Hikaru gives his thoughts on the interview where Bobby Fischer explains why he hates chess.
Original video put up by Dark Knight Chess: • Bobby Fischer on Paul ... titled Bobby Fischer on Paul Morphy and how opening theory destroyed chess
We have a brand new CLIP channel on youtube! Subscribe to see daily uploads of new and old clips salvaged from the history of Hikaru. Enjoy!! / @gmhikaruclips
VISIT AND SUBSCRIBE TO MORE GMHIKARU ON KZhead: / @moregmhikaru
► Follow me!
Watch my live shows on Twitch ➡️ / gmhikaru
Play chess on Chess.com ➡️ go.chess.com/hikaru
Support/Tip/Donate to the channel ➡️ streamelements.com/gmhikaru/tip
🌟 Socials 🌟
Follow me on Twitter ➡️ / gmhikaru
Follow me in Pictures ➡️ / gmhikaru
Join our Discord ➡️ / discord to stay in contact and join our community
Become a fan on Facebook ➡️ / gmhikaru
Join our Reddit for the MEMES and to make it to Reddit React Videos ➡️ / hikarunakamura
🎥 Edit and 🎨 Thumbnail by: Jaron / jaroniscaring
👌Channel Management - Team Hikaru
📧 Business inquiries only: TeamHikaru@WMEAgency.com
#gmhikaru #chess #bobbyfischer
Bobby Fischer really just wanted an update for the game.
this so facts.
I agree with Bobby Fisher.
He was just sad that the game for 15 movies was all the same... that people were just playing theory instead of having fun in the game.
I wonder how he would consider 5th Dimensional Chess.
Don’t we all
Essentially, Fischer just prefers a game that's less "solved" than Chess is now.
yeah I think he actually makes a decent point. There's a bit of mystery missing from chess when everyone knows what to do through the first 5-15 moves (depending on level)
Yeah, and i agree with his whole oppinion about this.. simpler example is tic tac toe, there is one theory and the game is basically dead
Another way to say it might be the opening has expanded into and through the middlegame. i.e the Berlin draw
Personally I agree. The tens of openings are just boring. "Oh he's playing the Kings Indian, no it's the King's Indian Rejected! Then Black can only do this or else its a loss!!!!!!!" - wow, such entertainment.
I am sad that BF didnt got to see Alpha Zero. I think Chess on the last 3 years evolved into a new-unsolved frame with all the space domination and opening breaking. Now with such a powerful tool, a move that felt bad in the past is now great.
Hikaru himself made a video: "Here is why preparing less than 30 moves ahead is not enough" Kinda of proving Fischer's point.
Very true
Exactly
Books and computers and memorization of moves made chess a dull game according to fischer. hikaru only talks about computers, wtf?
@@scottwarren4998 I think Hikaru kind of missed the idea. Fischer never said nothing else had changed. he was specifically talking about chess and only chess. I do understand though that pretty much any grand master today almost has to defend chess for his or her own self. It is pretty well understood that chess has been "solved" and the road to the top is memorizing theory. Whoever can memorize the furthest into the open and middle game will be left with the preferable position going into endgame. Still need the talent and study time as games can still be lost in endgame but it sure is nice to have the advantage going into it.
For real? 🤣
Other grandmaster : I know what happen in 10 moves Bobby Fischer: I know what will happen in 50 years later
underrated comment
Best comment
Wow. Facts
🎉
Other grandmaster: I know what will happen in 10 moves Bobby: Jews
If someone memorized answers to an IQ test, they wouldn’t be testing their actual intelligence quotient. I think that’s what Fischer was getting at. He wanted raw minds playing chess at their best but natural level of creativity.
makes a lot of sense. Natural chess was lost due to competition
Yes. A good analogy is the Rubix cube. All memorization. Nothing special. However giving someone a mixed up cube while you are also holding a mixed up cube and have the person match your mixed up cube in a very short time would be very impressive.
No, but you can memorise method and question 'types'.
But then there's very little room for improvement. People would be stuck at their current level, because very few people are able to improve without some sort of guidence.
@@mariannenguyenf2433 Solving a rubik's cube to a specified scrambled state requires no more creativity than solving it normally to the normal solved state. The method is identical, it just takes a bit longer for obvious reasons.
Hikaru thinking “shit, I hope that’s not me in 20 years”.
Hikaru doesn't have to worry, only world champions have to worry xD
@@chotu221 f***k, that's hurt man 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@chotu221 I know right, he’s only the best blitz player of all time...
@@Redhawk24 ...magnus carlsen???
@@parallaxlq1556 in the video, Bobby and Hikaru say it’s difficult to distinguish between the ‘best’. No matter what hikaru is one of the best and I think that’s respectful to say the least.
I find it hilarious that Fischer called chess boring and Hikaru’s comeback was to compare chess to finance lmao
Good point! And yes, Hikaru's obliviousness is indeed funny.
@S N E E D money ISNT real!! Agreed
hikaru gets nervous when fischer says that talent comes low on the list. people will now think that hikaru isn't so smart, and hikaru fears that. Why does hikaru fear that? because hikaru has a big ego.
@S N E E D I swear to god I typed isnt and someone changed it i would never say money is real lmao
I thought it was even funnier that he bitched about modern chess and Hikaru missed the point completely and said any game/sport is like that lol.
There are zero problems in what he says. Hikaru is miles away on this one. The man has realized the meaningless of the game.
I don't think chess is meaningless, although it might be weirdly meaningful in proportion to the lack of knowledge one has about the game. A novice plays pure chess throughout the entire game. A grandmaster plays pure chess for a while after much rote memorization, and then at some point he returns to rote memorization. Fortunately, no human being will ever have the computational abilities to "figure out" chess, so there will always be some meaning to the game, but it certainly would be nice if something like Fischer random became a bigger thing so that more pure chess could be played among high level chess players.
@@williamkoscielniak7871 fisher random should be an official FIDE format. Classical random games would be amazing to watch.
@@marianorivera3272 I would watch even the most boring Fischer Random games any day!
Dangerous thing to say there's zero problems with what Fischer says
Zero problems in what bobby Fischer said, I agree
Completely correct about memorization. I remember studying a lot of books and theory during my chess contest. I got into chess for the game and creativity, and ended up studying as if it was the finals.
Studying is not enough tho.
Gotta do more than that, my friend
Pattern recognition is huge here. Being able to see a recognised pattern and know what to do by mentally flick booking variations in your minds eye with theory knowledge makes the difference. Knowing why the pattern works in context is the key.
@@gm2407 So, a memory contest ?
@@gm2407 at the highest level where everyone pretty much got the pattern recognition thing down pat, memorization sets you apart from the rest... is what Fischer is saying. These 2700 - 2800 super-GMs already got those basics (strong positional play, end-game strategies, massive opening repertoire, mid-game tactics, etc). Ian won the candidates because he was more prepared, which equals seconds, computers, time, and memorization!
Those captions are the greatest thing since puffed weed.
Puffed wheat is what the man actually said...
@@OlJackBurton but not in the captions, and thats the point lmao
Maybe fischer just puffed weed right before the interview
@@OlJackBurton puffed weed is better than puffed wheat tho 🤷♂️
Frankly, I was surprised when Fischer said "puffed wheat", after searching his memory for the phrase that goes with "...the greatest thing since...". Usually the comparative is "sliced bread". But hey, puffed weed works for a lot of people too I guess.
Fischer is completely right. Chess is so solved at a high level that most matches end in an unrewarding draw.
Or they calculate themselves into resignation....
I can imagine this is why my buddy likes playing with me. I know so fucking little about the game or strategy, that me just fucking around brings a little more fun to him than playing with human computers.
@@jondoe8014 that would make for some great tournaments.
Perhaps Chinese Go would take over...... Cant memorize.... And the advent of Computers would be irrelevant.
