bobby fischer never really studied theory??

you seem to be deeply confused about what theory means within the context of chess.  

For what its worth a tv documentary said that he was constantly reading chess books from the age of 5. He obsessively researched current theory and even learned basic Russian to read Soviet books. A reporter asked him how many of the book games he memorized, and he replied "fewer than you'd think." In other words he analyzed the games for strategy rather than attempting to memorize trees of positions. I'm totally new to chess but I can say that that is the only effective strategy for studying engineering. Memorizing hierarchies of data is useless compared to developing a fundamental understanding of the mechanics of something.

Dr Frank, 

How well can average and profient chess players visualize? Can you easily see the board in your mind and move pieces around? Is this something only the best players can do, or is it critical to most levels of play?

Thanks.

You are asking a very good question. I, myself, am only an intermediate player and my ability to visualize the board is limited. When playing a game or studying a diagram I can sometimes see 3, 4 or even more moves, depending on the position itself. I used to play chess in Washington Square Park and I knew someone who said he was a chess master. I asked him if he could play blindfold chess and he said no, but he did know that some masters could. I believe that Bobby Fischer was able to play blindfold chess and would do so with his chess coach when he was a child and they were going to the movies or doing something and did not have a board handy. There are other anectdotes also that I have read that indicated that Fischer could play chess blindfold. But if he could play blindfold chess, why did he need to carry a chess wallet? I paid around $100.00 for a replica of Bobby Fischer's chess wallet that I ordered from the internet and I'm wondering if I was ripped off. 

Maybe its a tactile thing. I build a lot of circuits and I'm primarily tacticle, so when I learn something mechanical I do it with my hands. Its possible that physically moving the pieces stimulated his mind, especially since he was also athletic. Some people actually learn better when they can move freely and touch what they're learning.

#philidor

You seem to need to shutup... deeply

theory doesn't mean general chess principals, it means very concrete series of opening moves, along with perhaps the evaluation of the resultant position and typical plans.

this is not something that anyone can know natually or instinctively. it must be studied and committed to memory. 

What a compelling argument.

definition of theory

A set of assumptions, propositions, or accepted facts that attempts to provide a plausible or rationalexplanation of cause-and-effect (causal) relationships among a group of observed phenomenon. The word's origin (from the Greek thorós, a spectator), stresses the fact that all theories are mental models of the perceived reality.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/theory.html#ixzz2YAThnuPS

you know we're talking about theory within the context of chess, right? 

well it does have the same meaning. the assumptions / accepted facts being that after move x moves y or z are considered best play because of some string of moves leaving a position which is favourable because of whatever factors of the position.

in his match with spassky,he wasnot impressive in opening.seems to me he was afraid of novelties prepared by soviets and always was looking for sth new to escape their preparations.we saw how in his first game with petrosian(1971)he ran into difficulties in his deeply studied sicilian with a surprising novelty.fischer was among the best in his time in studying openings but wasnot impressive.

are you kidding?? ofc he was impressive, the openings he won against spassky he probably never played before and still he has beaten him.

How impressive was the alekhine defense?? snatching a pawn against an attacking player like Spassky and giving him the centre.. Thats probably one of the most impressing feats ever. I mean that probably violated several rules of chess and he won.

Fischer when he lost the games to Spassky before, he was even way better in the tournament than Spassky and he lost because he pushed to hard to win.

If you want to read something else than the Informant, you will meet some long comments like "This move looks good, but actually isn't. Though White just violated the opening principles, it is of no use to black because he lacks central control...(etc)".

If you only know a couple of key words, that sentence reads "move good no. Transgress opening, no black center.". A bit hard to decipher.

he didnt choose alekhine since he was thoroughly prepared,he chose it since it was a surprise and was a weapon to escape his opponents preparation.in those times it was still possible to play like that.

Even if Fischer could not himself speak Russian, I am sure that because of his living in a household with Russian speakers, since he was such a bright person, he could pick up some Russian and use it in his chess studies.

oh really?

No his life dream was to be world champion and beat the Russians soundly when he won the title and beat their top players he had nothing left to prove Fischer wasn't scared of anyone.