I was looking through some games and I came across this game: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044264&kpage=2 and I happened to come across a comment by Geller: "It was clear to me that the vulnerable point of the American grandmaster was in double-edged, hanging, irrational positions, where he often failed to find a win, even in a won position. This led me to my decision to challenge him in a very sharp game, and what's more, in his favorite opening."This brings up and interesting point that can explain the reason Tal had a plus score against him for some time before Tal got sick and was long past his prime (being too young is not much of an excuse for losing 3 games in a row as he defeated Byrne at 13 in a brilliant game) Geller on the other hand had an overall plus score with Fischer. This can also explain partially why (I say partially because Fischer was also very good) Petrosian had some terrible results and even an overall minus score. Every player has their own Achille's Heel, and its time we discover Fischer's. Even if Fischer had a weakness, that does not mean he should not be considered a great player. Even if Fischer had a weakness, it was so minute that even Spassky or Petrosian could not pinpoint it. Even if Fischer had a weakness, he is still a strong contender for being the greatest player of all time. Rest in Peace Bobby Fischer.

To me, his major weakness was paranoia and anti-semitism. 

      That is also true, but I am talking about a vulnerable point at Bobby Fischer's chess, what position is favorable or even how to increase your chances of defeating him. If you look at it, Bobby was just the one attacking or defending in most of his brilliant games. Anyways, he still is a great player and will be remembered throughout history (I'm right know trying to figure out what Kasparov's weakness is as it seems he was also good at what Fischer was lacking skill in. Could it be his endgames? or was it something else? Who knows?)

Wow, I was at least expecting some criticism or more people viewing or commenting on this game! I mean all you people just follow Fischer like a chess god with no argument or suppporting details other that he was a great tactician, excellent attacker, fantastic endgame player, psychological master, etc...... (all these traits actually remind me of Tal or Kasparov {or even Petrosian!}!). BTW, I think I posted this at night or something so now I'm just trying to get it at the top of the page. :) 

that's exactly what I was thinking...

Tal beat Fischer 4 games in the same event when Fischer was only 15 and Tal was one year away from beating Botvinnik for the world championship. The whitewash Fischer received at Tal's hands angered him so badly that he vowed that Tal would NEVER beat him again........and he didnt !  Even Tal said in later years that he beat Fischer before he was really Fischer and he was still Tal.  It seems to me that many Tal fans are unaware of this.

If only we could see these two Titans clash in their primes (and Kasparov too!).....

Yeah, what Geller said sounds right (I mean, he would be the all-time leading expert on beating Fischer, after all...having done it 5 times or something ridiculous like that, as well as being a perennial Candidate). And I think what Spassky said too is germane: "Fischer plays like a child." So the more wild and unbalanced (and Kasparovian!) the position, the less likely that Fischer would be able to find his way through it, with his love for clear, smooth (and often very long) lines. Fischer was also not especially noted for his defense (for a player of his strength anyway)--but then, not too many players are really; most everyone prefers to attack, or at any rate to have the initiative.

As for Kasparov's weaknesses, the best bet would be to ask Karpov. I suspect that most of Garry's weaknesses over the board are psychological: he is (was) a very moody and emotional player, and susceptible to all the whirlwinds that that can entail. And of course his arrogance could be a problem for him too (the fact that he drastically underestimated Karpov in their first match, for example; or his stubbornness in clinging to a variation that was not paying dividends for him in his match against Kramnik).

Yeah, Kasparov and Fischer (in their primes)...what a match that would've been (assuming Bobby would've shown up for it, of course).  But then, we actually did get several matches between Kasparov and Karpov, two legends in their primes--so I don't think we have any great reason to feel too disappointed.  A thing like that has only happened maybe once before (with Alekhine and Capablanca); and with K vs K we got five matches instead of just one!

 Geller's record with Fischer is +5 -3  =2 , but had they met in a match there can be no doubt that Fischer would have won. Geller was not a good match player.

by addiction_to_chess
Metro Manila Philippines

It would be nice if you could mention Fisher's opponent and what color Fisher was playing and what year or event iot was. I went to your link and could not find the game you are referring to as there are too many games listed.

Awaiting your reply.

 www.chessgames.com  you can find all of the Fischer/Geller games here

I belive he didn't have any weakness.

 Rest in Peace Bobby Fischer.

He went into chess history alone.

GM Mednis, on Fischer: 

"Of course a great player like that has no weak spots. What a player like that does have are absolutely strong spots, so you surely don't want him to utilize his strengths, because then your chances decrease to zero. It's not surprising - chess being as complicated as it is - that Fischer had the greatest problems with positions, which were unclear in an unthematic way. When in effect everything just depended on accurate calculation. In those kinds of positions, he is still better than me of course, but the difference is not that great anymore, because it's just extremely difficult for both of us. The chance that he will make an error increases, whereas in a thematic or technical position he will just play perfectly from beginning to end and your chances of surviving are zero." -- Edmar Mednis

chess is permanent.players r transient.great players like  fischer,botvinic,tal,alekine,capablanca,and many unknown greats,have enjoyed the beauty of the game each in their own way.let us salute the game and the oppnents who made it possible.long live CHESS. and FISCHER 

 I understand this but what or which game is Metro Manila Philippines , referring to.

I have analyzed 100's of games from Fisher, likely 1000+ and I need specifics.

I do know which ones he lost up to 1968 when he became he a real good plater.

 Doesnt he give a url to the game he's referring to in post #1 ?

Actually, for some odd reason, paul211 just placed my username, my place of living and picture in his post. I mean, he could have just said addiction_to_chess. There is a link at the very top of this page. Guys, if your going to post something, at least don't drag other people into it. Anyways, its true that Fischer had no weak spots but more or less, a place where he is most vulnerable (as Geller stated). He may be better than most people in those positions but there are some people who could maybe beat him because of that (cough*Geller*cough). As for Kasparov, I honestly think it's his endgames since that is actually where he made the most blunders. He could still beat us at the endgame but Karpov or Petrosian or even Kramnik could penalize him terribly for that.   

Fischer was an amazing player in his prime.  He was head and shoulders above his competition.  However, he did have a weakness in gnarly, tactical positions.  If you look at a database of his games during his prime, you will find that he had the toughest time when facing the Winawer variation of the French.

 I do have all the links to Fisher's game and thank you for yours.

What I am specifically looking for is the game you are referring to in your post or intro.

You did say I came across this game, again which game?

Year, date who has the whites?