I used to play chess now I play GO its amazing there's computers that show you strong play but it's almost impossible to memorize openings ot feels really raw its great!
What's amazing about this video is that Fischer is showing how intelligent he is outside of chess. He understands the dynamics of what makes a game interesting and fun rather than focusing on optimizing already thought of paths. Fischer and people like Fischer enjoy creating new paths. Hikaru and other chess players disagree with this because maybe they simply want to optimize. They like the mass of data. They don't enjoy the stress of the unkown. Imagine a world where no games had a reddit pagr, youtube, or streamers. I think many creative types would enjoy those games far more than what games have become now.
Exactly. I used to grind out games the moment I downloaded them with KZhead tutorials, until I realized it ruined the plot, and/or natural learning curve of the game that had been meticulously designed by the developers.
Absolutely right. Absolutely right!
Don't worry, their's plenty enough games for those to still be around, and you still at least have the choice to do these things without internet help.
two types of gamers p: innovators vs optimizer
@@kingslead8369 There is no choice involved anymore, if you are passionate about something and wish to be involved in it, you ARE using the internet in conjunction with it to connect with others who share that same passion about it. By transitive property in using the internet, you are then bombarded with all of the info related to it that you have yet to discover about it on your own. The decision is out of our hands, to not use the internet is to limit yourself, but in doing so you kill the spirit of discovery. To say it is a real choice is delusional, it's more of an ultimatum to use the help or be separated from all of your likeminded peers.
Bobby Fischer looks like a mall santa who is off duty
*"I've been a good boy this mont- wait a minute you're a hobo?!?!!?? What are you doing here?"*
Actually he does look like the neighbor of Kevin from Home Alone
That's not Karl Marx?!
but u play chess like a mall santa :\
That's what being confined in a Japanse prison gives you.
GM Kappa Blanket - greatest internet chess player ever.
.... in the History of cheese 6:24
@@davidellenberger3852 lmao
Ah yes, Mr Blanket. After he retired from playing, he became a commentator. I hear he covered many games.
I hope a real life GM adapts that username. haha
@@davidanderson_surrey_bc... being that good he gave the competition the sheets
Fischer on chess is like Plato on Philosophy , he was right. If the creativity dies , mathematics take over and everything becomes predictable and less fun
But everything naturally gravitates towards maths and statistics. Science, bich.
I agree, but mathematics is one of the most fascinating and creative "invention" of all time
Its not directly mathematics though, If it was simply pure mathematics based on "whats the probability of that move being next" it wouldnt be that boring, The bad thing with chess that it is very objective, in other sports you have hella random variables that AIs cant replicate as of right now like timing (just imagine the seconds/milli seconds as differences how much that is), speed, the opponent movement, list goes on forever. literally. Meanwhile in chess if you are moving your pieces with there being pure objectively best choices, and you can have the scenarios already played out in your head by learning through the computer.
Mathematics is raw creativity. Ask anybody who did an undergrad in math (or a PhD!) how creative you need to be. Fischer's point was about chess being based on memorisation and theory after the advent of powerful computers and deep tree search algorithms. Not sure why you are confusing that with mathematics.
@@edmonddantes4705 how is there creativity in numbers? there are oynly facts and one correct solution
While I really appreciate Hikaru reacting to what I have always felt was a profoundly interesting video of Fischer on chess, and though I like Hikaru as a person quite a bit, I was very underwhelmed with his responses to Fischer's main points. To be honest it made me think that Bobby really was on to something valid even more than I had thought before.
he is right in other subjects as well.
@@kwazooplayingguardsman5615 Very much depends which ones.
Proff that hikaru being good at chess aka memorisation means nothing about intelligence and understanding of others. In my opinion, after learning a lot about bobby fischer and his life is that current chess players could be a lot more grateful for what he did at the time, since they wouldnt be able to play chess for a decent living if he didnt popularize it so much
@@phonesgiveeveryoneadhd2826 I too have looked into Fischer's life a fair bit, and I feel that ultimately it is a very sad story. Not room to elaborate here, but his was one of the most gifted chess minds ever to have existed. No question.
saying thar computers changes all games doesnt respond to Fischer whatsoever and Fischer obvi was not saying that
Respectfully, I disagree with Hikaru. I think Bobby’s idea in creating Fischer Random is the right way to move forward with chess. It eliminates any need for opening theory and forces players to be creative right from the start, something that chess in its current state lacks. Hikaru’s argument that a lot of other fields are also harder now, while having some merit, feels a little inaccurate as a response to what Fischer is saying. Fischer isn’t saying he hates the game because it’s harder. He’s saying he hates the game because it’s become much more about memorization than creativity, which he feels is where talent in chess truly comes from. Personally, I find Chess960 to be so much more fun and engaging than regular chess, and that’s a big reason that I think Fischer is 100% right.
Never played it, but about to cause of this video lol. Chess has always felt like a good thing to improve my brain but I'm not gonna memorize openings just to compete with sweaty memory dudes. Fisherandom sounds like exactly what I want
Agreed
Maybe HE could be more "creative" because others were unfamiliar with his preparations or theory? Maybe others were getting better so it was forcing him to play tighter and he couldn't rely on talent alone. Ultimately chess (any professional game or sport) comes down to efficiency and that means eliminated wasted moves. Maybe his competition was just getting more efficient.
Agreed. I've just started with Chess 960 and find it much more fun as well. You have to be creative and think about the position right from the start, rather than play like a robot for the first 5+ moves. Moreover, in classic chess it's kind of discouraging, as a semi-new player, to know that, no matter how much potential/talent you have for the game in terms of intuition and creativity, you won't be able to go up in elo until you've done a ton of memorization work on opening theory, because you will be facing opponents who have been doing that work already, sometimes for decades. Those opponents will gain advantages (sometimes winning advantages) over you right from the 5+ first moves, just because they played the memorized perfect chess moves for that opening, and you haven't. Some people have tried to debunk the argument by saying that if Chess 960 becomes the main chess game, it will also start to have opening theory and will face the same issues. I think these people don't really understand what they are saying. Just think about how much opening theory and memorization work you have to do currently for just 1 single starting position. Of course you could eventually, decades from now, have the same kind of exhaustive opening theory for the 960 starting positions, but humans won't be able to memorize it as well as they do for 1 single position. That's just way too much information and Chess 960 will be about creativity and talent probably forever, unless humans evolve and their brain become like machines and/or they can live for hundreds of years (to memorize all that). Therefore, players of Chess 960 will have to work on the most beautiful chess qualities instead : improvisation, intuition, tactics, general strategical ideas, and end game mastery. Memorizing the first 5-10+ moves of a given opening will be a thing of the past.
Very well articulated, spot on analysis of the point that Fischer was trying to make.
I respect Bobby Fisher even more after watching this video. I think Hikaru is missing his point. But I also think Fisher and Hikaru are at different places in life and so the way they look at things might be entirely different. Almost like difference in opinion on marriage between young and old people. Also, Fisher at the time of the interview had practically achieved everything there’s to achieve. It is obvious that the game was almost monotonous and uncreative to him
Hikaru is definitely missing his point. He's not even trying to understand. It's obvious Hikaru likes chess for the competitive aspect, whereas Fisher what used to be the creative aspect. But yeah, like you said, they are in different points in their life.
Hikaru is trying to stand between so staying cool
He was so creative. That’s what he wanted to live for. He wanted chess to become more creative. But, you see, creativity comes from nether regions in the brain, from the nether regions in the universe. After his achievements, it would all become a BORE.
Is this bobby Fischer for reals?
@@lxaccaxl Yes.
What Bobby did against the Soviet chess machine can never be equalled. No one not even you or Magnus could handle that kind of pressure.
Certainly! Any normal human would've crumbled in that situation in the middle of the cold war.
No proof of atleast Magnus not being able to do it. He's a stone cold killer at the highest level. He can suck those wins out of thin air.
