Showing posts with label David T. Noyes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David T. Noyes. Show all posts

Saturday, February 2, 2019

E = mc2: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences

INTELLIGENCE — Photo by David Bruce, used under Creative Commons License. (Inscription carved by Roger Babson at Dogtown Common, Gloucester, Massachusetts, about 1930)

Presented to the Club by David Noyes on Monday evening, November 26, 2018

NEWS FLASH from the front page of the Boston Globe May 21, 2018:

“Massachusetts ponders hiring a computer to grade MCAS essays. Each year, students generate more than six million essays requiring a small army of graduate students, educators, and other professionals to read and score them — a laborious task that takes most of the summer. In an effort to speed up the delivery of the MCAS results to schools and families, the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is exploring the option of replacing human test scorers with a computer program. This technology would help the state deliver the results in the summer instead of the fall so that schools could analyze the results and make any necessary adjustments before the school year begins. “

Yes, that’s correct. It’s possible that no human eye would ever see a student’s effort. Can you imagine the Board of Trustees of the Nobel Prize Committee submitting their choices for the Literature Prize to the same algorithm!

Last year Martin gave an intriguing, thought provoking, yet somehow, disquieting presentation about Artificial Intelligence. Tonight, I would like to discuss: Native Intelligence.

I can distinctly remember being in seventh grade, studying what was then called “New Math”. (To this day, I really can’t explain what was “new” about it) We had a two-inch thick paper back workbook with lessons, examples, and problems to be solved. I can even remember our teacher — Mrs. Mansfield. She was spry, agile, and always impeccably dressed. But we took turns guessing what color her otherwise naturally white hair was going to be on Monday morning. Sometimes it had a slight pinkish tone — other times a blue pattern. Once, I recall her head having a distinct green halo.

I soon discovered that I had a knack for this subject and relished the challenge. But I was also struck by how non-universal that experience was. For the first time, I recall being mystified that another student struggled to understand a concept which seemed so obvious to me.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Van Gogh's Irises: How much is a painting worth?



Presented to the Club by David T. Noyes in December 1988

I would like to ask you to think about the items on the following list. Can you identify what they have in common?

  1. Two F-16 fighter jets
  2. The Town of West Stockbridge, Mass.
  3. 3,448 Williams College students
  4. the largest private estate in the United States — the 250 room Biltmore House on 12,000 acres in Ashville, N.C.
  5. The City of Pittsfield
  6. The entire world’s mining production of mercury for one year

We’ll come back to this list in a moment.

A little over a year ago, on November 11, 1987, the art auction house of Sotheby’s in New York City auctioned a painting depicting a garden of blue irises painted in 1889 by Vincent Van Gogh. It was lot number twenty-five in a ninety-four piece evening. A crowd of 2,300 people had gathered in the cramped bidding room with intense anticipation; and at 7:55 p.m., Irises was brought on stage. The bidding started at fifteen million dollars. At thirty million, only two bidders remained. The price then passed forty million, the previous highest price paid for any painting. The bidding finally concluded at forty-nine million dollars. The total elapsed time: three minutes, thirty seconds!  Including the ten percent buyer’s commission, the total price came to fifty-three million dollars, or in real money — eight billion yen!

Thursday, December 8, 2016

Neapolitan Children Bathing: The stories of John Singer Sargent and Robert Sterling Clark

Neapolitan Children Bathing, by John Singer Sargent

Presented to the Club by David T. Noyes on Monday evening, December 5, 2016

Can you remember when the only building housing the Clark Art Institute was the stark, austere, imposing, lonely, marble fortress set back from the street on a knoll in Williamstown? After moving to Pittsfield in 1981, Sue and I made many trips to take in Sterling Clark’s collection. There was no food service at the Museum in those days, so we might grab lunch at the (now defunct) Howard Johnson’s, or have a sandwich at Papa Charlie’s Deli on Spring Street. No visit was complete without admiring this small painting—also titled Innocence Abroad; or Boys on a Beach, Naples, painted in 1879 by John Singer Sargent.

This 11” x 16” canvas shows children enjoying a beautiful sunny day at the beach. Two boys—one with a towel over his face, the other on his stomach with his head propped up on his hand—lie near two other, much younger boys standing. The boy at the center, wearing water wings, looks as though he is trying to get up the courage to wade into the rolling surf. Out in the water, a head bobbing above the rolling waves shows us a swimmer. The only interruption of the blue sky is the sailboat on the horizon. The smallest child, still showing the chubbiness of babyhood, looks outward engaging the viewer, thereby inviting us into their realm. The use of a completely frontal stance became a hallmark of Sargent’s painting as he felt this gave a more powerful image and made a more direct connection with the viewer. The children are all relaxed, and self absorbed—the very epitome of childhood innocence.

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

La Moria Grandissima: the Black Death of the 14th Century

Presented to the Club by David T. Noyes on Monday evening, Dec. 1, 2014


Current news reports are filled with alarms of the Ebola virus. In the recent past, we have been warned about SARS, AIDS, Mad Cow Disease, Lyme disease, and multiply drug resistant bacteria such as MRSA. But tonight, I’d like to take you back 670 years to the mid fourteenth century to the most infamous scourge of all time—La moria grandissima. This is what the medieval Europeans called the Great Mortality, medieval Muslims named the Year of Annihilation, and modern history refers to the Black Death.

First, some definitions. The incidence of a disease is the number of new cases of a disease that occur over a defined time period. An epidemic, then, is defined as occurring when the incidence of a disease escalates beyond what would normally be expected in a given population.  The term pandemic means that a given disease has extended to more than one continent.

There are Common Source Epidemics, usually coming from a contaminated water or food source. This was the case of the cholera outbreak seen in Haiti after the catastrophic magnitude 7.0 earthquake in January of 2010. Or many of you may recall the Pittsfield, Massachusetts “Beaver Fever” Giardiasis outbreak over the three months beginning November, 1985 through January of 1986, when there were 703 confirmed cases of the disease originating from the contaminated City reservoir. (As an aside, Harold Hutchins did a paper of the same title that year—but, true to Monday Evening Club tradition, the subject turned out to be a discussion of the pre-American Revolution trapping industry in the upper Midwest!)

