2015- Year in Review

2015 was an unusual year.  It saw the rise of nonestablishment politicians vying for the Republican nomination, and, as of this writing, businessman Donald Trump had a commanding lead.  The Democrats appear to have settled on Hillary Clinton, despite her email server problems and the hangover from Benghazi.  It was the year of radical Islamic terror.  Charlie Hebdo, the Russian airliner, the Paris attacks and the attacks in San Bernardino showed us that while radical Islam has not yet been able to replicate an attack of the magnitude of 9/11, the movement can still be quite lethal, albeit on a smaller scale thus far.   The U.S. economy continues to lumber along and, despite muted growth, the Fed decided to lift interest rates for the first time since the Great Recession.    

Here are my some of my standouts in 2015.

Favorite Film -  Far From the Madding Crowd.   Ok, it was not a blockbuster, but I am a sucker for a good love story where the lovers come together after a long trail of adversity, and I am doubly a sucker for one that is a classic.  This film version of the Thomas Hardy novel was well acted and Carey Mulligan was outstanding as Bathsheba Everdene.  Close behind it was the Cold War thriller, Bridge of Spies with Tom Hanks.  Ex Machina was a very interesting film that will be seen in retrospect as prescient--raising numerous issues about artificial intelligence.

In literature, among the novels I read were three that could serve as doorstops--Seveneves by Neal Stephenson (which would have been better and half its size), A Little Life by Hanya Yanagihara (too depressing, too long and too in-your-face with its gay themes) and Purity by Jonathan Franzen. 

My favorite work of fiction--Purity.   Like many modern novels, Purity needed to be better edited, but I liked the flawed, authentic characters.  And I am always intrigued by novels that deal with the themes of secrets--of what we disclose to whom.  Purity contained several passages that made you stop, put the book down, and ponder for awhile.  As a runner up, I liked The Door by Hungarian writer Magda Szabdo.  The Door explores the complex relationship between a woman and her enigmatic housekeeper.   

My favorite work of nonfiction--Dead Wake by Erik Larson.  Yes, I know it was overpromoted.  And the WSJ Book Club annointed Erik Larson as its unofficial spokesperson, so I suffered a slight case of Erik Larson overexposure.  But Dead Wake is to the Lusitania what A Night to Remember was to the Titanic.   H is for Hawk by Helen Macdonald was my runner up.  To deal with the loss of her father, Macdonald turns to nature and falconry to process her grief.

Music was a little thinner this year than last.  Adele again did well and came up with a blockbuster album.  But my favorite album was by Australian Courtney Barnett, whose album Sometimes I Sit and Think, and Sometimes I Just Sit really resonated with me.  I loved the song Dead Fox and you can hear the unmistakable influence of Lou Reed in that song.

Biggest falls from grace-- Bill Cosby and Chipotle.   Bill Cosby was the father figure of a generation and now faces sexual assault charges.  Chipotle was a high flyer in the fast food industry--brought to its knees by multiple E. Coli outbreaks.  Both will keep PR staffs busy for a long, long time.

Worst prediction ever-- Peak oil.  Many predicted that we would run out of the stuff.  We are now drowning in it.  The price has collapsed and is now below $37 a barrel.  We are now playing Petroleum Limbo---how low can it go?

Most interesting development--- Activities that were heretofore the purview of government taken over by the private sector.  While the DHS as policy did not check the social media postings of the San Bernardino terrorists, the hacker group Anonymous began to successfully hack into the accounts of ISIS members and "out" them.  

Space flight is another area where the private sector has taken the lead.  There is healthy competition between Jeff Bezos (Blue Origin) and Elon Musk (SpaceX).  Apollo was the last government program to reach an announced a goal within the timetable that was established and it captured the imagination of the nation.  Since then, NASA is a shell of its former self.  Under the Obama administration, manned space flight has ceased and the agency has been converted into a climate change measuring agency and recognition of Islamic contributions to science has been incorporated into its charter.  That slack has been taken up by the private sector and I expect to see more of it in the future as NASA continues to ossify.

