This guy is one of those moral questions in my life. In high school I was on the varsity chess team and regularly studied Bobby Fischer's matches. The guy was a genius at chess. But all other aspects of his life make me wonder if he was crazy or just an idiot savant. He was a recluse, an anti-semite, and an outlaw, and from hiding he praised the terrorists in the 9/11 attacks. It's one of those things where I love his chess games but hate the man.
It makes me think of the moral questions the world medical community had after world war two. The Germans and Japanese did horrable medical experiments that yealded a wealth of knowledge. After WWII the world medical community, disgusted by what had happened, had to decide if it was acceptable to use the information that was gainned such awful ways. In the end they did use the knowledge and it has possibly saved or helps millions of other lives since. Do the millions of live saved off set the lived lost in such horrid means? That is something philosphers still debated today.
As I look at my collection of chess books, including my much loved "Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess," do I disregard these thing and dispose of them because of this person's many negative aspects? Or do I try to benifit from this persons one positive aspect?