I read somewhere, probably here, that someone ran a bunch of great grandmaster players games through a strong computer engines analysis, and claimed Fischer made the most accurate move more often than anyone he analyzed.
Not sure if true or not.
Why do you consider Bobby Fischer overrated?
Sort:
Spassky69 wrote:
Bobby did more for chess than anyone before or since.Yes, Kasparov has his activities, and the world is better off for them...the chess ones, that is.But Bobby had an aura about him that no one before or since has had. Only Capablanca comes close.What Fischer had, in the only measurable fact that allows us to compare him to great chessplayers past and present, was a dominance over his contemporaries that no one had matched before, and no one has matched since.And unlike Kasparov, he never had a close rival like Karpov to first school him and then spur him on to ever greater accomplishments.Kasparov, it needs to be remembered, barely beat Karpov in the matches he won from him. Fischer never squeaked by ANYONE. He could even spot Spassky two games and come roaring back to eviscerate him in their match.He beat "Iron Tigran" Petrosian, the hardest man in the world to beat, FOUR GAMES IN A ROW.The guy was simply unstoppable.In leaving FIDE to set up shop on his own, Kasparov did more lasting damage to the chess world than Fischer could ever do by refusing to defend his title. We are stuck with the remnants of Kasparov's decision today: truncated World title matches, short candidates events, and top players who cannot dream of being mentioned in the same breath as Petrosian and Spassky and Tal and Fischer.That is in part why Bobby is revered and held in such esteem.He did it all himself.No hired teams of GMs to come up with novelties, no computers, no Botvinnik school, no rivals like Karpov.Fischer was in a league of his own. That's why so many consider him the greatest there ever was and the greatest there ever will be.
He was so great that he even didnt need to play a single game as champion!!
Sorry but what was Karpovs personal score against Spassky?
And why did it take so long for Fischer to Defeat Spassky? And why were his achievements from 60-70 not that great compared to someone like Kasparov? How top tournaments did Bobby win 60-70? And why only 2 tournament performances of 2820+ compared to 17 for Kasparov?
He had a great run 70-72, but aside from that nothing special. He shouldnt even be included in the dame sentence as Kasparov, atleast Garry had the balls to take on all commers unlike Fischer with his ridiculous reqests for the Karpov match. Why avoid Karpov and rob the world of great chess? Nothing great about that.....greatest ever?
Only in a pro american's deluded fantasy mythical mind was he the greatest ever.
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
He proved how poorly he could play in 1992. That was chess as it hadn't evolved after 20 years. That rematch against BS was an epic howler of magnanimous blunders. If fact, some of those moves by BF would've sent yogurt thru the nose of a morn-snacking 1800 grandpatzer. His moves were that poverty stricken.
Funny thing about it ?....BF was trying his hardest !
That's a bit harsh.
20 years since he played at the highest level, 1992 was always going to present the greatest risk to Fischer's legacy in the sport. I can't pretend to know enough about top flight chess to know if his play was that bad in 1992.
Authors like Seirawan suggest that Fischer was not far off top 10 level in 1992.
If that assessment is accurate, with a bit more tournament play at the top level Fischer could have improved and perhaps given sufficient time regain the level he played at in his prime.
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.
May 27, 2016
0
#168
imho, who was a great pretendend who became a champion. Though he was a very bad champion. In that regard Karpov and Kasparov stand miles ahead of him.
May 27, 2016
0
#169
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.
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.
Great Post. I totally agree.
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.
