Bobby Fischer is overrated

Sort:
Avatar of Standuhrenmacher

Bobby Fischer is not as good as everynone is saying

Avatar of Josh11live
Bobby Fischer is not as good because we have computers now! And the world is slowly fading away because of it.
Avatar of TetrisFrolfChess

Nah

Avatar of Puttpurtle

I wonder if that's like saying Newton wasn't as good as Einstein. I mean, their circumstances were different. They were both brilliant in their own right. But Einstein clearly had the benifits of a more developed foundation.

Avatar of magipi
Josh11live wrote:
Bobby Fischer is not as good because we have computers now! And the world is slowly fading away because of it.

He beat some of the best players in the world in Candidates matches 6-0. This fact remains a fact whether we have computers or not.

Avatar of Leto
“Bobby Fischer is overrated” - truth from 800- player…
Avatar of thereturnofthesnowfox

Bobby Fischer is top 5 of all time, though not necessarily top of all time, I would put Karpov top.

Avatar of Josh11live
#5. Magnus literally has a higher FIDE rating.
Avatar of magipi
Josh11live wrote:
#5. Magnus literally has a higher FIDE rating.

Elo rating is not really designed to compare players that are separated by half a century.

Avatar of Dava0903
But he’s obviously better then you
Avatar of delcai007
Standuhrenmacher wrote:

Bobby Fischer is not as good as everynone is saying

LOL

Avatar of delcai007
Josh11live wrote:
#5. Magnus literally has a higher FIDE rating.

As opposed to figuratively having a higher rating... gotcha.

Avatar of AJ_Chess64

Don't even try to compare Magnus Carlsen to Bobby Fischer. It's laughable. Fischer wasn’t just a chess genius — he was a force of nature. He didn’t have databases, engines, second monitors, or 15-second opening prep on Lichess. He learned RUSSIAN just to read Soviet chess publications — in an era when the Soviets dominated the game and held the world title hostage for decades.

Fischer didn’t just beat the Soviet machine — he destroyed it. Alone. Without a team. Without a federation that believed in him. And you're telling me Magnus, with all his Stockfish training wheels, could beat that? Please.

Fischer's run in the Candidates in 1971 was the most dominant performance in chess history. He crushed world-class grandmasters like they were amateurs. He revolutionized preparation, opening theory, and psychological warfare. He made chess global. And he did it in a world where everything was analog, travel was hell, and the Cold War was breathing down his neck.

Bobby Fischer is the greatest of all time. Period. No algorithms, no internet, no excuses. Just pure, unmatched genius.

Avatar of Uhohspaghettio1
AJ_Chess64 wrote:

Don't even try to compare Magnus Carlsen to Bobby Fischer. It's laughable. Fischer wasn’t just a chess genius — he was a force of nature. He didn’t have databases, engines, second monitors, or 15-second opening prep on Lichess. He learned RUSSIAN just to read Soviet chess publications — in an era when the Soviets dominated the game and held the world title hostage for decades.

Fischer didn’t just beat the Soviet machine — he destroyed it. Alone. Without a team. Without a federation that believed in him. And you're telling me Magnus, with all his Stockfish training wheels, could beat that? Please.

Fischer's run in the Candidates in 1971 was the most dominant performance in chess history. He crushed world-class grandmasters like they were amateurs. He revolutionized preparation, opening theory, and psychological warfare. He made chess global. And he did it in a world where everything was analog, travel was hell, and the Cold War was breathing down his neck.

Bobby Fischer is the greatest of all time. Period. No algorithms, no internet, no excuses. Just pure, unmatched genius.

Fischer just memorized and copied the chess that went before him.

His complaining about memorization was basically just projection - he himself was memorizing

Fischer revolutionized opening preparation may not be the "dunk" you think it is - .Fischer was able to get a unique advantage over his opponents by preparing specifically for them, which was unknown to be done by anyone else at the time. Once everyone started doing this he lost this important edge.

Noone else has ever done that in the candidates - because they changed the format of the candidates. But it wouldn't be highly unusual if Carlsen was to beat an elite GM 6 times out of 6.

Why do we never hear about other statistics or trivia about Fischer other than that Candidates tournament? Won 7 elite tournaments in a row or something like that. Oh that's right, because despite being clearly the best in the world there were no big blowouts, what happened at the candidates was partly fluke.

Fischer was very scared of Karpov and that new generation, that is why he chose to bow out when he did.

Avatar of AJ_Chess64
Uhohspaghettio1 escribió:
AJ_Chess64 wrote:

Don't even try to compare Magnus Carlsen to Bobby Fischer. It's laughable. Fischer wasn’t just a chess genius — he was a force of nature. He didn’t have databases, engines, second monitors, or 15-second opening prep on Lichess. He learned RUSSIAN just to read Soviet chess publications — in an era when the Soviets dominated the game and held the world title hostage for decades.