Maybe Fischer also couldn't, that's why he eventually burned out.
@@tencizinec9583 but , he did.
@@viveknamikaze761 thats my opinion Magnus is a killer but he's also depends on many outside factors...Fisher did it alone.
He's not criticizing the higher skill level, but rather the means by which that higher skill level is obtained. He's not saying chess is worse because the players are better, he's saying that the necessary methods for improvement have ruined the game in his mind. So it changes nothing to point out that people are getting better at everything.
Chess is probably more enjoyable at 1600 level than a GM level since there is less memorization.
But, you wouldn't find the magical tactics, sacrifices, the long term positions where you can win. I think it's just the opposite, a GM has to memorize a lot, but gets a lot more beautiful positions to appreciate
@@kevinmartincossiolozano8540 the problem with GM level play is that the memorization never stops, while in 1600 level you can just play and play. I think a lot of positions can be appreciated by the 1600 too by intuition.
It's not memoraisation it's more like in depth analysis. Basically it's like primary school maths vs University maths. Where in university maths u have to remember alot of formulas
@@arkos1179 That's just not true. I'm a math student, I haven't remembered a single formula in years... It actually involves a lot more creativity
@@kevinmartincossiolozano8540 wait wait wait! Which country are you from ???? Maths and creativity in the same sentence????? No formulas?????????
hes not trying to force you to believe anything hes just speaking how he feels about it
what i respect the most, he even made sure to say that it's only his opinion that he is the most talented ever - if he wanted to think that fair
I'll take Rebuttals to Claims Nobody Made for $100, Alex.
Is it just me who is infuriated by hikaru laughing and judging Fischer like that. The entire life of Fischer and his full 1.25 hour interview clearly indicates that He had been looking for the absolute truth, not like most of them narrowed to chess just for money and hollow prestige. Some donkeys consider him crazy, but Fischer was actually a highly conscious person, of next level which donkeys can't least comprehend.
He’s not laughing at him, he’s humored by the point
no its not just you.
He’s laughing at the really bad closed captions you guys. He’s not laughing at Fischer at all in this video.
@@forrestrichard8133 true but he also doesn't get what Fischer is saying at all
Hikaru is a dirt bag for doing this, such a nerd
Love this guy, he made exact point about making fun game soo boring at memorisation and not about play, and coming up with solution. I fall in love with the idea of Fisher's random chess and get this background idea, but to hear it from him is also very cool. I can see the pain on his face when he talking about all the preparation. He loved chess, he hate preparation, he try to escape but people didn't accept this idea))
of course he loved chess. his creative mind didnt like being trapped in study
I really lament the fact that Bobby Fischer never lived to see the legendary Double Bongcloud opening. He would have made a complete 180.
Bobby fischer played it 20 years ago , he maybe even invented it
Greatest thing since puffed weed
Sauce?
He would have came out of retirement 50 years later and reclaimed the world title. haha
He played it against Short about 20 years ago on ICC.
This is straight up the disney Luke skywalker
Better than that shit
HAHAHAA. Great point
Too soon 😢
@Tangent of circle.this is very true
Exactly!!! When I first saw the second movie my inmidiate thinking was "oh, this is just old Bobby Fischer"
you can't really argue with him. He had seen it all.
I mean Garry Kasparov doesn't hold the same opinion. And Garry is the GOAT.
@@sylvesteruchia5263 You're talking about both Fischer and Kasparov and say that Kasparov is the "GOAT"?
Fischer is a nobody compared to Kasparov, lol. Who held the title for over 20 years? Kasparov, no Fischer@@lukerichardson2404
I feel for the guy. All that memorization is what turns a lot of people away from chess. It's why he invented Fisher Random. To try to restore play using your game skill and not your memory. I wonder if he'd have liked the game more or *less* in this age of Stockfish.
Less probably because at higher levels of play there's an even greater emphasis on prep and memorization than in his day.
There's no fun for a new player to get noobstomped by someone who has the main lines memorized. I think that's why a lot gravitate to chess puzzles. I also notice a lot of chess streamers seem to be working off of their memory. I appreciate most when Hikaru does non-mainline openings to show how a lot of strong players don't understand chess.
@@ReadingAdam Agreed. Magnus draws a lot of complaints for being "disrespectful" because he plays unusual openings that take you out of theory. I don't see it that way at all. He's making his opponent actually play chess, challenging them to show they know why they make the moves they make.
I think Bobby was really pointing to Chess getting less fun. For many players the fun part of chess is the creativity - being in a new position and finding a winning combination. The more combinations that are discovered, discussed, and *solved*, the rarer it is to be in a genuinely new and creative position. An ounce of study replaces a pound of creativity. Bobby, a natural genius of the game, had to spend more time studying and less time being creative and having fun. The fight to become best, ruined his love of the game. I'd like to ask Bobby if he would like to have his mind wiped and get to learn chess all over again.
Lol Chess was the very thing that drove him insane. If I were him and got a clean slate I would not play again
@@tomsevcik1792 He's really not insane, just never liked celebrity and went off of professional chess. He's had a few random interviews since. Smart guy and seems very rational.
@@tomsevcik1792 Chicken or the Egg situation. With chess requiring a lot of creativity, it could also be that the game naturally attracts those that are eccentric and often erratic. Bobby had a tough life riddled with paranoia before he started playing chess.
@@tomsevcik1792 Well... how would it have? What was the way it did so?
I concur with your thoughts. And relate with them. The most amazing time in my chess life was the beginning. Learning the simple tactics and combinations and moving on to more difficult tactics and combinations. It supercharged my love for the game. I found such brilliancy and beauty in it. I couldn't believe the depth and genius of it all. Fast forward 10 years...and now I find myself endlessly studying openings for the last 2 years and stressing and hating myself for every mistake and lost game. Lol. The wins have become meaningless more often than not...while the losses and mistakes overtake me.
I mean, he's right, the first 20 moves are all book. No thinking involved, if he does this you do this. It's like speed running a single player game. Creativity is way below on the list of importance.
It's more complicated than that. You don't know what you're talking about
@@hmt4173 sounds right on the money to me, but of course you know more than Bobby 🤷🏽♂️
@@interceptingfist5682 ask any modern GM if they think there is no creativity or thinking involved in the opening, if it's all just memorization. It's not as simple as that.
@@hmt4173 have you ever played chess bro?
@@Archonsx Ive been playing for 12 years and I am 2200 chesscom blitz. Once again, ask any GM if they think the opening is nothing but memorization. They will tell you that it is not that simple. Most openings are still rich with new and unexplored ideas. Any idiot with a computer can let an engine run for 12 hours and memorize the top engine move. But that is simply not what masters do.
Fischer in his prime would have destroyed Nakamura and Nakamura knows it. That is why he is laughing like one of the bad boys in the back of the class.
As a gamer, fisher is spot on. The reason why we play games is because of the fun of chaos, not the monotomy of order. We play games "because" we do not know what to do in it, and the excitement of exploration into possibilities is what drives us. To find out if we can find our own solution. Even though this is what i think, i still like chess. Because its like my own test to see if i can achieve in it. The possibilities is my own success in a game i for some reason cant win at currently.
People that play games competitively might disagree. Ask competitive players of any game how they feel about "RNG" and I think you'd be surprised. That's why the most popular competitive video games that have lasted over the years have fairly controlled competitive environments. Playing games for fun is great and the chaos can be fun, but people that derive joy from competition would probably prefer a more "controlled" environment. I think your touching on the idea when u said chess is "like a test to see if I can achieve it." I think that people wouldn't like to "test" themselves if their outcome is somewhat controlled by randomness.. Also, when you introduce competition to anything, its almost inevitable that people will seek the most optimal (and sometimes boring) ways to produce better outcomes for themselves. I don't think there's any avoiding that... But, if your just playing things for fun more power to you! My assumption is that people that play at the highest level have to actively find ways to enjoy the game or ultimately suffer burn out.
