For such a strong player who was renowned for his opening study and preparation, Fischer doesn't have much named after him. I can remember the Sozin attack in the Sicilian, and now it's the Fischer-Sozin. He's got that defense in the King's Gambit he worked up in the 60s. Something in the Nimzo-Indian too that I don't remember the moves to.

Even Reshevsky, who was notorious for his ignorance of opening theory has maybe as much named after him, and of course names like Smyslov and Bronstein proliferate.

Perhaps it was Fischer's limited repertoire, but still.

 I think it had more to do with the bias against Fischer myself, which is still present. The nimzo line you refer to is after 3....Bb4  4 e3 b6. 

Well that is interesting Reb. I would expect the old Eastern Bloc countries to hold out on Fischer, but not so much in recent times. In general he was an affable and pleasant character among the other players, perhaps even for the troubles he posed for the organizers because it bettered the lot of all of them. I am still somewhat at a loss.

Perhaps the naming depended on magazines mostly, then maybe the editors of ECO. Who determines nomenclature now? I haven't the foggiest.

Fischer probably wasnt liked much by organizers at all, as you point out. However, he was trying to raise the "standards" of top flight chess, both in terms of money and playing conditions for the players. I think he did a great job in doing so ! Do you realize that even as late as 1969 when Spassky beat Petrosian for the world championship he won only a few thousand dollars? ( less than 5 thousand I have read  )  Contrast that to what they play for today !  This is directly related to all the hell Fischer raised ! Lasker in his time also worked to raise the standards of the top players, even demanding appearance fees , as Fischer later did, and getting them ! Lasker, however was not as successful in bringing about real change for the top players as Fischer was.

Of course the Soviets were satisfied to keep prize money low; it worked to prevent westerners from being able to pursue chess full-time and thereby threaten the Soviet dominance. It was a sound strategy but quite cowardly. They provided whatever their players needed to be full-time professional but worked against westerners being able to do the same, shrugging their shoulders and saying that their own countries were free to do the same for them.

I remember the low prize fund for the 1969 WC match. As I recall it was even lower than you cite, more like $1200, and I'm not even sure that wasn't the purse for both players. I'd have to check. Even then, the players had to chuck back a hunk of their winnings to the state. Well, they were well taken care of in most ways nevertheless, even if it was a gilded cage.

Just another example of how Fischer, as flawed and/or sick as his worst critics can claim, he did a a world of good for chess, and no one else could fill his shoes. Today, top players are on easy street thanks to him. Karpov, Kasparov, Anand, and the rest. I hope they thank Fischer occasionally just before they lay their heads on those silk pillows.

  Although Fischer was very meticulous in his study of 'opening theory ' and

always aware of the ' latest developments' therein, he was not particularly

creative in that phase of the game.

The point of departure for Fischer's superiority over the garden variety GM was

the profundity of his play in the middlegame, not the opening.

Indeed, he would have preferred to render efforts to catalogue the openings

futile by means of 'Fischer Random' Chess.

Fischer did a lot of good things, not mensioning many beautiful games, so he is respected for all that and it doesnt metter how much variations was named in his honor. Very often names of variations are just casual.

I think Reb was on track when he posited his reasons. There may be more, but he understands the question.

 Fischer's push for Fischer Random came long after he stopped playing competitively. It has nothing to do with the question at hand.

It's odd that you dismiss a hallmark, a specialty of Fischer's play: His opening preparation. He didn't just remember better and evaluate better what others had played before him in the opening, though he did that, he produced novelties in the openings and the sub-variations.

Maybe fewer were "systems" than sub-variations, and thats' why relatively few of his inventions still stand as viable or optimal.

That is absolutely wrong understanding of soviets way. Shame on you to claim so many GMs and stuff poeple as cowards. Most soviet chess players was very interested in appearence a lot of new and very strong GMs in other countries, but they (soviet GMs) cant do anything to make this happen, because of totalitarianism. The government also were eager to have more stronger opponents from other countries just to show to all world that soviets can beat even more better players, than those who are already lose to them. Politicians was very overestimating the russian dominance so they was not afraid of anything. The reason is entirely different. Soviet government wanted to have absolute control over their players, because made chess game one of many things to rise soviet authority in the world - just to prevent any possibility for them to escape, like Kortschnoj did later, that is why they didnt want any free will and free money for players, everywhere, even at home. Insteed supporting and providing all they need and want, but only while they are as USSR players. Everybody who was disagree - loses all support and possibility to play in any tournaments. That is why they prevent any improvements in this field. Sad, but that is how this was. For example the same thing happened with all kind of sports for some period, but with sport this constraint worked only within USSR, while with chess that was much more wider.

While he may not have many opening variations named after him, there are a number of openings that make me think of Fischer any time I encounter them. 

The most iconic is of course the Najdorf, Poisoned Pawn variation.  He literally put it on the map and I think of him any time I play it or see it played. 

Another is the Exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez.  I've always thought it was a crap opening but Fischer being Fischer, he always seemed to perform magic with it so I can't help but think of him.

The King's Indian Defense and the King's Indian Attack will always be associated with Fischer in my mind, having seen him use both openings in countless brilliant games.

He almost single handedly killed off the King's Gambit at the highest levels with the defense he outlined in his "bust" article so it's only appropriate that it be named after him.  For that, he'll be forever linked to the KGA.

 The Soviet bureaucrats did exactly what I said they did. It's historical fact so direct your fingers of shame eastwards. I don't think the GMs themselves, the players that is, were afraid of competition or more money.

Yes, they did that, but your reason WHY they did that is wrong.

You may think whatever is more pleasant for you, i dont mind. I just wanted to point out how it really was.

You provided your opinion. It's not like we saw any facts from you.

What facts do you want? I cant extract all content of my brain to show you as a prove. I cant make a movie where old USSR players assures you about that, and even if i could how will you know it is not fake? I cant email the copy of my past USSR memory for you to check it. So what do you want as prove? It is your way of perceptioning the world, make your own choice. For example i know a lot of people who tried to prove me that Americans never flew to the moon even once, prove that all was TV and mass media fake to people, just to significantly raise Americans authority in the world. I even heard about movies trying to prove that. So what? Must i believe in that? I hope you get the point. You may launch your own investigation of both questions if you care, ask people who you believe, or read the links or books of authors who you trust.

yeah, about the limited opening rep, I think your right, on a website it says that with the white pieces out of 545 games 508 of them began with 1. e4

I certainly did not intend to dismiss or diminish any of the achievements

of Robert J. Fischer.

There seems to be general agreement here that there are not many opening

variants named after him.

I think it is also true that those that are named for him have been so named for

good reason.

So, can anyone think of an opening or variation that rightly should be named for

him but in fact is not ?      

hard to know

 In the absence of a confession from old Soviet officials, or hard documentary evidence, it boils down to opinion, but hopefully opinion backed up with credible or reasonable argument.

   There are 4 with 2 more as a subset in the king's gambit accepted.