IoftheHungarianTiger wrote:
I think Bobby's overrated, not because he's not an amazing player ... he is. He had an admittedly amazing streak of 19 wins over top-notch grandmasters. But A lot of people talk about him as "the best ever." and seem to believe if he had come out of retirement he would've thrashed Kasparov. I firmly believe that if Fischer had stayed in competition, we would have seen him for what he was ... an amazing player, who, like all other amazing players, has flaws, is a mortal, and will in time be fade against the following generations. It happened to Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca ... I believe if any one of these men had stopped playing either when they took the title, or just a few years after ... they'd have had a mystique about them too. If Lasker had stopped playing chess in 1905 or right after his big tournament victory of 1914, I suspect there would be the idea that Lasker would have been capable of beating anyone today. Because he played on, and chess theory continued to develop, and he grew older, we recognize such a belief is ridiculous. But when we are faced with players like Fischer and Morphy, who rose to the top and then voluntarily retired, without defending their legacy, we simply assume they would have been successful.
My reply to you: Paul Morphy would definitely have been successful for a long time if he hadn't retired, there is no doubt about it. He was way above everyone else in the world, when he was in his prime.
He is not "Greatest of all time"; that's the only problem I can see myself having
IoftheHungarianTiger wrote:
I think Bobby's overrated, not because he's not an amazing player ... he is. He had an admittedly amazing streak of 19 wins over top-notch grandmasters. But A lot of people talk about him as "the best ever." and seem to believe if he had come out of retirement he would've thrashed Kasparov. I firmly believe that if Fischer had stayed in competition, we would have seen him for what he was ... an amazing player, who, like all other amazing players, has flaws, is a mortal, and will in time be fade against the following generations. It happened to Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca ... I believe if any one of these men had stopped playing either when they took the title, or just a few years after ... they'd have had a mystique about them too. If Lasker had stopped playing chess in 1905 or right after his big tournament victory of 1914, I suspect there would be the idea that Lasker would have been capable of beating anyone today. Because he played on, and chess theory continued to develop, and he grew older, we recognize such a belief is ridiculous. But when we are faced with players like Fischer and Morphy, who rose to the top and then voluntarily retired, without defending their legacy, we simply assume they would have been successful.
Paul Morphy was a different beast. It could be the case that nobody would ever be able to beat Paul Morphy. If Paul Morphy did not quit and if Paul Morphy continued chess competitively instead of starting a Law firm then maybe Paul Morphy would have continued to dominate. Paul Morphy is better than Wilhelm Steinitz, in my opinion. Both played against Anderssen, Paul Morphy crushed Anderssen but Wilhelm Steinitz struggled against Anderssen...even though both Paul and Wilhelm beat Anderssen.
Bobby Fischer never truly dominated against Boris Spassky. Bobby was better than Boris, but he struggled a bit against Boris and he never crushed Boris. But if you make prime Boris Spassky play against Anatoly Karpov or Garry Kasparov or Viswanathan Anand or Ding Liren or Magnus Carlsen or Judit Polgar, Boris would get crushed. In fact, Anatoly Karpov has already crushed Boris Spassky several times. I think Judit Polgar defeated Boris Spassky, even though Boris was getting older at that point. Still, I think Judit Polgar has a good chance of defeating prime Boris Spassky.
Nov 27, 2024
0
#176
My fav Fischer quotes (long time back I wrote a blog on these less known Fischer details)
"Look, nobody gets that the US and Israel have been slaughtering the Palestinians for years."
"The horrible behaviour that the US is committing all over the world ... This goes to show what goes around comes around, even for the United States."
"I hope the country will be taken over by the military - they'll shut down all the synagogues, arrest all the Jews, and execute hundreds of thousands of Jewish ringleaders."
Nov 27, 2024
0
#177
RXLBlocker wrote:
He is not "Greatest of all time"; that's the only problem I can see myself having
Fully agree 
Nov 27, 2024
0
#178
Fischer's achievements are often overshadowed by the fact that he was a horrible person. This leads people to have an inherent bias against him.
Yes, you can argue that he was perhaps overrated, but his being a despicable human being is not a valid argument. That has nothing to do with his chess skills.
Kasparov put Bobby's play in 1992 at 2600 or maybe 2650. Was that still top 10 in the world at that time? I think 20 years off from tournament chess might leave one, even a legendary GM, a little rusty.