When Bobby went to heaven God asked him for a game of chess but Bobby just yelled "is this supposed to be heaven or hell?" and then he left.
God asked me for a game of chess and I mated him in 32 moves
@@offer2ferry779 I analyzed the game and It showed 'mate in 32' from the the first move.😂
Bobby in heaven? Well, that would be a surprise for sure.
Isn't he Jewish?
I can totally see that happening lol
Bobby is completely right. Chess is all about information and theory nowadays at the highest level. Doesn't happen with all the other sports.
Of course he is right. This is 21st century. The opening theory should be one part of chess history of the last century..
Its all pyschological. Its just personalities battling each other out given both players know equal amounts of info and theory. Its like a visual repsentation of a debate.
even if it does happen in other sports, it's perfectly fine to hate chess for that reason
analytics killed the mid-range shot in basketball
@@xKrypto98x Everyone still shoots it every game, nobody plays chess without computers at the highest level anymore.
to a degree he has a point. Exemplified by the fact that we have names for like 1000 different openings/overall game strategies in chess. Its become less about creatively concocting moves and more about just out competing the opponent.
Whoa! Fischer was head and shoulders ahead of all other GMs of his time. Lest we forgot, he won the 1970 Palma de Majorca Interzonal by 3.5 pts!! and in 1971 destroyed Taimanov 6-0 !! Larsen 6-0!! and Petrosian 6.5- 2.5!!
He’s right, game hasn’t been patched in over 500 years. Needs a new content update and queen is OP.
Yeah and I want a new character like an assassin or something to make the game more interesting
@@unistealth697 Couldn't agree more, maybe switch the board around too and add more colors
@@unistealth697 It's chess not Command and Conquer
This is 21st century. The opening theory should be one part of chess history of the last century..
They buffed the queen a few hundred years ago. Definitely overdue for a nerf
He's basically saying that because the skill floor has risen, you get to the point where agadmator takes 18 moves to say we have a completely new game
Really though this is more like a skill ceiling; in order to reach and possibly have a chance to break through the ceiling, to become the best in the world for a time, you need to know so much more than you did before. The skill floor for chess is essentially just being able to remember the rules (such as the way pieces are allowed to move and capture each other, you can't put yourself in check, etc.) and having some way to move the pieces.
It‘s more like you don‘t need to be good at chess foremost but good at studying/memorizing cuz u can beat people before u get to play on yourself
No. the skill floor has not risen. The memorization/theory floor has risen, and the players have gotten scared and safe to preserve their title/elo. Players like Anand and older players dominated over newer gms today because they weren't complacent and content to draw most games. Magnus is a great example. How many draws does he have?
-skill- knowledge floor.
@@OArchivesX correct -Ben Finegold rants about these very same things in modern chess. Everybody playing to draws, and nobody really dominates the way the older players did.
Very different level of intellects, one legend of his time and one smug youtuber. Fischer is exactly on point, being a hardend product of his time, making real points and all he gets in return is empty bla bla.
Yup. Fischer has it right 100% here.
The Soviet’s were out to get him and had enormous resources. They put their brains together and he still came out on top. They had each top player analyze everything about him. He was on a crazed mission to win. Spassky could of taken advantage of his possible child like behavior. I’d say if you count relative skill and will to win you could argue he’s the best ever. The dedication was abnormal.
Who was the champion for 20 years? Oh right not fischer. Kasparov is the greatest there ever was, Fischer isnt even in the discussion
@@Fantastikacommies lost kid
@@DaltonFalls I hate commies as much as any other sane person, however, the Commies won big time, sorry.
Fisher never mentioned anything about this being exclusive to chess..
Yes..u r right he was asked about chess he answered about chess..Sometimes i think does Hikaru even listens to himself when he speaks..Most of the things Hikaru says are irrational..
Yeah that was fucking dumb from Hikaru. Also his analogy from basketball to chess made absolutely no sense. I lost respect for Hikaru in this vid.
@@jacquesstoop2587 And Fischer never claimed in the video to be the greatest player, he repeatedly avoids the question. He clearly pays tribute to Morphy and states that the reason he would be able to beat Morphy is due to greater theoretical knowledge, not raw talent.
@@ExplainedIn4Minutes he thinks too highly of himself to be self critical.
@@ExplainedIn4Minutes I think this is because Hikaru is the embodiment of what Fisher said, strong in theory n memorization
I knew Hikaru was gonna react to this someday, now i can rest😂
you're famous!
Wanna see him react to king sacrifice for the first time since it happened in real life.
hikaru doesn't fully internalize what fischer is saying here. fischer brings up both prep and memorization as a problem in his opinion, then proposes a random starting position in order to address this. his goal is to make creativity the most important factor in chess, again. hikaru addresses the first problem by saying computers have opened up more openings, which leads to fischer's second point - memorization. these new openings only work if you've memorized all of the variations. fischer proposes a solution to this while hikaru doesn't even discuss it. he claims fischer is naive, while he misunderstood the fundamental point fischer was trying to make.
I know right
@@deoTS1 hikaru is such a fool.
This was a dig at players like you Hikaru, who base their games around memorization rather than free thinking and creativity.
More every chess player now because if you don’t memorize hours of theory you lose. So not just players like Hikaru everybody.
yeah like that 'perfect game' he played the other day. It all came down to him knowing an insane depth of moves by heart, like his preparation was insane. And he won because of one minor detail. I don't see how that's fun anymore. The magic is completely gone
@@thatloserpig chess needs an improvement i see
@@kaushy well I think what is fun about chess now is gamemodes that are shorter. Like in bullet games are never the same and way more wild that sitting at a board for an hour
@@thatloserpig preferences i guess, i like longer games
He destroyed an entire nation of chess players. Morphie crushed dilettantes. Never again will you have someone this brilliant because computers obviate individual brilliance.
Yeah, fischer was the most brilliant player
Who was the champion for 20 years? Oh right not fischer. Kasparov is the greatest there ever was, Fischer isnt even in the discussion
I learned a new word, obviate
@@Fantastika guess who was the champion for 27 years ?? Oh it's not Kasparov it's Emanuel Lasker
@@Fantastika Guess who lost to a dying Tal, pff it's not Fischer. It's the greatest Garry Kasparov
“Chess doesn’t drive people mad. It keeps mad people sane.” -Bill Hartston
A simple quote does not say anything.
@@M4rcLL it does, you just need to read it
This is true tho, I visited a mental hospital for my psychology field trip and there were 4 chess boards in the canteen.
@@M4rcLL Think about the quote instead of simply criticizing it. It makes perfect sense and says a lot.
@@Yash-ql7vn Bingo, domino etc..
You completely misunderstood his statements on computers, and took it as if he was saying “this is literally the only sport negatively affected by computers.” He made a point specific to chess, not to basketball, or football, or boxing. Those are games which can never be programmed in the way chess can, it is literally night and day to compare the physical sports, and the theoretical aspect of chess. To nitpick it as “well I disagree that chess is the only thing affected by computers” is completely missing the point. And don’t call Bobby Fischer uneducated, in general there’s such a strong emphasis on denigrating anything he said, as if you treat him like a child or an incompetent.
Yeah exactly. Only by learning more openings, preparing more openings do you "get better". It's boring. It's why I stopped playing many years ago. I liked the tactics and strategy. But after I got to 1900 on the server I was playing on, I would start beating 2500 players if I knew the opening better than my opponent. And Hikaru saying that chess being built upon the past is false with computers. With computers, you don't need the past. Just look at Alpha Zero. It knew NOTHING of the past. Only the rules. And it was better than all humans and all other computer chess programs.
