seem to have found any source that he would rely on. It looks like a typo to me; N-N1 or N-B1? I notice that N and B are adjacent on a keyboard... Anyway, it's a really good spot, Bruce. Ewen (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm definitely over-thinking this (sorry) but... I notice that no source has both 57...Nc8 and 59...Kc6. That is more likely to be the case if 57...Nc8 and 59...Kc6 are both wrong. If, for example, the score was really 57...Nc8, 59...Nc6 then it would take two errors to report 57...Ng8, 59...Kc6 and two errors are less likely to occur in a single version. Assuming 57...Ng8, 59...Nc6 is correct, then that agrees with what we see - versions with one error or another, but not both. And yes, I do recognise the glaring WP:SYNTH and WP:OR Ewen (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Parentage
There seems little doubt that Paul Nemenyi was Fischer's father now. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. Are you thinking of tweaking the section to reflect this?  I'd be happy to see it.  Bruce leverett (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Lazy Susan
Sure they got some good reviews in some rock mag but they're not a notable band, their only "hit" on the Australian charts was by virtue of being on an album of cover versions put out by a local Sydney radio station. An article on them would be unlikely to survive an Afd discussion, probably even most Australians haven't heard of them. I'll leave it in for now (minus the reference to a "hit song") but it seems a fairly trivial thing to mention in an article about Fischer. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the Australian rock scene, and would happily defer to those who are. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Playing strength after 1972
Are there any documented (recorded) games played by Fischer between the 1972 World Championship and the 1992 rematch, and if yes, is it possible to calculate a performance rating based on those? From various sources over the years I have heard of games against Grenblatt, Peter Biyiasas, Svetozar Gligoric, and one possibly two other grandmasters (also an exhibition match in New York soon after beating Spassky) but the ones against Grenblat seem to be the only ones preserved for posterity. 143.239.64.166 (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The Gligoric games are here, which also links to a game vs Torre. Back of envelope calculations: It was +6 =3 -1 to Fischer vs Gligoric, 75%, which gives a rating difference of 382. It was a draw with Torre so the ratings are equal, as far as a single game can show. Chessmetrics gives Gligoric about 2490 and Torre a 2600 rating in 1992. The Gligoric result was about 2870 (2490 + 382) but this should be treated with great caution as it was training match. Who knows what the two players tried that they wouldn't have played competitively? Spassky was rated about 2610. Fischer's 58.3% vs Spassky is about 140 points higher, which puts him around 2750. At the time, Kasparov was around 2880, Karpov and Ivanchuk 2810 or so.


 * Ewen (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow, very insightful, thanks a million! I had no idea these games existed, or that he was still so strong in 1992. Speaking of the rematch, I remember reading that his play was very shaky and uneven except for the first 2 games. The 2750 rating seems to tell a different story. There's one issue though. You mentioned Karpov's rating at the time being around 2810. Are we talking about FIDE Elo ratings or something else? Because as far as I know Karpov never achieved Fischer's rating in spite of his strength, long chess career and rating inflation over the years (though he came within 5 or 10 rating points difference). 143.239.64.166 (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. It's just for fun. The ratings are from chessmetrics so no, they're not FIDE but they are (sort of) Elo. Chessmetrics attempts to remove grade inflation, but it was just a handy place to find historical ratings. Fischer has a peak rating of 2895 on this list. Ewen (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"Was discussed at some length"
"Was discussed at some length" does not mean "set in stone" or "cannot be improved". I'm not keen on the use of the word "icon", like the earlier wording "revered" it has religious connotations, and this strikes me as unencyclopedic. "Classic" in my opinion does it justice without going overboard. I also think just "chess literature" rather than "American chess literature" is appropriate, admiration for the book and for Fischer's genius is hardly restricted to the United States. (Incidentally the fact I didn't raise this during the earlier discussion is irrelevant. This does not exclude me from attempting to improve the wording now.) MaxBrowne (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Although I am the one who came up with "icon" and it still tickles me, I do not object to MaxBrowne replacing it with "classic". What we now have is still an improvement over some earlier wording that was heavy on the hyperbole.  Bruce leverett (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said before ([]) I have no strong preference for "icon" vs "classic" or whether we should specify "American" chess literature. I'd be happiest with a referenced quote but it's no big deal. ("Incidentally"... I just thought it would be better to discuss the issue, as we did back in June, before any attempts at improvement. It's a trivial issue, IMO, but it did seem to generate some strong opinions.) Ewen (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The connotation I see in "His book [...] became an icon of American chess literature", is that the book was written by an American. (Not that its sphere of influence was restricted to America.) IHTS (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * By "American chess literature" I would imagine something like Denker and Parr's The Bobby Fischer I Knew and Other Stories, which is very American in style and describes a very American chess scene - its Americanness is part of its appeal. An analogy - you don't really hear Larsen's Selected Games of Chess described as a "classic/icon of Danish chess literature", just a classic of chess literature. It may have a few "Danish" idiosyncrasies in it but it's really a "universal" book. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Bobby Fischer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091126000035/http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/AlltimeList.html to http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/AlltimeList.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fischer.jp/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fischer.jp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I Was Tortured in a Pasadena Jailhouse
The cited source for the story about Fischer, Milos Forman, and Peter Falk is the "reader's commentary" section of a chessgames.com article. This in turn cites a Wikipedia article, John C. Schulte. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to cite one another, so I looked up John C. Schulte. It cites no source whatever for the story. I can only assume, therefore, that we can't use this story, unless we can find a more reliable source for it. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also disagree with the description "vanity publication", "self-published" is neutral enough. However Milos Forman apparently did have some half-hearted plans to make a movie with Bobby Fischer, maybe stuff from this interview can be incorporated into the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your attention to this. The cited sources for the new material are not reliable, so I think the text needs needed some editing. Quale (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Straight out revert is fine for now, but the Milos Forman/Kavalek connection is possibly worth including. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely looks like a paid editor is being asked to insert this into the Fischer and Milos Forman articles. Since the references were poor and did not support the claim in either case I have also reverted the Forman article, and removed the claim from the Schutte article too (which also looks like it was created by someone with a COI). 15:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding the interview with Forman. He said that he wanted to make a movie "about the match" -- presumably the 1992 match but maybe the 1972 match -- in any case not the "Pasadena Jailhouse".  I agree that this is interesting material, but I would be cautious about whether (and where) to include it.  Bruce leverett (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think he was talking about the 1972 match, found a reference in "Timman's Titans" on google books but it's kind of anecdotal and doesn't give a source. A Forman biography or autobiography might be the best bet. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete from WikiProject Chicago?
Yes, RJF was born in Chicago. Not clear why this article is in WikiProject Chicago, however. And I live in Chicago. Billbrock (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there will be any objections from the WikiProject Chess people if this is deleted from WikiProject Chicago. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine that anyone should care, unless they are active in the project. Whatever WP:CHICAGO members want to do should be fine. Quale (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually it is clear why the article is in WP:CHICAGO - anyone who is in "Category:People from Chicago" is included.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting photo...
A pity about the damage. I don't think it's really usable in the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems the late Raymond Bravo Plats was one hell of a handsome dude. Thanks to his relative (I presume) for sharing the Fischer pic, despite the damage it can be used as a sidebar. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Arrival in Reykjavik
I reverted a citation change of 4 Jan 2014 06:09, whereby a citation to pittsburghlive.com was replaced with a citation to povichcenter.org. At the time, the former was a dead link, but I'm restoring the original pittsburghlive citation by using a web archive of it. The povichcenter ref is not as good quality of a citation because it's not so much about Fischer, and doesn't mention that the event was at the time of Fischer's arrival in Reykjavik (which is what the article text is about). I'm also adding another citation that includes a photo of the event. That site, echecs-photos.be, includes a lot of photos of Fischer from that time, including ones where he is shown being welcomed by a crowd at Reykjavik (which would support reinstating the text that was removed on the above-mentioned 2014 date, if anyone wants to). In addition to that photo site, there are a lot of articles relating to the events around that time on Chessbase, here (http://en.chessbase.com/post/bobby-fischer-latest-news-and-pictures). -- HLachman (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Tal's anecdote about Barcza-Fischer
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 &#9821; &#9818; 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
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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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)


