Sometimes, a like button would be useful. I like very much what Bonesy said (currently, post #365).
I too studied the games of Fischer, and studied the games of Kasparov. Fischer was one of the all time greats. Kasparov was better. Karpov may even have been better than Fischer. Karpov was certainly better for a longer period than Fischer was. But that doesn't take anything away from Fischer's greatness.
https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-greatest-che-player-of-all-time-part-iv
i am outside USA .
my answer is : i dont think Bobby as THE GREATEST . i think of him as one of the greatest players like Botvinik , Nunn and more .
i admire him and enjoy studying his games .
if you will look at this thread, most people who defend fischer here are from united states.
No disrespect intended, but you aren't strong enough to truly understand how great Fischer was or wasn't. I put him right behind Kasparov and potentially behind Carlsen. But even if that is being too generous, to say that "Fischer wasn't actually that good" is absurd. By 1972, he had no equal at all and was far ahead of the next strongest player, whoever you want to put there.
And you are not qualified either. What you are bragging? Being a national master? I have beaten national masters in my country. I am just not pursuing chess as a career.Have you missed the poll conducted by the stuff of chess.com that includes strong players like Nakamura? The result shows that the strongest are Kasparov,Carlsen,Anand and Krammnik. Qualified strong players like Anand(not from USA) and Kramnik(not from USA) also pick Kasparov. Nakamura pick Kasparov. I am not saying he is not good, but he is right behind these players(as strong players told).
What i told is true. If you will look at chess.com, most Fischer defenders are from USA.
The original title of this post is " Do players outside the United States think Bobby Fischer wasn't actually that good?". Basically, I'm saying it's absurd to say that Fischer wasn't that good, regardless of what part of the world one is from. I'm a big Fischer fan, but I have devoted countless hours going over his roughly 600 games and Kasparov's as well. My opinion is that Kasparov was the superior player, but even so. Fischer was incredibly strong and anyone who understands chess can see that strength in his games.
Really, who cares where Fischer's defenders are from? Chess moves don't lie and his results lie even less. You sir, are anti-American. It's fine. Get in line.
I did also study lots of games by Fischer. I am not anti American. Kobe Bryant is my favorite basketball player of all time. In fact Kobe is the sports figure that I am the most fan of. I never told that Fischer is not good. But I share what others told. I have players like Kasparov,Karpov, Anand etc ahead of him.
Fischer or Kasparov, or a draw. Fischer was mad, Fischer was not always a nice guy, he was human, he was a tragedy, but, man, could he play Chess?
Most people here were not alive in 1972. I was. The man had everyone talking. Chess was front page news day after day.
I was around and already middle aged. it was great time.
I lived in it. Chess became the most talked about thing.
Chess? Most people in 2016 do not care about it anymore.
Fact, folks.
Yeah, it is big on Chess.com.
Fine.
Fischer or Kasparov, or a draw. Fischer was mad, Fischer was not always a nice guy, he was human, he was a tragedy, but, man, could he play Chess?
Most people here were not alive in 1972. I was. The man had everyone talking. Chess was front page news day after day.
I was around and already middle aged. it was great time.
I lived in it. Chess became the most talked about thing.
Chess? Most people in 2016 do not care about it anymore.
Fact, folks.
Yeah, it is big on Chess.com.
Fine.
Good post. Yes, Fischer was a crazy person who said crazy things, but for whatever reason I've never felt a need to condemn him. Even after his comments about the United States after 9/11--and I am a very patriotic person--I felt sympathy toward him more than anything else.
It's interesting to know that in 1972 even in Australia people were following Fischer and chess and chess was surging in popularity. That was a bit before my time so I wasn't around to experience it. I wonder if we'll ever see another surge like that for any reason.
Do you know how many influential theoretical novelties in the Encyclopaedic 1000 TN ! BF is credited for ?....none. Can you believe it ?....none.
Anand has (9), Karpov has (8), & Kasparov has (5).
Here's the Top (10) list of Anand's best TN's....ever:
1) Anand - Kamsky, Sanghi Nagar (m/1) 1994 - Informant 61/345
2) Anand - Tkachiev, Moscow (m/1) 2001 - Informant 83/326
3) Anand - Kasimdzhanov, Hyderabad 2002 - Informant 86/137
4) Anand - Bologan, Dortmund 2003 - Informant 88/77
5) Anand - Adams, San Luis 2005 - Informant 94/267
6) Anand - Kramnik, Bonn (m/6) 2008 - Informant 104/146
7) Anand - Leko, Moscow 2009 - Informant 107/132
8) Anand - Topalov, Sofia (m/4) 2010 - Informant 108/134
9) Topalov - Anand, Nanjing 2010 - Informant 110/243
10) Anand-Wang Hao, Wijk aan Zee 2011 - Informant 111/268
BF has contributed nothing to today's game ! And I'm sure Russia, the unequivical developer of chess thought for the last 100 years, probably thinks he was of low theoretical occupation.
