"He had great talent but he hadn't character of chess player."
Surely you're joking?
I'm totally serious.
You may be serious but if you are I think you are way off base here. You attack Fischer's "character" but hold up Alekhine?! How can you consider Alekhine to be of better "character"? In any event, when most people choose who they think the greatest chess players are I dont think character is given much consideration , but only what they accomplished on the board.
I think you're a bit leaving the subject.
If you ask any american who is the greatest US chess player. Of course it's Fisher. And who's second?.. :(
Unlike USSR chess in USA in Fishers times was poorly developed.
Ask Russians who is their greatest chess player? ..Of course it's KASPAROV.. or Karpov... no it's Tal... , it's Spassky, it's Botvinnik.. the list goes on
Plus, he become WC in times of cold war and Russian chess dominance. So it has some politics value. It makes the victory more valuable. And it adds popularity to Fisher at the other side of the fence. It's like winning space race by putting a man on the moon.. In thouse time that mattered much.
That is why I think Fisher is so popular. Of course you could speak about chess skills but most of his fans know nothing about chess and still know he is the greatest.
Reb, by saying "character" I mean his nature, his endurance, and strength. Fischer didn't like to lose - that was his main and big problem in chess. I didn't say he was bad player - he had GREAT talent to play, but, for example, he wasn't polite to other chess players when he lost, etc. I like his games - they are beautiful but I don't like his nature. And if you think that the main thing is what did player make on the board... It's your opinion. But I can provide example when his weak endurance and lack of feeling the danger didn't give him the win vs Botvinnik. By the way, did anybody tell that he won ALL Soviet chess players? He didn't win Botvinnik.
To murshid: Steinic and Lasker.
Yes, you're right Botvinnik had to fight for the draw and if Fischer was less sure he totally won then Fischer would win. But Fischer thinking that Botvinnik doesn't understand that he is lost was by making useless moves. Botvinnik used it and made draw. Don't forget Botvinnik was much older than Fischer. Also as known when Fischer understood that Botvinnik found the way to make draw in, in his opinion, "lost" position, Fischer began to tell judge that "Botvinnik is cheating"! I think it's better to throw king across the room showing that you're lost, than understanding, that because of your stubbornness in making useless moves you're going to draw, tell to judge that your opponent is cheating!
And I think I told wrong "didn't like to lose". May be better is to say "was afraid to lose". Sometime later Botvinnik wanted to play match with Fischer, but he refused. The only reason I can find is that Fischer didn't want to play with Botvinnik because of possibility to lose. It was well known after Smyslov's and Tal's example that if you defeated Botvinnik once, he'll analyse this game and second time he'll defeat you. (Forgot to say - Botvinnik is another my favorite player).
Anyways, Reb, I have my own opinion, and you have your own. And really trying to understand who is the greatest player is impossible. There was Steinic who created theory of positional play - isn't he great? There was Lasker who was champion for 27 years and was the first to use psychology in chess(if you're NM then I'm sure you use it too) - isn't he great? There was Capablanka who was losing games once a year - isn't he great? And of course Fischer, Reshevsky, Alekhine, Botvinnik and many other players... So let's finish our conversation and leave world's champions equal. 
Fischer's conduct at the chess board was always considered exemplary and impeccable.
Let's discuss Fischer vs Botvinnik for a moment...
This particular game is memorable mainly because it's the only example of play between these two antagonists. But the game itself has much to commend itself if we think of chess as a struggle. Fischer, who was 19 years old when he played the Great Botvinnik, many-times champion of the world, achieved an objectively winning game with the balck pieces before adjournment on move 44. Botvinnik's plan was a specially prepared opening he had originally intended to use against Smyslov. Botvinnik himself wrote later that he was stunned earlier by Fischer's 17th move after which he eventually went down a pawn and faced a possible loss against an opponent he specifically couldn't afford to lose. During the adjournment, Tal had noted that he saw Fischer analyze the position with some Americans. This game was played in 1962 at the 15th Olympiad in Zlatni Piasaci, a town near Varna, Bulgaria. As a team event, it was common, even customary, for teammates to examine adjourned games of fellow teammates, but it seems safe to assume that Fischer, whose self-dependence wasn't just well-known, but legendary, probably was less interested in their ideas as in their proofing his variations. What isn't conjecture is that Botvinnik went to bed for a good night's sleep leaving Efim Geller, a master who was particularly effective against Fischer, to spend all night analyzing the adjourned position. Geller found what he was convinced would be the drawing line. Before the game resumed, it was common knowlege among the Russians that it would end a draw.