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Why are you laughing? — an exploration of the nature of humor

Photo by eliastar, used under Creative Commons License

Presented to the Club by David T. Noyes on Monday evening, Oct. 22, 2012
A new pastor was visiting the homes of his parishioners.
At one house it seemed obvious that someone was at home, but no answer came to his repeated knocks at the door. Therefore, he took out a card and wrote "Revelation 3:20" on the back of it and stuck it in the door. 
When the offering was processed the following Sunday, he found that his card had been returned. Added to it was this cryptic message: “Genesis 3:10." 
Reaching for his Bible to check out the citation, he found that Revelation 3:20 begins "Behold, I stand at the door and knock." Genesis 3:10 reads, "I heard your voice in the garden and I was afraid, for I was naked.
Humor. What makes us laugh? I have come to the conclusion in the process of writing this paper that it’s terribly hard to define. And unlike Justice Potter Stewart’s comment about pornography, I don’t always “know it when I see it.” Something I might find hilarious may not even bring a smirk to your face. And vice versa! 

Sunday, June 26, 2011

What are you reading? John Irving’s fictional landscape

Presented to the Club on June 13, 2011 by David T. Noyes

"What are you reading?" Such was the signature greeting of my mentor, Dr. Guy W. Leadbetter, Chief of Urology at the University of Vermont Medical School. Of course, despite the rigorous health sciences program of Medical School, and a residency training program consuming 80 or more hours a week caring for patients, he was not referring to academics. He wanted to know what I was reading for fun. What imaginary story of intrigue was capturing my interest? Or, perhaps, whose biography was garnering my attention. He didn’t care that the book might not be great or famous or even popular — only that he felt it was critically important to be stimulating one’s mind with something other than medicine. He himself was a great fan of Louis L’Amour — the American author who described his novels as “Frontier Stories.” I believe Dr. Leadbetter claimed to have read all 105 of L’Amour’s books.

This was the same man who, following any conference presentation, challenged each individual in the audience with the requirement to have a question at the ready. His caveat: “If you don’t have a question, then you weren’t paying attention.” (Kind of reminds you a bit of the Monday Evening Club, doesn’t it?)

When I entered medical school, I was certain I wanted to be a pediatrician. At that time, the third year curriculum required two months of OB/GYN, two months of psychiatry, two months of pediatrics, three months of medicine and three months of surgery. After serving on the Pediatric hospital ward for the first of the two required months, I was even surer that this was the career path I would take. However, the second month in a local pediatrician’s office, proved to be my undoing — one screaming child after another. Talk about cluster headaches at the end of the day! I simply couldn’t manage it.

It was during my surgery rotation, that I first encountered Dr. Leadbetter. At that time, he was in his early 50s. He had written five lead articles for the New England Journal of Medicine. He had conceived, and invented two different pediatric urologic operations — one for severe incontinence, the other for ureteral reflux. Tireless in his pursuit of achieving the best possible outcomes for his patients, he expected 110 percent effort from his staff, but only because he lead by example. A giant in the field, he would go on to become the president of the American Urologic Association.

Sunday, March 14, 2010

A Centennial Celebration (of Sherlock Holmes in 1987)

Presented to the Club by David T. Noyes in 1987

Allow me to transport you back in time 100 years to the year 1887. Grover Cleveland is President. The U.S. Congress establishes the Interstate Commerce Commission and first leases Pearl Harbor as a naval station. The Marine Biological Laboratory is founded at Wood’s Hole and Frank Sprague builds the first successful electric trolley line. Joseph Pulitzer is earning his reputation as editor of the New York World. The winning horse in the Kentucky Derby brings his owner $4,200, and betting at the track becomes legal in New York State. The fastest time for the one-mile run stands at 4:21.4. The Monday Evening Club is closing in on the end of its second decade.

On the world scene, Van Gogh and Toulouse-Lautrec are in their prime. Verdi opens his opera Otello in Milan. St Petersburg enjoys the premiers of Rimsky-Korsakov and Tchaikovsky. Queen Victoria celebrates her Golden Jubilee.

It is also the year that a tall, trim athletic 26-year-old doctor gave the world its first consulting detective, Sherlock Holmes. Like many others, I first came to admire this character as a 12-year-old adolescent. On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of his creation, I would like to share with you tonight some of my thoughts about Sherlock Holmes and his creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Naulakha: Kipling in America


Presented to the Club in 1990 by David T. Noyes

My parents have been in the process of cleaning out their home of the last 36 years — the home in which I grew up. They were preparing to sell it and retire to Cape Cod, with some winter traveling in warmer climates, but the downward spiral in the real estate market has postponed their plans for the time being.

As part of the clean up process, several large cartons of old dusty items were dropped off at our house. Return delivery was not an option! Because I was now a homeowner, surely I had room to store all these “treasures:” costumes from a first grade play, comic books, Red Sox programs featuring Pete Runnels, Pumpsie Green, and Frank Malzone. There were also report cards, Boy Scout badges, family trip souvenirs. Bazooka Bubblegum wrappers (you know — the ones advertising trinkets such as rabbit feet for 25 cents plus 250 wrappers).

But there was also a faded yellow and frayed edged children’s anthology that I recognized immediately. Here was the real treasure: Childhood memories of many evening’s bedtime stories.

I sometimes wonder if I actually recall certain childhood events or if I’ve just been told some incidents so often that I have incorporated them as memories. However, I clearly remember asking over and over again for my parents to read my favorite: “The Elephant’s Child”. The cynic in me says that I chose it because it was the longest tale in this book or that the choice was influenced by my mother’s being an English teacher. But, in reality, it is still today my favorite children’s story. I have to confess that it was not until I started to read to my own children that I realized that Rudyard Kipling was the author. Somehow, his work had been totally lacking during my formal education. The teachers of my generation apparently did not value memorization of poems or passages of literature, whereas I suspect many of you can remember, even now, some passage you were required to recite. It is for this reason that I didn’t realize Kipling is perhaps more famous for his verse than his prose. At the [Berkshire] Athenaeum [in Pittsfield, Mass.], I was delighted to find not only Kipling in print, but several wonderful readings on tape.

