Interesting article for chess aficionados (and another anecdote of para-social relationships). The author gives some great detail but sells short their own investigation in the addendum: "In 2006...
Interesting article for chess aficionados (and another anecdote of para-social relationships).
The author gives some great detail but sells short their own investigation in the addendum:
"In 2006 and 2007 I had a number of long telephone conversations with Bobby Fischer in his refuge in Iceland. I asked him whether he had played on the Internet, specifically the games against Short and Reprintsev. He had no idea what I was talking about. So it became 100% clear: it was not Bobby who had tantalized the masters on the Internet."
So, this famous recluse who hypothetically plays anonymously online, when confronted, denies all knowledge of the secretive games. Oh, ok then, 100% nothing to see here then claims the author... Surely they considered that Bobby would deny knowledge of such games even when confronted personally. Or perhaps the author realised that it'd be kinder to leave sleeping dogs lie - but then why go on to publish the article at all?
It sounds like an ad hoc Turing test. Personally, it just seems highly improbable that Fischer could play games at that level, at that age. As I recall, his level of play was already significantly...
It sounds like an ad hoc Turing test.
Personally, it just seems highly improbable that Fischer could play games at that level, at that age. As I recall, his level of play was already significantly diminished during his rematch with Spassky (although still plenty good enough to beat him).
Also, recluse though he might have been, Fischer was also extremely arrogant and proud ... I do not believe he could have been playing amazing games anonymously, and not taken credit for it. Just not his style.
But basically, I agree with the OP and the article author ... mainly, it's just fun to speculate.
Interesting article for chess aficionados (and another anecdote of para-social relationships).
The author gives some great detail but sells short their own investigation in the addendum:
"In 2006 and 2007 I had a number of long telephone conversations with Bobby Fischer in his refuge in Iceland. I asked him whether he had played on the Internet, specifically the games against Short and Reprintsev. He had no idea what I was talking about. So it became 100% clear: it was not Bobby who had tantalized the masters on the Internet."
So, this famous recluse who hypothetically plays anonymously online, when confronted, denies all knowledge of the secretive games. Oh, ok then, 100% nothing to see here then claims the author... Surely they considered that Bobby would deny knowledge of such games even when confronted personally. Or perhaps the author realised that it'd be kinder to leave sleeping dogs lie - but then why go on to publish the article at all?
Well, it is amusing.
Ya got me there!
Edit: And I got to trawl through your posts for more chess stuff. Chessboxing was more amusing to me. :)
It sounds like an ad hoc Turing test.
Personally, it just seems highly improbable that Fischer could play games at that level, at that age. As I recall, his level of play was already significantly diminished during his rematch with Spassky (although still plenty good enough to beat him).
Also, recluse though he might have been, Fischer was also extremely arrogant and proud ... I do not believe he could have been playing amazing games anonymously, and not taken credit for it. Just not his style.
But basically, I agree with the OP and the article author ... mainly, it's just fun to speculate.