Most people find it necessary to trash everything Fischer said because of his Anti-Semitic views. It’s almost like in their minds, if they agree with one opinion Fischer has and acknowledge that he sounds logical and rational on that topic, in some roundabout way they’re agreeing with his Jewish conspiracies.
It's not even nitpicking its just straight up strawmaning.
@@GrubHuncher Fischer was ethnically Jewish, with his Mother, and his Father was apparently a Jewish doctor as well, who he did not grow up around and I don't believe has ever been proven as far as his identity. His Mother was involved in radical Bolshevik tinged politics throughout her life, instructing a young Fischer as to what to do if the police showed up at the door and began to question him on the individuals she was interacting with. Which is interesting here as he actually interacted with this world, and the Chess world itself was heavily populated by individuals with his same group.
I agree, I think fischers iq was 187. He knows what he is speaking
I remember when I quit playing Starcraft 2 competitively, I felt that I reached a plateau where my skill and mechanics and creativity couldn't improve much, but I had to constantly practice openings and countering enemy openings, I had to remember tons of tiny details, exact build orders and time stamps and the learning was never-ending because the meta kept changing. I just remember realizing one day that improving at this game becomes from this point onward is more of a studying chore than a pastime entertainment.
Pretty much exactly the point Fischer is making. He'd have been rank #1 gm, world champion and beaten Serral and Maru and Clem and Reynor, then gotten bored and went to custom maps or came up with his own balance mod for people to try because the meta got too stale and studying / mechanical execution is the most boring part.
Maybe it will take some decades for Hikaru to understand chess at the the next level (like Fischer is now). Some things just take time.
My Idol saying Puffed weed got me off guard lol
Probably shouldn't idolize people, I think Fischer is a good example for that.
@@benjaminwilkin2960 He is my Idol because of his talent not by his attitude 😊
Puffed wheat
@Peaky Blinders why ?
He hated Jewish people lol
I was kind of disappointed when I first realized that high-level chess wasn't about geniuses doing insane things in their brains (which they do, but...), but more about being able to just "learn" the game to a degree that combines brain power with strategy. It took away the magic. Fischer saying this just confirms it to me... All games have been perverted with time, from being fun and full of discovery to robots taking over.
I've never heard of a checkers engine... neither are there robot teams playing basketball or baseball... I agree with everything you say, except a supposed invasion of robots; no, I can't think of a lot of classical sports, whether mental ones (which rely more on headpower than anything) or physical ones, such as basketball, which have experienced robots overtaking the humans. That was my only critique. I leave what I wrote above for anyone who cares which is no one. I've been proven wrong, so now I'm editing this.
@@PyuDeePhi It was only a hyperbole regarding the players’ ability to memorize and reproduce the moves, not actual robots. Yet…
Ever wondered why most of today's games seemsboring and lack excitement even at the highest level? It's because everyone has memorized and understood tons of moves that makes the game played based on the best moves analyzed by the computer. Nowadays, most games are won/lost based on the first person to make a suboptimal move well known by the opponent with the help of computers
@@PyuDeePhi first and foremost, chess is never and ever a sport. And there is nothing called mental sport. Sport is by definition physical activity. Anyways, second of all, he only did mean the chess when he said robots taking over. Ye know, Stockfish, Alpha0, Leelachess0, Dragon, Komodo, Stoofvlees etc... These engines make duels between them which do show human games as if they're children's game park. And last but not least, even if checker is a mental game, why the hell would we ever make an engine on checkers? Compared to chess (and I am not even talking about the fantastic GO), it's like a child's game. Besides, scientists and engineers and philosophers do build these brilliant, ground-breaking chess beast 4000 or sth elo engines not fer chess at all... Or not becuse they like chess one bit. They don't even care about chess. They do it fer much higher reasons: to test their thesisses about mind, cables, robotic systems, neurons etc. on these engines. And to improve the terms machibe learning and artifical intelligence. (I actually do think just like what Stephen Hawking came really closer to saying: If AI comes, it will probably be the end of the humanity).
@@entelektuel.yolculuk It will never come the way we imagine it imo. But we can imagine it coming until the end of our lifetimes.
This is what honestly led me to never playing chess. With no Information it appears as a great battle between minds. When you realize that most of it is theory and memorized movement patterns it becomes far less impressive. That’s not to say that it doesn’t take skill because it absolutely does. However, Bobby’s point is certainly valid and I can see why most current GMs like hikaru wouldn’t agree because this is the game they grew up playing. Bobby’s take is interesting because in his era he saw the game as pure with no theory evolve into one that is solved by computers.
Just because high level chess involves mostly theory and memorization should not stop you from enjoying chess though. Purposely staying at the lower levels, where all strategy goes out the window when you find yourself in uncharted waters can be fun, and there is also Chess960, which happened to be invented by Fischer himself as an update to chess. This is coming from someone who had only a marginal interest in chess up until a year ago
You have played and have realised how terrible you are at the game. Everything else is just excuses and rationalisation. Your 800 level opponent isn't gonna play ruy lopez theory until move 25. I'm 2100 and people still barely play 10-12 moves of theory. Git gud.
I love Bobby. Wish he was still here.
The game with two kings proposed by Capa sounds fun
You must mean Kappa Blanket.
@@maferreira1984 lol forreal?
@@yourdedcat-qr7ln ?
so is aa skewer on two kings, a checkmate?
@@yourdedcat-qr7ln According to the caption, that's his name. XD
Hikaru is laughing and all but he knows Bobby is right about memorization, pre arrangements and computers/ people working for you. He says it's true for all the games, idk how, but he cant deny that with chess
Yes you r right..Hikaru laughed bcs he wanted to avoid listening to the truth.. Chess960 offers more creativity..
Yep
@@ExplainedIn4Minutes oh you think? Yes for top-level chess that's true, but for anyone below 2000 rating you don't need a lot of opening theory
Plus you can't compare physical sports with chess. Skill and creativity are different when competing.
Just by seeing the faces of past and present players, you will understand Fischer's point. Most of them, Fischer, Tal, Morphy, etc., looked like geniuses,some of them crazy xaxa. On the other hand, most top players nowadays look like good college students who do their homework
Great point
I disagree with the other sports analogy. Let’s take tennis for example. No matter how much you attempt to memorize your opponent’s movements, every single serve is different. Every set is different. Memorization maybe constitutes at most 20% of the game.
I love tennis but if there's a game and a format that tests all types talents, its cricket 🏏 All three formats test a different type of skill. The players are doing different jobs on the same field. The captain is the closest to a chess players I'd say.
I think the point is that with most sports they players of today on average are better or more refined than sports players of the past…on average
@valley-girl nobody plays cricket just the subcontinent and some commonwealth
Keep in mind that Fisher's rating in 1972. was 2785. the first who catched him is Kasparov, after 20 years. Today, after 50 years and 25 years of super computers, only a dozen super GMs have that rating or little higher. Nobody ever in chess history was such dominant against his contemporaries like Fisher and Morphy were. But he's the perfect example of Morphy's quote that the ability to play chess well is the sign of a gentleman and the ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life...
What did he do with his life after he stopped playing chess?
" Morphy's quote that the ability to play chess well is the sign of a gentleman and the ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life... " 🤔
Elo shows how good you are compared to other players around. 2800 in 60s and 2800 in 2020s is not the same, because an average level increased significantly. It's just no comparison.
@@adbirdk the first "well" has to be emitted
@@danielwanger5919 omitted
Massive disrespect to Fischer there - he never said "computers ONLY made a difference to chess", 3-braincell humor aside on the closed caption, he was pretty clear that memorizing theory made chess a memorization contest rather than one of creativity.
