Fischer was a one-hit-wonder..!

But continuing to play isn't a way to avoid the label of one-hit wonder, is it? Basically, Petrosian and Tal were the best in the world for very brief periods of time, just like Fischer. Then they never were that good again. That's a one-hit wonder. Players like Bronstein, Rubinstein, Keres et al weren't even good enough to be considered one-hit wonders

So we arent considering them as such.

And for the record I don't think one hit wonder applies to Fischer either. But he abandonded his championship - Petrosian was a better champion.

Fischer was the worst champion ever, unless you count Morphy, then he was tied for worst.

If what another poster wrote in here is right - that FIDE rejected Fischer's requirements for a title defense and then gave those same requirements after Fischer quit - then I think Fischer's retirement had more to do with the bias of FIDE than Fischer.

Same thing with Fischer's abadonment of his match with Reshevsky when the score was tied. The organizer changed the starting time on a whim and Fischer didn't want to play that early. Everyone made Fischer to be the villain when the real villain was the organizer.

Fischer's statement that the Soviets were "cheating" by playing pre-arranged draws against each other so they could conserve energy for when they had to face him was pretty much admitted to by a couple of the Soviet players decades after the fact if my memory's right.

But no one ever brings any of this stuff up when they bash Fischer. They just like to say he was an unreasonable prima donna

This does not explain why Fischer actually quit in 1972, not 1975, does it?

If Fischer had played chess all the way up to the match, I think you could argue what you are arguing, though even then you would have to take account of the possibility that he was just plain scared of Karpov.

But since he didn't, there really isnt any argument on the matter. He quit 3 years before the FIDE negotiations.

I could well understand Fischer being sick of the politics of chess, though he probably brought some of the antagonism on himself by how he behaved in earlier years. But let's not leave out the role of FIDE, tournament organizers and other players in creating the Fischer that everyone seems to hate

As far as i know, Fischer quit when FIDE wouldn't accept his terms for a rematch, terms they later granted for the Kasparov-Karpov match. Is that not correct? The year he quit doesn't seem to make much difference. He's considered to have been WCC from 1972 to 1975 as far as I know.

Did no other WCC not play chess after becoming WCC until close to the time he had to defend his title?

Why should a player in his prime (Fischer was 29 when he won the title) stop playing for 3 of the best years of his life, unless he had just completely given it up? We may never know why, but we do know that he did.

It is really irrelevant whether or not he was scared of Karpov. He had already quit.

I can't think of a single example other than the pseudo example of Morphy.

The way I remember it Fischer quit for quite a few years in the 1960s and only came back to play the USSR vs. Rest of the World Match (the one where Larsen demanded top board because of his tournament success and Fischer's inactivity.) Fischer was in a dispute with FIDE back then and, again as I understand it, quit to punish FIDE since everyone at the time wanted to see Fischer's chess games. So maybe Fischer's rationalization was that he was punishing FIDE again by not playing after the 72 WCC. It's all speculation but at least there's precedence for why he quit in the late '60s.

Mikhail Tal, who only held the title for ~13 months, played (and lost, to Jonathan Penrose) while world champion. Vasily Smyslov was only loaned the title for ~11 months and managed to play while he was world champion. He also lost (to Filip) while he was world champion.

Losing happens.

Unless you quit.

Doesn't dispute that Tal was more of a one-hit wonder than Fischer.

If a band continues playing after getting a top-of-the-charts single but never reaches that level again, they're just as much of a one-hit wonder as the band that quits playing after getting a No. 1 single.

So let's be honest. Tal was a one-hit wonder too

As opposed to a no hit wonder? One heck of a hit though

I think the problem with this analogy is that you are comparing a band with getting only one hit record to a chess player reaching the pinnacle of chess...

If you made many hits and sold many platinum albums, then I'd say you reached the pinnacle of music, where as the pinnacle of chess is the WCC...

If Fischer had only won the US Championships, or won the candidates matches once, then maybe the analogy sticks, but you can consider his steam rolling of all of the competitors he dismantled, while reaching the pinnacle of chess as writing many hits...

If you don't see it that way, I'd say either you are challenged in your compartive reasoning skills, or you just don't like Bobby Fischer. Either way, all of the bad comparisons in the world will never take away from him what he was and maybe still is, the best.

One hit wonders were never the best. Amonst their #1 hits, they may only score in the top 100 all time among #1's....compare Bobby's rise to that...

As opposed to a no hit wonder? One heck of a hit though, it put chess front and center right on center stage for the whole world to see like no one before or since him. Even for all Fischer's flaws he did do huge things for the games popularity that have benefited all who came after him. Today's elite players wouldn't be able to make a living like they do.

Was only using the example to say that Tal was a one-hit wonder by that standard as was Petrosian and any other chess player who didn't successfully defend his WCC title.

But you will never hear Fischer haters say Tal or Petrosian were one-hit wonders because of their bias against Fischer

The OP and others who defend the belief that Fischer was a one-hit wonder are basing that off him winning the WCC only once. So I'm using that standard to evaluate Tal and Petrosian as well.

It's not enough to say Tal and Petrosian aren't one-hit wonders because they continued playing after winning the WCC because if Fischer had done the same and lost the title to Karpov, we'd still hear Fischer bashers saying he was a one-hit wonder

Rather than say that World Champion X, Y, or Z was a one-hit wonder, take a look at the very short list of World Champions who actually successfully defended their titles. 

Steinitz

Lasker

Alekhin

Botvinnik

Petrosian

Karpov

Kasparov

Kramnik

Anand.

That is a list of some of the greatest players and all of the greatest world champions chess has ever seen!

Alekhine successfully defended his title but not against the strongest player at the time. Wasn't aware Petrosian successfully defended his title. Do you know who Petrosian beat in his successful title defense?