Fischer was a one-hit-wonder..!

yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no ..........no

not to mention morphy

I think Fischer was a one hit wonder. After all, after his one hit of becoming the youngest GM in history, what did he ever do after that?

play a few more games of chess.

Tal wasn't a one-hit wonder. After he lost his title he went on to play some of the most incredible chess of that generation. He made it to the Candidates' semi-finals, had the longest unbeaten streak in chess history, and created more beautiful games than anyone up to 1980. 

Remind us again what Fischer did after he won his title?

Well, I couldn't be bothered formulating a decent response but, SmyslovFan just hit the nail on the head.

Different thing all together.

 " Circular Reasoning " is a term from the field of Logic that inevitably seems to apply to every thread about Fischer ( sad but true ).

Some Facts: Fischer became World Champion in 1972 ( beating the government supported Soviet Chess Machine ). Then in 1975 the FIDE would not agree to Fischer's terms and he resigned the title. And then a few years later the FIDE did give the same basic terms to Karpov that Fischer was not given. Who was the villian here, Fischer or the FIDE ???

Fischer quit chess in 1972, not 1975.

I would like to see evidence that Fischer would have returnd to chess in 1975 after a 3 year absence even if someone had offered him Switzerland.

FIDE said Fischers demand of keeping the title at 9-9 wins was too advantegeous for the champion. Then they gave Karpov better terms for every single match after that, including automatic rematch clause. Pfft.

Fischer was in no way a one-hit-wonder. He was at that time very strong and nobody can know what he could achieve, if he didn't have the problems that he did.

Similar as nobody know what Mozart could have achieved if he didn't die young.

I fully agree that Fischer just stopped playing and realized himself on the internet. He was strong and peeked in the candidates tournement and in the match.

He is in no way a great champion, he gave the title away without even trying anything. Botvinnik lost his championship several times, but regained it in a rematch - he was a fighter. Fischer was not.

I remember these days, and it was understandable, that he could beat Taimanov 6-0, but it was a shock, that he won 6-0 over Larsen - but Larsen had many chances for draws, but he didn't go for draws. Petrosjan was very strong and it was surprizing that Fischer won so easily.

We didn't expect that Spassky would lose. He was so strong. He was a totally different opponent and at that time the best.

After the match, Spassky was not the same player as before.

Finally. Fischer dropped out, but he was strong in many years, not a one-hit-wonder.

Fsicher was trying to trick FIDE. He demanded that the champion keeps  the title if the result is 9:9 whichs meant that in order to become WC Karpov HAD to win 10:8. Of course, this time his dirty tricks didn't work as it was the case with Spassky.

A few things to consider.  First, tallant and potential only matter to the young.  They are worthless once you get to the point where you have to cash them in and do something.  Once you get to that point what could have been does not matter anymore because in addition to tallant and potential, things like drive, will, maturity, execution, and other factors including circumstance all matter.  The reasons why Fischer did not hold the title do not really matter.  The fact is that he didn't.

Second, we are comparing apples to oranges because more chess knowlege is available to players of a later time.  Could Carlsen of today beat Fischer of 1972?  Probably.  If you took Calrsen and assumed he was born in 1950, would he have developed into a player who could beat Fischer in 1972?  Probably not.  If you had Fischer grow up in the computer era, would he have been able rise to the top?  Probably, but that is harder to say.

If you look at things relatively, Fischer rose to the top with more excessive individual tallant than anyone in history.  Getting thru a corrupt candidates was very impressive.  Fischer did not have computers or the soviet chess school.  He figured out things studying alone.  If you are looking for another player who could do that, I don't know any. 

However if you are looking for another player who played stronger than Fischer thanks to the help of advanced chess theory of the community as a whole and computers, then you may find a few.

or Fischer might have been still stronger then everyone who came after him. But its ok, this was my last post i abandon the thread. 

...cat

I guess we have different definitions of "one hit wonder." Plenty of bands had singles that topped the charts and never experienced anything close to that kind of success before. Would seem to apply to Tal as well as Fischer. Just because Tal didn't retire after his single topped the charts doesn't make him any less of a one-hit wonder than Fischer, if by one-hit wonder you're referring to reaching the summit (or getting close to it.)

If "one hit wonder" does not mean years or decades of amazing, super GM chess then neither Fischer nor Tal was a one-hit wonder. But if "one hit wonder" is being the best in the world, then Tal was more of a one-hit wonder than Fischer.

But Fischer haters all hold him to a different standard than everyone else. What of Keres? I guess he wasn't good enough to even qualify as a one hit wonder, not to mention Rubinstein. Didn't Petrosian lose his only defense to the WCC? I guess that makes Petrosian a one hit wonder too

Petrosian defended his title. Then continued to play, remember Fiscer had to beat him on the way to play Spassky. If not for Fischer, possibly Petrosian would have regained the title in '72.

If Fischer really quit because he was afraid of Karpov, then why no tournament chess in the 3 years beteeen '72 and '75? Simple. Fischer quit chess in '72.

Most likely he calculated his demands so they would not be met. Even if they were, he would have found something else to bitch about.