To refresh your memories, “The Elephant’s Child” is the story in which, O Best Beloved, the elephant gains a trunk. Elephants had noses that were “blackish, bulgy and as big as a boot, that could wriggle from side to side” but were not useful extremities. Because a young elephant is filled with “ ’satiable curiosity” and makes a nuisance of himself by asking too many questions, his African family members take turns spanking him. When he can no find a satisfactory answer locally, he sets off to discover what the crocodile has for dinner, and comes to the banks of the “great grey-green greasy Limpopo River all set about with fever trees.” Here he meets the Bicolored Python Rock Snake who proceeds to spank the elephant with his “scalesome, flailsome tail.” Soon the elephant has his encounter with the crocodile who bites down on the trunk. In the tug of war that follows the trunk stretches. Of course the Bicolored Python Rock Snake helps him to realize that the trunk will be very useful for picking up food, showering, and perhaps, most importantly, to exact a spanking revenge on all his family members.

Isn’t this the dream of all children: to turn disadvantage to advantage; to get even with the schoolyard bully? No wonder it’s such a favorite.

As you may know Kipling does have a New England connection. If we can stretch the boundaries of the Berkshires to Brattleboro, Vermont, perhaps we can claim him for our own!

He was born in 1865 in Bombay, India. His father was an artist and sculptor, working as head of an art department. At the age of six he was sent to London to live with a couple who were chosen from a newspaper ad. It was five years before his mother returned and rescued him for the continual beatings he was given (remember “The Elephant’s Child”).

Upon completion of his formal schooling, he returned to India to work for a newspaper. At the age of 21, he began to produce the writing that made him famous. Apparently, he was able to interview soldiers and subsequently write detailed accounts of battle without ever having experienced war himself, thereby breaking what I was taught was one of the cardinal rules of writing.

By the age of 25, he was back in London, and had published numerous poems including “Gunga Din” and “The Ballad of East and West.” When Tennyson died in 1892, the office of Poet Laureate became vacant. Kipling was passed over for this post in favor of Alfred Austin, a little known journalist.

Kipling had a general mistrust of publishers. Several of his stories were pirated and sold as editions. Apparently it was not clear what copyright laws protected magazine articles and he received no compensation for these anthologies. However, Wolcott Balestier, a literary agent for John Lovell Publishing Co., gained Rudyard’s trust and they became close friends. Wolcott was the eldest child of the Ballestier family of Brattleboro, Vermont. Shortly after Wolcott died a tragic early death from typhoid fever, Rudyard married Wolcott’s younger sister , Carrie. They were married in London, and Henry James gave the bride away.

The newlyweds arrived in New York and took the train for Vermont. They were greeted by Carrie’s brother, Betty. The countryside was snow-covered and the temperature was minus 30 degrees! Kipling describes his first encounter with New England:
A walrus sitting on a woolpack was our host in his sleigh, and he wrapped us in hairy goatskin coats, caps that came down over the ears, buffalo-robes and blankets, and yet more buffalo-robes till we, too, looked like walruses and moved almost as gracefully. But for the jingle of the sleigh-bells the ride might have taken place in a dream, for there was no sound of hoofs upon the snow. The runners sighed a little now and again as they glided over an inequality, and all the sheeted hills round about were as dumb as death.
When Kipling awoke the next day and took in the view of Mount Monadnock, which he knew to be Ralph Waldo Emerson’s favorite mountain, he wanted to make Vermont his permanent home. Beatty sold Rudyard eleven acres of rolling fields which included frontage on the Connecticut River and wonderful views of Monadnock. Kipling quickly started planning their dream house, Naulakha. This is the name of a fabulous Indian Jewel worn by a Hindu Maharajah and literally translates as 900,000 rubies. Kipling described his new home as “riding on a hillside like a little boat on the flank of a far wave.” His 1894 earnings of $25,000 allowed him to complete the house of his dreams.

He wrote in his library from 9 to 1, and did not allow visitors during that time. He said, “I have time, light, and quiet, three things hard to come by in London.” Captains Courageous, the only one of his stories in which all the characters are typical Americans in an American setting, The Seven Seas, and both Jungle Books were written there. Kipling wrote to E. L. White in 1894: “I wonder if people get a tithe of the fun out of the tales that I get in doing them.”

Rudyard continued to travel and meet people. On a visit to Washington D. C., he met President Cleveland and became disillusioned by the dishonesty in government. He subsequently described Theodore Roosevelt as a champion of manliness and enemy of pretentious shams. Kipling also returned to England to visit his parents, but, while there, he kept Vermont close to his heart. He wrote to a friend:
Real warmth at last, and it waked in me a lively desire to be back in Main Street, Brattleboro, Vermont, U. S. A. and hear the sodywater fissing in the drug-store and discuss the outlook for the Episcopalian Church with the clerk; and hear the doctor tell fish-yarns, and have the iron-headed old farmers loaf up and jerk out: “Bin in Yurope haint yer?” and then go home, an easy gait, and the fireflies playing up and down the Swamp Road and Katy-dids giving oratorios, free, gratis and for nothing to the wippoorwill, and everybody sitting out on the verandah after dinner, smoking Durham tobacco in a cob pipe, with our feet on the verandah railings and the moon coming up.
However, the Kiplings did not associate with many of the locals. Rudyard did play golf with the minister of the Congregational Church, but did not attend services. He felt he was being stared at. One rumor suggested that he spent Sundays writing hymns, which gave him a mystical status and relieved him of being thought irreligious.

