English Chess Forum

To change the subject, here's one of my favourite observations about a completely different chess legend.

The novelist Arthur Koestler, in Reykjavik to cover the match against Spassky, famously coined the neologism `mimophant' to describe Fischer. 'A mimophant is a hybrid species: a cross between a mimosa and an elephant. A member of this species is sensitive like a mimosa where his own feelings are concerned and thick-skinned like an elephant trampling over the feelings of others.'

From Bobby Fischer Goes to War The most famous chess match of all time By David Edmonds, John Eidinow page 32

The Fischer book by Edmonds and Eidinow was wrong to suggest that Koestler coined the term "mimophant" to describe Fischer. As shown by Edward Winter's feature article at https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/koestler.html, Koestler had invented the word about a decade earlier, in a non-chess context.

So Koestler predicted an increasing aspect of modern-day life.

Just remember Fisher at the chess board and forget his big problems off the board, World Champion matches in recent years have beens so boring.
Fisher won the World Championshp on merit. Chess membership increased so much after 1972 match.

Time Magazine March 24th 1958 have him as:

"A floppy, abrupt young gangle-shanks, he stumbles through the physical world of school and subways and summer vacations in a tangle of arms and legs not quite under control."

You can read the whole article here. https://time.com/archive/6805955/sport-master-bobby/

Ronnie Burton wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 08, 2025 11:56 pm

World Champion matches in recent years have beens so boring.

Each to their own, but I wouldn't describe a number of recent WC matches as "boring" at all.

The Anand Gelfand match was the last to levelled with that accusation, even kasparov said it was not a good advert for chess, which it certainly wasn't. World championship matches aren't usually boring. When someone claims they are, what they mean is they found it to be boring for reasons pertaining to them not the match they are referring too.

And Fischer shouldn't really be written about anymore, it only continues on because he's an easy sell and easier to profit from than practically anyone else. This is not entirely disanalogous to Chomsky's remark that we really should stop asking who killed JFK, rather than go on talking about it for ever and never getting anywhere with it. No need to keep going on about something for over 50 years.

Carlsen Vs karyajin and carlsen Vs caruana were pretty boring too, in fact none of carlsens defences were overly spectacular in the classical portions ,he just got the job done and that was it knowing he would win in rapid against anyone
Ding, for as much hate levied against his reign, actually did provide us with two pretty decent matches which both went down to the wire so yes the last two world championships have been fun to watch.

The (classical) chess in Carlsen v Caruana was incredibly high quality - it just lacked that most basic of things in chess, a win!

It would almost certainly have been a very different match had Magnus converted his at one time overwhelming advantage in game 1.

Or had Caruana converted his winning position in game 6.

That was a rather more difficult conversion, though - Caruana would have deserved to win the match had he found it.

There were two or three games where the position became double edged, I think one of them was a Sicilian Sveshnikov, but they agree a draw in all of them. Caruana must surely have known that if it went to quickplay, he would be a serious underdog. He should really have made an effot to win in those games but they both seemed a bit scared of each other. I thought it was a good match, even though all games were drawn.

They dragged Edmonds and Eidinow out of the woodwork every time Fischer was mentioned in a documentary for a good few years - personally they started grating on me a little - I got a bit sick of hearing that "two old boxers" analogy repeated ad nauseam, every time the Fischer / Spassky 92 re-match was mentioned.

The rematch, although entertaining, was a bit of a joke. Both players were shadows of their former selves. I also question whether Boris was in it for the money alone; whether he could have won it, had he really tried. He was after all the more active player.

There are rumours he deliberately spoiled a won position in game 6 because of fears Fischer might pull out of the match if he went two down.