Talk:Searching for Bobby Fischer

old talk
"The film's producers used Fischer's fame to promote the movie yet paid Fischer nothing for it." - This seems a bit too POV to just be stated bluntly like that. Yes, it may be 'literally true', but it's not usually considered that controversial for producers to make films about living people without their involvement or consent (think of all those mini-series about the British royal family, or the two Michael Moore films that 'used' George W Bush's fame as a promotional tool). In fact is presumably a restatement of Fischer's complaint about the film, so I suggest it is rewritten in those terms:

eg. Fischer has cited the movie as just another example of a "Jewish conspiracy" to make money off him and sully his reputation at the same time, on the grounds that the film's producers used Fischer's fame to promote the movie yet paid him nothing for it.


 * I have updated the page with this suggestion. Molinari 01:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It kind of sounds like Bruce Pandolfini would have more reasons to be irritated. For the most part the Bruce Pandolfini character in the film is very unpleasant. Bobby Fischer is just some iconic half-legendary figure in the film. The descriptions of him are disparaging, but also kind of legendary or unreal seeming. (Although later I learned they were somewhat accurate as he's a vaguely legendary or unreal figure) It sounds like he wasn't that way and actually does teach chess students. I wonder if it hurt his business?--T. Anthony 10:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The real Bruce Pandolfini actually plays a minor character in the film (with the line "Young Fischer") when Josh plays at Washington Square. --Anders Rundgren 12:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Turidoth has added two question marks, making the move 7.Kxe5?? . I am trying to understand why he did that. 7.Kxe5 is forced. I suppose he believes that Black could draw with 7. Kd5 instead. However. Kd5 looses. Any other white king move gives Black time to move the knight to where it will stop the rook-pawn from advancing and then Black will queen easily. Sam Sloan 13:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, should have posted this along with it, but had to sleep... In the final game, I think 7.h5 or Kf5 instead of taking the knight would result in a draw (checking with chessmaster 9000 to 19/23). Can someone with a 5-man tablebase look into it? Better yet, if anyone has a 6-man tablebase, analyze from 1...gxf6 2.Bxf6, 1...gxf6 2.Nxf6 , and 1...Rc6+ 2.Nd6 Bxf6 3.Bxf6 Thanks! Turidoth 14:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Chessmaster's line is 7.h5 Ng4 8.Kf5 Nh6+ 9.Kg6 a5 10.Kxh6 a4 11.Kg7 a3 12.h6 a2 13.h7 a1=Q+ 14.Kg8
 * I've used the built-in 4-man tablebase to check likely variations, White can always queen the pawn successfully. Turidoth 15:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 7. h5 draws; anything else loses. (5-piece tablebase).  Bubba73 (talk), 01:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Vinnie
I thought the real life character of Vinnie died of AIDS not heroin OD? Barneygumble 16:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but I do know I played in a USCF-rated tournament (Susquehanna Valley Open) that the teenage Vincent Livermore won circa 1969. So I will correct the "never had a rating." He should be on the 1969 or 1970 USCF Annual Rating List. Billbrock 20:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Cless Life, Oct 1971, page 586, Vincent Livermore, CT, rating of 1950.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Did black win or was it a tie?
The article seems to say that the game shown ended in a draw, but the notation seems to say black won. Which is it? --Mike Schiraldi 22:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The text does need to be more clear. What it means to say is that the "real-life" showdown between Waitzkin and Sarwer ended in a draw.  The movie version has Josh winning with a fancy combination. SubSeven 23:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In my view WHITE wins the game !
At the 5th move instead of Kxf6 which allows 5...Nd7+ with the white rook capture, White plays 5.Re2+ and after 5...Kd3 is 6.Kxf6. Now even with the lost of the white rook, after few more moves White wins: 1...gxf6 2.Bxf6 Rc6+ 3.Kf5 Rxf6+ 4.Nxf6 Bxf6 5.Re2+ Kd3 6.Kxf6 Kxe2 7.h5 Nd7+ 8.Ke7 Ne5 9.h6 Ng6+ 10.Kf7 Ne5+ 11.Kg7 a5 12.h7 1-0
 * Rybka 2.3.2 agrees, there are also 6 piece endgame tablebases out there, perhaps someone with access to one can check it irrefutably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.216.152 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * After 5.Re2+, Rybka 4, multiprocessor version, on a quad-core i7, sees mate in 29. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see. --IHTS (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Lomonosov tablebase: 5. Re2+ Kd1 6. Kxf6 Kxe2 7. h5 Nd7+ (a5? 8. Ke6 and White can win the pawn race safely) 8. Ke7 Ne5 9. h6 Ng6+ 10. Kf7 Ne5+ 11. Kg7 Nd7 12. h7 Nc5 and White queens. Added to article. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 13:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Searching for Bobby Fischer DVD cover.jpg
Image:Searching for Bobby Fischer DVD cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