Vermont did not prove to be Utopia. As Kipling’s fame grew, so did the numbers of autograph seekers. The Kiplings ventured out less and less and came to be viewed as snooty by the locals. Visitors to Naulakha were almost exclusively out-of-towners, and included Arthur Conan Doyle among others.

Moreover, Beatty began to be a problem. He was drinking heavily and in debt. He had been hired by the Kiplings as caretaker of Naulakha, but was discovered taking money from this account for personal use. In 1896 Beatty filed for bankruptcy. Rudyard inflamed the situation by disparaging Beatty in the local tavern. Beatty then threatened to kill Rudyard if he didn’t apologize. Trying to turn the tables Rudyard pressed charges of “indecent and opprobrious epithets, and threatening to kill.” Beatty made bail and immediately wired the news to the leading newspapers, all of which were eager for the story. Kipling’s precious privacy was lost. The American press sided with Beatty, seeing this as the story of a famous, wealthy Englishman trying to throw his unsuccessful brother-in-law into jail to avoid the embarrassment of having to live next door to him. The outcome of the case became irrelevant; Kipling had made a fool of himself. He decided he had to leave Vermont, and wrote to a friend in England, “there are only two places in the world I want to live, Bombay and Brattleboro. And I can’t live at either.”

He lived the remainder of his life in England and South Africa, where he became good friends with Cecil Rhodes. When Rhodes died, Kipling became a trustee of the Rhodes Scholarships. He continued to refuse public honors, as he thought this might compromise his complete independence to say what he felt needed to be said. Thus he refused knighthood twice and was passed over in favor of Bridges for Poet Laureate in 1913. He refused to be president of the Authors Society, but in 1926 the Royal Society of Literature awarded Kipling their gold medal which had been given previously only to Walter Scott, George Meredith and Thomas Hardy. Kipling accepted the Nobel prize for literature — the first Englishman to be so honored.

He also enjoyed the all male companionship of a number of exclusive London clubs. However, he found that he could not partake in the luxuries of the table without severe abdominal pains and thus spent the last 25 years of his life on strict, bland diet. Of course, his two pack per day smoking habit persisted and in 1936, at the age of 70, his ulcer perforated caused his death.

Throughout his life he adored children, reminding visitors to bring their own whenever they came. He was especially close to his own three children and was devastated when his first born daughter died of scarlet fever at the age of eight in 1900. In 1915 his son John, became a casualty of the War and his body was never recovered. Despite these tragedies, or perhaps because of them, Kipling pursued youthful writing. However, he wrote, “I worked the material in three or four overlaid tints and textures, which might or might not reveal themselves according to the shifting light of sex, youth, and experience. The tales had to be read by children before people realized that they were meant for grown-ups.”

While I would not categorize our Monday evening’s topics as bedtime stories, where else can I experience the pure pleasure of being read to!

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Dynasty: The brilliance of Bobby Fischer


Presented to the Club November 24, 2008 by David T. Noyes

I would like to dedicate this paper to Roger Linscott. When I became a member of this club 23 years ago, I was told he was a curmudgeon (perhaps, if one is a Pulitzer Prize winner, one is entitled to be a curmudgeon.) and that he once offered the comment that a certain paper was not worthy of the Monday Evening Club. I lived in mortal dread that he might say the same thing about one of my papers. Consequently, I tried my best to be sure he would not make such a comment about one of my efforts. So, Roger, here’s to you.

If one looks up the word Dynasty on Google, the first three “hits” refer to the television show of that name. It was a prime time soap opera that ran for nine years in the 1980’s, starring George Peppard, John Forsyth and Joan Collins with guest appearances by Gerald and Betty Ford as well as Henry Kissinger. (It’s interesting that we no longer start papers by using a dictionary definition, but rather by describing what is found on Google). As for dynasty regarding television, probably nothing competes with the 50 year reign of The Price is Right. But I’m sure to Dick Nunley’s relief, television is not the topic of this endeavor.

In the governmental realm, we could talk about the Chinese Ming Dynasty or the Egyptian Pharoah Dynasties. Or if we wanted to expand the definition to include a dimension of breadth along with length we could talk about Empire, as in: “the sun never sets on the British Empire.”
In the business world we might associate dynasty with monopoly (think Microsoft), or just hugeness of scale (think Exxon-Mobile). And as with government dynasties there have been some failures here as well (think U.S. Steel or Polaroid). With the rise of the Euro, we may also be nearing the end of the economic reign of the U.S. Dollar.

In the sports realm, we could discuss Al Oerter’s four consecutive Olympic gold medals in the Discuss throw. Or Bob Beamon’s shattering of the world record in the long jump by almost 2 feet at a time when records were broken in fractions of an inch—40 years later his jump is still the Olympic Record. Of course Boston Celtic fans will point to their 17 World Championships. But for pure longevity, the 133 year run of the New York Yacht Club’s hold on the America’s Cup, from 1852 to 1983, must surely be considered dynastic.

(OK, I’ve now given you permission to discuss politics, sports, business, the economy, or TV—so there should be plenty of option for the post paper comments!)

Bobby Fischer died a lonely exile’s death earlier this year at the age of 64, in Reykjavik, Iceland. He was that most perplexing of human characters—an enormous genius and a repellent man. He was an American enigma who, at the height of the Cold War, single handedly destroyed the Russian chess dynasty. Even today, 36 years after his historic victory, he remains the only American to have ever held the title of World Chess Champion.

Robert J. Fischer was born March 9, 1943 in Chicago. His parentage, like much of his life, was somewhat convoluted and mysterious. His mother Regina, though raised in St.
Louis, was born in Switzerland of Polish-Jewish parentage. After graduating from the University of Colorado, she moved to Germany and then to Moscow where she lived for five years studying medicine. She married a German biophysicist, Hans Gerhardt Fischer. They had a daughter Joan, five years Bobby’s senior. Bobby’s birth Certificate states that Hans is Bobby’s father. And the conventional history records that Regina and Hans separated when Bobby was two years old. As historians have delved into the Fischer history, however, they discovered that when the family came back to the United States in 1939, Hans was refused entry and ended up in Chile. Although Regina kept in contact with Hans,—they never saw each other again.