 * , 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." 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)


 * , 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)


 * 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?
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)

.
 * You're right. I've edited the article to say that a warrant was issued for Fischer's arrest because he violated an executive order imposing sanctions on Yugoslavia. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Writing of Fischer's name
Hello, I think the article should read Robert "Bobby" James Fischer as opposed to Robert James Fischer. The WP:QUOTENAME gives the example:


 * "If a person is commonly known by a nickname that is not a common hypocorism (diminutive) of their name,[12] used in lieu of a given name, it is presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Bunny Berigan, which has Roland Bernard "Bunny" Berigan. The quotation marks are not put in bold."

This example supports my suggestion. "Bobby" certainly was not a hypocorism or pet name, it was his normally used name and the name of the article. There is no difference between using Robert "Bobby" James Fischer and Roland Bernard "Bunny" Berigan. Thank you IQ125 (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The difference is that Bobby is a very common hypocorism (diminutive form) of Robert, when Bunny is not by any stretch a hypocorism of Roland. See our article hypocorism for examples of this phenomenon. EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Bobby Fischer" is the name of the article. "Bobby" was not his "pet name", it was used and understood as his name, so "Bobby" is not a hypocorism in the case of Fischer.  If Fischer's uncle called him "Bobby" and nobody else, then "Bobby" would be a hypocorism or pet name, in the case of Fischer he is best known as "Bobby Fischer" not "Robert Fischer.  Do you understand now? IQ125 (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It is unnecessary to add the "Bobby" to the opening. See MOS:NICKNAME for more information. ~ GB fan 12:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For MOS:NICKNAME the example is:
 * Louis Bert Lindley Jr. (June 29, 1919 – December 8, 1983), better known by the stage name Slim Pickens.
 * So in the case of Fischer, it would be written Robert James Fischer (March 9, 1943 – January 17, 2008) better known as Bobby Fischer. Why not just use Robert "Bobby" James Fischer, much cleaner and less wordy. IQ125 (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the proper form would be 'Robert James "Bobby" Fischer,"' as the diminutive replaces both given names. WHPratt (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That example has nothing to do with this situation. No one would understand where Slim Perkins comes from his legal name. People understand that Bobby is a form of Robert. ~ GB fan 13:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think confusion is arising over the use of hypocorism. I don't think it's meant strictly as a pet name, but as a diminutive or shortened form. When the reader sees the article title and then the birth name in the opening sentence, there shouldn't be any need for additional clarification of who is being referred to. EricEnfermero (Talk) 13:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Rubbish, the article name is suppose to be the first thing the reader reads in the article! We have a choice of three ways of doing this as follows:
 * Robert James Fischer
 * Robert "Bobby" James Fischer
 * Robert James Fischer, better known as, Bobby Fischer
 * I vote for number 2. This is the common sense approach and is supported by Wikipedia policy in quoting Fischer's name. IQ125 (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Tom Hopper example totally clears up any potential confusion here. Tom isn't a pet name or a name used only by his uncle, but it's a common short form of Thomas and therefore isn't repeated in the opening sentence. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Tom Petty is another example of how this should be done. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * IQ125, what you are proposing is explicitly discouraged by MOS:NICKNAME, which states that a common abbreviation used in lieu of a given name, “is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses into or after their name.” The article is fine as it is.Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - the person's well known name is used to title the article, but when the article doesn't even mention its title it looks a bit odd. This is true in this case and in the articles Tom Hopper and Tom Petty. Therefore, I would go with  'Robert James Fischer, better known as, Bobby Fischer'. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The title of the infobox uses "Bobby". Also there are many uses of "Bobby", starting with the first word of the first titled section (Early Years).  If it isn't in the lead paragraph as well, no need to lose sleep.  Bruce leverett (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * From the infamous Ginsburg interview of young Fischer: "When I come home I'll write a couple chess books and start to reorganize the whole game. I'll have my own club. The Bobby Fischer ... uh, the Robert J. Fischer Chess Club. It'll be class. Tournaments in full dress. No bums in there." WHPratt (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bobby Fischer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100625170210/http://sports.inquirer.net/inquirersports/inquirersports/view/20080207-117275/Fischers-Filipino-heirs-going-after-estate to http://sports.inquirer.net/inquirersports/inquirersports/view/20080207-117275/Fischers-Filipino-heirs-going-after-estate
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140225230222/http://archive.uschess.org/docs/pdf/15EBactionsvolex02.PDF to http://archive.uschess.org/docs/pdf/15EBactionsvolex02.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002203233/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hpjkKfonmIFJxdSyG535aNfW6rnQ to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hpjkKfonmIFJxdSyG535aNfW6rnQ

