Chess politics - On Greats

Author

On Greats

Chess One

2005-03-24, 5:53 pm

quote:

> Mind you, I do not sneer, beyond a few pawndom slaps, at Eric's
> efforts among those whom he controls with his iron rod, though I think his
> constipated and evidently unbalanced chess proletarian approach is
> self-defeating. Still, he tries.
>
> Yours, Larry

This particular manner of 'egalitarianism' is always troublesome. Its
entirely respectable basis is an idea to remove glamour from the top end of
the game, and to avoid distortion that way, but historically and always
tragically it neglects to notice that the button end of the spectrum can't
be treated the same way, without banning that too.

People tend not to be content in coup-d'etat revolutions to remove just the
head - the source of perceived distortions - they also liberate the devils
in themselves which lurk heretofore unnoticed at the bottom of the barrel.
Enraged, they set about destroying everything much that exists above that
murky twilight realm.

Dickens said so of the French revolution, and there is nothing we witnessed
in the C20th to contradict him.

I believe the truth is that all players are influenced by top players who
perform a role of natural leadership in chess - and to agree with Eric's
egalitarian prospectus a moment, it is necessary to treat them as we treat
ourselves, human beings playing a game, and not glamorise them as genius
princes and princesses of some other species possessed of god-like knowledge
and abilities not available to mortal people, and to create other than human
expectations about how it is to be a lead performer in our art.

On the other hand, it is everybody's responsibility to remember that these
leaders play just a //role// in chess, and not to confound the role with the
human being playing it. To do so is to literally de-humanise them.

Its interesting now, having read a thousand Fischer threads, that very few
people can achieve this differentiation - most writers are angry that their
iconic chess hero has failed them by uttering racist epithets, as if these
two factors of self and role can't be distinguished from each other.

Fischer is entirely responsible for his volunteered speech in private life,
but //we// are responsible for our own reactions to a role he played out for
us in chess life [whether he willing played that role or not!].

Like Larry Parr I recognise Fischer as a "Great" in chess who might not be a
welcome house guest, but as a human being I also recognise he was the
single-parented kid from Brooklyn &c with a dangerous talent; one that
requires a huge and a potentially isolating social attention. We chess
players liked the fruits of that concentration, but we do not honour the
process of social isolation to the individual, that went hand-in-hand with
it; that, chess friends, is our own distortion of 'glamourising' the hero,
which distorts our appreciation of the cost paid by the person, to become
our chess-hero.

And I suppose I would judge his person to the same degree that I would
indulge in judging myself.

I hope the Grandmaster will be able to redress these imbalances in his life,
and perhaps come to a philosophic understanding of the massively catalytic
role he has played in world affairs, and the game of nations.

Cordially, Phil Innes

Hans Jørgen Lassen

2005-03-24, 5:53 pm

Well spoken, Phil

Those who expect to be saved by Stalin, Hitler, Bush, Fischer, Jesus, they
will all be gravely disappointed (I know this was not your exact point,
forgive me).

We have to save ourselves, maybe with a little help from our friends, wives,
parents, children ...

But we cannot blame Fischer for our misfortunes and let him carry the
burdens that are our own to carry (with a little help ...)

And then there are these Icelanders who volunteered to help Fischer carry
his burden, and as you note, he does have a burden to carry.

HansJ

Hans Jørgen Lassen

2005-03-28, 9:52 pm