Most intriguing developments-- Virtual reality, robotics, and artificial intelligence.  These areas are making great leaps but also will create difficult dilemmas for humanity.  Virtual reality will bring the news closer to home, and will make certain experiences more accessible.  But what of their authenticity?   Robotics presents complex questions---especially in love and in war.  Drones now do some of our fighting. But what happens when we let drones make the decisions on when and whom to attack?  Stephen Hawking believes that artificial intelligence could threaten mankind.  The films The Terminator (1984) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) correctly envisioned the fear that technology might overrun humans.  In the field of love, sexbots are being developed to attend to our carnal desires.  Although they are a decade or more from being usable, there is already a debate raging on whether they should be banned.  Some say women have had vibrators for years, so what's the big deal.  Others believe they could have a detrimental effect on human relationships and society.

2016 will be an interesting year.  The Democrats are putting all their chips on a candidate that remains under F.B.I. investigation and has more baggage than could be accommodated on any domestic airline flight.  With the economy in stall mode and our foreign policy in collapse, the Republicans should have a layup.  But their own dysfunctions have propelled a loose-lipped populist nonpolitician to the lead.  And we are going to see the results of raising  interest rates in a sub-3% growth economy with collapsing commodity prices.

Stay tuned.  It will get interesting.

The Response

"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight them in France, we shall fight them on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing strength and confidence in the air,
we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue, and liberation of the old."

Winston Churchill- 1940

2009-  Barack Obama, in one of his first acts as President, removes the bust of Winston Churchill from the White House and returns it to Great Britain.

"Paris was a setback."

"Let me now say a word about what we should not do. We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria.  That's what groups like ISIL want.

Barack Obama 2015

Barack Obama was elected, in part, because of his superior rhetorical skills.  Ironically, at a time when the Western world is crying out for leadership from the leading Western power, that voice has grown hesitant, tepid and equivocal.   His speech in Turkey following the massacre in Paris fell flat.  His address to the U.S.  following the terrorist attack in San Bernardino likewise contained no new strategic initiatives to counter radical Islam's terrorist attacks on the West.

But it's even worse.  If you consider the responses of various Obama administration officials to radical, violent jihad, you see a disturbing pattern of denial and truth distortions, and even a hint that we had it coming to us.   Just the day before the Paris attack, Obama was insisting that ISIS was contained.  Immediately before the San Bernardino attacks, he was assuring us that the U.S. was safe.  His statements seemed as out of synch and ludicrous as those of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.  In some quarters, commentators were comparing him to the infamous Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi spokesman who continued to insist that the Iraqi army was prevailing as U.S. forces were dismantling the Republican Guard.

But wait, there's more.  After the Paris attacks, John Kerry stated that there was a "rationale" (blame the victim) behind the Charlie Hebdo attack.  And after San Bernardino, AG Loretta Lynch warned against an anti-Muslim backlash and vowed to "aggressively prosecute" individuals that said anti-Muslim things.  The only new initiative that Obama proposed was more gun control (aimed at those on the secret government no-fly list.  In sum, there were no new measures aimed at ISIS, but rather measures aimed at curtailing our rights of free speech, gun ownership and due process.  President Obama could not find the time to visit either Paris or San Bernardino following the attacks.

The most frightening aspect of the administration's approach to radical Islam is the blatant denial of facts throughout the course of its tenure.  From the assertion that Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous riot caused by a film (again, a justifiable response to exercise of free speech), to Susan Rice's assertion that Bowe Bergdahl "served with honor and distinction" (the coward deserted), to ISIS is contained, to "only a handful of Gitmo" releasees return to jihad (200 is a big handful), Team Obama has consistently put forward falsehoods hoping we won't notice.  His assertion that Syrian refugees can be properly vetted has been completely discredited by the F.B.I.  The fact that DHS did not even check social media of the San Bernardino woman jihadist before allowing her into the U.S. tells us that the "vetting" process is a pretty flimsy net.

But people are noticing.   And they are fearful.   They know when a leader is not being forthcoming. Will it take another event of the magnitude of 9/11 or worse?    The rise of Donald Trump is a direct reaction to the culture of denial and fecklessness of the Obama administration.  His proposal to stop Muslim immigration temporarily has gotten traction and attention.  That is not the right answer, but Trump is not afraid to ask the right questions.  