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Misattribution of a quote: Kotov or Smyslov?
We write:

Fischer won the 1962 Stockholm Interzonal by a 2½-point margin, going undefeated, with 17½/22 (+13−0=9). He was the first non-Soviet player to win an Interzonal since FIDE instituted the tournament in 1948. Russian grandmaster Alexander Kotov said of Fischer:

"I have discussed Fischer's play with Max Euwe and Gideon Stahlberg. All of us, experienced 'tournament old-timers', were surprised by Fischer's endgame expertise. When a young player is good at attacking or at combinations, this is understandable, but a faultless endgame technique at the age of 19 is something rare. I can recall only one other player who at that age was equally skillful at endgames"

- Vasily Smyslov.

This is confusing. The first paragraph attributes the following quotation to Alexander Kotov, but then at the end the quote is attributed to Vasily Smyslov. The footnote attributes this quotation to "Plisetsky & Voronkov 2005, p. 81" but I don't have the primary source, and there's no preview on Google Books, so I can't verify it. Can someone tell me who (if anyone) actually said this about Fischer and correct the article accordingly? --causa sui (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking through the revision history, this error was introduced recently by User:Hmains. The quote is not by Smyslov. Smyslov is the "one other player". I will fix this now. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just looked up the quote in my copy of Russians vs Fischer and I can confirm that is what happened. It is clearly Kotov’s quote. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Denker and Fischer
There are two anecdotes from Denker's autobiographical memoir: one about Denker taking Fischer to New York Rangers games, and one about Denker interceding with the Manhattan CC on account of Fischer's poor dress. In general, Denker's book is not less problematic for our purposes than Lombardy's. It was published 35-40 years after the events, and the anecdotes appeared in it for the first time in print, as far as I know, with no prior corroboration elsewhere. Although there is no reason to suppose that Denker was deliberately stretching the truth, we have to consider the possibility that the passage of several decades played tricks on him, as it does on everyone else. Anecdotes that are fun to retell at the dinner table are not necessarily appropriate to include in an encyclopedia. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Psychology section
The below comment was added by an IP to the article but is actually a comment on the "Speculation on psychological condition" section, so I am putting it here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment only: It is unfortunate that speculation is considered authority. Since when? Since he accused Russians and a particular ethnicity of prearranging a tournament. It certainly wouldn't be the first time for such accusations in any professional sport. Why is he assaulted for his right to freedom of speech, right or wrong. His point of view was no different than the widely publicized conspiracy theories on 9/11 and several radio hosts who publicly denounce those in authority. So why single out Bobby Fischer. From watching actual footage of interviews with bob hope, and a few other interviews when he was playing actively, he seemed pretty normal. I have seen not so normal people, that is, the countless homeless people in cities and small towns walking the streets soliciting for money or not, etc. It is quite apparent in that they are not responsive or particularly functional, and in some cases dillusional. He appeared to be none of these. He was focused on one thing in life "chess" and he wanted to win honestly. This appeared to be done by working hard, and studying for 10 years to win the world championship. As he won on his own terms and "honestly",he is immediately discredited and made into an mentally ill recluse. How sad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.179.100 (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The APA forbades diagnoses where a person isn't personally examined, so spilling "speculation" of same (in particular, the article quoting psychologist Ponterotto's online/book conclusion "The evidence is stronger for paranoid personality disorder") into a WP bio s/ also be forbade by WP policy (and maybe it does already, dunno). --IHTS (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * See Talk archive . --IHTS (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentence, including article title name
Referring to this discussion, "Writing of Fishcer's name", it seems clear to me the example Timothy Allen Dick (born June 13, 1953), known professionally as Tim Allen given at MOS:NICKNAME is what s/b mirrored/followed. The article counterexamples Tom Hopper and Tom Petty given in the discussion, are start-class and C-class articles, respectively. I agree w/ user that "when the article doesn't even mention its title it looks a bit odd". Also, it is a big deal that "Bobby Fischer" was Fischer's popular name, there is no mention in the article the name was his overwhelming popular name, the argument in the previous discussion is that it "isn't necessary" to mention this since the name-form "Bobby Fischer" is used throughout the article. But that misses the point. (The fact should not be "left up to the reader" to deduce/figure out that "Bobby Fischer" is the subject's popular name, it is a big deal that it is/was, and that fact s/b spelled out at once in the lead not only as instant clarification but also information given rather than information implied or deducable. The fact that the deduction is an easy one to make is beside the point, there is no compulsion to leave it to deduction, there is compulsion to summarize w/ this simple addition to lead that the article title became Fischer's overwhelmingly popular name by which he was personally & professionally known.) So there! ;) --IHTS (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Timothy Allen Dick is quite clearly an alternative name, not a hypocorism. Your addition is totally unnecessary when the article title itself is Bobby Fischer and everyone familiar with the English language knows that "Bobby" is a common hypocorism for Robert. It also runs counter to MOS:NICKNAME, which says It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses into or after their name. Example:Tom Hopper's lead has simply: Thomas Edward Hopper. The fact that you have put "popularly known as" instead of using parentheses or quotes does not change the fact that is redundant and awkward looking. IMHO of course.