In 1942 Regina had an affair with a Hungarian-Jewish mathematician, Paul Nemenyi. Many years later, to Bobby’s complete surprise, it became generally understood that Nemenyi—who had secretly paid monthly child support to Regina, was Bobby’s biological father. Thus both of Bobby’s parents were, in fact, Jewish .

In the early post war period, Regina, a single parent, found herself doing a variety of jobs, in a variety of locations to make ends meet. She was a stenographer, a typist, and a shipyard welder in Portland Oregon. She taught elementary school in Los Angeles, and subsequently, in a small rural town in Arizona. By 1948 the family found itself moving to Brooklyn, New York so Regina could study for a master’s degree in nursing at NYU and start a career as a nurse. Of course New York was the chess capital of America. Was this a fateful move or would Bobby have become enamored of chess even if his family had stayed in Arizona?

Bobby and Joan apparently were very close. At ages 6 and 11 the two entertained themselves during the many hours that Regina was out of the house by playing a variety of board games--Monopoly, Parcheesi and finally chess. It is said that the two of them taught themselves how to play. Bobby recalled later “At first it was just a game like any other only a little more complicated”

Bobby soon became so engrossed in the game that Regina feared he was spending too much time alone. As Bobby’s obsession persisted, she took him to the Children’s Psychiatric Division of the Brooklyn Jewish Hospital. Dr Harold Kline only told her there were a lot worse preoccupations.

Eventually Bobby came under the tutelage of Carmine Nigro, president of the Brooklyn chess club. On nights the club was closed, Bobby pressed his mother to take him to Washington Square Park where players ranged from the Wall Street Stockbrokers to the beer-drinking homeless. (If you have seen the movie “Searching for Bobby Fischer”, you will recall such a scene.)

But Fischer was no instant prodigy. He spent many hours discussing strategy and outcomes with other noted chess masters. And avidly began the gigantic task of devouring the chess literature libraries of several mentors. It was not until 1954, at age eleven, that Bobby himself said he “just got good”. In July 1956 he won the Junior Chess Championship—the youngest to ever do so. A year later he won both the U.S. Junior championship for a second consecutive year and the U.S. Open Championship in Cleveland (on tie-breaking points). And a few months later, in January of 1958, he won the U.S. Championship title. He was three months shy of his fifteenth birthday. The chess world hummed with talk of Fischer. Was he an authentic genius? A reporter asked Bobby if he considered himself the best chess player in the U.S. He replied, “No, one tournament doesn’t mean that much.”

He was attracting headlines and becoming increasingly famous. He appeared on the television program “I’ve Got a Secret”. (His secret was that he was the U.S. Chess Champion.) He wrote a regular column on chess for “Boy’s Life” magazine. In one article he gave four tips on playing chess: 1, Concentrate; 2, Think ahead; 3, Learn from losing; 4, Study.

Back at Brooklyn’s Erasmus Hall High School, several of his classmates addressed him as “Master, Master Fischer”. Barbara Streisand was a classmate. A fellow student reported that Fischer would take out his pocket chess set and play over some games during class. When he was caught he would put the set away and stare into space in silence. His Geometry teacher remembers him as both a poor student and as antisocial. A teacher from the counseling office said: “Bobby’s I.Q. was in the 180’s. But he had no interest in schoolwork.” Apparently the only reading he pursued other than his chess material was comic books. Shortly after the required minimum age of 16, he left high school.

The next decade and a half of Fischer’s career was a protracted bumpy meandering trail toward the destination he most cared about—a seat at the World Championship Table. To become a challenger three hurdles had to be surmounted. First came the regional tournament, called the Zonal. Because the United States is a zone unto itself, the top three finishers in the U.S. Championship tournament go on to the next level—an international tournament, called the Interzonal. Finally, the six highest scoring players in the Interzonal would square off in a tournament known as the Candidates. The winner of the Candidates would challenge the world champion in a one-on-one match for the title. This cycle would repeat itself roughly every three years.

As the 1958 U.S. champion, Bobby qualified for the Interzonal in Yugoslavia where he won 6 games, lost 2 and finished 5th. As a result, still only 15, he became the youngest international grandmaster in history.

By his late teenage years, Bobby was showing signs of the personality that would make him forever dreaded as well as respected. In this period government documents contain a report that “the State Department did not want him overseas as a representative of the U.S.” His relationship with his mother had deteriorated to the point that she moved out to live with a friend, leaving him alone. Visitors reportedly found him living amid chaos, clothes strewn on the floor, chess books and magazines everywhere. There were four bedrooms in the family homestead. He is said to have slept in a different bed each night—a chessboard beside each one. He was filled with a boastful confidence that he was the best chess player in the world—and told everyone so. He was completely consumed by the goal of winning the world championship. Fischer admitted that being so single minded was a problem “because you’re kind of out of touch with real life. I’ve thought of giving it up, off and on, but then I always consider: What else could I do?”

Fischer’s demands began to escalate. His attendance became conditional upon outrageously high appearance fees—event organizers understood the American added glamour and stimulated public interest—so they somehow found the money. Fischer always maintained that his ambition was to get rich. “I am only interested in chess and money.” Cash was about status and control. If he was offered 5 he wanted 10; if he was offered 20 he wanted 50. His incessant financial demands were not well received in Europe where emphasis on money was considered embarrassing or even vulgar.

Playing conditions had to be up to Bobby’s rigorous standards. The lighting had to be just so. The crowd had to be kept far enough back to limit noise. Rounds had to be prearranged so as to accommodate his religious practice. Fischer had become involved in the Worldwide Church of God, though he never formally joined. Based in Pasadena California, this was a rapidly growing fundamentalist sect. Followers believed in bodily Baptismal immersion, strict interpretation of the Old Testament, Judaic dietary laws, and a Sabbath that starts on Friday at sundown and lasts until Saturday at sundown. During this period followers had virtually no contact with anyone and fasted. Bobby likely imposed his personal interpretation on the rules of the Church as he chose to ignore entirely the Church’s prohibition of “frivolous” board games. But he did refuse to play chess during his 24 hour Sabbbath.