Fischer didn’t just beat the Soviet machine — he destroyed it. Alone. Without a team. Without a federation that believed in him. And you're telling me Magnus, with all his Stockfish training wheels, could beat that? Please.

Fischer's run in the Candidates in 1971 was the most dominant performance in chess history. He crushed world-class grandmasters like they were amateurs. He revolutionized preparation, opening theory, and psychological warfare. He made chess global. And he did it in a world where everything was analog, travel was hell, and the Cold War was breathing down his neck.

Bobby Fischer is the greatest of all time. Period. No algorithms, no internet, no excuses. Just pure, unmatched genius.

Fischer just memorized and copied the chess that went before him.

His complaining about memorization was basically just projection - he himself was memorizing

Fischer revolutionized opening preparation may not be the "dunk" you think it is - .Fischer was able to get a unique advantage over his opponents by preparing specifically for them, which was unknown to be done by anyone else at the time. Once everyone started doing this he lost this important edge.

Noone else has ever done that in the candidates - because they changed the format of the candidates. But it wouldn't be highly unusual if Carlsen was to beat an elite GM 6 times out of 6.

Why do we never hear about other statistics or trivia about Fischer other than that Candidates tournament? Won 7 elite tournaments in a row or something like that. Oh that's right, because despite being clearly the best in the world there were no big blowouts, what happened at the candidates was partly fluke.

Fischer was very scared of Karpov and that new generation, that is why he chose to bow out when he did.

Let’s clear up some misconceptions about Bobby Fischer.

“Fischer just memorized and copied the chess that went before him.”

This claim is flat-out wrong. Fischer studied classical games, yes — like every great player in history. But he didn’t just “copy” them. He reinvented opening theory from the inside out. His use of the Najdorf, the Sozin, and especially the Ruy Lopez with ...h5 was groundbreaking. He didn’t follow theory — he pushed it forward. He came up with original novelties on the board in a pre-engine era. The idea that he was a parrot of past games is historically dishonest.

“His complaining about memorization was just projection.”

Fischer’s problem with memorization wasn’t about the need to know theory — it was about how Soviet players would draw by playing heavily analyzed lines without fighting. He wanted real games, not rehearsed scripts. He was the first to propose changes like randomized openings (later known as Fischer Random/Chess960), because he wanted pure creativity to win.

“Once everyone started preparing for opponents, his edge disappeared.”

That argument falls apart for one reason: no one caught up to Fischer while he was active. No one “figured him out.” He retired at the peak — not because he lost his edge, but because he demanded radical reforms (some reasonable, some extreme) and FIDE refused. The myth that others caught up is retrospective rewriting. Karpov didn’t beat him. No one did.

“Carlsen could beat someone 6-0 too.”

That’s hypothetical. Fischer actually did it. He beat Taimanov 6–0. Then Larsen 6–0. Then Petrosian 6.5–2.5. That’s two 6–0s against elite GMs in a row. These weren’t underdogs — they were top 10 players and former World Champions. And he didn’t just beat them — he obliterated them. That’s not a “fluke.” That’s domination. If Carlsen ever does that — we’ll talk.

“Why do we never hear other statistics about Fischer?”

Here’s some:

  • He won the 1963 U.S. Championship with 11/11, the only perfect score in history.

  • He had a 72.3% career winning percentage at top-level events.

  • He went 20 straight games undefeated against top 10 opponents in 1970–72, including the famous 6–0s.

  • He had the highest Elo rating in history at the time: 2785 in 1972, ~100 points above his peers.

“Fischer was scared of Karpov.”

This is pure speculation. Fischer didn’t fear anyone over the board. He hated the politics, the media circus, and FIDE’s refusal to change the match format to something more resistant to drawing tactics. Karpov himself said he believed Fischer would have beaten him in 1975. The myth of Fischer’s fear comes more from armchair psychology than real evidence.


Bobby Fischer wasn’t perfect — no one is. But he wasn’t a fluke, a memorizer, or a coward. He was the most dominant force chess had ever seen, and the fact that his legacy still sparks this much debate 50 years later only proves how deep his impact was

Avatar of rishiflash

ok

Avatar of punchdrunkpatzer
AJ_Chess64 wrote:
Uhohspaghettio1 escribió:
AJ_Chess64 wrote:

Don't even try to compare Magnus Carlsen to Bobby Fischer. It's laughable. Fischer wasn’t just a chess genius — he was a force of nature. He didn’t have databases, engines, second monitors, or 15-second opening prep on Lichess. He learned RUSSIAN just to read Soviet chess publications — in an era when the Soviets dominated the game and held the world title hostage for decades.

