Are you saying that if Fischer lost to Karpov, you wouldn't think he was a one-hit wonder?
For not going along with the terms of his title defense. If you're saying those terms weren't rejected until 1975, then it would be the reason for him not defending his title but I have a hard time believing Fischer didn't propose his terms and FIDE didn't reject them (formally or informally) until '75.
"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."
Calling card of a troll. Can't debate something without throwing in personal insults
I don't think Fischer was a one hit wonder. He was 29 and had a long successful career behind him.
He was just the worst champion ever. I don't see how you can dispute this point. How do you become a worse champ?
Yes, if he had played Karpov (as well as other tournaments), and lost, my opinion of his championship reign would be much higher.
Petrosian, for example, was a fighter. And don't forget, Petrosian did have one successful title defense before finally losing to Spassky. In fact, his win in defense was the first outright win by a reiging world champion since 1934, When Alekhine beat that Bogo guy.
Do you know who Petrosian defeated in that title defense?
Do you know who Petrosian defeated in that title defense?
Spassky.
...
He was just the worst champion ever. I don't see how you can dispute this point. How do you become a worse champ?
...
Sadly, we may find out. A worse champion would be someone who won the title, then set about dismantling the match-play world championship. We may actually see that if Magnus Carlsen does what he says he wants to do.
Not that I should bother, but namenoonehad's problem is with the premise of this thread - that winning the WCC once constitutes a one-hit wonder. The OP was the one who didn't consider all of Fischer's victories leading up to his '72 win as "hits." I just accepted the premise and put forward an argument in an attempt to reject the premise as stated.
If winning the WCC constitutes a "hit" (premise of thread) then we need a similar criteria for music, which I chose as a No. 1 single, though I could have just as easily chosen winning a Grammy or other standard. Just as the OP didn't consider Fischer's victories leading up to the WCC as "hits," so I didn't consider any near No. 1 hits by a musical group.
I'm arguing from the premise.
Ok, thanks. One last question...Do you know who Petrosian beat to gain the title?
Ok, thanks. One last question...Do you know who Petrosian beat to gain the title?
Petrosian beat the mighty Botvinnik
...
He was just the worst champion ever. I don't see how you can dispute this point. How do you become a worse champ?
...
Sadly, we may find out. A worse champion would be someone who won the title, then set about dismantling the match-play world championship. We may actually see that if Magnus Carlsen does what he says he wants to do.
I didn't know Carlsen wants to do this.
Eh. There are advantages and disadvantages. The last candidates tournament was pretty exciting. Matches may just be too slow paced for today's world.
Interesting. Thanks for info
If winning a WCC is only a hit in the chess world, what the hell do you call a platinum album with multiple #1's ?......the OP's analogy is pist poor if I ever saw one.....
Petrossian was actually much better than Fischer. He defended his title and played many tournaments after he became WC. So considering him equal to Fischer will be a major offence. Fischer was so much inferior to the greatest defender in the history.
You must be trolling. Fischer whipped Petrosian in both the USSR vs. Rest of the World Match and in the Candidates' match that led up to the WCC. To say Petrosian was superior to Fischer is so absurd that trolling is the only possible explanation.
Should add (if it wasn't clear) that Fischer didn't just beat Petrosian. He beat him like a rag doll.
Was Petrosian really that far from his peak when he played Fischer? You (or I) would have to compare Petrosian's ELO as WCC vs. his ELO in 1970-71 to get an idea. Unfortunately, I have no interest in proving the moon is not made of green cheese so I won't be doing the research:)
Fischer in 1962 at the age of 19 nearly beat Botvinnik and Fischer was far from his peak in '62.
Put Fischer at his peak against Petrosian at his peak and the result wouldn't be much different than the two matches I cited - the complete obliteration of Petrosian.
Just my opinion (did I forget to say that?:)
First read carefully, then talk. Petrossian was better than Fischer because he achieved much more than the latter. Petrossian played chess till his death. Fischer did nothing after beating Spassky (not over the board). So whether Fischer at his peak played slightly stronger than Petrossian is not important. What is important is that Petrossian was a first class WC. Fischer was a second class WC .
There is really nothing wrong when someone says: "For me Fischer is the best player ever!" It's always true! Because only the one who said knows whom he likes most!
However if someone even mis-spells a name like "Petrossian" instead of Petrosian we can really doubt he knows what he's talking about! *rofl*
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
No we wouldnt.
"So maybe Fischer's rationalization was that he was punishing FIDE again by not playing after the 72 WCC. "
Punishing them for what?