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

Simple: you have a pool of more players and you play only with higher-rated opponents, so even a draw would up your rating.

In the old days, the players' pool was narrower, but also more democratic, meaning that world champions frequently played also much lower-rated opponents, in different events, which is NOT quite the case now, excluding rapid, blitz and exhibitions.

Fischer was the best, there is no doubt about that, Kasparov's play is more GRANDIOSE, but Fischer's is more CORRECT.

More correct means higher elo.

Grandiose play is often mistaken for stronger play, but that is simply not so.

This has more to do with the style of the player, attacking play/wins certainly impress more.

I have checked Fischer's play in his later career with SF and he seems to make very FEW tactical mistakes, even in the most complicated of positions.

Simply incredible.

I could not believe SF sees the precise lines Fischer plays, which almost no human would think of in

a range of positions. Precisely the computer line.

Which is not true of Kasparov.

For example, his games against Karpov from 84-85, where he got the title, are full of tactical inaccuracies.

Another thing to consider is that Fischer played much stronger in quieter surroundings.

How stronger would he have been under such conditions, +100 elo, more?

So, no doubt, Fischer is the best, we will see what Carlsen does in the future, for the time being he is just competing.

It's the clearly bit that I and many others object to. 

Since FIDE ratings have been introduced, there have been 14 WC matches (not counting aborted matches and split titles). In 3 of these the outcome was different than that predicted by ratings. Furthermore, in one case the winner (Kramnik) was 70 rating points below the loser.

By contrast, the peak rating difference between Carlsen, Kasparov and Fischer were 97 and 66 points respectively. 

And there's one additional element. When Kasparov retired, he was 41 years old and 47 points below his peak. Given his age, it's highly unlikely he would have beaten his own record had he continued to play. Carlsen too seems to have peaked, oscillating 40-60 points below his peak for the last 4 years (but since he's only 27 he has better prospects of going above 2882 one day).

Fischer on the other hand was 29, and had dropped a mere 5 points below his peak... hardly a sign of decline. 

All in all, perhaps not as clearly cut as you picture it...

I've read Ken Regan talk about the Rating inflation myth, (http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/kasparov-fischer%E2%80%99s-1972-rating-much-more-significant-than-carlsen%E2%80%99s-current-rating)
I've also read in the US there is a rating deflation -in USCF ratings- due to the proliferation of scholastic chess.

On the opposite side, I've read Jeff Sonas (https://en.chessbase.com/post/rating-inflation-its-causes-and-poible-cures), Rod Edwards (http://www.edochess.ca/FIDE.Inflation/), even Dylan Loeb McClain of the NY Times (
https://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/are-todays-top-players-better-than-20-years-ago-not-necessarily/)   discuss there takes on rating inflations.

Kasparov offered a more subjective view on the significance of Fischer's 1972 rating compared to Carlsen's rating (http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/kasparov-fischer%E2%80%99s-1972-rating-much-more-significant-than-carlsen%E2%80%99s-current-rating)

Here is a rather lengthy discussion of ratings inflation : https://en.chessbase.com/post/rating-inflation-its-causes-and-poible-cures

 

Many people do not believe inflation exists , and many do .  I am in the do camp because I look at the names of all the players over 2700 these days and think that many of them are not as strong as former world champions who never broke 2700 .  In Fischer's generation there were few top class events in which only the top players played and such events are abundant today , in comparison . Top players playing in such events and avoiding strong open events can easily inflate their ratings . In Fischer's time this wasnt a real possibility because of the few top class events held . If the top players today played in more strong open events I think their ratings wouldnt be quite so bloated and would be more accurate . 

As Batgirl points out, there are more rated players today than ever before.

Look at it as a bell curve or uni-modal Gaussian distribution. A system-wide increase in the number of players will stretch out both the high-rated and low-rated "tails" of the bell curve, and we will have some players rated both higher and lower than ever before.

This has nothing to do with any change in the average strength of the players... it's a purely statistical effect.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/who-was-the-best-world-chess-champion-in-history

i think this is interesting.

(Karpov may be slightly deflated as he still plays to this day but is weaker than in his prime and i don't know if they included those games.)

There seems to be no consensus, and perhaps insufficient proof for either hypothesis. One thing is certain though: ratings are not absolutes, but relative to the strength of other players in the same pool they've been derived from. They aren't transferable from pool to pool, whether we're talking about 2 groups separated geographically (e.g. 2 schools that don't compete with each other), or in time (e.g. 1970's vs 2010's). It seems quite unlikely that no fluctuation whatsoever occurred in nearly 50 years. 

 

 It's funny as hell because while downplaying the importance of Carlsen's rating, Kasparov forgets to explain why Fischer's rating isn't much more significant that his own rating as well. After all, Fischer's record stood for 18 years, more than Kasparov's did. 

And have you also noticed how they use Fischer's rating/reputation as a yardstick in order to take each other down a peg or two? 

