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

This just in: Bobby Fischer lost some chess games. Therefore, something or other...

Going to the next topic, now. B'bye!

Fischer was the strongest and the greatest chess player of all time

"I guess J Polgar was cheated out of a plus record against Kasparov? Will someone look that up please?"

Kasparov's score against Polgar was 8-0 with three draws so it would take a lot of cheating to cheat her out of a plus score there...

"Was it really intentional though?"

He said that he didn't think he had let go of the piece, and since Polgar didn't protest and it was impossible to see if he had let go of the piece before moving it to another square nothing happened. Later it turned out to exist TV footage that when played pic by pic showed he had let go of the piece for a fragment of a second, and the "first move" was analysed to draw with best play.

It's not that players outside the US don't think that Bobby Fischer was any good - clearly he was a super talent and objectively amazing - it's just that people outside the US aren't as likely to put him on the same type of pedestal as his compatriots do. People outside of the US are more likely to look at Fischer in the proper context - as one great in the pantheon of greats - and less likely to have an emotive urge to claim him as the best player of all time. Some may well think him the best player of all time, but the force behind them doing so is not going to stem from a feeling of national pride the way it might do from his fellow Americans but, rather, is more likely to be thought by an unprejudiced assessment of his relative strength. To a lot of people outside the US his short time spent as world champion is just that - a short term world champion. He never defended his title. His psychological disposition and personal story, whilst a very interesting aside, is less likely to affect how people outside of the US view his games. It's only what happens on the chessboard that informs people's relative assessments. In comparing him with Kasparov or Karpov for instance, who each played countless phenomenal games of chess and who were each defending World Champions for a very long time indeed, people outside of the US may be more inclined to think Fischer less worthy of the title "Best Chess Player of All-Time". Definitely one of them, no one could possibly say otherwise, just perhaps not as dominating or as magnificent as some of the other greats.

You are always going to get a subjective answer to this kind of question but for me (and I'm not from the United States) Fischer was undoubtably 'that good'. Read My 60 memorable games and then look at his performances in the Candidates matches against Taimanov and Larsen both of which finished 6-0 to Fischer with his opponents not even able to squeeze out a draw against him.*  I don't feel qualified to express an opinion about whether he was the best ever but there is no doubt in my mind that he is a contender. 

*Taimanov and Larsen were top, top players at the time. Fischer, however, when asked about Taimanov's ability dismissively said, "I hear he plays the piano very well".  (Taimanov was also a virtuoso pianist.)

Yes, and about Spassky he said: He's a fish, no use to prepare against him. Let's go bowling. (during their Championship Match).

Although Fischer did of course study openings and prepare for his opponents, the impression I have is that this wasn't as important part of his game as his sheer intuition. It is this that shines through when one reads his often candidly self-annotated games.

just not able to point out a single fail, so went for the general statement while holding a hanky.

Jambyvader2 makes a strong case. To continue Kasparov's dominance over his contemporaries, here's a list of Kaparov's record against other opponents.

Kasparov Versus:

Karpov:  28 wins, 21 losses

Tinman:  21 wins, 2 losses

Short:  22 wins, 2 losses

Kamsky:  8 wins, 1 loss

Ivanchuk:  11 wins, 4 losses

Grischuk:  3 wins, 0 losses

Topalov:  10 wins, 3 losses

Anand:  16 wins, 4 losses

Smyslov:  6 wins, 1 loss

Larsen:  3 wins, 1 loss

Portisch:  4 wins, 0 losses

Ulf Andersson:  5 wins, 0 losses

Polugaevsky:  4 wins, 0 losses

Gligoric:  3 wins, 0 losses

Korchnoi:  15 wins, 1 loss

Geller:  1 win, 0 losses

Tal:  2 wins, 0 losses

Alburt:  2 wins, 1 loss

Spassky:  2 wins, 2 losses

Kramnik:  4 wins, 5 losses

"Imagine how undisputed #1 Karpov would be if he got to play against Fischer!"  Undisputed loser #1, of course.

karpov was like the runt of the russian litter, but with hundreds of seconds and lashings of second helpings of yoghurt and a masters in combat hypnosis, he was like the moth on the eagles wings.

Fischer in his last years in Iceland was watching on TV a chess game betweeen two local masters. Black lost because a blunder at move 37. Fischer called the station and showed a combination beggining with a Rook sac 37...RxP+ followed by checkmate.

For a username like yours, making such an unsubstantiated affirmation is a shame...

Wait a minute, there's no crying in chess!

Puts it perfectly.

Why do so many people measure greatness by the time spent as World Champion?

Before Fide, the world champions had to be paid a fee by the challenger to fight for the title. Lasker and Alekhine  both avoided their top competition and played against weaker players. It wasn't clear if they were the strongest player at the time. Kasparov and Fischer both dominated against the very best in the world. While it was unfortunate that Fischer quit chess, he beat the best in the world by the unheard of score of 6-0. Even if he only did it once, no one else in the history of chess has won like that.