Hacker News Reader

Comment by flipper | Hacker News Reader

In his prime, Fischer was the archetypal chess player. Just because he was an insane genius does not mean that all the things he said were wrong.

Because he was so good, he could say things about the game that were controversial, but deep down a lot of patzers knew that what he was saying was right.

Sure, one's source of enjoyment from chess varies between players, but what both Scott McCloud and Fischer were pointing out is that winning a game of chess makes you feel wonderful, and losing one makes you feel bad.

I think virtually every chess player would be familiar with those feelings, and would concede that "crushing the other guy's ego" (or its corollary "not having my ego crushed") has a little bit to do with it.

Whether you are playing Spassky for the World Championship or a game of blitz with a friend, the emotions are the same.

View on HN

I would agree that most chess players probably feel good when they win and bad when they lose.

However, there's a big difference between that and agreeing with Fischer's goal of "crushing the other guy's ego" or your earlier assertion that chess is about "beating someone up with your mind". I don't think that's true at all, or at least no more true of chess than any other game.

Also, I would strongly disagree with Fischer being "the archetypical chessplayer". From what I've read about chess players through the ages and from my personal experience, the overwhelming majority of chess players are nothing like Fischer.

Sure, you will occasionally find an obnoxious, childish, mentally ill genius, but that's the exception. Even non-genius chess players are generally no more childish or obnoxious than people in the general population.

And I see no evidence that the average chess player's motivation is anything like Fischer's motivation, except wanting to win and hating to lose. But that's the same for players of any competitive game.

I wouldn't say that most chess players are like Fischer personally, it's that chess has a tendency to consume players to some degree, the way it consumed him almost completely. That's what I meant by archetype.

Personally, I found the rush from winning a game of chess to have a different character to winning at some other competitive game, and I think ego has something to do with it.

Maybe I suffer from some of the same flaws Fischer did (without the same gifts).

Yes, I would agree that chess is a game that people tend to obsess over to a degree not found in most other games. Scott McCloud's story is evidence of this, and there are many others like it.

But even there, Fischer is in a class with few peers. There's obsession and then there's all-consuming passion, which is more of where Fischer fit in (at least until his resignation from the World Championship).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com