Why do Americans like Bobby Fischer?

No. Not "a planned slight to Spassky"; it's well documented Bobby Fischer stayed up 'til the wee hours of the morning and therefore regularly was a late riser. He often missed morning appointments.

A better question would probably have been--"Why don't ALL Americans DISLIKE Bobby Fischer?"--since I don't think you really believe that all Americans like him.

Personally, he's never given me a reason to dislike him.  He didn't do anything any more outrageous than other famous figures. In fact, voicing unpopular opinions and having an exaggerated sense of one's own importance is practically a prerequesite of becoming a cultural icon. We EXPECT our heroes to be either crackpots or a-holes (Fischer, apparently, was both).

But hey, if we can overlook Charlie Sheen's flaws why shouldn't we overlook Bobby's?

Hahaha. Are you saying that waking up in the morning to draw lots at an opening ceremony for the World Chess Championship wasn't significant enough to warrant a late riser getting up early? I'm a late riser myself when I'm able to be but I've gotten up early or gone without sleep for things far less important than that, as I'm sure millions of other people could attest. But now, after typing all that on an iPhone, I think you were pulling my leg so feel silly for taking your comment literally

Remember we're talking here about Robert James Fischer.  He almost did'nt even make it to Reykjavik to compete in 1972.

You or I in the same situation would not miss the opening ceremonies. But Bobby played by his own rules. Sleep to him was more important than showing up for the draw.

How much money did he forgo by not defending his title in 1975 because he was unable to get all his conditions met for the match?

Bobby could be difficult and even very unreasonable; but he was a man of principle. If he did not get his way he 'checked out'.

That's just who he was.

Agree with all you said but still believe there was some brinksmanship behind that particular move. But no doubt he was a man of principle.

A GM wrote that he was playing a game against Fischer and had walked away from the board. As he was coming back, he said he saw Fischer absent-mindedly reach for a pawn that he thought was off the board (captured) to roll around in his hand. But Fischer had accidentally picked up a rook pawn that was still on the board. The GM said there's no way Fischer knew he (the GM) had seen him pick up the pawn because of how far away he was and Fischer's concentration on the game. When the GM sat back down, Fischer played the rook pawn, which was an obvious blunder and resigned (I forget if it was right away or a move or two later.) That's integrity in spades. It wasn't a case of touching a piece with the intention of moving it; just accidentally touching a piece to fiddle with while you studied the position, and he still played it.

Check out the Fischer simul game in the thread "Has Anyone Played Bobby Fischer?" Who would think to play NxP in that game? Incredible game.

Hate....love....mental...crazy....genius....whatever!

Bobby was a Chess God! 

If one day he rose from the grave, dusted himself off and walked into a bar...I for one would buy that man a beer!  And not some cheap beer. Something with a little class.

Spassky wasn't some punk kid.  He was the world champ!  He probably deserves a bit of respect, don't ya' think?

Agree; don't see how I'm disrespecting him by suggesting he was susceptible to the drama that followed Fischer's behavior. I'm not the first to suggest it; it's hardly a novel thought lol

Claiming the world champ lost to an inferior player because of "psychology" is a bit disrespectful.

You're right, though.  You are certainly not the first individual to posit that absurd argument.

If Spassky were only slightly better than Fischer at the time, it certainly could have been enough to tip the scales. Read Frank Brady's account of what transpired between the end of game 1 and Spassky's opening move in game 3. It's in Brady's biography of Fischer called "Profile of a Prodigy." A fantastic book. That said, it's also alleged Spassky didn't take the match as seriously as he should have, so that's a factor too. Kinda silly to label something "absurd" when it's possible but beyond knowing for certain

As I recall there were two games that GMs thought were very good, but in a match of that length, two is a small percentage

Yeah, they were a couple of bums all right.  Couldn't play good chess to save their asses.

Besides you can't take a GM well past his/her prime and expect them to beat or be competitive with GMs in their prime. That only worked in the movie "Rocky Balboa."

If Fischer in 1992 had played Kasparov instead of Spassky, he would have been crushed. Spassky was ranked around 100th in the world when he played Fischer in '92

Yeah, so?  If Kaspy had played Fischer in '72, Kaspy would have been crushed. 

La-ti-da.

How old was Kasparov in '72? He did a good job analyzing the Fischer/Botvinnik game in '62 according to Botvinnik himself

Kasparov found a draw in that game that both Fischer and Botvinnik had overlooked

Even though it is debateable whether Fischer was the best ever, I think there is no debate he was the most exciting/interesting player.  As a person, I could overlook the eccentricity of the Fischer of the 60's to 80's.  Later he become really unlikeable.