top seed?
The article says "Josh played Sarwer to a draw ..., and he kept the championship, as he was top seed. " I've never heard of a tie in chess going to the top seed. What about tie breakers? Bubba73 (talk), 07:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Reception
According to MOS:

Reliable sources should be used to determine how the film was received. For films, sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited.

The film bears Fischer's name, his opinion of the film is definitely of relevance. Omid.espero (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Four problems:


 * 1) "Reception", "how the film was received". Am I mistaken, or doesn't that mean views on the quality of the film, whether it was a "good" or a "bad" film? In the Fischer quote, I do not see any comment by him relating to his view of the quality of the film, good or bad. Rather, he is bitching that he didn't get paid. That is different.
 * 2) Even if Fischer's complaints about not being paid were included in that section, why would you insert it *before* other quoted assessments of the film's quality? (Since it is off-topic for that section, don't you think it is more appropriate that it should go last, after the on-topic citations?)
 * 3) "Unpublished text" is ambiguous. (I.e., who's unpublished text?)
 * 4) I'd appreciate it if you would read WP:BRD and stop forcing your edits prior to any discussion -- you've done that twice already, are you trying to add to the edit-bulliness on WP? I think there are plenty enough of that already. Forcing your edits via reverts is  WP:Edit warring and can lead to blocks. Is that what you are looking for? It's also uncivil. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The guidelines are meant to permit reviews from people who are not traditional film critics. Historians on historical films, scientists on science fiction films, that kind of thing. The guidelines as applied here could cite chess experts about how the game was portrayed in the film. Fischer's complaint is not quite like these applications, but I do think it is worth mentioning the complaint somewhere. I think we would need to expand the article, especially with information about film production and distribution, to better place the passage. Otherwise, we could just change "Reception" to "Release", mention briefly when the film came out, and keep the Fischer passage there in some form. "Release" is a broader umbrella than "Reception", as the latter has been a subsection under the former in some film articles. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I heard somewhere that Fischer said that, but we need a better reference than the one that was initially given. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This says, "Bobby was indignant and then irate when he heard about it, proclaiming the film a misappropriation of his name and therefore, an invasion of his privacy." This is on page 267 (search for a part of the quote if the link does not help), and there is more on page 268. Interestingly, it says he never actually saw the film itself. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Right - I just finished looking it up. Fischer's reaction is covered on pages 267-68 of Endgame by Frank Brady.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm late to the game as usual, but I think a single sentence with reference describing Fischer's reaction seems appropriate at that point in the section. It wouldn't have to be in a section called "Reception", but given the article structure I don't see a better spot for it right now.  I think it's adequately referenced and not given undue weight.  Quale (talk)