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , the argument in your editsum revert shows you are misreading the MoS. If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses into or after their name. Example: Tom Hopper's lead has simply: Thomas Edward Hopper. simply means that in Tom Hopper lead, "Tom" is not inserted into the bolded opening name "Thomas Edward Hopper" in quotation marks, into or after the name in parentheses. What I did is different, following MoS example Tim Allen "Timothy Alan Dick (born June 13, 1953), known professionally as Tim Allen, is an American actor and comedian." for reasons explained. "Robert James Fischer (March 9, 1943 – January 17, 2008), popularly known as Bobby Fischer, was an American chess grandmaster and the eleventh World Chess Champion." It reads fine, eliminates need for deduction, and presents by doing, a small but important piece of missing article info. Your argument fails since it contradicts the Tim Allen example given in the MoS. (According to your argument, that MoS example, given as a in green, is wrong and counter-policy, which it clearly isn't. Somehow you've misinterpreted the MoS you've quoted, it is contradicted by the MoS Tim Allen example.) --IHTS (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Tim Allen" introduces a new surname, unrelated to his real surname. If he was known professionally as Tim Dick, his article would read just Timothy Alan Dick. Bobby is a common hypocorism of Robert. Hrodvarsson (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok I see your point. ("Bobby Fischer" isn't an "alternative name".) --IHTS (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. (As an aside, the lead has recently been fractured into numerous short sentences, should it be reformed?) Hrodvarsson (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "numerous short sentences", I would be willing to discuss this, but maybe we should break it out into a separate section? If you are talking about the March 9 edit by Objectiveap, I thought it slightly improved things, but I'm open to persuasion.  Bruce leverett (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm open to discussion on this also - The edit made the first line sharper as a lead, some of other short paragraphs thereafter could be joined (as per taste). Also made many editorial diction improvements to help article flow at that time so if changing would recommend edit over revert.Objectiveap (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Shortening first paragraph can be seen as an improvement for layout (especially on mobile), but I do not think the fragmented sentences read well, and they are not ordered chronologically. I will attempt to combine them. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I slightly like your edits here, I find them on balance positive for the article, particularly due to the chronology idea. Objectiveap (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks OK. As long as the world championship is mentioned in the 1st paragraph (1st sentence even), I'm OK with the next paragraphs being chronological.  Bruce leverett (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I still think it is best to spell out that he was known as Bobby Fischer. Bobby may not be known to readers who first language isn't English, its a less obvious corruption than a simple shortening (for example from Timothy -> Tim) and Robert can be made a nickname in a number of ways. I'd rather a little redundancy than leave some people confused. At least one other Robert article spells it out (Bobby Sands). Jonpatterns (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Plus the Bobby Sands article is a B-class article (not start- or C-class, as are the counterexample articles offered, Tom Hopper and Tom Petty). --IHTS (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Bobby Orr is a GA. See other examples such as Ron Paul and Tony Parker. Hrodvarsson (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Granted. (You think Bobby Sands lead is incorrect then? If so at this point I'm okay to revert, even I still feel the addition ", popularly know as Bobby Fischer, does add an important bit of pertinent info not referred to elsewhere in the article that without is left to deduction or implication for a unacquainted reader [and that seems both a bit odd as well as disservicing to the article], and there's really no less obtrusive way to include same.) --IHTS (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Britannica has "Bobby Fischer, byname of Robert James Fischer," but I think the reader can deduce Bobby is a form of Robert, so it is not needed IMO (I think I am the one who originally removed "Bobby" from the first line some months ago). Bobby Sands should probably be changed too, but I think it is contentious to edit articles which have been cited as examples in discussions, at least until the discussion is resolved. Hrodvarsson (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (I've reverted.) If it's really a straightforward matter of MoS, then I don't see how/why corresponding correction at Bobby Sands can be "contentious" (regardless where discussion occurred). --IHTS (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is just a matter of following the MoS but since this discussion regarded the interpretation of the MoS it seemed contentious to edit an article cited as an example of one interpretation. I will edit it now as this dispute looks to have been resolved. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

King's Gambit Bust Comment
I'm not actually terribly involved here, but if the remark/article about his defense being a complete bust it should be; and this segues into the possible likelihood of an academic, full caps, journal being introduced that meets a scientific, quoted or not, standard next year (personal communications).173.161.198.25 (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

My mistake (It is in the article). Julzes (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Mentorship from Lombardy
In spite of the profusion of references in this section, we really have only one independent source for the claim that Lombardy mentored Fischer, and that is Lombardy's 2011 memoir. The other sources postdate this and are probably simply copied from it.

