Fischer was a one-hit-wonder..!

Piratch, you're wrong about "performance normally including their own rating". Spassky had a rating. Fischer's performance was easily calculable because he didn't have a perfect score against Spassky in 1992. You can do it yourself!

Fischer's rating of 2785 was based on his performance in those legendary matches. Petrosian showed that it was indeed very possible to force a quick draw on Fischer as white, but Taimanov and Larsen weren't interested in drawing, they were interested in winning their games. If you take a close look at the second half of the two matches, both Taimanov and Larsen pushed too hard and ended up losing. It's very unlikely they would have lost such games in a tournament setting. 

Again, Fischers accomplishment was incredible, historic, legendary. But he needed to back it up with tournament successes. He was the only world champion never to play as world champion.

We will never know how good Fischer could have been, or whether he could have withstood the pressure of a challenger such as Karpov who had exceeded Spassky's skill and proven he was an even greater fighter than Korchnoi. Karpov was a new breed of player, the like of which Fischer had never faced.

It probably does and he is hiding in Iceland somewhere!   

I am not sure chess has a Dr Marion but players like Capablanca and Karpov and others who just totally dominated for long periods of time are the ones to look at.  

Fischer is the equivalent of some kid who beats Dr Marion once and then ran off to hide.  

http://www.wylliedraughts.com/Tinsley.htm

http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4003997

A true world champion can handle the "pressure". Fischer was a tinderbox.  Like a snooker player that can't pot the black under pressure - theoretical greatness is not the same as actual achievements.  

We'll never know how good Fischer truly was because he never gave anyone the chance.  Hence one hit wonder. 

For example, imagine if Lewis Hamilton quit formula one after becoming world champion.  People could speculate about how he was the best ever - no, you have to prove it.  

He backed it up, not only regurlar tournament, even blitz tournament.

 Well said!! That's why when we talk about the greatest player we shouldn't look at ELO or one-hit-wonders. In order to be the greatest of all time the grandmaster should have been among the best in the world for more than 15 years like Karpov, Botvinnik, Kasparov, Smyslov.

How would you know? Your country doesn't do sport (cricket excepted).

Fischer was probably the worst World Champion ever.

He never won a single tourament, or even single game, as World Champion.

That, of course, is because he never even played a single game, as World Champion.

If you dont consider him as world champ in 92 then his 10 wins against Spassky do not count, indeed .  However , if thats the case then you also cannot count Kasparovs wins after he split from FIDE and was no longer the official world champ ... 

Yeah, totally the same thing 😃

Oficiall,y1993-1999  Karpov was the champion. He didn't want to defend his title in the new format after that.

No, I cannot calculate performance. The coefficent is simply missing to calculate performance! By the way of course ELO performance is based on all ratings (here Fischer's and Spassky's)! As Fischer had no rating you cannot calculate performance!

Also not. Fischer's rating was based on his results against his opponents. This does not equal his performance! There is always a difference between performance (including your own rating) and the rating (result against opponents - there will be also tables).

Of course a mathematican like John Nunn could calculate his rating as well as his performance. I never found the necessary information even on FIDE site! 

Saying Fischer "robbed the world" implies he took something from the world when in reality he stimply stopped providing something for free that he had provided for decades. All that free education and entertainment came to an end so Fischer is selfish. Got it.

one-hit... but what a hit!!!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjbaSVXUq5c

Actually, yes I can. FIDE accepted Kasparov was the champion, Short was the qualified contender. And unlike Fischer, Kasparov actually showed up for that match.

Unlike Fischer in 75, who simply abdicated, rather than face the fury of Karpov.

And that is the difference, to me at least.  FIDE said a match between Kasparov and Short would determine the world champion. and that match did happen. Although just not under FIDE's auspices.

Further, the PCA continued to find more challengers on a regular basis, and hold more Championship Matches.

Not to say Kasparov's and Short's decicion to split was a good one. I still do not understand why they did it. Nothing good came from that split, as far as I can see.

But, Kasparov still had at least half a claim to the Championship, as he did play his challenger.

Fischer did not play Karpov. Or anybody else. (Until 20 years later, to market a new clock. But both he and Spassky were pale shadows of their former selves by that stage. And how did Spassky get that shot?)

I did not write that - I don't say "let me get this straight".  Don't misquote people dudeeeeee

Didn't say you did. I wrote "Let me get this straight" and it's pretty obvious cause it immediately precedes my comment and there's a lot of white space between my comment and yours:)

There's no white space at all - it's all grey.   You can't keep making stuff up like that lol

Ok, there's a lot of gray space between your comment and mine:)