Bobby Fischer didn’t walk away from chess he was pushed out.

In 1975, FIDE rejected Fischer’s proposed match conditions against Karpov the proposal included:

No fixed number of games.  There would be no upper limit on the number of games. The match would continue until one player achieved 10 wins (draws not counting).  If the score reached 9–9, Fischer proposed that the reigning champion (himself) would retain the title. He wanted more control over the scheduling, including more frequent rest days if requested, and that the match be held in a politically neutral and fair environment. He wanted 60% of the prize fund to go to the winner, 40% to the loser.  To the objective and normal mind this all seems very reasonable, and FIDE accepted some of Fischer’s conditions, including the 10-win format and no counting of draws, but they rejected the 9–9 clause arguing that it gave too much power to the reigning champion.  But If you objectively compare Fischer’s proposed 1975 match conditions with the 1927 Capablanca–Alekhine match Fischer’s format was, if anything, more favorable to the challenger than traditional title defenses had been. Under Capablanca’s rules, Alekhine had to get to +2, or the champion kept the title. Under Fischer’s rules, Karpov could win with just a +2 margin, but with more flexibility because the match length was extended (to 10 wins instead of 6). 

Basically FIDE rejected the fair conditions set by Fischer then said he refused to play, labeled him as unreasonable which weren't unreasonable at all, then stripped him of the title and gave it to Karpov. FIDE made false statements purporting to be fact.  FIDE’s official position in 1975 and the global press coverage framed it as:

“Fischer refused to defend his title.”
“Fischer made unreasonable demands.”
“Fischer forfeited the title.”

When in reality Fischer submitted a match format consistent with tradition (., Capablanca/Alekhine 1927).  FIDE rejected one clause, then declared him forfeited and crowned Karpov without a match. No official match contract was ever finalized yet Fischer was portrayed as the one who walked away. FIDE and its officials intentionally misrepresented his position, And knew or should have known that they were distorting the truth, and this damaged his reputation, legacy still to this day.  Fischer had grounds to sue for defamation. However, Fischer distrusted the legal system and he was more interested in vindication than court wins which is why he didn't sue.  But he should have sued for defamation, economic damages and tortious interference. They defaming his character and rewrote the narrative.

For decades, Fischer has been the target of documentaries, books, and interviews that portrayed him as erratic, paranoid, and impossible to work with. They ignored the historical context of his demands and painted him as someone who "refused to play."

Fischer was fighting for fair conditions.  The title belongs to the reigning champion. To take it, you must defeat the champion not just survive.  A tie (9–9) implies equality if both players perform equally it’s logical to keep the crown.  Just like a  5–5 score would’ve left Capablanca champion. For decades the norm was: you must defeat the champ to become the champ. In fact this system is better than the modern draw-heavy 12-game format, Fischer's system means you must play to win and the result is clear and earned.  It’s about respecting the title and the game.  

Fischer knew that there was a deadline for the players to confirm their participation (April 1). And he told them, beforehand, that his conditions were "non-negotiable".

He also announced that he was resigning his World Champion title, when he heard that the FIDE delegates voted against his 9-9 proposal.

According to Kasparov, Fischer was so angry that FIDE rejected his match conditions that he announced, "I will punish the chess world. It will not see any more of my games. I will not play any more!" (Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Volume 4, page 473, para. 3)

FIDE requested Fischer reconsider, and they even extended the deadline for him by two days, after he intentionally ignored them.

So they had no choice but to move on - as Fischer had made it clear that, unless his demands were met in full, he would no longer have a part in any of it.

So yes, all of this was quite unfortunate - the world was robbed of what would have been an epic clash between Fischer and Karpov (what a match it would have been!). But Fischer absolutely walked away.

It takes 2 to tango. FIDE knew his temperment, they had given into him previously including during the World Championship Match. Fischer had no reason to assume they would not give into him, and if anything his demanding personality would be good for the players long term for getting improved conditions. But FIDE had to set the line in the end and Fischer showed his intransigence by only playing again for the largest purse in chess history at the time, then never again. What probably irked him most is that USSR benefited previously from conditions like the draw clause with Botvinnik retaining tiles and getting rematches ect and he didn't benefit as his one condition negated the rest of his negociated conditions. Still, it has been beneficial to his legacy as his potential post championship career can not be accurately determined due to no strength of play being shown. So many people have judged him by his known peak and there is no longjevity to judge. There is a posibility that had he played his career would be less impressive, if he had won less and his Elo dropped. A historical itch that people like to scratch by debating it regularly.

Should Fischer have compromised his principles just to avoid being painted as “the guy who walked away”? It's important to understand that Fischer’s decision was a principled stand for what he believed would preserve the integrity of the world championship. He saw the 9–9 clause not as a demand, but as a moral line. What would have been the alternative?

If a reigning undefeated world champion offers to play under the same rules that previous greats accepted, and the governing body refuses, who is really walking away?

The quote by kasparov only shows how betrayed Fischer was, it shows a man that saw the institutions not just being turned against fairness but him specifically, Before fischer soviet players dominated chess for decades USSR viewed chess as a tool of national prestige. Fischer shattered that in 1972. He had enemies. They used the media and psychological warfare to defame Fischer and paint him in a bad light, when in reality everything that Fischer was saying about him being targeted was true. It was a coordinated institutional and media-driven attack against him.

Fischer had a tactical and strategic mind so advanced, most people even strong players couldn’t follow his thought process. Later in life Fischer's antisemitic and anti-american rants while disturbing didn't come from out of thin-air after he became a national hero and was recognized the world over he was arrested on false charges of bank robbery and thrown into a jailhouse in Pasadena and held him in a cell completely naked without clothes. If you ever wanted a justifiable reason why he leaned into these views later in life just consider the timeline of these events. Fischer made a FAIR request and FIDE treated it as if he was being unreasonable, painted him in a bad light in the media, then took away his Title and later targeted on the streets of Pasadena by rogue police officers and tortured. Fischer had a right to be extremely discontent with the system, He was not born bitter. He was pushed there, step by step, the world took his gifts and discarded him. He wasn't crazy, he was right early, often, and loudly

Fischer was an absolute megalo, saying the world lost something because he picked up his toys and went home is akin to saying that the world was the poorer because Picasso stopped painting due to not being allowed to drink the blood of newly dispatched children. Fischer was one of those utter psychos who was destined to crash and burn.

Your comparison is pretty off-base and unnecessarily hostile it's a widely held, respected and mainstream view among both chess historians, and top grandmasters that the world lost something significant when Bobby Fischer didn't defend his title in 1975.

Mocking me for saying this lacks some basic common sense dude. Its not only a jab at me personally, but everyone who holds this mainstream view. Calling him a megalomaniac is also a lazy way to dismiss someone who refuses to bow to corrupt systems. Framing Fischer’s principled stand as “picking up his toys and going home” completely ignores the reality of the situation. Fischer didn't storm off in a tantrum he laid out clear historically grounded conditions, FIDE failed to meet him in the middle. If someone mocks that they are only ignoring history.