I don't consider Lombardy's book to be a reliable source on this claim. I have not seen the claim in print prior to 2011. It is not supported by Brady, or by any public statement by Fischer that I know of. Unless a reliable source can be found for it, I would have to recommend that this whole subsection be eliminated, or reduced to a single sentence starting with "Lombardy[ref] claimed that ..." Bruce leverett (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I share your concerns and agree with you. See /Archive_6 for a discussion I initiated on this issue in November 2013.  "Eidetic Imagery and Total Immersion" is especially cringe inducing, but most of the section is dubious. Quale (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer to the earlier discussion. I suppose that the material about Fischer's work with Lombardy at Portoroz and Reykjavik may be adequately sourced.  But it does not rise to the level of "mentorship."  Before applying dynamite, I might move those sentences to other parts of the article.  Bruce leverett (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * At the request of Bruce Leverett, I am here to offer my two cents. If you are looking for others corroborating that Lombardy influenced Fischer's career, look no further than a video (cited at footnote 47) from IM John Donaldson (at the 23 minute mark) in which IM Donaldson notes that Lombardy "played a major influence on Bobby's career." IM Donaldson is a reputable source. He runs the Mechanics' Institute chess club in San Francisco. Sirmouse (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Arguably no US player influenced Fischer more than Lombardy, but I think this whole section is wildly overstated. It's probably fairer to say that no US player had a major influence on Fischer after 1957. Fischer famously refused to analyze with Lombardy: his analysis of Game 13 of Reykjavik, for example, was done in collaboration with Kavalek. Billbrock (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone can say anything. Do you have something to back up your "Fischer never got help after 1957" claim? Perhaps there is a book or source you can reference? As for the story of the game 13 analysis, I actually heard the story firsthand by people who were actually there. It goes a little differently than what Kavalek has stated. Kavalek's analytical skills are not comparable to Lombardy's (which is proved in the chess books they have each written over the years). In fact, even Kavalek's overall record is not as strong. All of this aside, Bobby's first signature as world champion was to Lombardy, and it was sold at auction. You can read the inscription here: https://www.raptisrarebooks.com/images/62914/my-60-memorable-games-bobby-fischer-first-edition-signed-1968-rare.jpg Sirmouse (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So your argument is that Kavalek is not telling the truth and Lombardy certainly was? I think it's a problem to trust Lombardy's grand claims without any corroboration.  Lombardy had incentive to put himself in the best light possible, and I don't recall him making these claims publicly when Fischer was alive to dispute them.  (You can correct me if I'm wrong about this.)  Quale (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have limited my modifications to removing the claim of "mentorship", and a couple of other claims that might have been influenced by the warm glow of nostalgia, and moving the material about Portoroz and Reykjavik to paragraphs where it would be more appropriate. I have no reason to disbelieve that Lombardy was very influential, not only at Reykjavik and Portoroz but earlier.  But for the purposes of Wiki, or any other serious scholarship, it is necessary to be exceedingly careful in using autobiographical material, due to the likelihood that it is self-serving.
 * I am planning to make comparable modification to the article about William Lombardy, as my schedule permits.
 * I might add that Lombardy's "notability", to use the Wiki jargon, does not stem largely from his position in Fischer's orbit, but from his own astonishing chess achievements. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This kind of thing can be underrated by a child and over-rated by an adult, and I'd assume some very short-term mentoring where Fischer was getting what he could from a variety of adult players (and not dishonesty on Lombardy's part). Julzes (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Secrecy and isolated solo analysis are necessary to get to the level Fischer did, so to somewhat contradict myself I'd guess he spent the minimum necessary with anybody helpful once he'd achieved capacity to analyze correctly (and so Lombardy would have been well placed temporally). Julzes (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Fischer-Gligoric 1961
I'm going to restore the Fischer-Gligoric draw from 1961. It was included in several collections of Fischer’s best games: Fischer’s own My 60 Memorable Games, Kasparov’s My Great Predecessors (one of 56 Fischer games selected), Andy Soltis’ The 100 best chess games of the 20th century, ranked (1 of 5 Fischer games included) Ewen (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide inline citations to those sources then. Cobblet (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * With pleasure. I guess you can't find My 60 Memorable Games yourself? Ewen (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to it right now. It's also not the best one to cite as it's self-published. Best to cite a source that doesn't just give the game but specifically says that chess players consider the game notable. Cobblet (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My 60 Memorable Games wasn't self-published, it was published by Simon & Schuster. Ewen (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I meant to say primary, not self-published. Cobblet (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's an inappropriate choice but there are of course several other Fischer games that are equally worthy of inclusion in a "notable games" list. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to respect this consensus. My main concern is that any claim that a particular game is notable should be backed up by evidence. Cobblet (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

