Could somebody PLEASE explain to me why bobby Fischer is rated so highly and people seem to think that he is the greatest ever to have lived! Is it because he beat Spassky then resigned as world champion?

In my opinion and from what i have read about him, he was one of the best players but no where close to the greatest of all time!

i completly agreee with you. There is something great about his games, and the way he understood chess that puts him way up there, but that, and being the greatest of them all, big difference, i think.

Perhaps you are right. I can not really answer that.

I don't know that he was the greatest who ever lived.  I would say that his achievment is perhaps the greatest in chess history.  It wasn't just Fischer versus Spassky, it was Fischer versus the entire Soviet chess machine.  For a good read on it, I would recommend Bobby Fischer goes to war : how the Soviets lost the most extraordinary chess match of all time by Edmonds, David.

    Fischer did several notable things. He acheived master and grandmaster status very young. He had a period of dominance just prior to winning the world championship where he was just unbeatable... he wasn't merely winning matches, he was blowing his opponents, his top-level world-class opponents, right off the board. As a an underfunded, under-coached under-supported american he beat the mighty mighty soviet chess machine... the world championship wasn't really Fischer vs. Spassky, it was Fischer vs. the Soviet School of Chess, and that's a hell of a school...  Finally, there is the actual artistic quality of Fischer's chess, there truly is something special about Fischer's best games -- a splendid attacking creativity combined with fantastic positional accuracy... 

    That's my analyis of why Fischer gets rated so highly. I actually think he _is_ a bit overrated though,... I think Kasparov did everything Fischer did (including fighting the soviet chess machine and winning) only longer and better... I also think Emanuel Lasker's acheivements are sorely undervalued -- but that's another story;)

I know people that truly believe he is the greatest player of all time, but I really don't know. . .

Thanks for your comments so far everyone, especially JG27Pyth. i totally agree with you there, i believe Kasparov is the greatest and have recently been reading into Lasker...who was just amazing!

 

 I'm not sure you can say Kasparov did everything that Fischer did. You have to look at the difference between the two, Fischer accomplished what he did solely by himself, no training as a youngster like Kasparov. Don't get me wrong, Kasparov was/is a great player but if anyone else had to do it the same way Fischer did without the use of computer databases and training from GM's at an early age they wouldn't come close to acheiving what Bobby did. He did it by getting out the books and working his rearend off i just don't think anyone else could do that. Todays players would never survive without the computer. That is why Fischer was/is the greatest to ever play the game.

Markle....what about Capablanca?

Fischer was great.  Kasparov is great.  All grandmasters are great.  Give them all credit for something

 

I think we cannot really compare players from different eras who never played against one another. It will allways be speculation and no-one will no for sure who is the best.

The one thing about Fischer is that in his time he completely dominated the chess world and the gap between him and other players during that time was greater than in Kasparov's era. His results in some of the top grandmasters events during that time was astonishing and will probably never be surpassed.  

 

 

 Ok maybe Capablanca, but i wasn't thinking about the older generation. But you have to agree most of todays socalled supergrandmasters would never sit down and put in the grunt work that Bobby did. By the way mrsoccerchessman is right, all GM's deserve some credit for what they have accomplished, even if the title is watered down now and it takes a lot of nerve for any of us to call Fischer, Kasparov or any of the others overrated when we don't even come close to being in their class. 

You're right. You are the greatest chess player of all time.

Not overrated, it was more of that he was the best of the USA ever and he beat all of the Soviet Union.It was more of a Cold War thing. And there was such a large gap from him and everyone else.

 

Kasparov as great as Fischer?!  Thats a joke, right? Kasparov who couldnt win a single game in his match against Kramnik? Oh, Kramnik is so great that even Kasparov couldnt beat him? Wait......didnt Kramnik lose a match to Shirov in which Kramnik didnt win a single game? Fischer beat Larsen and Taimanov 6 0 ! This is about as likely as pitching back to back no-hitters in the world series! Then he crushed Tigran Petrosian and won 4 games in a row against a man who wasnt used to losing 4 games in a year! Oh , this same Petrosian who has an even record against Kasparov in spite of the fact that Kasparov had white in all their encounters!!  LOL Then there's Spassky...who also has an even record against Kasparov. OK....so y'all still want reasons why many consider Fischer the best in the history of the game? Lets see.....he brought more money and better conditions to chess for ALL that follow him.....so you know how much Spassky won when he beat Petrosian in 1969? I have read he got less than $2500. !! Now, they play for hundreds of thousands and even millions. Fischer also won a major tournament with 100% and after he won his first US closed championship at age 14 he won EVERY US event he played in after that except 2 ! Fischer fought the mighty soviet chess school alone (practically) and won, even with all their cheating and dirty tricks!

Did anyone else read the article about Bobby Fischer in NIC 2008/2? It's fascinating stuff. Apparently, he refused medical treatment such as painkillers and a kidney transplant which might have helped him live another decade.

Fischers rating was attained when there were no others near his to feed on, such as Kasparov had in Karpov after becoming better. They were still the only two above all others at the time. Now there are many who are near the top. If there were someone so much better as a Fischer, they could now rise high above the others. But not so.

My opinion is that it is all because of media. They created and took the myth about one man against "evil soviet (=communist) chess regime" thing in time when so much was going on in world politics and this match was seen something like: our guys are more clever than yours. And to say Fisher had minus score vs Spassky prior the match and if I remember correctly Geller had plus score vs Fischer. General opinion is that Spassky broke under the pressure of media because this win or die situation. Kramnik commented that when you took aside blunders that Spassky made in match ( which he done more then player of his qualities should), it was very even fight. Gligoric was player from that era and he knew them both personaly (he called them friends in his book about a match, and describe state of mind of both players from his private conversations with Spassky and Fischer) and it was obvious that Spassky was not in his best shape while Fischer was in best shape ever, so result was easy to predict. And think that when you want to discuss art in chess, it is better to look into Bronstein's and Tal's game, because those two where really something special and had clear artistic approach to the game.

 

 I still say take away their databases and make them sit down and really work at the game like Bobby did and most of them wouldn't even be where they are today. The title used to mean something now it's like boxing, everyone is a world champion.

Reb wrote: Kasparov as great as Fischer?!  Thats a joke, right? Kasparov who couldnt win a single game in his match against Kramnik? Oh, Kramnik is so great that even Kasparov couldnt beat him? Wait......didnt Kramnik lose a match to Shirov in which Kramnik didnt win a single game? Fischer beat Larsen and Taimanov 6 0 ! This is about as likely as pitching back to back no-hitters in the world series! Then he crushed Tigran Petrosian and won 4 games in a row against a man who wasnt used to losing 4 games in a year! Oh , this same Petrosian who has an even record against Kasparov in spite of the fact that Kasparov had white in all their encounters!!  LOL Then there's Spassky...who also has an even record against Kasparov. OK....so y'all still want reasons why many consider Fischer the best in the history of the game? Lets see.....he brought more money and better conditions to chess for ALL that follow him.....so you know how much Spassky won when he beat Petrosian in 1969? I have read he got less than $2500. !! Now, they play for hundreds of thousands and even millions. Fischer also won a major tournament with 100% and after he won his first US closed championship at age 14 he won EVERY US event he played in after that except 2 ! Fischer fought the mighty soviet chess school alone (practically) and won, even with all their cheating and dirty tricks!

---

I m  not a big fan of Mr Fischer...but 4 in a row to Tigran Petrosian is a big achievment.Tigran was a very tough nut to crack.