Fischer didn’t just beat the Soviet machine — he destroyed it. Alone. Without a team. Without a federation that believed in him. And you're telling me Magnus, with all his Stockfish training wheels, could beat that? Please.

Fischer's run in the Candidates in 1971 was the most dominant performance in chess history. He crushed world-class grandmasters like they were amateurs. He revolutionized preparation, opening theory, and psychological warfare. He made chess global. And he did it in a world where everything was analog, travel was hell, and the Cold War was breathing down his neck.

Bobby Fischer is the greatest of all time. Period. No algorithms, no internet, no excuses. Just pure, unmatched genius.

Fischer just memorized and copied the chess that went before him.

His complaining about memorization was basically just projection - he himself was memorizing

Fischer revolutionized opening preparation may not be the "dunk" you think it is - .Fischer was able to get a unique advantage over his opponents by preparing specifically for them, which was unknown to be done by anyone else at the time. Once everyone started doing this he lost this important edge.

Noone else has ever done that in the candidates - because they changed the format of the candidates. But it wouldn't be highly unusual if Carlsen was to beat an elite GM 6 times out of 6.

Why do we never hear about other statistics or trivia about Fischer other than that Candidates tournament? Won 7 elite tournaments in a row or something like that. Oh that's right, because despite being clearly the best in the world there were no big blowouts, what happened at the candidates was partly fluke.

Fischer was very scared of Karpov and that new generation, that is why he chose to bow out when he did.

Let’s clear up some misconceptions about Bobby Fischer.

“Fischer just memorized and copied the chess that went before him.”

This claim is flat-out wrong. Fischer studied classical games, yes — like every great player in history. But he didn’t just “copy” them. He reinvented opening theory from the inside out. His use of the Najdorf, the Sozin, and especially the Ruy Lopez with ...h5 was groundbreaking. He didn’t follow theory — he pushed it forward. He came up with original novelties on the board in a pre-engine era. The idea that he was a parrot of past games is historically dishonest.

“His complaining about memorization was just projection.”

Fischer’s problem with memorization wasn’t about the need to know theory — it was about how Soviet players would draw by playing heavily analyzed lines without fighting. He wanted real games, not rehearsed scripts. He was the first to propose changes like randomized openings (later known as Fischer Random/Chess960), because he wanted pure creativity to win.

“Once everyone started preparing for opponents, his edge disappeared.”

That argument falls apart for one reason: no one caught up to Fischer while he was active. No one “figured him out.” He retired at the peak — not because he lost his edge, but because he demanded radical reforms (some reasonable, some extreme) and FIDE refused. The myth that others caught up is retrospective rewriting. Karpov didn’t beat him. No one did.

“Carlsen could beat someone 6-0 too.”

That’s hypothetical. Fischer actually did it. He beat Taimanov 6–0. Then Larsen 6–0. Then Petrosian 6.5–2.5. That’s two 6–0s against elite GMs in a row. These weren’t underdogs — they were top 10 players and former World Champions. And he didn’t just beat them — he obliterated them. That’s not a “fluke.” That’s domination. If Carlsen ever does that — we’ll talk.

“Why do we never hear other statistics about Fischer?”

Here’s some:

  • He won the 1963 U.S. Championship with 11/11, the only perfect score in history.

  • He had a 72.3% career winning percentage at top-level events.

  • He went 20 straight games undefeated against top 10 opponents in 1970–72, including the famous 6–0s.

  • He had the highest Elo rating in history at the time: 2785 in 1972, ~100 points above his peers.

“Fischer was scared of Karpov.”

This is pure speculation. Fischer didn’t fear anyone over the board. He hated the politics, the media circus, and FIDE’s refusal to change the match format to something more resistant to drawing tactics. Karpov himself said he believed Fischer would have beaten him in 1975. The myth of Fischer’s fear comes more from armchair psychology than real evidence.


Bobby Fischer wasn’t perfect — no one is. But he wasn’t a fluke, a memorizer, or a coward. He was the most dominant force chess had ever seen, and the fact that his legacy still sparks this much debate 50 years later only proves how deep his impact was

 

Prime Carlsen would win a 10 game match against prime Fischer even if Fischer had access to modern theory.

Lay off the ChatGPT.

Avatar of Puttpurtle
punchdrunkpatzer wrote:
AJ_Chess64 wrote:
Uhohspaghettio1 escribió:
AJ_Chess64 wrote:

Don't even try to compare Magnus Carlsen to Bobby Fischer. It's laughable. Fischer wasn’t just a chess genius — he was a force of nature. He didn’t have databases, engines, second monitors, or 15-second opening prep on Lichess. He learned RUSSIAN just to read Soviet chess publications — in an era when the Soviets dominated the game and held the world title hostage for decades.