In 1962 Fischer finished first in the Interzonal in Stockholm. He was the first non-Soviet to win an Interzonal. Thus he qualified for the Candidates tournament being held in Curacao, the Dutch West Indies later that year. He was considered one of the favorites. But he had a terrible start, and although he managed to claw his way back, he finished fourth. Commentators said Fischer was either off form or had not achieved full chess maturity. The would-be champion had another explanation, one that revealed his belief in his invincibility: Since he had not won, he must have been the victim of a conspiracy.

In a Sports Illustrated article, Bobby charged the Soviet players with collusion. All twelve games involving two Russian players ended as draws—many of them quickly. Bobby maintained that they had conspired to settle these games to conserve their intellectual and physical energies for matches against non Soviets—Fischer in particular. He concluded, “Russian control of chess has reached a point where there can be no honest competition for the World Championship.” Grandmaster Victor Korchnoi—then a Soviet—indicated that the allegation was true. However, other analysts have said that it was absurd to accuse the Soviets of cheating. Of course they had agreed to draws—they were ahead in the tournament and Fischer’s complaint was “sour grapes”. Fischer stated he would not compete for the 1966 world championship unless the rules were changed to prevent collusion. The International Chess Federation in a brave attempt to remedy Fischer’s complaint voted to radically reform the format from a round robin schedule to a series of knockout/single elimination matches. They also ruled for the first time since 1866, that for the world championship match itself, draws would not count. The title would go to the first person to win six games, no matter how many games that might take. Previously the champion had to accumulate 12 points to retain his crown, while the challenger had to win 12 1/2. One point for a win, ½ point for a draw. It was, therefore, technically possible for the reigning champion to make the tactical defensive decision to play for a draw in all the games and thereby win the championship without actually beating his challenger in a single game. It would not be the last time Bobby would get his way.

In December 1963 Bobby defended his U.S. Championship for the fifth time. Against 11 of the highest ranking players in the country, he won every game. It was an awesome historic performance. To win a national tournament is one thing, to win it six years in a row in another, but to win it without losing or even drawing a game was unprecedented. He had shown himself to be in a different league. Fellow grandmasters when asked to describe the trait that set Fischer apart, talked about his “will to win”. However Bobby responded: “I know people who have all the will in the world but can’t play good chess. You must have talent”. The Chess world was anxiously anticipating the Amsterdam Interzonal tournament of 1964. But Bobby was still raging against the “soviet swindlers” and refused to play. This meant it would be another three years before he might have a chance to realize his goal of being officially recognized as the best chess player in the world. Thus his fury turned in on himself and caused the rejection of what he wanted most. He did not play competitive chess for a year and a half. Despite pleas from many quarters, Bobby said: “I like to do what I want to do and not what other people want or expect me to do. This is what life is all about, I think”. At the age of 21, he had staged his first retirement.

Hate was among Fischer’s mechanisms for dealing with the world beyond the board. This hate could spring from the most trivial personal slight or from a worldview most would find bizarre. Once formed it was unshakable, he had no concept of forgiveness. After the Curacao tournament, his wariness and dislike of the Soviet Union slowly descended into a state of delusion. He said his aim for the world championship match was to teach the Soviets “a little humility”. Soviet players were not only “cheats” who were unfairly privileged by the support they received from the state, but they were out to get him personally. He felt the need to be vigilant, lest they try to poison his food and he worried about flying in case the Soviets had tampered with the engine.

Bobby also held anti-Semitic views—and was not shy about expressing them. He admired Adolph Hitler. Of course he himself was Jewish—but he firmly rejected that label. Once he discovered that he had been included in a list of famous Jews in the Encyclopedia Judaica, he wrote to the editor to declare how distressed this mistake had made him and to demand that it not be repeated. He was not and never had been Jewish, he said.

Of course, Bobby turned 21 in 1964, during the height of the Vietnam War. His status was 1-A. There had been some talk of his attending college, perhaps just to obtain the deferment. But his experience with school was so distasteful that he decided not to apply. Eventually he took his physical exam and was rejected for reasons that have never been made public.

Fischer’s next chance at his coveted prize came at the Interzonal held in Sousse, Tunesia in 1967. The tournament was beset by problems. Fischer complained the chandelier lighting was too glaring. At one point a photographer walked onto the stage while Bobby was playing—an obvious distraction. The officials told him nothing could be done as this man was the official photographer of the match. Although Fischer’s match ended in a draw, commentator’s analysis agreed the distraction caused deterioration in Bobby’s play. Fischer had won 6 of a possible seven points, and appeared to be unstoppable. But, he was scheduled to play the next 6 games in a row without a break day. No other player had a similar schedule. He had tried to communicate this problem with the tournament officials but they spoke only French. Bobby put his request in writing and it was denied. Why the request was denied or how the officials might otherwise have accommodated Fischer was not indicated. Because his needs were being totally ignored, Bobby withdrew from the tournament. Once again, his inability to deal with adverse rulings, or his interpretation that these rulings came in the form of a personal attack, prevented him from proceeding to the final qualifying round for the championship. “There is no obstacle to prevent Fischer from wending his way to the world’s championship…except Fischer himself” said one of his colleagues.

Bobby again disappeared from the world of chess for another 2 years. He refused to compete in the U.S. Championship because he said the field was not large enough. As the next opportunity to participate in the matches leading to the world championship approached in 1970, once again, his boycott meant he would not be able to achieve his lifelong goal. However, the leaders of the U.S. chess federation knew full well that the best hope of ultimately bringing an end to the dominant control the Russians had on the World Championship lay in Bobby Fischer. First they prevailed upon the International Chess Federation to be allowed to substitute Bobby for one of the three Americans who had earned the right to go to the Interzonal match by finishing in the top three of the U.S. Championship. Then they enticed Bobby by offering a guaranteed honorarium of $19,000—an unheard amount of money at that time. This was in addition to whatever prize money he might win, and his expenses would be paid for in the most luxurious hotels of his choosing.

