Do players outside the United States think Bobby Fischer wasn't actually that good?

Bronstein once said that Morphy could compete with the world's best given a little time to brush up with theory. But when someone asked Kasparov about this quote roughly a generation or so later, Kasparov responded something along the lines of "yes, that may have been true in the '50's ... that simply shows that the advances in theory in just 30 years quickly produces better chess players, and that was before computers were so strong!

Regarding Fischer specifically ... he beat 2 other strong GM's 6-0 and 6-0, then easily beat the previous 2 champions, and that was after relative inactivity... that just shows how weak and old those players were because that has never happened before or since... just shows how bad the competition was. Fischer is like de la Maza's, rapid success then quit. Spassky and Larsen were more than 5 years older than Fischer... Petrosian was practically senile and walking with a cane, something like in his early 40's when they played.

Fischer saw the writing on the wall and quit at the right time. He is considered a legend and always in this discussion even though we know that today's CM's would beat him with a comfortable but not demolishing margin.

This must be a clever joke but somehow I don't get it.

This is just idiotic , surely you are just a stupid troll ? 

Larsen could  have drawn a few if he had wanted. The result makes it seem more dominating than what actually happened on the board. I've forgotten the Taimanov match, maybe true for that one too.

Dominant world champions often make their peers look bad. That's more to Fischer's credit than anything. You're essentially saying a whole generation of top players were weak.

As for quitting, Fischer had a history of it... and they barely got him to play the match with Spassky in the first place. He obviously had other issues.

Mr. Reb...

No, no, NO!!!!

The OP and Naka pretty much make the same claim... that Fischer can't beat today's GM's and isn't and never was very good.  I am pretty sure when Naka claimed that modern players could now easily beat Fischer, I am sure he didn't mean a dead Fischer, a 1992 Fischer after 20 years of inactivity, or a 73-year old Fischer if he were alive today... he and the OP must be referring to a peak 1972 Fischer.  Now let's continue the logic...

Since men of such genius (as people believe Fischer to be) are now a dime a dozen in the world of top-flight chess, this means one of three things...

1. Fischer never was a genius, just the best amongst the terrible or old (you will notice that it is a similar argument used against Morphy, since today's class C players could probably beat him if booked up). 

2. Humans have evolved (punctuated equilibrium style) in the last generation or two such that we are more capable as a population of doing what Fischer could do 44 years ago, hence now all of Naka's contemporaries are better than a peak '72 Fischer.

--or--

3. Advances in theory are why Naka and the OP claim that Fischer is not as good as people claim to be.  

Maybe we can add a fourth... our objectivity is blinded by being American and Fischer being American.

Now number 1 is probably partially true.  Probably a lot of CM's, NM's, FM's,and IM's out there who wish they were born 40 years earlier, and think that they could crush guys like Morphy or Capablanca pretty easily with what they know today. 

Number 2 does not make sense as even with the nuclear radiation all over, the process of evolution still should take more than 1-2 generations for progressive increase in brain function.

Number 3 makes the most sense, or else people wouldn't be saying how Morphy and Fischer suck because they are American and played only crappy players and today's booked/engined up players are far better.  

Number 4 sounds good on the surface, but those American guys (Morphy and Fischer) did beat everyone else at the same time, even though they quit early. 

I cannot tell you what Naka or the OP meant when they said what they said.  They might mean any one or a combination of my above conditions. I think number 3 makes the most sense having seen this subject discussed ad nauseum.  Therefore, we can all learn to study theory the most and give only token study time to tactics, endgames, and strategy, or else we will never be able to beat guys like Fischer, like Naka and co. can quite easily.  

Quote / source please (although I know you just made it up).

Sorry binary, it is just a relative expression... Fischer wasn't terrible in the objective sense and was great in his time, but compared to Naka and his contemporaries, he is like a lowly IM or worse.

I think some of us are being trolled badly here.

I'll see if I can dig up the quotation from an interview Taimanov had with the chess press more or less at the time but as I remember it, he was totally in awe of Fischer. He said something along the lines of the following. When other strong players move you can see the logic of their moves even as they beat you. With Fischer you often can't ... until it is way too late. In other words Taimanov was saying that Fischer's strategizing was way, way deeper than that of any of his contemporaries.

If that's true, Danny - and with the greatest respect, I typically find your contributions very enlightening - then how did Fischer get a 2700+ rating if he was only IM level or below?

Danny is just a troll and should be ignored . 

https://youtu.be/Xpugp6DIb3I

"The more you talk the more things sound the same".  You know, it's been a good run, and I'm sure you're proud of making such a successful sockpuppet, but some of us have known since the beginning ...

Haha, you guys are hilarious. This whole thread is a troll. Just argue the points. I am trying to follow the OP's thinking and those who are sympathetic to him, including someone like Nakamura who thinks he and today's top GM's could easily beat a peak Fischer (there is another thread on this subject going on simultaneously) ... Argue the points, not the man, the method, or motivation. "Play the board" as they say. Doesn't matter whether I am a troll or not. There are people like the OP who believe the points I made or else they wouldn't say such things about Fischer and Morphy. I am trying to break it down as to what logic brought them to this point of saying "Fischer is not that great" or "Such and such non-top-contender GM could easily beat a peak Fischer".

As the OP, to be clear, I never said that Fischer wasn't great. I said that someone I talked to said so. Specifically someone who grew up outside the United States.

Also, I agree with Reb that you seem to be trolling your ass off here. For one, you couldn't even produce that Nakamura quote when asked to.

Thanks binary... one might argue that Fischer's 2700+ rating is kind of like that murderer who attained the 2700 rating in prison or how Nick Nip became the youngest master in history ... by taking advantage of existing rules and playing a bunch of patzers to build his rating.  Although Fischer was a legitimate champ, I believe the OP and sympathizers are saying something along these lines, I think... namely that his achievements were less impressive either because top competitors have more knowledge today (e.g., advances in theory) or that the level of competition was of such low quality that it was easy in 1972 to dominate but not like today's amazing specimens (the Morphy argument).  

Renegade or anyone else who is interested, please google "Nakamura: "Fischer would almost certainly lose to all of us" and see what comes up... geez. 

Okay, I found the quote. It exists. It might be helpful to reproduce it in full:

"Fischer would almost certainly lose to all of us, but this is due to the fact that the game has so fundamentally changed. If Fischer had a few years to use computers, I think he would probably be on the same level."

It's interesting, especially since he put Fischer in the Top 5 strongest players of all time in a recent list:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/who-are-the-top-5-world-champions

Renegade... my bad... when I said "OP", it was for simplification. It is just easier to say "OP" than to say "Lithuanian Fischer-detractor that the OP had a conversation with".

Interesting that Naka still thinks that a peak '72 Fischer equipped with modern engines and a few years to study theory is "probably on the same level" as Naka and the rest of his "can't qualify for the Candidates when we are such geniuses greater than the absolute best from a generation ago and equipped with 'puters and the most recent ECO".  At least that is what I am reading in Naka's lines.  Naka apparently wasn't impressed with Kasparov's middlegame skills either.