Radical Islam is a very difficult problem to solve and defend against.  It transcends borders and it is a political order that is cloaked in religion, which acts as a force field around it.  Its soldiers don't wear uniforms and have the capacity to blend in and await in ambush for a long time.  While rejecting most of modernity, it uses modern tools like the internet and social media to its advantage.  They don't wear identifying marks and we do not know with certainty how much of Muslim society either participates or is sympathetic to its cause.   And it has several different and sometimes competing strains of virulence--- from ISIS to Boko Haram to Al Qaeda.

Yes, Trump is simplistic, overreactive, and overly inclusive.  But Trump is a reaction to the dangerous culture of obfuscation and denial of the core issue that the Obama administration refuses to face squarely.  Until we do, we will have more San Bernardinos, and maybe worse ones.

W's idea of fighting them there so we won't have to fight them here suddenly doesn't seem so trite anymore, does it?

Show Me the Data

I've not hidden the fact that I am not Barack Obama's biggest fan.  Many of my blog posts have had his policies at the center of my criticism, from his contempt of the free market, to his penchant for growing government and high levels of regulation and taxes, to his abdication of American leadership in foreign affairs.

But while reasonable people can disagree on policy solutions for societal problems, what bothers me most about Obama is his inability to support his case with data and make a case for his position.  Instead, his typical tactic is to create a straw man and then mock his critics.  He did it throughout the 2012 campaign, and it actually worked to some degree (e.g."the 80's are now calling and want their foreign policy back" to address Romney's assertion that Russia is a serious threat).  However, his derisive dismissal of ISIS as the "JV" and his assertion the day before the Paris attack that ISIS was "contained" shined a spotlight on Obama's inability to correctly analyze risk based on facts and data, or at least engage in an open and fair debate about them.  And, I would assert, that his political opponents are not much better.

On domestic policy, Obama leaped to the conclusion that white cops are systematically using excessive force in policing African Americans.   His supporters cite the bare number of deaths of black youths at the hands of white cops as sole evidence for that proposition. Worse, Obama used a few isolated cases--- the Michael Brown incident  being the most egregious as poster children for that proposition (and we know that the officer in that case was completely exonerated).  But real world analysis is much more complicated.   Since any interaction involves two or more people, we would have to control for a number of factors to understand the nature of that interaction, and the be able to ascertain whether there is actual racism at issue or whether there is something else going on.   Is the behavior of African Americans more aggressive, more threatening than that of whites?  Do they involve more serious alleged crimes?  Do they more often involve more than one person so officers feel more threatened? Those are the kinds of questions and analysis that must be done to determine the correct course of action and whether better training, screening and monitoring will make a difference.  We might even find after careful analysis, that police are, in fact, generally exercising tremendous restraint already.  Instead, the Obama administration jumped to the conclusion that cops need to be restrained and that military style weapons needed to be taken from them.  The result of the Obama/Holder policies after Ferguson has been a huge spike in urban crime--the Ferguson Effect. Even Obama's former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel has complained that police officers are now taking a very passive approach to police work.   There are some 20 million arrests each year in the U.S. and many more stops.  Without good data, one can just as easily argue now that Obama policies are the proximate cause of more deaths of black youths than overzealous law enforcement officers.


Similarly in foreign policy, the overarching goal needs to be the reduction in the risk of a mass casualty event like 9/11 or the Paris attacks earlier this month.   Especially given the explicit statements of ISIS, it is perfectly reasonable and sensible to raise the issue of whether the government is taking sufficient steps (or whether it has the ability to do so) to minimize the risk that Islamist attackers may be among the people that Obama is proposing to take in as refugees.  Instead of making his case, Obama simply derided the opposition as "being afraid of widows and orphans" and flatly stated that the refugees posed no greater risk than tourists (which begs the question of whether we need to tighten up policies on tourists) and then compared the refugees to tourists.  These rhetorical assertions flew in the face of the fact that 80% of the refugees were draft age males and the head of the FBI stated that the government does not have the ability to properly vet these people.  While Obama is mocking conservatives for being afraid of widows and orphans (never mind that they represent a tiny fraction of the influx), I, and many others are asking how the vetting is being done and what is the integrity of the data that is being used to vet these people.  We can safely assume that Damascus is not going to provide the U.S. with meticulous records on these folks.

