Why is Fischer considered the greatest chess player ever by so many?
Sort:
Batgirl, You seem to know a lot about chess stories based on you write-ups. How about your chessplaying ability? Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch once expressed himself, exasperatedly, to the mediocre players and critics of his time and said, I quote, "Those who CAN play chess. Those who CAN'T write about it~"
"... Losing is a part of chess. While every professional chess player despises losing, a person who is afraid to lose, doesn't play professional chess .... and if Fischer was indeed afraid to lose, it was the fear of losing, not to an individual, but to an entire system...."
Taimanov's opinion about Fischer: he was great, but when he became WC he decided that he has no right to lose now, but this is impossible! This thought was killing him and finnaly he decided that he's not good enough to be WC though there was no WC who never was defeated...
I didn't mean he was afraid to lose to Soviets, but he was afraid to lose to anybody because he was considered the best! This wasn't giving to participate in all tournaments and it's very sad...
By the way I found quote: "This was one of the longest night's analysis in my life... after Geller went to bed I had to anayse only some details...". Botvinnik wasn't sleeping!
Tarrasch was a wise man. And by his standards only a handful of people at this site can really play chess.
Hence the forums, where we can all write.
Luckily there are a few digital boards laying around where we can play a game or two when we tire of writing about it.
"Those who CAN play chess. Those who CAN'T write about it~"
Tarrasch wrote a book on chess. 
Oct 30, 2007
0
#87
If it were said that Fischer, after winning the championship, became afraid to lose, I would say most evidence suggests that. A person who is afraid of losing doesn't play.
Nothing noteworthy during Fischer's rise to the championship suggests he had fear of engaging anyone in chess.
""This was one of the longest night's analysis in my life... after Geller went to bed I had to anayse only some details...". Botvinnik wasn't sleeping!"
Thanks. That settles that.
billwall wrote:
You got rid of My 60 Memorable Games and now its worth from $48.94 to $75 on Amazon, and slightly cheaper on ebay.
http://www.amazon.com/My-Memorable-Games-Bobby-Fischer/dp/0671214837
Well, I didn't waste my copy of 60 Memorable Games. I gave it to a budding young master. As for my distaste for Fischer vs my tolerance of Alekhine: Alekhine died before I was born, whereas I have to witness Fischer's continuing disgraceful antics: maybe that makes a difference in my feelings.
Oct 30, 2007
0
#89
Ricardo,
Then your book went to a worthy cause and wasn't wasted. My book has dozens of notes on almost all the pages and read and re-read many times.
Another book I liked that well was the three-volumes-in-one collection of Keres' games. It had great annotations.
Oct 30, 2007
0
#91
Singa wrote: Batgirl, You seem to know a lot about chess stories based on you write-ups. How about your chessplaying ability? Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch once expressed himself, exasperatedly, to the mediocre players and critics of his time and said, I quote, "Those who CAN play chess. Those who CAN'T write about it~"
it seems to me that Tarrasch never knew about these two following gentlemen:
George Koltanowski & Isaac Kashdan
Oct 30, 2007
0
#92
for anybody who might be interested there is an 11 parts video lecture at youtube on Bobby fischer by Dr. Frank Brady a lifetime Bobby fischer friend http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWLScbFmc7E
ancientpistol wrote:
no place in the top 10!! thats laughable! as for spassky, his play suffered from his own case of nerves, namely they were shot. he even said so himself. he was quoted as saying his yrs as world champion were the unhappiest of his life. there's little doubt that fischer was a prima donna and eccentric, but to suggest he wasnt a top 10 player of all time is to deny reality. fischers demands reasonable or not had little to do with spassky's defeat in my humble opinion. spassky was the world champion and a great chess player but bobby fischer was better!!
Spassky had a positive record vs. Fischer, prior to the match, wins, draws and zero losses.
Fischer, on the other hand, won very convincigly against the opposition in qualifying for the match, admired in that by Kasparov.