****
And BTW, who cares what the rest of the world thinks about chess ?....it's what Russia thinks that's most important.
And BTW, who cares what the rest of the world thinks about chess ?....it's what Russia thinks that's most important.
LOL
Well, (8) of the Top 20 men & (12) of the Top 20 Women are Soviet Unionovs. What's that tell you ?
Well, (8) of the Top 20 men & (12) of the Top 20 Women are Soviet Unionovs. What's that tell you ?
It tells me they have always been really good at chess. It does not tell me I should care only about their opinions.
Regarding the rest of your comments, the simple fact is that Bobby curb stomped them. Regardless of anything else--how many novelties he's noted for etc--they played him and lost. There's no getting around that reality.
Well, he never played Kasparov nor Karpov, now did he ?....their (2) best. And yet they were old enuf to play & win him. He only won those who were old & in the way.
I think you need to go look up the ages of the ppl he was winning. Kinda a joke really....like your comments there buster....
....
Well, he never played Kasparov nor Karpov, now did he ?....their (2) best. And yet they were old enuf to play & win him. He only won those who were old & in the way.
I think you need to go look up the ages of the ppl he was winning. Kinda a joke really....like your comments there buster........
We have no way of knowing what would have happened if Bobby had stuck around. He clearly had a mind for the game and was still young, so it's reasonable to think that he would have gotten even stronger as he matured.
Of course he didn't stick around and decided to go do something else instead. That limits him from being as great as he could have become--cutting him off in his prime, as it were--but it doesn't take away from all he accomplished and it doesn't rewrite history into some narrative where he wasn't absolutely dominant for as long as he was around.
Who knows, had Soviets not cheated, Fischer may have been world champion 10 years earlier. Today's players don't have to deal with that.
Fischer completely revolutionised chess and he did it single-handedly too, with virtually no help from anyone else. By any meaningful criteria, you've got to say it was a remarkable achievement.
If I were to ever encounter someone who claimed he "wasn't actually that good" with a straight face I think I'd be tempted to write an internal note-to-self: "Don't listen to anything this person says about chess."
If defeating the soviet mafia was so easy, then everyone and their aunty would have done it. The point is that Fischer was the only one who defeated the soviet gang. Anand came long after the disintegration of Soviet Russia. Even then, from the death of Alekhine till rise of Anand, there is only one non-Soviet Champion: Fischer.
I suspect that assassination of Alekhine followed by long domination of chess by soviets is not a coincident. I think that the Soviet secret police killed Alekhine to allow their players to reign on the top. Alekhine's own son voiced the suspicion that his father was killed by Soviets. Alekhine died when he was about to play a world championship against Botvinnik. After the death of Alekhine, Botvinnik became the new champ without having to defeat Alekhine. If the soviets could assassinate a champion for the cup, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that they would force their own players to fix and cheat as well. I think the Soviets were cheating and fixing the tournaments among themselves. Fischer came along and defeated them all singlehandedly and ended their long reign. And all that was done at the height of cold war when the stakes were quite high.
Hands up who has carefully played through more than half a dozen of Fischer's games? 
I'm guessing by no means all of the posters on this thread.
Well, he never played Kasparov nor Karpov, now did he ?....their (2) best. And yet they were old enuf to play & win him. He only won those who were old & in the way.
I think you need to go look up the ages of the ppl he was winning. Kinda a joke really....like your comments there buster........
Your ignorance is really enormous ! Spassky was not old when Fischer crushed him , he was 35 which ( in Fischer's generation ) when players were normally at their peak . As for the " old " Petrosian that he smashed in 71 , Petrosian was even older in his games against both Karpov and Kasparov and yet has an even record against both of them . This means simply that had Fischer played either of them in this time period he would have beaten them without much trouble . Karpov never even managed to reach Fischer's peak rating even though he played for decades after Fischer was out of the picture . I wish you would stop posing as an authority on chess when you are clearly nothing but a stupid hack .
He was good for sure.
Was he the greatest player ever? We dont know but I would like the greatest player at least to be mentally stable....
Hands up who has carefully played through more than half a dozen of Fischer's games?
I'm guessing by no means all of the posters on this thread.
*Hands up*
But anyway, Fischer was a great chess player but not the greatest, a lot of Americans in this thread have a bit trouble with confirmation bias. No USA isn't the best in the world and Fischer isn't as well.
Many great chess players were unstable . Genius and insanity often go hand in hand .
(#381) We have no way of knowing what would have happened if Bobby had stuck around.
****
Oh yes there was !....He looked terrible in 1992 against Spassky ! Everyone knows it (sans Game 1....a diamondette 
). It was a comedy of errors ! And BF was trying w/ all of his might 'cuz his ego & need for $.
In 1970, Taimanov was 46 & Bent larsen was 35 & Tigran Petrosian was 43. Not my idea of players in their prime back then. More like rocking chair chess by the fire !
I think you beauzeau's need a reality check. And I'm the one here to give it to you....so watch out !
If you're Ace ?...then you introduced yourself to me in Las Vegas a few years ago !