Why do Americans like Bobby Fischer?

Reading over this thread I'm not so sure all of humanity adores him.

Americans like individualists, and Fischer was defintely that. Americans like underdogs, and Fischer was that vs Russians in late 50's and 60's. Americans like winners, and Fischer was that up to 1972. Americans  are fascinated by train wreck celebrities, Fischer was that. Americans like a mystery, and Fischer's life was reclusive and mysterious.For quite a while most people were willing to overlook his faults, because of his chess brilliance, unusual childhood, Russian chess collaboration etc, but he crossed the line from being eccentric to hateful.  For good or bad, I would say he and Michael Jackson are the most fascinating celebrites of all time. 

In context of events hatefulness ocurred after embitterment. Politicians of the time had no understanding or compassion.

because of the movie"searching for bobby fischer" thats why!

I'm an American (okay, naturalized) and I can't stand Bobby Fischer.  I admire his talent and skill.  However, being exceptional at anything doesn't absolve you of your responsibilities.

Americans like Bobby Fischer because at a time of USSR dominance of chess, supported with a massive state sponsored program, Bobby, without any government sponsorship, took on the Russian monolith and earned the title.

I don't know the answer to this forum's question. Maybe that is because the answer is so obvious.

Would Fischer have won the WCC without psychological warfare? That's a question worth debating

In my opinion, Fischer had to break Spassky's will off the board before he could break it on the board. Fischer's gamesmanship off the board started before the match and his explosive temper prior to game 3, I think, was a reason he won. Spassky played one move that even Botvinnik labeled "feeble" in game 3 and it doesn't take much more than one poor move among super GMs to plant the seed of defeat. When a chess player's will and confidence are crushed, it affects his playing. He's less likely to take risks, more likely to play defensively or cautiously because he doesn't have self confidence. Chess is more than calculating moves; I think it's also the state of mind you bring to a game

I really believe if Fischer had the manners of, say, Karpov or Petrosian, he never would have beaten Spassky. At the very least, it would have been a lot closer.

Petrosian even talked about the inferiority complex that some of Fischer's opponents had for reasons that have nothing to do with chess. When a player dictates conditions off the board (lighting, the type of board and pieces to be used, where the game will be played) it's not hard to see the transition to him dictating what happens on the board. Frank Brady's biography of Fischer has great examples of this - not saying Fischer did it intentionally, but the gamesmanship started long before the first game of the Fischer/Spassky match

Hogwash.  Fischer won because he was the better player. He made better moves.

As an American I like Fischer because he was American and good. He had the same kind of arrogance with ability that you find in many important American historical figures (Mathew C. Perry, James K. Polk and Thomas Edison to name a few). He was creative, successful and a little crazy/abnormal/unorthodox. Most Americans I know love the America they love and hate the America they hate. Don't read too much into Americans hating America. Most people I've met call it a work in progress. Our president just today called America a work in progress.

My favorite American chess player: Deep Blue

Considering Fischer did not engage in psychological warfare, the answer to your question would have to be a definite, "Yes".

He definitely did. Check out Frank Brady's biography of Fischer, a lot of which covers Fischer's match with Spassky. The mindset you have when you sit down to play a game of chess, the confidence (or lack of confidence) you have affects how you play and the moves you choose.

Fischers' antics, quirks and requests were to establish his own comfort level and were in no way a design of psychological warfare; regardless of Russian suspicions to the contrary.

If he engaged in "psychological warfare" is a matter of opinion.  Also, if he did engage in those tactics it is a matter of opinion if he did so delibertly or if those things happened just because of his personality.

I think he was under tremendous pressure to be the greatest of all time and after he actually became the greatest of all time--he was not willing to risk what he had gained by further chess.

I don't like or dislike the person but like his games and records.

Chesspooljuly13- I don't think your question is relevant. When I was in middle school learning chess my coach told me to bring a stuffed animal, a crazy hat, decoarations on our clothes like buttons and patches (I chose aliens as my theme while we had a dragon theme, jester theme and mad hatter theme as well on our team). He encouraged us to get up and analyze the board from over our opponent's shoulder as well. He said to never discuss rules or illegal positions with our opponent but to always call over a judge. Psychology is part of chess and its your opponent's responsibility to guard himself against anything you might do that is psychological in nature. In blitz the top board of my team won 1st place at nationals because he would talk really loud and fast (allowed in blitz at this tournament) and tell them moves that he might do in the future or that the other person could have done that were better. Loud, obnoxious and in a jester hat bringing with him a tigger plush wearing a jester hat that he would sit on the table next to the chess board.

Regardless of whether they were planned or not (and I think some were), they had an effect on Spassky, imo. At the opening ceremony for the match, after it was delayed due to Fischer's indecision about going, Fischer sent Lombardy, his second, to draw lots with Spassky. That had to have been a planned slight to Spassky; Fischer's excuse for not going was he was sleeping. And it worked. Spassky got so upset the match was thrown into jeopardy again. It's a credit to Spassky that he maintained a friendship with Fischer after the match, but after what the two of them had been through, I guess it's not that surprising

I know psychology's a part of chess; was just wondering if Spassky would have played better without all the slights, anger and demands Fischer made off the board. Interesting observation a GM made about the 1992 Fischer-Spassky rematch. When things were going bad for Fischer, this kind of behavior took place. When Fischer was winning, it didn't. Maybe Fischer was just psyching himself up by doing all of this and wasn't intentionally trying to affect his opponent. Who knows?