Fischer's weakness?

  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!).....

 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.

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

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 

 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.   

I was going to write something quick, maybe even pretentious but you all seem so involved in this thread. So sorry for thinking of ruining your thoughts on fischer...

btw a3

definitly a3

To paul211, there is a link at the top of this page (first comment). If you still cannot find it, here it is: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044264&kpage=2. Fischer has white as surprisingly loses at one of his favorite and most analysed positions, the Poisoned Pawn Variation of the Sicilian Najdorf (I say one of his most analysed as he realized that taking the pawn is survivable). And, yes, Fischer did have a difficult time handling the Winawer of the French with white (although it isn't that obvious).

Fischer seemed a little awkward in (pardon the irony) 'closed tactical' games ... games where queens aren't bashing around the board but, rather, where sneaking knights into positions entirely for the purpose of sacrificing them reigns supreme... of course that's a very tiny weakness and an easy weakness to cover up :P ... Tal was just really good at making positions like that!

Although it's true, Tal's a genius, but Fischer's at least as good, likely better.

I can somewhat agree that Fischer had a weakness in complicated, double-edged positions.  To what degree I can agree with that, I'm not sure.  After all Fischer himself loved the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn, Bc4 lines against the Sicilian (Fischer/Sozin Attack), etc.  Those systems are by no means simple.  The key was Fischer's overwhelming book knowledge and opening study.  No matter what type of position he was in it was typically one he was familiar with and that put him in the driver's seat.  As far as other GMs' assessements of Fischer, please remember, there is probably a lot of distaste and jealousy behind them too.  When it comes down to it Fischer's record speaks for itself.  It's just ashame that he went out like he did without proving if he could reign as World Champ.

Fischer's endgame technique was better than all his opponents, although I doubt Fischer was the best endgame player of all time. The only other players who understood the Ruy Lopez as well as Fischer was probably Spassky, Keres and Lasker. The reason Fischer struggled so much with the French and the King's Indian Defense was because he wasn't the only person at the time who could be considered the World's leading expert within those openings, he was just one of them. I expect the trolls to whinge back.

Fischer had a plus score against the French.

Having a superior endgame was the reason why,