And so began in 1970, the most miraculous year in the history of chess.

The Interzonal was held in Palma de Majorca. There were 24 competitors that analysts felt was the strongest field ever assembled. The top six would advance to the knockout stage—the Candidate match. Bobby won the tournament by the huge margin of 3 ½ points winning the last seven games in a row.

Now 27, he appeared as quite an imposing figure across the chessboard at 6ft., 2in. While other players might stretch their legs or move away from the table, Bobby would remain seated hunched forward over the board or leaning back with his long legs straight under the table, but always with his eyes boring deep into the squares, pieces and patterns. In no high-level sport does a player need to be tougher psychologically than in chess. In most sports nervousness dissipates in the flow of the action; in chess there are dangerously long pauses of time for second guessing. Most professional games last several hours. A match against the same opponent can go on for several weeks. A whole hour can pass waiting for an opponent to make a move, while the inevitable question nags constantly: Has a weakness been found? Yet Fischer has said: “I don’t believe in psychology—I believe in good moves.”

The beauty of Fischer’s style lies in his immense knowledge, his ability to calculate without error, his dependable memory, thoroughly rehearsed positions, and constant control. James Joyce Ulysses says: “A man of genius makes NO mistakes. His errors are purposeful, and are the portals to discovery.”

Bobby drew the Russian Mark Taimanov in the quarter finals of the Candidate matches. Taimanov thought Fischer was “too deeply convinced of his own genius”. However, Fischer won six straight games to dispatch his opponent. It is difficult to explain to non chess players the magnitude of such a shutout. A much more typical result between well matched players might be six wins to four with nine draws. Bobby had just beaten a world-class grandmaster by six games to none without a single draw. Analysts claimed his performance may have been the best ever recorded in a single competition.

His next opponent was the Dane Bent Larson. Once again Fischer won in six straight games.

Fischer’s final opponent on the quest to the Championship round was the previous world champion, Russian Tigan Petrosian. Their previous matches had yielded three victories apiece and 12 draws. Petrosian was known as the maestro of the draw. He shunned complexity, taking preemptive defensive measures whenever possible. When Bobby won the first game he had completed 20 consecutive grandmaster victories, without a loss or draw—a feat never accomplished before or since. Although he lost the next game, he ultimately prevailed by the impressive score of 6 1/2 points to 2 ½. Bobby had earned the chance to play Boris Spassky for the right to be formally acknowledged as what he knew himself to be--the best chess player in the world. Like Mohammed Ali, he had been telling everyone he was the greatest—now he would have to prove it. His compelling story was front page news. He had become a national hero.

But what of the Soviet domination of the sport. Along with the 1917 revolution, came the idea of the game as a socialist sport. Chess improved discipline; it taught patience, composure, and determination. It enhanced concentration, endurance and willpower. It sharpened and focused the mind. By 1938 several five-year plans had been achieved. Hundreds of experts began to receive stipends from the state. Major newspapers carried regular chess columns. The results were spectacular. In 1923 there were 1,000 registered chess players. By 1929 the number had risen to 150,000. By 1951—1 million, and by the mid 1960s—three million. The Soviets began their dominance by winning the world championship in 1937. Not only did they retain the championship for the next 35 years, but during this time the challenger for the crown was also a Russian—thereby guaranteeing that the championship remain in Soviet hands! This came to be seen as tangible proof that the communist system worked—something reliable that wouldn’t let the state down.

Similarly, you may recall how proud the Soviets were of Valerie Borzov in the 1972 Olympics. A white man winning a black man’s race—the 100 meter dash--for the title of World’s Fastest Man--a race that a Russian had never previously won. He had also been a product of the same state sponsored sports system. Again, proof positive for the Communist propaganda machine, that the Soviet Union’s socialist philosophy was far ahead of the West.

And so it was within this framework of Capitalism vs. Communism that negotiations to select a venue for the Fischer--Spassky match began. Earning the spot at the championship table was one thing, but getting there proved to be quite a challenge due to Fischer’s constant companion—controversy! According to International Chess Federation regulations, both the challenger’s and champion’s country had the right to host half the games. But Fischer was having none of that. “I won’t play in Russia, period—they would do everything to distract me.” So Fischer submitted a list of places he would play: Belgrade, Sarajevo, Buenos Aires, and Montreal. Spassky submitted Reykjavik, Amsterdam, Dortmund and Paris in that order. Ironically the Soviet first choice was a capitalist country and the American first choice was Communist. Fischer, as might be predicted, ultimately agreed to Reykjavik because that city offered the most prize money--$125,000—the equivalent of fifty cents for every man woman and child in Iceland! It is interesting to note that when Spassky beat Tigran Petrosian in Moscow for the title just three years earlier, the prize was s meager $1,400.

Of course, this was just the beginning of the controversy. Spassky belonged to a very elite club of players who actually had a winning record against Fischer. He had never lost to Bobby winning 4 and drawing 2 games. It has been surmised that, despite all of Bobby’s boastfulness, perhaps now that he was faced with the actual opportunity to prove himself, he realized he might fail. He raised objections to the amount of the prize money even though he had signed off on an agreement. He was scared away from his departing plane at JFK by the media crowd and thus did not make the flight in time for the official opening ceremony. He was threatened with disqualification—but perhaps he persisted with these antics because he considered that outcome preferable to losing?

Enter the US government. NATO ally Iceland stood to lose half a million dollars if the match did not occur. Thus an entreaty came to Secretary of State William Rogers from the prime minister of Iceland. Henry Kissinger made the call to Fischer and opened the conversation with these words: “This is the worst player in the world calling the best player in the world.” Apparently it worked—Fischer flew to Reykjavik the next day. Of course it probably didn’t hurt that a British millionaire, James Slater, offered to double the prize money to $250,000 if the match proceeded.