People Have Conspired
I wrote in the Popular Culture section that Bobby Fischer is mentioned in the episode of glee... I provided sources, and Glee is notable enough for Wikipedia to have separate articles NOT ONLY on the episode in question BUT ALSO the characters... For some reason, people always oppose my edits. NO MATTER HOW GOOD THEY ARE --Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikia is user generated and therefore considered unreliable for wikipedia purposes. Linking to a user-submitted video site such as youtube is also problematic, particularly when the video is a possible copyright violation. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It is not... And Wikipedia is FINE with youtube references... Glee is a notable show, and Bobby Fischer was mentioned in one of the most Famous shows... Why are all of you trying to make it harder for me? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You have been reported for edit warring. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Read the title of this section... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * They can't even get the chess details right (dark square in right hand corner anyone?) and the Fischer reference is literally just name dropping. It's a trivial passing mention and not worth including in a Good Article, let alone with user-generated sources. Seriously, you have a big learning curve to go through on wikipedia policies. Maybe get yourself a WP:MENTOR. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Maybe we need an experienced admin to look at this... I do think that this deserves to be mentioned, since Glee contributed to popular culture... and Wikipedia has plenty of examples of such small references. I think the information is accurate, and Glee is obviously notable... I think we need people to vote on this... I seriously disagree wih you --Kingdamian1 (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The item belongs more appropriately at World Chess Championship 1972, not here. Cultural significance of Glee aside, after reading essay WP:In popular culture & watching the Youtube clip, I agree the ref is trivial (I was gonna say "tacky/worthless") & object to including it at the 1972 article. p.s. A consensus forming != cabal. --IHTS (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * So, do you guys think it is ok to insert this reference in the World Chess Championship 1972 article? Honestly, I do not know why it has received such backlash. Wikipedia thinks Glee is important enough, and this match is referenced in an episode... Kingdamian1 (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I already said no. --IHTS (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you an admin? I think we need more votes on this... Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You wrote "do you guys" not "do you guys who are admins". You're wasting everyone's time & attention. --IHTS (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This cartoon says it all really. Wikipedia has in the past been something of a laughing stock for its "in popular culture" sections. We're not going to include it in the article any time there's a chess scene in a popular TV series that name drops Bobby Fischer. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Nationality
@Ihardlythinkso removed nationality "American-Icelandic" citing no reason whatsoever, just his personal dictat. Having been made an Icelandic citizen and receiving an Icelandic passport, Fischer became a hyphenated American. NO ONE is saying Fischer formally renounced his U.S. citizenship, but he was indeed American-Icelandic based on NATIONALITY. Quis separabit? 22:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @MaxBrowne2 has also removed the "American-Icelandic" text citing some "consensus", of which I have found no dispositive evidence even after reviewing all 7 archives of the talk page (,, , , are links to related conversations) and I would like to see some evidence of this "consensus".  Quis separabit?  23:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are some (maybe not all) discussions:       But it's not only those discussions, it's numerous reverts w/ editsums re numerous attempts to alter to all but "American chess grandmaster". If you w/ review the article edit history you w/ see this is true. You s/ give up this goat. --IHTS (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * RFC would be the next step, but I don't think anyone who watches this article (i.e. most of WikiProject Chess) will be enthused by this process. It's a matter of WP:DUE; the article covers his move to Iceland in the last few years of his life, but the consensus is that it shouldn't be in the opening sentence. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone who would claim that Fischer was an "American-Icelandic chess grandmaster" doesn't know what he's talking about—that's a blatant falsehood. Fischer never played chess for Iceland and retired from chess many years before he accepted Icelandic citizenship.  Sadly the only notable thing Fischer did with Icelandic citizenship was to die in Iceland.  The truly notable thing he did in Iceland was as an American in 1972.  Quale (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Blatant falsehood" is dialing up the rhetoric. The grandmaster title is for life.  Fischer was still a GM when he became an "American-Icelandic".
 * I'm with the consensus here, but I wonder if there is something more persuasive than WP:DUE, and the general consensus, that we should be reminding people of. It occurred to me that the rest of the world doesn't use "American-Icelandic" to describe Fischer.  Or do they?  I don't think Brady does, but I have only glanced at Ponterotto, Plisetsky & Voronkov, etc., and then, there are the magazine articles, newspaper articles, the chess press, etc.  I think that if the rest of the world doesn't use "American-Icelandic", then we should not use it, even if it meets some test of correctness.  I would be happier citing WP:RS or something than just saying "that's ridiculous."  Bruce leverett (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Icelandic Chess Federation recognizes 14 Icelandic GMs, including: Henrik Danielsen, who was born in Denmark and earned his title while under the Danish banner; and Stefán Kristjánsson, who died earlier this year. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Bruce, I don't agree that "blatant falsehood" is dialing up the rhetoric. An American baseball player who retires to the Bahamas decades after he quit playing is not an "American-Bahamian baseball player".  That's idiotic, and so is claiming that Fischer was an American-Icelandic grandmaster.  Quale (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh. "Idiotic" is correct, but "Blatant falsehood" is not.
 * This hypothetical case prompted me to try to think of a real case, besides Fischer. I haven't thought of any.  Bruce leverett (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, there's WP policy covering this (i.e. the subject's nationality when notability was achieved). --IHTS (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I was hoping for something like that. I just looked for it, and I think I found it in this paragraph from MOS:OPENPARA:


 * Context
 * The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.