 * It could be in a section or subsection titled "Fischer's reaction" or something like that. If it is that short I think it would be better to be in a subsection under "reaction" than having its own section.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree w/ Bubba re the better source, and that some kind of support is needed for segue from reviewers reception to Fischer's "they didn't pay me" complaint. Perhaps a sentence intro identifying his comment a "reaction". I still think "unpublished manuscript" is ambiguous. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yea, don't refer to an unpublished manuscript when it is in Endgame by Frank Brady. I don't think the comment about not getting a dime is in Brady, but there is plenty more.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The reference is published, it's just that the published reference refers to previously unpublished papers from Fischer's estate. The author, DeLucia, is a well known collector of chess memorabilia and manuscripts.  He published a limited edition book of material he purchased from Fischer's estate.  For a four-year-old discussion of this book, see Talk:Bobby Fischer/Archive 1 and the following section.  I think the reference is satisfactory, but since the book is very hard to obtain I think it would be good to replace it with the readily available Brady reference and adjust the text to reflect what Brady reports. Quale (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree - the commonly-available book is preferable to a limited edition. I checked Brady's book, and he doesn't have the line about not seeing a dime, but there is nearly a page worth of coverage and there is plenty about it there.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have either book, and can't access Endgame pages on Amazon or Google books. (Is the text quoted above by Erik the relevant portion?) I see now that the add to this article was simply a copy/paste from the Bobby Fischer article from here. (So keeping a duplication of whatever text between articles is probably the thing to do!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * A summary of what is in Brady's book:


 * "Bobby was indignant and irate when he heard about it", claiming that it misappropriated his name and invaded his privacy.
 * The filmmakers didn't ask for permission to use his name, nor did he receive any compensation
 * Fischer claimed that it made $100,000,000 but it actually grossed only $7,000,000.
 * He called it "a monumental swindle"
 * He often complained and wrote negatively about the film, although he never saw it.
 * Since he is a public figure, they can use his name w/o permission and Fischer never took legal action. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. How's this?:"Bobby Fischer never saw the film and complained bitterly that it was an invasion of his privacy by using his name without his permission. Fischer never received any compensation from the film, which grossed over $7M, calling it 'a monumental swindle'." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, except that the gross is already in the info box and I don't know if it needs to be repeated. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * MOS:INFOBOX says an Infobox "summarises key features of the page's subject." (I assume like the lede in that respect then.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, but then that can go elsewhere. The point of Brady saying that is to contrast Fischer's claim that it made $100 million.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. The only reason to mention the box office here is to rebut Fischer's $100 million claim.  If Fischer's guess is not included then the $7 million figure is out of place, so I think we should not mention the box office number here.  Consider adding a final explanation for readers wondering why Fischer might not have sued: "Because Fischer was a public figure, the filmmakers were not required to get his permission or pay him to use his name." Quale (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Text w/ $7M dropped out: "Bobby Fischer never saw the film and complained bitterly that it was an invasion of his privacy by using his name without his permission. Fischer never received any compensation from the film, calling it 'a monumental swindle'." Three new issues ...
 * Do we open a new section or subsection to contain the $7M gross info?
 * What add'l info logically fits into that (future) section or subsection?
 * What does the Brady book exactly say about the legal point? (Bubba gave a paraphrase. [Fischer never sued. What if he had? Is Brady saying Fischer was legally incorrect and would have lost? [I'm not attorney nor do I understand film industry legalities, but Jimbo said on his Talk that no one can to put his image on a commercial product without his permission, even though the image may be free-use or the copyright holder of it might give permission. Jimbo said he retains "Personality rights" over any image depicting his likeness, which supercedes copyright. I'm wondering if there is anything parallel in the film industry or it is different!? Should we really "go there" asserting right legal position on it, and if so, is Brady's book a good source for doing so?!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fischer should have lost a lawsuit if he sued. He was a public figure, so they can use his name without permission.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring to use of his image (black & white film clips) not use of his name. (Wouldn't any lawsuit stemming from lack of permission have also incorporated use of those clips?! That is what I don't understand.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I replaced the DeLucia text w/ the Brady text as modified above. There are multiple ISBNs/editions of the book and since I don't have it I guessed at the 2011 Ed. for the pages quoted. (Someone can change it if incorrect.) I'll mirror the same change at Bobby Fischer since the DeLucia addition was copy-pasted from there. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Anjelina Belakovskaia?
The article states that Anjelina Belakovskaia was featured in the film as a chessplayer. I do not recall her nor is she listed in the credits of the IMDB. Can someone find out more about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8104:730:D510:14D9:1931:B10 (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Searching for 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/20060426004836/http://www.eamonnoneill.net/articles/Josh%20Waitzkins.PDF to http://www.eamonnoneill.net/articles/Josh%20Waitzkins.PDF

