Why Fischer thought computers ruined chess

in theory it may be possible to play a perfect game but if you play all of the top moves for both players from even an engine, those moves will change depending on the depth and may be different in the next version of the engine. this is an argument that has raged here and tens of thousands of posts have been dedicated to it with differing opinions. the true answer is we do not know for sure

    If you want to see an endless discussion of this question check out "True or False: Chess is a draw with best play", a chess.com forum started in 2013 that now has 9500+ comments.

Thank you @mpaetz

Kind of defeats the point, at least. So I agree in principle.

When I see Fischer say that stuff back in the day, I keep two things in mind. First, he was still salty about competitive chess and its organizers after thirty years. Second, he wanted to put down chess so that he could promote his namesake, Fischer Random. The way he would say when someone asked him about Kasparov or Karpov or someone else "Ah, they're cheats! And that's just the old chess anyway." We're all still playing chess and Tata Steel and the Grand Prix were plenty exciting. I think Fischer was mostly talking out of his ego.

In some sense it's a little disappointing knowing top humans will never compete with engines, but in human matches you can just turn the engine eval off and still enjoy the creativity after leaving opening book

It's amazing to think if Fischer had not rejected medical care he could still be around today, living as a recluse in Iceland. Did you know Boris Spassky is still alive?

Fisher is right. But it is totally fascinating to look at what stock fish/alpha zero would do...being like 3800....its like what would pure intelligence do. Also, just because they memorize lines, doesnt mean the opposite player is going to follow that line.