In both domestic police work and vetting immigrants, it is impossible to have a system that has 100% effectiveness (as Rubio is demanding for the refugees).    It is not possible to produce a police force that will always use precisely the amount of necessary force to deter a criminal.  Likewise, it is simply not possible to provide 100% assurance that no ISIS sympathizer will tag along and embed himself among these refugees.  But before we jump to conclusions in either case, we need to enlist the assistance of statisticians and talk in language of acceptable risks before we leap to conclusions and implement policy solutions.  Neither President Obama nor his political opponents seem to be willing to do so.   An open and honest debate on the data would be refreshing and helpful progress in lieu of demanding perfection or demonizing the other party.

Stop doing it!

The New York Times has been wringing its hands about the expansion of market power of companies in certain industries as they have grown through mergers and acquisitions (of course, the NYT applauds the growth of government power wherever it occurs). 

Mergers to gain scale are especially bothersome to the editors at the Times since Jason Furman and  Peter Orzag’s research seems to show that firm size is a factor that exacerbates income inequality (big firms pay better). 

(http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/opinion/sunday/how-mergers-damage-the-economy.html?_r=0)

The NYT caterwauling about consolidation reminds me of the story of the charity concert at which Bono was performing.   Bono stood up and began clapping his hands over his head and said, “Every time I do this, a child in Africa dies.”

From the back row, someone stood up and yelled, “Well stop f—ng doing that then!!”

The NYT, ever the supporter of larger, more intrusive government spending and regulation, cheered the Obama administration on when it bulldozed its way into the finance and health care industries.  In these two major industries, the Affordable Care Act and Dodd Frank have themselves ignited industry consolidation. 

Christopher Pope, in his article, “How the Affordable Care Act Fuels Health Care Market Consolidation,” he noted:

The shackling of competition is an essential feature of Obamacare, not a bug.  The health care system it establishes relies on unfunded mandates to raise revenue, seeks to cross-subsidize care with regulations, and views genuine competition as a threat it its funding structure.  As a result, it is obliged to standardize insurance options and eliminate cheaper alternatives that threaten to undercut its preferred plan designs.  By inhibiting competition between insurers and encouraging their integration with providers, Obamacare further erodes competitive checks on monopoly power of hospitals.  It strengthens incentives for hospital systems to buy up independent medical practices and surgery centers, weakens the competitive discipline on prices, and reduces the array of options available for patients.

It is no surprise then, that consumers have been harmed with higher costs and higher premiums that resulted from enactment of the ACA and that government policy is creating incentives for entities to consolidate.

Likewise, Dodd-Frank, which was enacted in response to the financial crisis of '08 had much the same results.  As Eugen Fama noted in his comments a few weeks ago, Dodd-Frank did not do away with "Too Big to Fail" as a policy.  Rather, it enshrined it.  And by raising compliance costs dramatically, the law is wiping out an essential aspect of the finance industry that in no way was responsible for the meltdown--community banks.  Community banks now cannot afford the hugely burdensome compliance requirements demanded by the government.  As a result, no new banks have been chartered and there has been a precipitous drop off in numbers of community banks and assets that are held by them.  The large banks have grown even larger and more powerful--precisely the opposite of what policymakers thought would be the correct prescription for the finance industry following the crash.

In a recent Harvard study by Marshall Lux and Robert Greene, the authors noted:

Consolidation is likely driven by regulatory economies of scale--larger banks are better suited to handle heightened regulatory burdens than are smaller banks, causing the average costs of community banks to be higher.

With the regulators of the Obama administration merrily and prolifically spinning out hundreds of pages of new rules as we speak, small businesses cannot hope to keep up, nor can they afford the huge compliance staff necessary to satisfy the army of regulators decending upon them.

Anecdotally, I can attest to conversations with several business owners of small companies that told me the same tale of woe.  One small meat processor told me, “I have to sell.  I simply cannot afford a 20 person compliance department.”

Government interference in markets had a substantial role to play in the housing crisis, just as its policies were responsible for gas lines in the 70’s.   Similarly, look behind the inflation in college tuition and what do we find?  Again, you guessed it--Big Government. 

(http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-bader/federal-financial-aid-drives-tuition-and-college-costs-study-finds)

Proponents of Big Government are decrying the widening of income inequality.  If Furman and Orzag are correct and firm size is a large factor in income inequality, then we are really seeing is that Big Government policies are actually driving consolidation in several different industries.

