How many openings are named after Fischer?

For such a strong player who was renowned for his opening study and preparation, Fischer doesn't have much named after him. I can remember the Sozin attack in the Sicilian, and now it's the Fischer-Sozin. He's got that defense in the King's Gambit he worked up in the 60s. Something in the Nimzo-Indian too that I don't remember the moves to.

Even Reshevsky, who was notorious for his ignorance of opening theory has maybe as much named after him, and of course names like Smyslov and Bronstein proliferate.

Perhaps it was Fischer's limited repertoire, but still.

 I think it had more to do with the bias against Fischer myself, which is still present. The nimzo line you refer to is after 3....Bb4  4 e3 b6. 

Well that is interesting Reb. I would expect the old Eastern Bloc countries to hold out on Fischer, but not so much in recent times. In general he was an affable and pleasant character among the other players, perhaps even for the troubles he posed for the organizers because it bettered the lot of all of them. I am still somewhat at a loss.

Perhaps the naming depended on magazines mostly, then maybe the editors of ECO. Who determines nomenclature now? I haven't the foggiest.

Fischer probably wasnt liked much by organizers at all, as you point out. However, he was trying to raise the "standards" of top flight chess, both in terms of money and playing conditions for the players. I think he did a great job in doing so ! Do you realize that even as late as 1969 when Spassky beat Petrosian for the world championship he won only a few thousand dollars? ( less than 5 thousand I have read  )  Contrast that to what they play for today !  This is directly related to all the hell Fischer raised ! Lasker in his time also worked to raise the standards of the top players, even demanding appearance fees , as Fischer later did, and getting them ! Lasker, however was not as successful in bringing about real change for the top players as Fischer was.

Of course the Soviets were satisfied to keep prize money low; it worked to prevent westerners from being able to pursue chess full-time and thereby threaten the Soviet dominance. It was a sound strategy but quite cowardly. They provided whatever their players needed to be full-time professional but worked against westerners being able to do the same, shrugging their shoulders and saying that their own countries were free to do the same for them.

I remember the low prize fund for the 1969 WC match. As I recall it was even lower than you cite, more like $1200, and I'm not even sure that wasn't the purse for both players. I'd have to check. Even then, the players had to chuck back a hunk of their winnings to the state. Well, they were well taken care of in most ways nevertheless, even if it was a gilded cage.

Just another example of how Fischer, as flawed and/or sick as his worst critics can claim, he did a a world of good for chess, and no one else could fill his shoes. Today, top players are on easy street thanks to him. Karpov, Kasparov, Anand, and the rest. I hope they thank Fischer occasionally just before they lay their heads on those silk pillows.

  Although Fischer was very meticulous in his study of 'opening theory ' and

always aware of the ' latest developments' therein, he was not particularly

creative in that phase of the game.

The point of departure for Fischer's superiority over the garden variety GM was

the profundity of his play in the middlegame, not the opening.

Indeed, he would have preferred to render efforts to catalogue the openings

futile by means of 'Fischer Random' Chess.

I think Reb was on track when he posited his reasons. There may be more, but he understands the question.

 Fischer's push for Fischer Random came long after he stopped playing competitively. It has nothing to do with the question at hand.

It's odd that you dismiss a hallmark, a specialty of Fischer's play: His opening preparation. He didn't just remember better and evaluate better what others had played before him in the opening, though he did that, he produced novelties in the openings and the sub-variations.

Maybe fewer were "systems" than sub-variations, and thats' why relatively few of his inventions still stand as viable or optimal.

 The Soviet bureaucrats did exactly what I said they did. It's historical fact so direct your fingers of shame eastwards. I don't think the GMs themselves, the players that is, were afraid of competition or more money.

You provided your opinion. It's not like we saw any facts from you.

yeah, about the limited opening rep, I think your right, on a website it says that with the white pieces out of 545 games 508 of them began with 1. e4

I certainly did not intend to dismiss or diminish any of the achievements

of Robert J. Fischer.

There seems to be general agreement here that there are not many opening

variants named after him.

I think it is also true that those that are named for him have been so named for

good reason.

So, can anyone think of an opening or variation that rightly should be named for

him but in fact is not ?      

hard to know

 In the absence of a confession from old Soviet officials, or hard documentary evidence, it boils down to opinion, but hopefully opinion backed up with credible or reasonable argument.

   There are 4 with 2 more as a subset in the king's gambit accepted.

 So, are you saying that more openings or variations would be named after Fischer than are now so named were it not for the machinations of some old Soviet officials ?

 No, nor would anyone who read the thread carefully.

 So,do you think there are too few,too many,or just the right number of openings named after Fischer?

The King's Gambit Accepted went out of fashion among masters in the 1930's for almost 50 years until Alexei Fedorov and Joe Gallagher revived it in the 1990's.  I don't think Fischer himself ever played Fischer's defence to the King's Gambit Accepted: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef 3.Nf3 d6.  Karpov and Portisch tried it out against Spassky in 1982 and 1967 respectively, both losing as black.  Gallagher has had to face it a few times with an even record, and Fedorov's opponents seem to prefer the old main line 3...g5.  It's an interesting line, but saying that it "killed off" the KGA seems to me a bit of an exaggeration to say the least.

The Soviet GM David Bronstein was one of Fischer's childhood heroes.  Bronstein was one of the early pioneers of the King's Indian Defence, and also played 6.Bc4 against the Sicilian Najdorf.  The Argentinian GM Oscar Panno was one of the first to play the Poisoned Pawn, and Fischer met Panno at Portoroz Interzonal in 1958 where Panno played ...Qb6 in a Sicilian Dragon.

For much of his career, Fischer had a very strong loyalty to a relatively small number of openings, principally the Najdorf and the King's Indian Defence.  He knew these very well, but the innovations he introduced were often quite deep into the long forced lines that these openings give rise to.

Woah woah woah. What's up with the ad in investigation? That's crazy! I've never seen that before. Also, I'm going to start using this new verb "perceptioning." I like it.