 * The first two sentences hit the nail on the head. Thanks for directing my attention to this (assuming it's what you had in mind).  Bruce leverett (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Chiming in an agreement with the assessed applicability of MOS:OPENPARA here. Pretty easy case actually. Objectiveap (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Serious issues with allegations made
This article claims that the FBI had claimed that it believed BF's father was actually Nemenyi. Big problem though: the article cited says something quite different. The article in the Philadelphia inquirer specifically says that the FBI files DO NOT say that. This information/claim comes directly from Nemenyi's own relative. This should be either removed entirely or indicated as such. Here is it exactly quoted: The heavily censored files don't say whether Nemenyi was Fischer's father. Letters obtained by The Inquirer offer an answer. They are the papers of Nemenyi's late son Peter... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.93.248 (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Contributions to chess -- Opening theory
The opening paragraph of this subsection is:


 * For most of his career, Fischer was predictable in his use of openings and variations of those openings. Despite this seeming disadvantage, it was very difficult for opponents to exploit this limitation, because Fischer's knowledge of the openings and variations that he used was extensive.

It cites a passage in Plisetsky and Voronkov. While that passage is OK, our attempted restatement of it is seriously mistaken. During his career, particularly among his peers, Fischer was notoriously unpredictable in the openings. For example, reading through the book of the Second Piatigorsky Cup tournament, I find the following five comments, by four different opponents, on Fischer's opening play:


 * Najdorf (round 7): "Fischer plays all lines and with his own ideas."


 * Petrosian (round 9): "Fischer had not previously used a similar development, therefore this opening was quite a surprise for me."


 * Portisch (round 11): "I realized that I had gotten into a prepared variation and that Black has a splendid position."


 * Ivkov (round 12) (after 1 e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d3): "Tremendous, psychologically a master stroke.  All prepared variations, analysis and psychological preparations for the Sicilian can be completely discarded after the third move!"


 * Petrosian (Round 18): "Fischer's next move was a surprise for me since I had not seen similar games played by him."

It is true that Fischer's opening repertoire was narrow in certain ways; for example, he never answered 1. e4 with 1. ... e5 with Black, nor did he ever play 1. d4 with White. So in a sense it is a paradox that his opening preparation was so effective. But every strong player understands the value of surprise in the openings, and what Fischer did was like what all the strongest players do, only more so. Later in the section we retell the story of how Fischer published a "bust to the King's Gambit" one year, but later played the King's Gambit himself several times.

I will try to find a way to rewrite our paragraph to bring it closer to reality. I will keep the citation of Plisetsky and Voronkov, unless somebody knows of an even better description of the basic paradox. I was considering writing a citation in which I use the above five quotations; I consider those four guys to be in some sense "reliable" as sources, inasmuch as their livelihood depended on their accurate assessment of their opponents' strengths and weaknesses. But I am far from confident that this sort of citation would be appropriate for Wiki, so I will probably just limit myself to rewriting the text. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * He "never answered 1.e4 w/ 1...e5"?? And others. (He wrote an article about busting the KG after losing to Spassky, so obviously he played 1.e4 e5, what are you thinking [or smoking]?) --IHTS (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops! In order to "bring it closer to reality", I will have to attain reality.  Bruce leverett (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I find it odd to assert Fischer's opening repertoire was narrow by saying what he didn't play (i.e. "he played 1.d4 only once"), rather than saying something more direct such as "he mostly didn't venture from 1.e4 as White", or similar. Plus, saying he played 1.d4 "only once" in a serious game is misleading when you consider he played 1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.d4 in the 6th, 12th, & 14th World Ch games, transposing to standard 1.d4 opening by move 3. --IHTS (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course Fischer did venture away from 1.e4 quite a bit by playing the KIA many times. --IHTS (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * He usually played the KIA starting with 1.e4, using it as an alternative to his usual systems versus Sicilian, Caro-Kann and French. Ewen (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Chessgames gives 11 examples of Fischer playing KIA starting 1.Nf3, all but two in 1956 or 1957. From 1966 on he used the KIA as I described above. Not KIA but similar are vs Ivkov vs Hort  and vs Heubner  Ewen (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Several sources talk about Fischer having a narrow opening repertoire, except that he changed his repertoire for his matches against Spassky. For example, on page 118 of How to Build Your Opening Repertoire, Steve Giddins says "The outstanding feature of Fischer's repertoire was that it tended to be very narrow. As discussed above, this was true of most top players of his generation, but Fischer was perhaps even more focused [than] most of his contemporaries." Regarding Petrosian's comments in the Second Piatigorsky Cup tournament book cited above by, Petrosian was talking about unexpected variations played by Fischer, not unexpected openings: 7.Bd3 on the white side of an Open Sicilian and 7...Bf5 on the black side of a King's Indian Defense. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

World Championship match
Another editor has put a "citation overkill" tag on one of the statements in this section, and I am in agreement. One might not need any citation at all for the statement(s) about Lombardy accompanying Fischer to the match, but at any rate, one should be plenty. But which one? My personal library includes Brady 1973, but not the ones that are cited here, so I can't easily check them personally to see which I like best. Also, what about the footnotes where there are direct quotes from the sources? Some of these are entertaining, but are they appropriate for Wiki? One last question -- what about Darrach? Is he considered an RS on Fischer? His book was very popular, but some critics, notably Edward Winter, felt it was unreliable. One of the direct quotation footnotes is from his book. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The citation overkill tag is on a passage that used to be in an earlier section of the article, under the title "Mentorship from Lombardy". There have been at least two previous discussions in this talk page about that passage: one that is now in Archive 6 under the title "Lombardy", and one that is now in Archive 8 under the title "Mentorship from Lombardy". An important difficulty, apparently, is an anecdote, told by Darrach, and retold (almost 40 years later, after Fischer's death) by Kavalek, in New In Chess. Supposedly, after Round 12, or perhaps during the adjournment of Round 13, Fischer and Lombardy had a falling-out, and Fischer excused Lombardy from his adjournment analysis duties and started working with Kavalek. Lombardy denied that this happened.