If the NYT really wants mergers, and by implication, the growth in income disparity to slow down, it should call upon Big Government to “stop f---ng doing it then.”

Conversations

Some time ago, I wrote about how much Facebook had added to my life.   It has permitted me to reconnect with old friends,classmates, and coworkers and stay abreast of family members (especially those with whom it is best for all concerned to stay connected from afar).  Yes, there are downsides to it--oversharing among them--but that is easily remedied by deleting someone from your feed.

Twitter is even better.  I now get much of my news through Twitter and it permits you to quickly flip through to articles and essays that may be of interest to you.   Even better, it allows you to join conversations with some really wonderful minds from your smartphone.  Its 140 character limit (which, sadly, Twitter is planning on relaxing) forces concision and pithiness.  I count it as a small victory if I am retweeted, favorited, or even answered by a public intellectual.

Last week, I was answered by Garry Kasparov, former world chess champion, writer, and anti-Putin activist, author of the new book, "Winter is Coming:  Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies of the Free World Must Be Stopped."  

Kasparov tweeted:
Uh-oh, Kerry is talking to Lavrov again. Already Assad stays & Iran is at the table. By tomorrow he'll have given Alaska back to Russia.

I answered:
We're also working on giving back part of Arizona and California back to Mexico. Big downsizing plan. 

Kasparov responded:
Well, smaller borders are easier to protect! Very clever plan. 

Then someone else chimed in:
Crap, I live in Wyoming; better learn to speak French.

It's a brief, punchy exchange, laced with humor, but highlights in four little tweets, two matters of grave global concern:  Obama's decision to withdraw the United States from its traditional post-WWII role as a global power wherever and whenever he can, second, the simultaneous opportunity that Vladimir Putin is seizing to move into that vacated space.  

This is the genius of Twitter.  In a few sentences, three people were able to establish that we are all on the same page.  Without a long diatribe from any of us, it is a safe bet that we see the world vision of Obama and of Putin as unsettling and disturbing.    Twitter enabled me to connect with an important voice and share the fear that the simultaneous retreat by the U.S. and resurgence of  Russia may be the most dangerous threat to freedom and democracy since the 1930's.

Father of Finance

The University of Chicago is simply an amazing place.  Its economics department has spawned an astonishing 28 Nobel Prize winners.  So far this year, I have been able to hear presentations by four of them.  Last week was a special treat.  I was able to attend a Q & A presentation by Eugene Fama, 2013 winner of the Nobel Prize.   Known as the "Father of Modern Finance," Fama's work has been integral to modern portfolio theory and asset prices.  Fama's research is was the underpinning of the development of index funds.  He is churlish and a bit laconic but attending a presentation by Fama was like going to the oracle, especially since I missed his class when I was in business school (to be more precise, I ducked it as his reputation as a brutal teacher intimidated me).  He was known as someone that could bring math majors from top notch schools to their knees.

Here is a summary of Fama's quotes by topic:

"Too big to fail doctrine" -- an abomination.  Since the Continental Bank bailout, it has taken on a life of its own.  Banks now have a put option on us.   It makes their debt riskless.  Banks kick and scream like crazy if they are required to maintain more equity.

"Dodd-Frank" -- supposedly did away with To Big To Fail and prescribed and orderly wind down of large institutions.  Except that the Treasury Secretary has to approve it.  Good luck on that one.  No Secretary of the Treasury will approve such a wind down.

China --  Chinese data are basically junk.  We can't even produce good data.  We simply do not know how they are doing.  All signs point to a significant slowdown.  I don't know if it [the slowdown] is such a big deal for us.  The real question is when will a blowup happen? If you give people capitalism, they will want freedom.

Interest rates and the economy-  We need a much stronger economy to raise rates.  The economy is not strong.  New business formation is in the tank--- off 30% from the norm.  We have had eight years of regulation and more regulation.  Now firms need a big compliance group. Technology has been relatively unregulated and more students are finding employment there, but now government wants to regulate the internet.

Performance of other asset classes--  There is no real good data on real estate. With private equity, data is skewed.  Only the ones that have done well want to giver you data.

Behavioral economics-- Behavior is what economics is all about.  Does it mean that it is irrational behavior?  You need to show me a way to document it in behavior.  It's very expensive to collect data.  

