Fischer was a one-hit-wonder..!

At least you got a response to your comment. I asked whether Tal was a "one-hit wonder" because he held the WCC for less time than Fischer and all I got was the sound of crickets:)

The English media have a way of overdoing it as soon as sportsman shows a slight bit of promise. Every 17 year old who scores a goal is the next 'Worlds Greatest Striker'.

What people should remember though, is that it is not the player's fault. If anything, the media put huge amounts of pressure on them from a young age. When they don't live up to the hype, the media turns on them.

Hey, I don't feel sorry for them, not in the least. They choose a career where they are going to be scrutinised at every turn, and they get paid extremely well to do it. It's just worth pointing out that it's usually not the player himself, nor the general public. It's the media.

The average English football fan knows that they are not the best in the world, and knows that they don't live up to the hype. They accept that and just root for their team as anyone else does.

The media are the ones who bring up 1966 every time a tournament comes around. (They even said,'It's 1966 all over again', when England won the rugby world cup lol. It's a different sport ffs)

(reminds me of the Fischer fanboys :P)

To say they are all mediocre and boring is not true though. England have produced some really top athletes over the years. A couple of world class golfers, formula 1 drivers, rugby players and it can't be denied the likes of Rooney and Ashley Cole are world class footballers (even Alan Shearer or Gary Linekar, going back a few years)

It is near impossible to live up to the hype of the British media. This makes them seem worse than they actually are.

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.