When the game did resume, Geller's line seemed to work as intended and Fischer, still a pawn up, conceded a draw.
Now, on this topic page, it's been suggested that Fischer then somehow acted inappropriately. If he did, this is the first mention of it.
Botvinnik later wrote in Botvinnik’s Best Games, vol.3: "Only here, with his face as white as a sheet, did Fischer shake my hand, and with tears in his eyes he left the hall."
Purdy (discussing Alexander Kotov) wrote in 1963: "‘I also knew that he was a very kindly writer. I have never known him to treat anyone unkindly in print. By contrast, his countryman Flohr, a clever journalist, handled Bobby Fischer almost spitefully, when he reported that after he had only succeeded in drawing with Botvinnik in Varna, after having a winning advantage, he left the room and, having reached the corridor, burst into tears. As Fischer probably thought he was alone by then, it was cruel to record such a thing, but Flohr knew it was good “copy”. Kotov would never initiate such a story. Nor would I myself; I am prepared to use it once it has been made public already, for I am not a censor, but I think Kotov is too kind even to do that... I do not decry Flohr. There is virtue in sheer truth. But Flohr could have written sympathetically or purely factually, without spiteful overtones."
Fischer, later, after deeply analyzing the game claimed he could have won with a different line starting on move 51. Botvinnik had his own analysis performed on Fischer's analysis and a drawing line was found. Improbably enough, the analysis wasn't done by Botvinnik, but by a 13 year old student of his named Garry Kasparov. According to Andy Soltis in Bobby Fischer Rediscovered, "Fischer never replied - and this is almost certainly the closest we will ever get to a Fischer-Kasparov match."
To confound matters even more, this game, after adjournment, has been analyzed very deeply by several different computers, all of which give Black a winning advantage.
I don't see anything, in this meeting, in Fischer's play or in Fischer's decorum to indicate that he is anything but a chess player of champion caliber.
I love that story about the Kasparov Fischer connection. Very interesting twist. Botvinnik interestingly enough was also quoted as saying that from a combinational perspective, Kasparov was stronger than Fischer. But in his opinion, Fischer was stronger than Kasparov in the endgame.
Fischer's quote on his game with Botvinnik as published I believe in Boy's Life was "Botvinnik swindled me".
Seems to me for all the public posturing these two did, the animosity between them may have been blown out of proportion. It probably existed at some level, but I think it was clear they also had a strong professional respect for each other.
I could be wrong.
Thanks for the story Batgirl.
you're welcome!
Here is a photo of the game:
here is the game in question:
Excellent point Reb. Spassky is one of the great gentlemen of the game. Spassky and Tal have always been two men I have admired greatly for their sporting nature, but also they always seemed to keep in mind that there were more important things than chess.
Fischer became a Word Champion when was temporary crisis in Soviet
chess system: Tal was ill, Petrosiah and Spassky were not young and tired.
The new representatives "unassuming man from Ural" Karpov and brilliant Kasparov were stronger than Fischer.
Well, the not young and tired Spassky and Petrosian both have equal records against the brilliant Kasparov. :-) As for Karpov, in 75 he had no chance against Fischer, maybe in 1978 he did but not in 1975.
Fischer played some great games and did a lot to popularise chess around the world for many years. Karpov and Kasparov were also great players, we may not see players with this chess charisma again for many years to come.
Personally I could not chose between these three players.
Fischer's conduct at the chess board was always considered exemplary and impeccable.
Let's discuss Fischer vs Botvinnik for a moment...