Karpov - "Both Fischer and I were stronger"

Kasparov - "Fischer's 1972 is much more significant than Carlsen's"

Carlsen - "In terms of dominance over his peers and actual chess strength I would say Fischer is the best" 

Inflation itself is overrated. It shouldn’t be a surprise that today’s above-average mixed martial arts fighters would destroy the top ten of 2 decades ago... simply the result of improved knowledge and training. Why not so for chess? Why is it simply labeled “inflation”? It is simply “easier” now to get to a 2700 skill level than it was 50 years ago. Is it that inconceivable that a 1999 Khalifman might beat a 1969 Spassky in a match?

None of this says that one player is more innovative, creative, talented, or had more potential than the other, or that the other would have won a world championship if roles/eras were reversed, just that the ratings reflect the generally increasing strength of players over time given the more readily available and widely disseminated chess knowledge and training tools, as well as improved coaching, training, and competition.

Karjakin was 12 and Magnus was 13 when they became GM’s. Is this because, FINALLY, in the early 1990’s, the world’s greatest chess genius brains were born, or is it simply the result of increased knowledge and effectiveness of training? I say the latter. And the fact that Fischer and Nakamura are about evenly rated at nearly half-century apart really says a lot about Fischer’s skills.

 

Rating inflation (real or just perceived) isn't just about Fischer, or about 1-2 isolated examples.

It's one thing to say that Kasparov and Carlsen are probably stronger than Fischer because they succeeded him and because they had higher ratings (even some Fischer fans might concede that point). By the same token is fine to suggest a 1999 Khalifman might beat a 1969 Spassky.

But when you look at the whole picture things start to look a little funny:

- 17 people in the last 45 years were stronger than Fischer. Ok, fine...

- at least 120(!) players since 1971 were/are stronger than Spassky at his peak.

- Petrosian in 1970 (at 41, only 1 year after losing the title) would not make the top 100 in March 2018. As for all time ranking, he would probably be #200 or less.

Too bad we don't have FIDE ratings going all the way back to Capablanca or Alekhine. Or maybe it's good we don't. We might find out to our dismay that the wouldn't make the top 1000.

 

Comparing Carlsen to Fisher. Carlsen have been on top long enough to be considered at least equal. About playing strength it is difficult to tell. The both were, and Carlsen still are, extremely good. Carlsen is among the players with the most universal skills. Good at everything, difficult to find any weak spots.

 

I think GM Ben Finegold holds Carlsen as the second best ever, only ten ratingpoints behind Morphy.

It's very impressive how Fischer became youngest grandmaster ever until Judith Polgar broke his record, world champion and highest rated player that time without much help form others. So in my opinion in chess (only!) he was a genius. 

 

There are a lot of hollywood like hero stories how Fischer won the cold war angainst the whole sowjet empire and so on and some Fischer fans here and in other forums exaggerate. So others take the opposition and downgrade him too much. So for me he was one of the greatest, together with some other world champions (I don't see any point in comparsion between different generations, as every generation learns from the games played by the generations before and makes some things better).

Carlsen is very important and a big inspiration also outside himself. Norway has grown a lot in chess, inspired by him. I made comeback the day he won WC in Chennai.

Indeed, 120 players better than Spassky, come on.

World champions are unique.

I would accept there might be 20 players better than Spassky, including the world champions, but 6 times more?

Make a comparison of some of Spassky's games at his peak with some of the games of those 120 players above him.

Even if you don't use an engine to do that, or follow a very scientific approach, the fact how much superior Spassky's chess is, for example, to Vachier-Lagrave's, will easily stand out.

The quality of the games is simply DIFFERENT.

So no doubt there is rating inflation, and a big one, 100 points or so, maybe 80, maybe 120.

So that Fischer could indeed have been at 2880 now.

 

He was very good but got crazy

If we timetravelled Morphy and And let him play smart teenagers like Daniel Nordquelle, Isak Sjøberg and Isak Storme, I dont think he would have big opening problems, because the best players are able to figure out good moves even in unfamiliar positions. The opening Kramnik crushed Aroinian with in the canditates could have given Morphy trouble too, because I think The Kramnik Aronian level is difficult  for all masters in all times. The edge current GMs has to the ancient ones is most in the opening. After that its head to head calculation and intuition. I think that most openingadvantages are leveled out in 30 moves if the player is a chess genious. You can compare Morphy with Gritsjuk. They know where the pieces shal go.

Kasparov and Carlsen (maybe Karpov)  are greater world champions than Fischer. Two of them had higher peak ratings (not sure about Karpov). Defended their titles multiple times. While Fischer just won the title in one cycle, never proved himself against other all-time greats. He's amazing and all, but you can't be G.O.A.T without proving yourself against the very best.

Yes. He is the greatest on his era. But he cannot be the greatest of all time.

Prove more what?

Is there anything higher than the WC title?

Anything better than being 100+ elos stronger than the 2nd placed?

Kasparov NEVER achieved that, neither Carlsen, although he was close.

It's because the players in their eras had much higher ratings than players in Fischer's era. 

I don't believe it.

This is some flawed analysis by a flawed author.

Compare Fischer 1970-72 with Kasparov's best, and you will get quite quite different picture.

Kasparov makes a lot of mistakes.

It is also possible that computers assess attacking play better(they are good at that) than positional one.