Why do you consider Bobby Fischer overrated?

He won the 1963–64 U.S. Championship 11–0, the only perfect score in the history of the tournament. In the early 1970s he became one of the most dominant players in modern history—winning the 1970 Interzonal by a record 3½-point margin and winning 20 consecutive games, including two unprecedented 6–0 sweeps in the Candidates Matches. According to research by Jeff Sonas, in 1971 Fischer had separated himself from the rest of the world by a larger margin of playing skill than any player since the 1870s  

Kasparov and Karpov could never have dominated a field the way Fischer dominated Palma de Mallorca? Kasparov and Karpov have won dozens of much stronger tournaments than that. To begin with Palma didn't have Spassky and Korchnoi, the two strongest Russian players. Fischer scored great results against the bottom half (but lost against Larsen). Fischer played four stronger tournaments in his career and didn't win any of them.

Kasparov rarely played in tournaments with so many weak opponents as Palma had (Jimenez, Rubinetti, Ujtumen, Naranja, Addison, Minic, Suttles, etc). Tilburg 1989 was a bit of an exception, where he too won with a margin of 3.5 points (in only 14 games instead of 23). The weakest player in the field was Piket, winner of Dortmund a few years later, all other participants were Candidates level. But this is just one of Kasparov's tournaments that rarely is noticed since he won so many stronger events for so many years, for example Linares 1999 with a margin of 2.5 points (14 games) ahead of Anand, Kramnik, Leko, Topalov, Ivanchuk, Adams and Svidler. All of the opponents being serious World Champion candidates.

Fischer's results against Taimanov and Larsen are often repeated, and one could just as well repeat that Steinitz won with a bigger score (7-0) against a much stronger opponent (world #2 Blackburne). Does that make Stenitz greater than Kasparov or Lasker? I don't think so, matches are a bit special. When Spassky played Larsen he too won his first three games, and then took it easy. Fischer himself said that his match against Taimanov just as well could have finished 3.5-2.5, but in matches the final result doesn't matter, it is only a question of winning or losing the match. As Larsen Taimanov threw away certain draws to try to win and it backfired. Anyway, beating Karpov time and again is always more impressive than beating Taimanov or Larsen, it doesn't have to do with match scores. Salov won a Candidates match 5-1 against Khalifman (later FIDE World Champion), and I wonder if anyone ever would mention that match if it had been 6-0 instead.

In the title match Fischer won 12.5-8.5 against Spassky, also there the result matters little, it was the same score Tal won with against Botvinnik. What mattered was that Fischer won and was the best player in the world in 1972. Since he wasn't interested in continuing playing it's hard to say how he would have fared against the stronger Karpov, who won 7-4 against Spassky in 1974. It would probably have been a tough match, but Fischer was at his peak and Karpov was still very young. At the same time Fischer hadn't played chess for years while Karpov was improving steadily.

Who the hell is Jeff Sonas?

Yep, Jeff is definitely not overrated! lol

Probably the guy who knows the most in the world about using advanced statistics to compare chess players...

http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/

If not the top chess statistician then who else is?

lol...yeah well, whatever the heck that means... 

And Steinitz once won 25, so there... 

8 years

Well, speaking strictly from a chess rating perspective, check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_for_comparing_top_chess_players_throughout_history

It shows Garry Kasparov at 2851, first place and Magnus Carlsen at 2826, second place...with Bobby Fischer at 2785 at tenth place.

This info is not necessarily up to date. I think Carlsen is now higher, at the number one spot. I will go get that info and edit below.

Edited: Magnus Carlsen is now #1 at ................

Well, here is what I found: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/04/magnus-carlsen-norwegian-_n_410853.html

That was at the end of his career I believe, his peak 1 year rating was actually the highest ever (2895), if you scroll down one paragraph from your quote you will see this.

Very well. Thank you.

I agree with this.  And I co-win.

I oppose you both earnestly and with vigour (more vigourous than America spelling.) I, therefore, take the prize from the both of you.

Sir, I demand a rematch! (and one where your input will by and large be disregarded).

What you do is pick the one tournament Fischer won (when he was at his peak) of the five strongest he played, compare it to a few of the worse events of  Karpov in 1972-73, fifteen years before he was at his best, and a couple of Kasparov's less memorable tournaments, and conclude that they were "amateurs" in comparison to Fischer, their results being "measly" and "pathetic".