Here is the quote from wikipedia:
"
Game 2: Fischer forfeits
After his loss Fischer made further demands on the organizers, including that all cameras be removed. When they were not, he refused to appear for game 2, giving Spassky a default win. His appeal was rejected. Karpov speculates that this forfeited game was actually a masterstroke on Fischer's part, a move designed specifically to upset Spassky's equanimity.[63]
With the score now 2–0 in Spassky's favor, many observers believed that the match was over and Fischer would leave Iceland, and, indeed, Fischer looked to board the next plane out, only to be dissuaded by his second, William Lombardy.[68] His decision to stay in the match was attributed by some to another phone call from Kissinger and a deluge of cablegrams.[69][70] Sportingly, Spassky agreed to play the third game in a small room backstage, out of sight of the spectators. According to Pal Benko and Burt Hochberg, this concession was a psychological mistake by Spassky.[71]"
I, for one, think that Spassky, given the possibility of continuing the match, should have never agreed to the change of scenery, most of all. According to some accounts, he did not like at all playing in a small room away from the audience and this setting was far more favorable mentally and by all means suited for the Fischer and not for the Spassky.
This sort of detail does play a roll in a chess match, both were humans and not machines, psychology does always come into play, Lasker knew this very well, and while claiming that this, in his view is not the case (one should always play the best possible move in the given position), Fischer both on- and off the board gave some fine examples of being well aware of this element (there are fine examples of this - and done in order to make opponent play chess and not play variants from the pre-match preparation and memory), and using it to his advantage.
I have heard the post match comments that Spassky made several uncharacteristic blunders in this match, and I will have to check this match by match in the wiki page.
Fascinating subject and great piece of chess history.
It is a great shame that Fischer - Karpov match never happened, and that Fischer is not among us, as well as how he got really "strange" in the years of his seclusion from the rest of the world.
youngest Grandmaster at one point in time only American to be world champion the Fischer prize 20 game winning streak defeated 3 Grandmasters in a row various others
Ultra_Magnus99 wrote:
youngest Grandmaster at one point in time only American to be world champion the Fischer prize 20 game winning streak defeated 3 Grandmasters in a row various others
Yes... ever heard about someone called José Raoul Capablanca, laziest champion in the chess history, who was said to not even have owned a chess set at his home ?
Numerous stories about his chess talent, he was famous for that, at the time.
Has been seen accompanied (according to what has been said to be (only ? )rumours) by some prominent ladie(s) during the time of his title match in 1927. , with more than well prepaired Alekhine (which he eventually lost).
Mar 5, 2019
0
#96
What?! Nearly 12yrs between post...
Note how many of those player were later banned for cheating, lol...
Fischer is unquestionably one of the best... but an objective opinion has to give Kasparov the nod.
Also, Karpov is often remembered as a rather aging, cautious version... peoples forget just what a beast of a player he was, at his best... for example he was 5up on Kaspy first WC they played. One could even make a case for prime Karpov being best ever... his grinding style and lack of charisma count against him.
Prime RJF v Karpov... very close.
Mar 5, 2019
0
#97
These comparisons don't make sense, because there were always different amounts of theory. I mean years ago databases and opening-trees didn't exist, and 6-7 chessmen endgames weren't solved and so forth and so on. So it's really hard to compare different champions, mostly it's even impossible. May be if Capablanca could use nowadays knowledge, he could win Carlsen 6:0 or may be he would be beaten by him 0:6 - so who knows?
Mar 5, 2019
0
#99
But anyway RJF, Karpov and Kaspy overlapped... so is fair comparison.
Mar 5, 2019
0
#100
Kramnik defeated Kasparov, but Kasparov was quite old at that time and he wasn't motivated. By the way I don't think that Kramnik is the strongest player ever. Also it's well known that Fischer didn't play a match with Karpov. I can only say that Kasparov is a bit stronger than Karpov because he defeated him several times (but he used to have only a slight advantage over Karpov) in WCH. So these comparisons are really relative, may be RJF could defeat Karpov and... But in history, there are no givens.
I am not an American! But I think Fischer is one of the chess "greats" of all times.( He would not like you to spell his name as "Fisher", as as it would sound too "fishy", Heh! Heh!) Also it is not fair to compare these great masters from different times. Each has his own strenth and style of play. It would be like comparing Joe Louis with Mike Tyson ,both professional boxing champions of a different era. Fischer has a chess style akin to that of Capablanca. He seeks simplication and excels in seemingly "simplified" positions. Alekhin was just the opposite. He sought complications and would revel in complicated positions to overwhelm his opponents in sinctilating display of his tactical prowess!