Why do you consider Bobby Fischer overrated?

Fischer is generally considered to be the "best chess player of all time" by some of the same guys presently vying for the World Championship.  And yes, "it's just their opinion." 

That's what I hear from my @2400 USCF friend, and his Armenian countryman from the last Quarter Finals for the World Championship.

But "Best Player of All Time" has to be relative to his peers.

Fischer never did come out of retirement, except to play a couple late-in-life exhibition matches, which were roundly criticized by current GMs as not being of "World Class" playing level.

So who knows whether after a long lay off he might have beaten Karpov, or even Kasparov?  Probably not.

Gennady Nesis, former World Correspondent Champion, in his book "Tactical Chess Exchanges" describes the awe in which the Soviet Chess establishment viewed Fischer, before he become World Champion.

Perhaps that says something about how much Fischer "impressed his peers," to say nothing of his amazing winning streak in the run-up to the World Championship Match.

Too bad Fischer ended up much like Steinitz, and Morphy to a lesser extent.

Everyones' loss.

This is said very often but I always wonder what era it refers to. In 1970 Spassky was World Champion and kept winning against Fischer. In 1972 the World Champion took a 2-0 lead in the match and had 3-0 against Fischer before that, so up until then the latter certainly hadn't been dominating like no one else. After that he dominated the match very clearly and definitely proved that he was the best player in the world by eventually beating Spassky 12.5-8.5, but then he stopped playing. So the era he dominated like no one else must have been very short. And Steinitz going 7-0 against #2 in the world, winning 25 games in a row and numerous title matches many years later is somehow not comparable with Fischer's going 12.5-8.5 against #2 and quitting. Still, Fischer was obviously one of the greatest players ever, I just think one has to be quite selective with the facts to make him #1, and avoid using the same criteria for other players when deciding how to measure.

Actually you seem to be one of the more correct, intelligent, logical, well thought out opinions despite not having heard of the man before today. I think you are 100% correct in everything you said....

Clearly, 'best player of all time' can be measured in different ways.

One way would be to measure someone's ELO or performance over a long period of time, and see who had the highest rating. Clearly, Fischer wouldnt be the 'best player of all time' if you measure this way.

Another way would be to ask "who was world champion for the longest amount of time?" Fischer would not be the answer.

Another way would be to ask 'Who had the highest ELO ever,  for a minimum one year period' In other words , what is the highest PEAK elo ever reached within one year.

THAT answer , shockingly IS Fischer. I say shockingly because it was set 40 years ago, and even with rating inflation, no one has beat it yet.

What you refer to isn't Elo rating (that has only been in use since the 1970s) but Chessmetrics, that is supposed to rate players without being influenced by rating inflation.

The guy was sick.  Rather than seek revenge for the disturbing way in which his illness manifested itself, I think it would be better to be thankful that it didn't come out in more physically violent ways (as far as we know).

Fischer is "best of all times" because that's what most GMs believe today.

So take a poll to confirm it.  Or watch them squirm. 

Eventually someone will be better than he  Just not now.  Given the current growth of "chess knowledge," that day is probably coming fast.

Oh I see, thank you very much! Looks like Mikhail Botvinink came pretty close to being the best ever too! Makes we want to get an anthology of his games...

You could do worse than picking up Botvinnik's 100 selected games, and he has to be considered one of the greatest ever, for his opening innovations and for the team the soviets gave him to work with.

The thing the Fischer haters will never admit is that Fischer didn't face a bunch of peers, but a system bent on making sure a non-soviet didn't win the championship.  They threw games for each other, gamed the system for favorable match-ups for their favorites, and collected data collectively against potential non-soviet rivals.  Fischer smashed them and their system.  Why did Fischer do so well for a narrow period of time?  Read, if you care, his explaination about The Marshall Attack in the Spanish, and how he'd play variations he knew were weaker because he didn't ever want to show his opening preparation except when he needed it.  He needed it to defeat the soviets, and when he did he clobbered them.  If he didn't approach it that way, he never would've won.  Karpov?  Please.  He's the beneficiary of everything Fischer fought against.  Great? yeah.  Pampered by his government at the expense of other talents?  Yeah.  That whole era is stained by that system.

Link for the bold text? I did look but can't find anything from Fischer himself.

Hey William-Wiggans, now I can't find it.    As soon as I find it I'll post something.  I think it was in a chess life and review article.  I think the quote from it is "you have to consider the 'talent' of your opponent" and he put talent in quotes, and that he his choice of openings also reflected the fact that he couldn't just put opening preparation on display except in the games where it mattered.  He then he goes on to say that the Steiner Variation can be played if you know it.  It was clear that his goal was to beat "the Russians" and to be champion, and he didn't want to give them anything to study.

I believe this was mentioned in the book 'bobby fischer goes to war' also...

How long did he live in Greenland?

Anatoly Karpov would have been the most formidable opponent Fischer had ever faced - yet Bobby avoided the confrontation. Does anyone suggest that with Fischer's ego he would have avoided a Fischer/Karpov match if he (Fischer) thought he could win?!

If I'm not mistaken, the concensus among chess experts of the time was that Fischer would have beaten Karpov with ease...If there were other opinions (from relevent experts) I don't recall seeing them.

He's the greatest chess player ever

(And yet Greymiles still oddly considers him overrated.)

 Remember, we're all supposed to be every bit as talented as he was. At least if you listen to that one fool who claims there's no such thing as talent.

Elo thought Fischer was overrated in 1972, so he lowered Fischer's rating a few points after Fsicher barely beat Spassky by only a few victories.  True story.

Beat Spassky +5 in the rated games and lost 5 points. As a predictor goes, that was about as close as you could expect to get.

Few experts would predict the World Champion to lose against a comparatively untried challenger (like in Alekhine-Euwe 1935 or Kasparov-Kramnik 2000), but Fischer had stopped playing already in 1972 while Karpov had his best results that far in 1973-74 and was steadily improving. It would have been a much more difficult match for Fischer than the one he won 12.5-8.5 against Spassky. What Fischer thought is hard to say, according to others he had a very low opinion of Karpov as a chess player (as well as of Kasparov), but he certainly never wanted to play against them so maybe he was just trying to convince himself about how much better he was.