Fischer was a one-hit-wonder..!

Care to be a little less general? After all, assassinating someone's character is pretty obnoxious

Even more so when there's no evidence to back it up:)

If it weren't for Bobby Fischer chess today would not be as we know it. I was born in the same year as Bobby Fischer and I remember that chess was considered to be only a hobby until Fischer attracted the attention of the world. It was his demand for good money for the pro chess players that made the world sit up and take notice and realize that chess can be a lucrative profession. And it was the fact that an American working alone could defeat the Soviet Machine that made chess popular in the US. It was only when Bobby stood up to the American Machine that people started to bad mouth him.    

I have to step in with my obligatory mantra:

Fischer quite chess in 1972, not 1975. So we will never know if he was afraid of Karpov or not. You could just as easily argue he was afraid of everyone.

PS--There are certain people who celebrate their holy days by eating corrogated cardboard who are always calling others crazy when they themselves cut their hair differently and walk about in funny clothes and try to force others who realize the fallacy of their ways to become one of them. 

Fischer didn't help himself with his anti-Semitism and comments after 9/11, but that doesn't mean he's deserving of every negative adjective someone can think of. It's the same thing all over again - Fischer is either the greatest and a saint or the worst person in the world. No one seems to view him in any other way.

Of course the people who criticize Fischer are so perfect that if the worldwide press dug into their past and scrutinized their every move, they'd be above reproach. They've led such perfect and admirable lives that they can't conceive of anyone not being as perfect as they are!

Then, when they were the subject of a website forum where people relentlessly trashed them, they'd object about how unfair it was!

One doesn't have to be a saint to criticize anyone's actions. Criticisms may have merit. Moral objections to public behaviour may be valid. 

True, but the criticism(s) should at least be based on something. Where is the basis for claiming Fischer was stingy and selfish? It seems like people who dislike Fischer have no problem with throwing every negative adjective at him they can think of. That's not meritorious or justified criticism; it's just character assassination.

My other point dealt with hypocrisy - that the same people who have no problem relentlessly trashing Fischer would be the first to object if they were subject to the same behavior.

Kortschnoj is no point of reference here. He was all the way against Karpov! Who he accused of many things that had happened to him (Kortschnoj). I found out that these accusations were nothing but excuses for having lost to Karpov in three matches (Candidates 1974 and both WCC 1978 and 1981)!

In 1981 Kortschnoj only by luck won the Candidates because Robert Hübner lost his nerves ... The match was still wide open when Hübner quited!

In 2000 Kortschnoj voted for Kasparov as the greatest player of the century (Source: SCHACH)! 

I guess Spassky was so right: "Kortschnoj was a chess worker!"

I see a difference in public discourse and private discourse. In public discourse, Fischer is open to criticism. He's a public figure of influence.  

Fischer: "Only patzers or friends call me 'Bobby'!"

Fischer's talent was so big that he could become WCC as an autodidact! Noone else has ever done this after! Before it were a few Anderssen, Morphy (both inofficial), Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca! About Alekhine I'm undecided because in Russia there was Chigorin and others Alekhine could have profited from.

yes ofc he is open to critizism thats no question but calling him a coward is the biggest joke, i bet Fischer had 100 times more guts then the anonymous poster.

thx for pointing that out, now i put Korchnoi on my list of chessplayers i dont like. 

Anyway i still think Fischer was way better then Karpov.

by the way the player of the century poll, only GMs took part in it right??

 Yeah, Fischer is better than the man who won two times more tournaments than the second Kasparov, was WC for 16 years and was almost unbeatable for two decades.  Better at running and hiding maybe?

In that poll of SCHACH it were about 22 GMs yes. I have to look it up again who voted (SCHACH had published the list).

The result was (I have to look up for the votes I only remember the places 1-3):

1 FISCHER

2 KASPAROV

3 LASKER 

Bobby was an awesome player *but* the problem with guys like him is:

As long as he is at the top, everything is fine... as soon as others overtake him he stops playing and making excuses

"chess is played out, its all openning prep" etc

Fischer is a baby just like Nick Diaz in MMA.. he cant wrestle.. so he calls wrestling "gay"

Gelfand is like that as well... except his thing is computers... computers this, computers that ,computers are destroying chess... all the while ignoring his priveledge of attending the soviet chess school which only a handful of people get. Computers everyone has equal access to

Fischer dominated his era. If you're on a desert island and can one have chess book of gm games from the 1958-1972 period, you aren't going to take Petrosian. You'll take Fischer.

Kasparov dominated his era - 1985-2000. It's not just a question of WC titles...he was the best around, and his chess is the chess that matters from that time.

The same can be said for Lasker, who even as an older man was crushing his opponents in tournaments. These three are likely the Top Three of Chess. Arguing which is Number One is harder, since they represent different times.

 Gelfand is a fighter and a real man...not like Fischer. As you see he is always ready to play with the youngsters and usually gives them a lesson or two. You cannot blame him. He learned the chess the hard way and that's why he has a better understanding of the game compared to most of the younger players.