The Philadelphia Inquirer Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, August 08, 1972 - Page 8
Chess Championship: Fischer's conduct is price of genius
To the editor:
Bobby Fischer's chess games are a unique source of pleasure. He is not merely successful: his games are more profound than any other player in the history of the game. Fischer's devastatingly high caliber of play can only be achieved by superb natural talent, years of hard work, and an overpowering, burning ambition.
Bring an experienced tournament player myself, I know how difficult it is to retain the intense fighting spirit so necessary for consistent success.
Bobby Fischer's fighting spirit is a product of a sensitive, suspicious nature that makes him appear eccentric. This is a small price to pay for the ability to create chess masterpieces of incredible beauty and brilliance.
Steven Wexler
Penn State Chess Team, 1972 United States Team Champions, Huntingdon Valley
To the Editor:
I have read with some dismay several letters and editorials criticizing Bobby Fischer. I find these criticisms outrageous.
After all, what did America ever do for Bobby Fischer? He is where he is today through his own efforts and skill. He is probably the greatest chess player in the world and that is no mean achievement.
So many Americans criticize Fischer and yet dote on the good-guy athletes and pay them millions for the questionable talent of hitting a ball with a bat or throwing a ludicrous elliptical ball.
Could the reason for Fischer's unpopularity in his own country be his rejection of planned mediocrity (he dropped out of high school)? Is Fischer an embarrassing fault in our Brave New World American style? In truth, America does not deserve Fischer; America's national heroes are Joe Namaths, not world champion chess players.
John P. O'Neill
Philadelphia.
To the Editor:
Who really cares whether your correspondent Henry J. Rigler of Philadelphia is proud of Bobby Fischer or not? For that matter, who cares if Bobby Fischer brags, throws temper tantrums, psychs out his opponents, requires a special chair, or dislikes the knowledge of having inconspicuous television cameras present at the World Chess Tournament in Iceland?
You can call this “absurd conduct,” “juvenile behavior,” or what you will. But all of this is beside the point. The man is a genius. If he is the best chess player in the world and can prove it (he seems to be doing do with relative ease), then he has earned the right to be recognized as such.
It is about time we recognize ability, talent, and genius in this country for what it is rather than applaud those who merely put forth the best show of humility and conformity to rules and decorum and the American way.
Jacqueline Susann follows all the rules of popular writing today and she is a millionairess. Herman Melville did not follow the rules in his time and he died poor and forgotten. But who will society remember in the long run?
If decisions were left to the Riglers of this world, then where would we be today if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, and other revolutionaries had decided that the British were right after all with their handsome red coats, straight-line battle formations, and taxes; and that maybe it was rather “imprudent” or “impulsive” to act against them in such an unbecoming manner?
Neil R. Grobman
Philadelphia.