🙄
So why massive disrespect to him? I mean chess theory DOES make it more of a memorization game
You said exactly what I was thinking. Including the 3 braincell humour joke
Agreed. Hikaru also claims bobby fischer was the 'hardest working', when in one of Fischer's interviews on the Dick Cavette show, Fischer in his own words describes the other top players as "not very talented, they just work like dogs". There are other interviews where Fischer debunks claims that he has memorized thousands of games etc - his response was something like "It's wrong. Maybe I haven't even memorized one game". And I've seen evidence of this - most good chess players know the Morphy vs Duke game in Phildor's defense, and when Fischer commentated it in Yugoslavia, he had to look at a book for the moves. All in all - i don't agree that fischer was the hardest working, nor was he crazy. His talent and creativity is what made him the best, not his 'hard work' like the media always portrays (to make him seem bat shit crazy).
@@veechimo Exactly. And it's even disrespectful to the russians. Like, it was Fischer alone vs an entire team of russian players helping each other. How the hell would Fischer have worked MORE than an entire team together?? Hikaru basically called the russian team lazy fucks that way. Obviously Fischer overcame a whole team of pro players because he was more talented than all of them together.
No other game is or has been affected so much by computers (for the worse) Bobby is absolutely 💯
Kasparov disagrees.
@@Fantastika Then Kasparov is wrong & it won't be the first time!
@@shayblades6007 kasparov is the greatest chess player of all time, Fischer is a nobody compared to him
@@Fantastika @Fantastika Off topic, back in your box assw/pe.
oh someones mad because their favourite second rate chess player was insulted @@shayblades6007
"The greatest thing since puffed weed" - bobby fischer Of all the creative lines fischer played, that one was the most unexpected
Google "puffed wheat"
"Are you a gamer?" "Not really, but I don't mind a few rounds of For Sure Random"
sounds like a typical Hearthstone player 🤣
This was not one of Hikaru's best videos. He was not really taking Fisher seriously. He never addressed the fact that Fischer won 20 consecutive games including 13 straight in the Candidates Match's against some of the strongest players in the world. No one has ever done anything remotely like that. For at least two years Fischer was the greatest player of the 20th century if not the all time greatest.
There is nobody today who has equaled Fischer's verifiable historical fact. Not a single one of them today is Fischer's equal.
I thought his winning streak was like 6+ years.
The point I was making is that other great players have streaks where they never lose a game--like the 125 game streak of Magnus--but Fischer's streak was winning 20 consecutive games against the top players in the world. No draws. No losses.
@@RS-np2bk Magnus longest winning streak was two years. Fischers was 6+ years Fischer was also 200 points above any of his competitors and had much tougher competition; Magnus can memorize but when that advantage gets taken away, he loses to Wesley
You are confusing "not losing" with "winning." Fischer did not have a 6 year win every game streak. @@bevs9995
Fischer was 100% correct, the guy is one of the greats I think he knows what he’s talking about. While it’s true any game or sport eventually becomes more and more refined, optimized, and there becomes a new meta- he’s correct in saying that at a certain point the game becomes sort of repetitive and you need to update the rules to offset the monotony.
He got insane in the end 😂😂
Around the year 1985, a friend of mine introduced me to a far more fun version called Replacement Chess whereas the taken pieces have to get immediately put back on the board by the opponent as a single move... and that if the pawn reaches the opposite end is also a win.
They need to add an update like a catapult on each players side of the board, and once you checkmate your opponent you have to flick a little ball at the King to try and knock it over. Only then can you win
YES! loool
Bobby Fischer here is like the Anime Antagonist who will be brought back to the light by the Protagonist's Bong Cloud opening. "What.. what are you doing?" "I'm having fun." "Oh.. I haven't had fun since 1987..."
This should happen.
@@yugitube77 Sorry man he's dead
💀
Someone should make this into a video and put it in Hikaru's subreddit
Hikaru shows Bobby a seat. “Here, lets play.” Fischer grabs the seat and gazes at the bongcloud glory. Fisher finally opens his mouth, “You know the better trademark this before the Jews take credit.”
nice to see the close captions clearing up the conservation for us !!!!
Fischer: fuck chess Hikaru: ***copes fucking haaaaaaard***
When you play a game there is no competition between players but competition between their preperation- Anish Giri
True, that why bobby hated chess
That's pretty stupid, magnus is probably the least prepared , but still dominated the rest
Magnus is the least prepared , how do you know that ?
@@arkos1179 Magnus has a team of 6-10 GMs and super GMs, as well as several coaches, to help him prepare for big tournaments. All players in the top 10 are probably equally prepared.
@@antichrist.superstar the statement about the prep was wrong but magnus is by far the best outside of theory, and is very creative
Bobby didn´t want to be found because he was scared of the final boss of chess Anatoli Karpov.
I understood that reference!
"mummy"
I understood that one actually
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I don’t get the joke 🤷🏾♂️
I bet Hikaru wouldn't be laughing with a prime, studied, and prepared Fischer in front of him. The Fischer Fever would kick in. Would be no excuses.
The point he misses is that sports/games improve over time but not to a point where the first half of the sport is pre-played and the audience have to hope to get a fresh game in second half. And it also demotivates new players to learn the game.
Is it just me or does Fischer sound more logical than Hikaru? "chess is too much memorization" --> "yeah but sports evolved as well", I just don't really get it
yeah I don't think Hikaru was really following Fischer's point at all
I think he means that sports in general have evolved to the point that prep & science/computers and just generally things other than raw talent have become more important. In chess it's engines, but in physical sports it can be team strategies and tactics, athletic wear, sports medicine & therapy with cryo chambers and stuff, straight up doping, etc.
Exactly my thoughts. It's like Hikaru didn't give it enough thought. The point is that memorization is **dull**. See, Hikaru acts like Fischer is complaining about how competitive high level chess is right now. And that's not the point at all !
Hikaru’s IQ is like 102. Not much can be expected of him regarding his capacity to make arguments. People of course are gonna say Hikarus right because people are dumb and followers but impartially there is Fischer’s points were better and constructed better
@@mwtjay Hikarus iq is higher wtf - good luck calculating the stuff he does in seconds with a 102 iq
I learned two things in this video. 1. Bobby Fisher is awesome ( I probably agree with him more than I do Hikaru) 2. Closed Captions are the beat thing since puffed weed.
Hikaru doesnt want to agree because that would admit he isnt as good as his audience thinks as much of it is memorisation
@@gordonramsdale I think he acknowledges that, its not that he's not good and he's just memorised the most popular moves, its that chess at his level is mostly about memorisation and he does that better than nearly anyone else
Fisher definitely had some crazy moments, but he's making a good argument here
I mean Fischer was a racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, raging lunatic, but if you like him because he thought chess was too solved after being around for over a thousand years then go ahead lol.
Tyson will go down as potentially the greatest fighter in the history of the heavyweight division; he went to jail for rape, was accused of spousal abuse, assault, violent outbursts outside the ring, etc. Yet we can disassociate his personal life for his sporting life. I would not call Tyson a raging lunatic, in the same way I would not call Fischer one. Eccentric? Sure. A lunatic? No.
The interviews I've seen show that Fisher was not crazy. He sounds fully sane, intelligent, and wanting to improve chess. I'm now upset he was so defamed. He also is very humble by not claiming to be the best.
Did you hear the interview he gave on the 11th September? Celebrating it and literally called for the killing of Jews, even though being one himself by ethnicity. He does not sound sain there.
@@Empobaer If you're calling him insane based on that, you're not using the word insane correctly. Also, I'm not justifying killing civilians in any scenario, but I think America is arguably the most evil country in the world. There is plenty of reason for people to want the American empire to fall. The American oligarchy has kept Africa, SE Asia and Central + South America at the bottom of the global economy for their own benefit. Corporations like Coca Cola and Exxon are actively and knowingly contributing to an inevitable mass extinction event by polluting the Earth with synthetic polymers. Our government constantly pushes out propaganda, and looks for ways to manipulate and distract the masses from the gradual collapse of our capitalist empire. If you don't believe me, just wait. Or do some research. Ted Kaczynski was our best chance at escaping this downward spiral, and nobody listened to him because the oligarchy-controlled mass media labeled him as insane.