Fischer didn’t just beat the Soviet machine — he destroyed it. Alone. Without a team. Without a federation that believed in him. And you're telling me Magnus, with all his Stockfish training wheels, could beat that? Please.

Fischer's run in the Candidates in 1971 was the most dominant performance in chess history. He crushed world-class grandmasters like they were amateurs. He revolutionized preparation, opening theory, and psychological warfare. He made chess global. And he did it in a world where everything was analog, travel was hell, and the Cold War was breathing down his neck.

Bobby Fischer is the greatest of all time. Period. No algorithms, no internet, no excuses. Just pure, unmatched genius.

Fischer just memorized and copied the chess that went before him.

His complaining about memorization was basically just projection - he himself was memorizing

Fischer revolutionized opening preparation may not be the "dunk" you think it is - .Fischer was able to get a unique advantage over his opponents by preparing specifically for them, which was unknown to be done by anyone else at the time. Once everyone started doing this he lost this important edge.

Noone else has ever done that in the candidates - because they changed the format of the candidates. But it wouldn't be highly unusual if Carlsen was to beat an elite GM 6 times out of 6.

Why do we never hear about other statistics or trivia about Fischer other than that Candidates tournament? Won 7 elite tournaments in a row or something like that. Oh that's right, because despite being clearly the best in the world there were no big blowouts, what happened at the candidates was partly fluke.

Fischer was very scared of Karpov and that new generation, that is why he chose to bow out when he did.

Let’s clear up some misconceptions about Bobby Fischer.

“Fischer just memorized and copied the chess that went before him.”

This claim is flat-out wrong. Fischer studied classical games, yes — like every great player in history. But he didn’t just “copy” them. He reinvented opening theory from the inside out. His use of the Najdorf, the Sozin, and especially the Ruy Lopez with ...h5 was groundbreaking. He didn’t follow theory — he pushed it forward. He came up with original novelties on the board in a pre-engine era. The idea that he was a parrot of past games is historically dishonest.

“His complaining about memorization was just projection.”

Fischer’s problem with memorization wasn’t about the need to know theory — it was about how Soviet players would draw by playing heavily analyzed lines without fighting. He wanted real games, not rehearsed scripts. He was the first to propose changes like randomized openings (later known as Fischer Random/Chess960), because he wanted pure creativity to win.

“Once everyone started preparing for opponents, his edge disappeared.”

That argument falls apart for one reason: no one caught up to Fischer while he was active. No one “figured him out.” He retired at the peak — not because he lost his edge, but because he demanded radical reforms (some reasonable, some extreme) and FIDE refused. The myth that others caught up is retrospective rewriting. Karpov didn’t beat him. No one did.

“Carlsen could beat someone 6-0 too.”

That’s hypothetical. Fischer actually did it. He beat Taimanov 6–0. Then Larsen 6–0. Then Petrosian 6.5–2.5. That’s two 6–0s against elite GMs in a row. These weren’t underdogs — they were top 10 players and former World Champions. And he didn’t just beat them — he obliterated them. That’s not a “fluke.” That’s domination. If Carlsen ever does that — we’ll talk.

“Why do we never hear other statistics about Fischer?”

Here’s some:

  • He won the 1963 U.S. Championship with 11/11, the only perfect score in history.

  • He had a 72.3% career winning percentage at top-level events.

  • He went 20 straight games undefeated against top 10 opponents in 1970–72, including the famous 6–0s.

  • He had the highest Elo rating in history at the time: 2785 in 1972, ~100 points above his peers.

“Fischer was scared of Karpov.”

This is pure speculation. Fischer didn’t fear anyone over the board. He hated the politics, the media circus, and FIDE’s refusal to change the match format to something more resistant to drawing tactics. Karpov himself said he believed Fischer would have beaten him in 1975. The myth of Fischer’s fear comes more from armchair psychology than real evidence.


Bobby Fischer wasn’t perfect — no one is. But he wasn’t a fluke, a memorizer, or a coward. He was the most dominant force chess had ever seen, and the fact that his legacy still sparks this much debate 50 years later only proves how deep his impact was

 

Prime Carlsen would win a 10 game match against prime Fischer even if Fischer had access to modern theory.

Lay off the ChatGPT.

What is clear to me is that Fischer lived in more challenging times. His home situation wasn't great. He did not have computers the way we do now.

If 'the nurture' was they same, would he beat Carlsen? I don't know. Maybe?

Avatar of DreamscapeHorizons

Come on y'all, let's see some good arguin goin on.

Avatar of ChessMasteryOfficial

While it's true his reign at the top was brief, the sheer, crushing dominance he displayed over the world's best players en route to the 1972 championship was an achievement that many feel is unparalleled in chess history.