To begin with I don't think counting the number of wins regardless of level of opposition is particularly meaningful. There were no super tournaments of the Linares sort in Fischer's days and the opposition was much weaker in almost every event, except a few top tournaments like Santa Monica 1966 where Fischer lost three games while Spassky, who won the tournament, was undefeated (and won against Fischer).

Karpov won 9 and drew 4 of his 13 games in the strongest tournament of the year in 1994 (Linares). The lowest ranked player in the field was Topalov, who won first board gold in the Olympiad the same year. Ten of the participants were ranked better than 15th in the world (and this was long after Karpov's peak). Fischer scored 0.5 better than that in Netanya 1968 but none of his opponents were even remotely close to the top 100.

It's easier to find a few weak results by Kasparov and Karpov since they did play for decades after winning the title. Fischer didn't play any matches against stronger players than Spassky, won none outside 1971-72, and won few really strong tournaments in his career, none of them comparable to the 25-30 strongest tournaments Karpov and Kasparov won. Fischer was of course a great player, one of the greatest, but to me not comparable to those with top results against stronger opposition for decades.

With all due respect, I disagree with this statement.  Neither you nor I will probably ever be in the FIDE Top 100, but does that mean that we can't express an opinion on Vishy Anand or Vladimir Kramnik against Hua Ni or Sebastien Feller?  Does that mean that because I can't play pro football in the NFL, I can't express an opinion on the 13-1 Green Bay Packers team or the 1-13 Indianapolis Colts team?

I don't believe to answer a question like this you need any technical knowledge of chess ... the question asked is simply "If you consider Bobby overrated, then WHY?"  It's not the same as asking if you believe his chess is overrated - then I would agree to your statement.  I agree that expressing an opinion on Bobby's chess would require a certain level of chess understanding - at least to provide a good, intelligent response.

I think everyone posting on this thread has enough intelligence to develop their own informed opinion on whether or not Bobby himself was overrated ... simply by comparing him to other players.  Chess has objective measurements: win, lose, draw.  At a very basic level, we form our opinions on players based on these criteria (obviously, strength of opposition enters the picture, but this boils down to wins, losses, and draws as well).

We simply look at Bobby's accomplishments, and then decide for ourselves whether he merits the attention and the legend given him.  Then we try to explain our reasons for our conclusion.

I don't think anyone on this thread should be disqualified from either having an opinion, or explaining it, just because they're "not good enough" chess players.

It can be pretty depressing reading the same old oft repeated ignorant statements about Fischer (and Kasparov et al). After more than 3.5 years in the forums, I definitely understand ep's sentiment.

No one here has the strength and has dedicated the mountain of hours of study to actually claim competence to declare some playing superiority of either great player.

The vast majority of opinioneers couldn't gauge the superiority of a 2000 over an 1800, based on play alone.

So what are their opinions worth? Not much, but I hope some get a kick out of them since they are posted anyway.

On the other hand, we can sift history meaningfully. Some do it well--like fabelhaft-- and others seem to have access to data without the ability to make sense of it--like yeres.

So, there are opinions to be had and worth listening to, just relatively very few.

I never heard of this Bobby Fischer before this morning. But, I tell you what I think, anyway.

He was the best in the world...in his prime...at that time.

Too bad that he didn't defend his title and play after he won the world championship. That is very sad for those of us who would have liked to see him continue.

Now, the world has moved on. Today with computers... Bobby had to study from books. He had chess boards all over the place. On each side of the bed, at the breakfast table, a little peg board in his pocket. This was a much harder way to learn than today.

Can you imagine if he had had the use of computers...engines, databases of all the best games... A much faster way to learn. A much faster way to test new ideas. A much faster and more comprehensive way to develop skills.

Anyway...he was the best in his era. That we can say for certain. Morphy and other greats were the best in their day. Just as we can say Joe Louis was the best in his day but we can only speculate how he would have done against Ali.

So, it is good for conversation to discuss these things but it is impossible to draw exact conclusions.

I am only guessing about this stuff, I could be wrong.

Fischer received extra publicity because he was an American in an era dominated by Soviets. However no one has dominated his era as did Fischer. People complain about too many draws in grandmaster play; Fischer won each Candidates match 6-0. It was and is unheard of. It's like someone winning the  Superbowl 127-0. Carlsen is the biggest hero these days and he won't even undergo the Candidates matches.