Why do you consider Bobby Fischer overrated?

I have posted before, some strong chess players believe they got spanked by Fischer in online chess, way before chess engines were strong enough to have someone fake it.

He is undoubtedly one of the most overrated players ever. All he did was reign(and reign supremely) for 3-4 years(70-72) and became World Champion. Then he saw Karpov and realized he could easily be overthrown as the World champion, made excuses to FIDE and fled the battle to protect his title.

If we are to consider the peak 3 years only of all the World Champions, I am not sure he would even be in top 5. He is like a one match wonder in any sports, somehow made a World record at debut, knew he wouldn't be able to carry on his performance, made excuse and fled.

Comparing him to likes of Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik, Anand or even Polgar is an insult to them. At least they had the guts to keep fighting for their titles for years, in victory or in loss.

He was undoubtedly a brilliant chess player but 'best ever'? Please, maybe he was 'best' in the time span of 70-72, but not a 'best ever' by a long shot.

While I agree with Souvik13's assessment about the cowardice of not fighting for years in win or loss, the truth is Fischer throughly dominated the post-Capa/Alekhine generations of Botvinnik-through-Spassky very easily in a manner so few have done (Morphy, maybe Steinitz when Morphy wasn't playing, Capa for a while, ???). This group includes the two prior champions Petrosian and Spassky, Kortchnoi (who nearly beat Karpov in a championship match), Smyslov who got to the final 4 in 1983 at the age of 62 (!!!), and Tal whom he never lost to again after age 16.  As much as I hate his baby attitude and racist hateful comments, in terms of chess, even if he isn't definitively the greatest ever, he has to be in the discussion and on everyone's short list given his thorough domination of his contemporaries.  Certainly, Kasparov deserves to be on that list as well. 

I sort of find it difficult to imagine how a player who managed single-handedly to wrest the title from the Soviets and more than held his own against players of the calibre of  Tal,Petrosian,Spassky,Smyslov,Stein,Geller,Polugayevsky,Keres,Korchnoi,Taimanov,etc.,could possibly be considered overrated.Especially if you take into account how he destroyed Larsen,Taimanov and Petrosian.So,no,Fischer can only be underrated,not overrated.

Souvik13

While I agree with Souvik13's assessment about the cowardice of not fighting for years in win or loss, the truth is Fischer throughly dominated the post-Capa/Alekhine generations of Botvinnik-through-Spassky very easily in a manner so few have done (Morphy, maybe Steinitz when Morphy wasn't playing, Capa for a while, ???). This group includes the two prior champions Petrosian and Spassky, Kortchnoi (who nearly beat Karpov in a championship match), Smyslov who got to the final 4 in 1983 at the age of 62 (!!!), and Tal whom he never lost to again after age 16.  As much as I hate his baby attitude and racist hateful comments, in terms of chess, even if he isn't definitively the greatest ever, he has to be in the discussion and on everyone's short list given his thorough domination of his contemporaries.  Certainly, Kasparov deserves to be on that list as well.

If he was that great he would have dominated Karpov too, but he didnt. I dont really rate Spassky or Petrosian as that great. Remember Karpov's 14-2 record against Spassky, Fischer was undoubtedly all too aware of this, and made every excuse in the book to not make the match happen, that's not a true champion. I don't know what you call that. He's run from 70-72 was awesome but besides that run he really didn't achieve all that much except a super tournament win or 2 and the US champs with an easy field.

Did you know Kasparov had a 15-1 record against Korchnoi? I know korchnoi was getting a little older but Victor even beat Caruana around 2007 or so. It shows how strong Kasparov was.

And I'm certain Fischer would have found it very difficult against both Kasparov and Karpov. Those 2 would have destroyed the field he dominated too.

He is not "Greatest of all time"; that's the only problem I can see myself having