This particular game is memorable mainly because it's the only example of play between these two antagonists. But the game itself has much to commend itself if we think of chess as a struggle. Fischer, who was 19 years old when he played the Great Botvinnik, many-times champion of the world, achieved an objectively winning game with the balck pieces before adjournment on move 44. Botvinnik's plan was a specially prepared opening he had originally intended to use against Smyslov. Botvinnik himself wrote later that he was stunned earlier by Fischer's 17th move after which he eventually went down a pawn and faced a possible loss against an opponent he specifically couldn't afford to lose. During the adjournment, Tal had noted that he saw Fischer analyze the position with some Americans. This game was played in 1962 at the 15th Olympiad in Zlatni Piasaci, a town near Varna, Bulgaria. As a team event, it was common, even customary, for teammates to examine adjourned games of fellow teammates, but it seems safe to assume that Fischer, whose self-dependence wasn't just well-known, but legendary, probably was less interested in their ideas as in their proofing his variations. What isn't conjecture is that Botvinnik went to bed for a good night's sleep leaving Efim Geller, a master who was particularly effective against Fischer, to spend all night analyzing the adjourned position. Geller found what he was convinced would be the drawing line. Before the game resumed, it was common knowlege among the Russians that it would end a draw.
When the game did resume, Geller's line seemed to work as intended and Fischer, still a pawn up, conceded a draw.
Now, on this topic page, it's been suggested that Fischer then somehow acted inappropriately. If he did, this is the first mention of it.
Botvinnik later wrote in Botvinnik’s Best Games, vol.3: "Only here, with his face as white as a sheet, did Fischer shake my hand, and with tears in his eyes he left the hall."
Purdy (discussing Alexander Kotov) wrote in 1963: "‘I also knew that he was a very kindly writer. I have never known him to treat anyone unkindly in print. By contrast, his countryman Flohr, a clever journalist, handled Bobby Fischer almost spitefully, when he reported that after he had only succeeded in drawing with Botvinnik in Varna, after having a winning advantage, he left the room and, having reached the corridor, burst into tears. As Fischer probably thought he was alone by then, it was cruel to record such a thing, but Flohr knew it was good “copy”. Kotov would never initiate such a story. Nor would I myself; I am prepared to use it once it has been made public already, for I am not a censor, but I think Kotov is too kind even to do that... I do not decry Flohr. There is virtue in sheer truth. But Flohr could have written sympathetically or purely factually, without spiteful overtones."
Fischer, later, after deeply analyzing the game claimed he could have won with a different line starting on move 51. Botvinnik had his own analysis performed on Fischer's analysis and a drawing line was found. Improbably enough, the analysis wasn't done by Botvinnik, but by a 13 year old student of his named Garry Kasparov. According to Andy Soltis in Bobby Fischer Rediscovered, "Fischer never replied - and this is almost certainly the closest we will ever get to a Fischer-Kasparov match."
To confound matters even more, this game, after adjournment, has been analyzed very deeply by several different computers, all of which give Black a winning advantage.
I don't see anything, in this meeting, in Fischer's play or in Fischer's decorum to indicate that he is anything but a chess player of champion caliber.
Let me say what I know about this game...
Yes, this opening was prepared by Botvinnik but Fischer's 17th move wasn't winning move - but this move surprised Botvinnik and because of this he made mistakes then and he've got bad position. Geller helped Botvinnik to analyse this position and he found very good way, but I don't know why do you think that Botvinnik was sleeping all night? Fischer was one who was sure he won this game and because of it he didn't analyse the adjourned game very well...And if you read Botvinnik's best games vol. 3 you should know about Fischer telling the judge that Botvinnik is cheating! If you think that it's OK for chess-players to say such things because they are going to draw... I don't think so. And I didn't tell that Fischer plays worse than Botvinik, I said that his chess qualities as endurance are worse. And do you know why did Fischer refused to play match with Botvinnik 7 years later?
"He had great talent but he hadn't character of chess player."
Surely you're joking?
I'm totally serious.