On Richard Thaler-- If he would give me things in testable form, I would collaborate with him.  I always challenge him, "Do you want to document that?"

On Big Data--I don't know what the fuss is.  I've been doing Big Data all along.

On where his research is going--If I knew where it was going to go, I would have gone there already.

It is one of my great regrets that I did not take his course.  I would have had to work like a dog and stress and strain to get a "C" but it would have been a C I would wear like a badge of honor.

Pawn Sacrifice

The Bobby Fischer/Boris Spassky world chess championship in the summer of 1972 was one of the most followed sports dramas of the Cold War era.   The film Pawn Sacrifice by director Edward Zwick (Glory, The Last Samurai) recounts this epic battle that pitted the best of the Soviet system against an enigmatic and mercurial young prodigy from Brooklyn.  Taking on the enormously difficult task of dramatizing the best of 24 game series and profiling the tempestuous and eccentric Fischer, Zwick largely succeeds in making a film that is at one time a Cold War drama, a character study and a time piece.  Tobey Maguire clearly spent a great deal of time studying Fischer, and nailed his mannerisms, gait, and irascibility and Liev Schreiber portrays the confident, more dashing Boris Spassky with real panache.

Bobby Fischer was one of the most interesting figures in American popular culture of the 1970’s.  Raised by a single mom (who was under investigation by the F.B.I. for her subversive activities), Fischer turned to chess at an early age (likely in part as a distraction from his broken home) and learned to play on his own and through hanging around his local chess club in Brooklyn.

Chess in the Soviet Union is its national pastime and Boris Spassky was a product of the Soviet chess system, which identified, culled and trained chess players, and consequently, the Russians dominated the chess world for decades.  The matchup was a classic battle between an American maverick and a representative of the collectivist system.  The Soviets played chess as a team sport and Fischer accused the Soviets of colluding at tournaments.

Fischer’s obsession with the game propelled him to become the youngest grandmaster at age 15 and the youngest U.S. Chess Champion at age 20, propelling him into the national media spotlight in the late 60’s and early 70’s.  Seemingly overnight, the socially awkward Fischer became a national sensation.  His stardom spawned a boom in chess, as chess clubs flourished across the country and chess sets flew off the shelves.

The East and West could not fight a hot war without destroying themselves, so they fought proxy wars in other countries, competed for dominance in space, and in 1972, their representatives battled in Reykjavik on a chess board.  Pawn Sacrifice captures this high drama and the vaulting of an unlikely temperamental nerd from Brooklyn to media star.  After losing the initial game, and forfeiting the second because of one of his recurring tantrums over playing conditions, Fischer went on to beat Spassky.  While there was no blood, bullets or guns on the screen, Zwick makes this confrontation every bit as riveting as his other war films- The Last Samurai and Glory.  Interestingly, a couple of months later, Team Canada beat the Soviet Team in the other source of Soviet pride –hockey--in a come from behind effort in their Summit Series. I can’t help but wonder if those two events were a foreshadowing of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Pawn Sacrifice ends as abruptly as Fischer’s stardom and spends only a few moments on the end game—Fischer’s disappearance from competitive chess and the entire national spotlight (and re-emergence in 1992 to take on Spassky in a rematch), his vagabond existence and his deteriorating mental health.   If you are interested in filling in the missing parts, read “Bobby Fischer Goes to War: How the Soviets Lost the Most Extraordinary Chess Match of All Time,” by David Edmonds and John Eidinow.

The puzzling, contradictory figure of Fischer is perhaps best captured by my two favorite quotes by Fischer.  His steely, cold competitiveness was revealed by Dick Cavett (Cavett himself suffered from bipolar disorder) when Cavett what gave him the most pleasure in chess, Fischer responded, “The moment when I break my opponent’s ego.”  Yet this same solitary and reclusive Bobby Fischer’s last words on his deathbed were, “Nothing is as healing as the human touch.” 

Fischer belongs in that pantheon of genius talents such as John Nash, Vincent van Gough, and Jack Kerouac that were simultaneously given a remarkable gift and a curse to a high degree and Pawn Sacrifice excellently portrays Fischer as a troubled front line soldier in the Cold War that defeated the Soviets on a bloodless battlefield.