It is natural to wonder whether this event should be included in the article. But for our purposes, Kavalek would not be considered an RS for the anecdote, and I would hesitate to use Darrach, who has been condemned in strong terms by Winter and other people quoted by Winter. Winter also criticizes Edmonds and Eidinow for relying too heavily on Darrach. (This didn't stop Winter, on a separate occasion, from quoting both Darrach's and Kavalek's accounts of the story.) With the limited RS'es at my fingertips, plus what little I have found on the Web, I could not put an account of the alleged falling-out in the article at this time.

Another question that arose during one of the earlier discussions is that an editor wrote:
 * I don't think Lombardy and Fischer actually analyzed games together in 1972. Lombardy did some opening preparation, but I have read that Fischer did all his own analysis including adjournments.

Of course, it would have been bizarre, to say the least, if Fischer had urgently asked a strong grandmaster to come along, without planning on employing him to analyze adjourned games. But the fact that an experienced editor asked this question, implied that it had to be explicitly answered, and two of our "excessive footnotes" are direct quotations from Brady 1973 about Lombardy helping Fischer with adjournment analysis. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I have boldly excised most of the citations, and all of the direct quotes, on the sentence in question. Of course, other editors may prefer different citations or more citations, but I hope that it will not return to the old level of excess. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Opening theory
In this section we write:
 * Fischer was a master of playing with,[535] and against,[536] the Sicilian Defense. The next most common defense against Fischer's 1.e4 was the Caro-Kann Defense (1.e4 c6), against which Fischer had a good record.[537] Fischer's worst record was against the French Defense (1.e4 e6),[538] especially the Winawer Variation (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4).[539]

It is pretty ridiculous to present these tallies of games from chessgames.com as serious data. For example, the majority of the games with Fischer as white against the French Defense are from simuls. The reader is ill served by the pretense that these numbers can be useful to him.

I plan to excise these sentences entirely, but I would not rule out the possibility that something useful can be said about Fischer's results with 1. e4 as White. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree that stats based on chessgames.com are largely meaningless, though with someone like Fischer I'd expect their game collection to be fairly comprehensive. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, using database search results from chessgames.com is no good. This does not satisfy WP:V, and in general percentage scores against certain openings doesn't say anything about contributions to opening theory at all anyway, so it's off topic for this section.  (In certain specific contexts the scores may be useful, e.g. with the Exchange V. of the Ruy, but those should be sourced to published works rather than an online database search.)  There are good sources on Fischer's contributions to opening theory that we can use.  Quale (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fischer's difficulties against the Winawar are well known; it's mentioned by Evans in My 60 Memorable Games.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

brooklyn home address
the article currently states young Bobby and family lived near the corner of Union and Franklin streets in Brooklyn. Union and Franklin streets in Brooklyn do not intersect (per Google Maps); however, Union St. and Franklin Av. intersect, and the intersection is near Erasmus Hall High School and is adjacent to the neighborhood where his mother attended nursing school. Correct this? Cave art fan (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The quoted source would appear to be wrong. From the famous "Helms" letter we know Fisher lived at 1059 Union Street.  A quick search online confirms this:
 * 1059 Union Street is also 829-835 Franklin Av:
 * Since this correction would need to override a block quote, I would suggest you replace the blockquote with a paraphrase and insert appropriate corrections. I’ll support you in your edits. -- Work permit (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that there doesn't seem to be any alternative to replacing the block quote. I would think that, in doing so, you wouldn't necessarily have to go to the same level of detail, but could just summarize.  Bruce leverett (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Since this correction would need to override a block quote, I would suggest you replace the blockquote with a paraphrase and insert appropriate corrections. I’ll support you in your edits. -- Work permit (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that there doesn't seem to be any alternative to replacing the block quote. I would think that, in doing so, you wouldn't necessarily have to go to the same level of detail, but could just summarize.  Bruce leverett (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that there doesn't seem to be any alternative to replacing the block quote. I would think that, in doing so, you wouldn't necessarily have to go to the same level of detail, but could just summarize.  Bruce leverett (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Colourized pic or B&W?
I don't have a strong opinion either way but I don't want to see edit warring over this. Let's establish a consensus, or else raise an RFC. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * B&W:What pic are we talking about? If its the pic in the lede, I think b&w is better. -- Work permit (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * B&W:I think the original is best, but I don't hugely object to the colourized pic. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Note:The original is here in the German state archives, and the website specifically says it's a non-free image. Does this mean we have to delete it? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No. according to the file description, “This image was provided to Wikimedia Commons by the German Federal Archive (Deutsches Bundesarchiv) as part of a cooperation project. The German Federal Archive guarantees an authentic representation only using the originals (negative and/or positive), resp. the digitalization of the originals as provided by the Digital Image Archive.”-- Work permit (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment:It appears to be a detail from the picture that appears in the section Olympiads. It seems odd to have these two related images in the same article, but I don't know if it is a bad thing.  As photos of chess players in action go, it's crisp and generally attractive.  Bruce leverett (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Whoever colorized the image did a good job, but I generally prefer staying true to the original even if B&W. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong preference, but I would stick with B&W as staying true to the original, per above.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer the black and white. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)