@@Empobaer you made that up
@@tubeguy4066 if you are interested, I can search for the.interview again, if not I will not bother to do so
Crazy is codeword for antisemite, he simply hated jewish (which is a totally rational opinion to have) that's why they called him crazy
Imagine a game where both players play exactly based on some moves from computer and no imagination at all. We'll have some long games instead of exciting, unpredictable moves. Like Bobby Fischer's Be6 move in the game of the century. In that game, the move made no sense at all. But looking back, it's probably the move of the century. He did that without computers and help. Just instinctively reacting to newly developing situation.
He didn't hate chess. He hated what became of chess. It's the same feeling I have for fighting games now. All the joy has been sucked out of it. In terms of chess, at the highest level, it's not 1 on 1 anymore. In his time, it was his team of analysts versus the other team of analysts, looking for holes/weaknesses to exploit in his opponent's game, so he could memorize them. Now it's team of machine learning programmers, versus other team of machine learning programmers doing the same thing. It takes something beautiful and corrupts it, institutionalizes it. Imagine how different chess would be now, if everyone had to play in tournaments via computer and you have no idea who you're opponent is. The entire focus would switch from memorizing weaknesses to creativity and adaption, because you have no idea what to expect.
In fact, you can play on Lichess in Zen mode, which hides information about your opponent.
This is what happened to smash melee and why melee is not as hype anymore. There's not much more "discovery".
'It takes something beautiful and corrupts it, institutionalizes it". That's what the left hemisphere of the brain does when it is allowed to run amok. The computational aspect of the brain/mind overtakes the creative, imaginative, intelligent, embodied aspect of the brain/mind until all that is left is a deadened, memorized re-presentation of what was once alive, fresh, and novel.
@@jungshin87 Nah, I still think melee’s hype
It's how I feel about women
Let me tell you something..., i love chess BUT, i hate the fact that someone can just learn 30 moves for a specific opening and just go and repeat what they have previously memorized and that's all. I belive that kills the game and in some way is more enjoyable not to know SO MUCH and just improvise over new things every game, in my opinion that's more fun, and i thing Fischer is just right in some point ¿where is creativity?
I think Fischer said more actual chess goes on in the sub 1000 level of chess than master games because every move is their own
@@gordonramsdale But..., lets be honest, all this romantic style players are icons because they invented in the middle of a game a non book move, and that's why people love them and learn from them. I have studied some actual players games and they are all books theory and i have studied Fischers games and most of it is just pure genius, and i think he noticed that and suddenly hated the root chess was taking. That's what i catch from his words.
@@limemlohdnul4795 That's the entire point, they don't know any theory so they are playing chess not just memorisation
agree a good example is stafford gambit you just watch someone play it and you dont deserve to win if the opponent isnt aware about it
I'm the exact opposite of you. Theres this amazing massive world of knowledge in opening theory and I'm just fascinated by all of it that I want to know. At the top level its exhaustingly tedious and most people hate that, which is why we have variants like 960 or bullet, but I think I'm weird because I find the world of opening theory to be just as enjoyable as the creative tactics of the rest of the game. However I totally see Fischer's point in that high level classical chess has shifted toward valuing memorization and preparation over creative and skillful play, and understand how that could sour your feelings about chess in general.
Fisher has a point even more today.
It doesn’t take much to make Hikaru laugh uncontrollably
Ikr. 🤣
chess960 being the best thing since puffed weed is a hilarious statement
@@oscarhernandez9328what’s funny about it
To be honest, there's lines where you can literally force a draw. It's basically a fact that it's becoming more and more memorization rather than creative thinking. Chess is a game, finance isn't. Other games are not depending on maths so computers can't rule them.
They used one of these self teaching AIs on the MOBA DOTA and they rolled the human pro team. Computers rule all.
Exactly. It's one of the very few times I strongly disagreed with hikaru
It's early to claim that computers can't widely become dominant. They have continually surprised us by dominating games like jeopardy, poker and Dota. Will technology bore us to death by leveling the competitive field? I don't know but It looks like it's heading that way.
@@alexnaturalis1179 Ever heard of singleplayer games? Or cooperative games? Not everything is competetive, and you can have competetive of humans vs humans without bots.
@@Spazticspaz Thats not a good comparison, the fact that it was based on fixed rules with limited amount of heroes and limited things to do on the map, and the AI played thousands upon thousands games against himself, obviously pro players gonna lose, its very different game, you could say is the same as you would play chess with only 2rooks and 2knights, and some pawns, ofcourse you would do bad, because you never played with such rules, but AI played it thousands upon thousands, if you would let pro team play it 50games, they would crush the dota OpenAI. it was the same with OpenAI Shadow fiend 1x1 mid, the AI kept destroying pro players for the first few weeks, and then the players learned and destroyed the Bot everytime afterwards so yeah games are not depending on maths so computers cant rule them i agree with it.
Rest in peace Mr. Fischer. I always tear up when I see videos of him or hear him speak. He speaks more truth than anyone is willing to accept.
Is that a euphemism for he’s a neo nazi and you agree with him?
@@unslaadkrosis3489 and you're pure?
He also like, denies the holocaust
@@EliStettner Do you actually know what happened or do you just believe everything you are told?
@@mircopaul5259 I have direct ancestors who perished.
Damn, this is someone that really understands what it means to be good at something
I thought he went crazy or something, but he seems like a very reasonable old man with a super good point. Look at the championships, it's mostly about theory now, that's nothing interesting.
I might be wrong but I think he was more tired of classical chess.
Which even hikaru and many other top GMs are too,
Maybe that’s why Fischer invented FRC
I agree with most of what Bobby has said. I got to 2150 elo without ever openingen a chess book. My games used to be minefields from move 5. Action was guaranteed and the position was always interesting. Gaining more and more elo meant facing better players who memorized openings and this in turn forced my games to be more standard and often times just flat out boring. I stopped playing chess for the same reasons why Bobby hated it. You can be the most creative mind out there but if your opponents do a lot of deep prep they can suck the fun right out of it. I for one find it definetly not fun to play 22 moves of opening prep followed by a dull, dry, played-out position which has a >70% chance of being a draw.
Call it talent, intuition, or whatever. Just not creativity. Creativity is not a part of chess or anything that is competitive for that matter.
I'm the same. Reached about 2100 and got totally fed up with the theory side. Now I have a simple app on my phone which I play around 6 or so games a day. I mix up the opening really quickly with quirky moves. I win probably 8 out of 10 games I play but every single game is explosive. This way I'm enjoying chess again
What is your opinion on Go?
@@JerryReyes I only played it 1 evening against a mate who has 2000 elo. It was a lot of fun. There are some patterns you need to learn, but thats the same in chess. Other than that I think you need a lot less theory for GO which makes it more appealing to a lot more people. The game is also a lot more complex than you would expect. If you compare it to chess, you only have 1 type of piece which would suggest that it would be a lot easier but the complexity and levels of calculation are a lot deeper than I initially thought. It is more straightforward as well, I think that once you get a hold of the basics it should be all about how deep you can think whilst in chess that is not the only factor. But as I said, I only played it for 1 evening so I might be missing a lot of subtle nuances the game still has :)
I agree with Fisher, I have come to enjoy chess and play almost everyday but I've realized that it is mostly memorization and recall. If you can remember every counter move then you can draw against Magnus in classical chess. This is why I only play timed chess and I think chess is more fun when you aren't that great yet as the moves are unpredictable lol and I am not very good. Bobby is right to say the game needs to have some kind of change to survive because if he realized it years ago and I've realized it myself then there has to be more people who realize this. The best chess player now probably has the best memory and we've all seen Magnus memorize multiple boards blindfolded and also recall games from other players just from seeing the board layout. There is not much creativity any longer as every best move has been shown. Morphy and other guys from way before computers were geniuses and had to make up their own moves.