When Fischer visited the hall where the match was to be played, not much was to his liking. The $1,200 custom built mahogany table should have its legs shortened, the green and white marble chessboard was too shiny, the front rows of seats had to be removed, the camera towers had to be pushed back so far that filming would be nearly impossible, the lighting needed to be brighter. Icelandic officials noted that the only thing Fischer didn’t complain about was the air. However, they made the fateful error of trying to compromise on the camera position behind Fischer’s back.

On July 11th, precisely at 5 pm, the scheduled starting time, Spassky, playing with the white pieces made his first move. Fischer was not there—another of his by now infamous antics? No. Due to heavy traffic Fischer arrived 6 minutes late. He shook hands with Spassky, studied the board for 95 seconds and made his first move toward the championship.
As the time for adjournment approached at the five hour mark, the game appeared to be a draw. However, Fischer made what appeared to be an amateur’s mistake. Spassky, who had trained himself to not to betray emotion, appeared startled. Those pundits analyzing the match were equally dumbfounded. The match resumed the following day. Thirty-five minutes into the game, Fischer leaned back in his swivel chair and caught sight of the movie camera. He rabidly took off from the stage, calling the chief arbiter, Lother Schmid, a liar for saying the cameras had been removed when clearly they had not. If they were not removed immediately, Bobby would leave the match. Crushed by the force of Fischer’s vehemence, the arbiter complied, and the cameras vanished. When the dust finally settled, and play resumed, Bobby’s error from the previous day resulted in his losing the first game.

Enter the movie company which had paid big money for the exclusive rights to film the match and demands the access it was promised in their contract. Behind the walls a space is discovered in which the cameras could be hidden, but still see the board. Has the problem been finessed? No. Fischer learns that the cameras are still there and refuses to come to the hall for the second game.

The game is scheduled to begin at 5 pm. The Chief Arbiter, Schmid presses the clock on the dot. Rule 5 states, “If a player does not appear within one hour of the start of a game, he loses that game by forfeit.” The road between the hall and Fischer’s hotel is cleared. All the traffic lights are held at green. A police car stands at the ready to bring him. Behind the scenes, pleas to the movie company to remove the cameras for just this one game pending further discussion, are successful. At 5:30 pm with Fischer’s clock still ticking, the cameras are removed. Fischer now demands that his clock be restarted. Schmid refuses. He has the reigning world champion to consider; Spassky has now been waiting for 40 minutes. Despite further pleas to restart the game, Schmid refuses and goes onstage at 6pm to announce that Spassky has been awarded the game. He now holds the virtually insurmountable lead of two games to zero. Fischer appeals the decision to the match committee which finds no reason to reverse Schmid’s decision.

After much cajoling from friends and another call from Henry Kissinger, Fischer agrees to play game three of the match. But only if it is played in a separate, private room behind the stage and without cameras. Spassky, who later said he felt no honor in winning by default, wanted the challenge to continue and agreed. Bobby, playing brilliantly, beat the Russian for the first time.
Now it was Spassky’s turn to complain. The back room air conditioning and the ambient traffic sounds were too noisy. The venue was now moved back to the auditorium, and there would be no filming, despite the threat of legal action from the movie company.

Game four was a draw. Bobby won game five to pull even at 2 ½ points apiece. By game 13 Bobby led by a score of 8 to 5. Spassky asked for and received a medical postponement of game 14. When the match resumed, Bobby maintained his 3 point lead as the next 7 games were draws. On August 31, the 21st game of the match, Spassky came to recognize that his position was without hope and resigned. Bobby had won the match by a score of 12 1/2 to 8 1/2. He was the new World Chess Champion.

The next day at the closing ceremony, Fischer made no speech of thanks, no graceful comment on the hard work that had gone into the long contest, no tribute to his defeated opponent. Taking his prize, he immediately tore open the envelope and closely scrutinized the contents checking the figure. Satisfied, he returned to his seat.

Of course, he returned to a hero’s welcome, He received the key to the city from New York mayor John Lindsay. The world was his for the asking: He was young, handsome, wealthy, and women adored him. But later he said to a reporter, “The creeps are beginning to gather.” By creeps he was referring to the press, lawyers, and agents—everyone he thought was out to take advantage of him.

He played no matches as World Champion. Three years later as the time for negotiations for defending his title against a new challenger—Anatoly Karpov—began, Fischer was again making outrageous demands of the International Chess Federation. He ultimately resigned his title because he felt that his conditions did not receive the respect they deserved. This time money was not the issue. Manila offered the staggering prize of $5 Million dollars, said to be the second largest purse in sporting history, just below the Muhammad Ali—George Forman “Rumble in the Jungle” in Zaire.

Why he stopped playing tournaments, and how his life unraveled so pathetically, doesn’t seem to follow the usual celebrity gone bad scenario. He was not brought down by drugs or alcohol, by sex scandals or profligate spending. Instead, he became a victim of his own mind—paranoia, rage and arrogance. In many ways Bobby’s story resembles that of the mentally unstable Nobel Prize winner John Forbes Nash, Jr., the mathematician who inspired the book and Oscar winning movie “A Beautiful Mind”—only without the happy ending.

Bobby would go on to sacrifice nearly everything that makes life worth living: family friends, faith, country, a decent regard for other people, and finally, reason itself. Fischer’s life exemplifies F. Scott Fitzgerald’s proposition that “there are no second acts in American Lives.” Achieving his only goal destroyed Bobby’s reason for existence. Without that goal, he seemed to lose his already weak hold on reality. With nothing more to prove, fear of defeat won out over his desire to compete. But the manner in which Bobby charged his way to Reykjavik, his complete and utter dominance of the best of the best from an international field—all this was, indeed, unprecedented. Consequently, Bobby Fischer is likely to continue to be lionized as the best chess player of all time.

Photo from the German Federal Archive via Wikipedia, used under Creative Commons license.