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) 16:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong move sequence
User  is correct, 3...Rxf6+ is ??. It seems that the sequence 3...Rxf6+ 4.Nxf6 Bxf6 s/b 3...Bxf6 4.Nxf6 Rxf6+ instead. Then the remaining analysis holds (including Larry Evans' 7.h5 to draw). In the movie, the sequence actually played isn't shown, and the voice-over describing moves skips which sequence. So, it suggests the sequence starting 3...Rxf6+ in the article text is the wrong sequence--does anyone know where it came from? --IHTS (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't get Chess Life in 1995, but Grandmaster Larry Evans also wrote about the game in one of his “Evans on Chess” columns, which I saw in a newspaper. My recollection is that Evans gave the line 1...gxf6 2. Bxf6 Rc6+ 3. Kf5 Rxf6+ 4. Nxf6 Bxf6 5. Kxf6 Nd7+ 6. Kf5 Nxe5 7. Kxe5, etc.  He put a question mark after 3...Rxf6+ and suggested that 3...Bxf6 is better.  He also stated that 7. Kxe5 was a blunder, and that White could have drawn with 7. h5.


 * How he decided on the move sequence 3...Rxf6 4. Nxf6 Bxf6, as opposed to 3...Bxf6 4. Nxf6 Rxf6, I don't know, but I'm guessing it's because Kingsley says, "He'll take back with either his bishop or his knight. When he does -- and this is the hard part --  sacrifice your rook.”  That sounds like the 3...Rxf6+ sequence to me.


 * In any event, it’s embarrassing to see the Wikipedia publish an exclamation point after 3...Rxf6+. Stockfish 10 scores the position after that move at about +10 in favor of White, indicating that Black is dead lost.  After 3...Bxf6, Stockfish 10 scores the position at 0.00, indicating a draw. --Aardvarkini (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thx for that. I think Kingsley's voice-over narration is still consistent w/ either 3...Rxf6+ sequence or 3...Bxf6 sequence; because, since an interpolation (2...Rc6+) is necessary before the R sac, then why not two (2...Rc6+ and 3...Bxf6)?
 * I propose we switch to the 3...Bxf6 sequence in the article text. Neither the film footage nor Kingsley's narration contradict it; we don't currently have a WP:Reliable source (if one exists) that contradicts it; & it lances the over-the-top composition flaw embarrassment issue. p.s. 3...Bxf6 does introduce 4.Ra5, another draw cook!? --IHTS (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m thinking that since the game was contrived by Waitzkin and Pandolfini, and they’re both still around, couldn’t we just ask them what they intended rather than guessing at it?
 * 3...Bxf6 is interesting. Stockfish 10 likes 4. Nxf6 with a score of 0.00, but if instead 4. Ra5 Bxh4 Rxa7, I have no idea how the resulting KRN vs. KRBN ending would come out with no pawns to promote.  I’m glad I don’t have to play it. --Aardvarkini (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Better than a guess, possible, but more involved, & if their response is 3...Rxf6+, ... what then? (Incorporate the interesting embarrassing fact into the article!? In that case more involvement to get it to WP:RS versus WP:OR status, & for what worthy end?) --IHTS (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If the response is 3...Rxf6+, why not just handle it like I said Evans handled it in his column? --Aardvarkini (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. But including that over-the-top flaw s/ have WP:RS behind it since attributing to the living composers. (Maybe one already exists somewhere; to create new they c/ publish online somewhere.)
 * I checked article history, the moves started out 1...gxf6 2.Bxf6 Bxf6 3.Nxf6 Rc6+ 4.Kf7 Rxf6+! Aug 2005 w/o any attribution (& contradicted by Kingsley's voice-over). Then moves changed to 1...gxf6 2.Bxf6 Rc6+ 3.Kf5 Rxf6+! 4.Nxf6 Bxf6 Jul 2006, also w/o attribution (but consistent w/ the voice-over). But w/o attribution that sequence s/b no more reliable than my proposal (→ 3...Bxf6, which side-steps the embarrassment issue). For sure we can immediately remove the unsourced "!" from "3...Rxf6+!". --IHTS (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)