What he is saying in the beginning is that the higher you get into the stratosphere of chess theory, the less of a creative dance it is and it becomes this set of logical lines that become predictable. It's not quite solved but it probably becomes repetitive and turns into an endurance exercise more so than a creativity exercise.
Having just started with Chess 960, I find it much more fun. You have to be creative and think about the position right from the start, rather than play like a robot for the first 5+ moves. In classic chess it's kind of discouraging as a semi-new player to know that, no matter how much potential/talent you have for the game in terms of intuition and creativity, you won't be able to go up in elo until you've done a ton of memorization work on opening theory, because you will be facing opponents who have been doing that work already, sometimes for decades. Those opponents will gain advantages (sometimes winning advantages) over you right from the 5-10+ first moves, just because they played the memorized perfect chess moves for that opening, and you haven't. Some people have tried to debunk the argument by saying that if Chess 960 becomes the main chess game, it will also start to have opening theory and will face the same issues. I think these people don't really understand what they are saying. Just think about how much opening theory and memorization work you have to do currently for just 1 single starting position. Of course you could eventually, decades from now, have the same kind of exhaustive opening theory for the 960 starting positions, but humans won't be able to memorize it as well as they do for 1 single position. That's just way too much information and Chess 960 will be about creativity and talent probably forever, unless humans evolve and their brain become like machines and/or they can live for hundreds of years (to memorize all that). Therefore, players of Chess 960 will have to work on the most beautiful chess qualities : improvisation, intuition, tactics, general strategical ideas, and end game mastery. Meùorizing the first 5-10+ moves of a given opening will be a thing of the past.
I used to agree with your sentiment when i first started chess, but now that i've gotten better, i disagree. I disagree because opening theory is just one aspect of a game in chess. Yes, everyone who plays a game will have to go through the opening. However, if the opening was such a big deal, everyone would be able to draw in the middle or end-game on an equal position board, or win when they have an advantage out of the opening, which is just not true. I can see how it is discouraging though when players do not know what they don't know about openings and everyone talks about openings they are fond of like they know everything. Imo the truth is either they dont know anything or they know a lot cause they play chess a lot lol 😄 The secret to knowing openings is to just play something, keep experimenting, and to have fun!
@@ggblee Actually, you're not disagreeing with the point of my comment, you're confirming it. I never said that opening theory was the main aspect of standard chess. What I said is that it is a *necessary* component of it, and it takes A LOT of time to memorize it. And people who don't do that tedious memorization work are at a disadvantage compared to people who spend countless hours/days/years doing it. The point is that, for me, tedious memorization of opening theory shouldn't be a requisite for being good at a well-designed chess game. Hence why I think chess960 is a superior game to standard chess. But chess960 is probably never going to become popular, at least not in our lifetime, because people interesting in chess are already too used to standard chess, and they've already spent those countless hours learning opening theory for that one starting position, and they don't want all this tedious work to go to waste.
Intuition, yes. Talent, yes. Creativity, no. Creativity has absolutely nothing to do with chess, computer or not.
@@Elrog3 Creativity is a very loose term, you can fit many things into it. Devising a strategy from a completely new position you've never seen before requires creativity. Conversely, copying openings and strategies from memorised positions that you studied in books or videos, doesn't require creativity, just a god sense of understanding and a good memory.
@@Nata-ch2bk I wouldn't classify deductive reasoning as creativity.
Bobby Fischer reacts to 5D Chess with Multiverse Time Travel.
This is priceless. The thing I like about Naka's play is that it is not cold calculation. Unfortunately that leaves him vulnerable to Magnus. Also, I think that is what Bobby is talking about. The captions and Naka's reactions to them are very entertaining..
Morphy and Fisher were the best minds to ever play chess and they both mastered then rejected the game.
they both transcended chess....... there is no current GM who has even come close intellectually
no they arent, not even close. Kasparov, Karpov and Carlsen are much much better.
this is so wrong its funny@@chandie5298
You have to stop thinking one dimensionally to understand this
Fischer taught himself chess to the world-champion level and used his own self-taught chess to beat the Soviet chess machine. That in itself makes him the greatest of all time.
agree
@Neal DoubleAA he did beat him. Carlsen drew one game and lost all other games.
What do you mean self-taught?? Thats the dumbest shit ever. Fischer literally learned russian just so that he could learn from the russian legends before him. He read book after book. He was amazing, but definitely not self-taught.
@Neal DoubleAA yeah I doubt he spoke the language though, probably just the very basic chess vocabulary
It's certainly a compelling case for BF being the G.O.A.T. My own view is that he is the greatest, but that's just my view. Bobby's respect for Morphy was always evident. In many interviews through the years Morphy was Bobby's reference point.
"Best thing since puffed weed" Wait till he finds out about the Bongcloud opening.
he literally invented it😔
@@bruh7679 I call it the King Sashay because the Bongcloud is one pawn move and one king move while the King Sashay is two pawn moves followed by five or six king moves.
@@orlock20 I think it's fair to say he came up with the basic idea, but I think his underlying purpose was different. Fisher just wanted to take the game out of "book moves" as soon as possible to get away from what he talks about in this clip (assuming that was Fisher playing online it's never been verified). The BC is meant to disorient your opponent and, perhaps, make them overconfident.
@@denisdooley1540 Also to intimidate them in today’s meta
"I really find it not okay that you're making fun of this man. I mean, sorry, even if I agree with you that Bobby Fischer wasn't the best of all time, he's still the reason why chess has become so popular, and nowadays such high prize money is possible. After all, he was the undisputed number one of his generation, which can't be claimed for you. You'll forever remain only number four. Ha ha ha, how amusing."
a wild Leonardo Davinci appears
He's basically saying the chess is stuck in the exact same meta forever. I get his frustration.
Yeah I don't really understand everyone acting like he's crazy in this clip. He's actually right. Chess IS becoming stale. It's not there yet. But it's a dying game. It needs variation, the meta needs to be changed. Theory ruins the game over time. Especially as more and more people learn the theory. Whether it be randomized pieces, or a bigger board, or anything, eventually it needs variation.
Individuals love to rag on the dude, yet I agree completely with you here...I heard nothing in this clip that is off, or not applicable to the subject he is discussing. It’s as if he’s treated as a bum, who’s opinion suddenly became invalidated. Asking Michael Jordan’s opinion on the game of basketball now would be similar, one would think that individuals would respect his opinions on it, even if they were negative as he would have earned the right to hold those opinions. Respect should be an obvious here, yet most people lack it for Fischer, yet jump to lay it on other “sports” figures.
Of course he is right. This is 21st century. The opening theory should be one part of chess history of the last century..
Great point! Maybe next time the game organizers should declare which variant will be the format the titled players have to compete, every season. This way, the players will have to work with new variations, making memorization less important. Chess nowadays has so many creative variants, if all organizers can enforce this, it could be possible.
Actually a very thought provoking convo with fisher who is clearly having one of his more lucid episodes. Would've actually preferred to watch this interview with Hikaru laughing in the corner...
You can, it's on KZhead. Just search for it.
@@nicbentulan yes, most people seem to have understood that
Bobby predicted what chess is becoming!
I agree with most everything Fischer said, and Hikaru was arguing past him with his finance analogy (Fischer never argued Chess was the only thing changed by technological advancements, he was arguing that talent/creativity had become less important than a willingness to memorize every computationally-derived optimal path. Additionally, I think one could argue that tech's effect on finance could actually be supportive of Fischer's main point (that the computer takes the talent/creativity out of the game since anyone can memorize all the computationally-derived optimal strategies) because today with index funds anyone can get good results without having any talent/skill simply by utilizing the optimal strategy of indexing.
Exactly, thank you for pinpointing the glaring flaw in Hikaru's argument!