Why do you consider Bobby Fischer overrated? - Chess Forums - Page 2

e4nf3

Dec 15, 2011

0

#21

There are a lot of dead people I don't like. Someday, I might even be dead, too.

Meanwhile, it is good to be alive and to smell the petunias...and play chess, of course.

IoftheHungarianTiger

Dec 15, 2011

0

#22

As a person, I think most people would agree Fischer was a loser (unless they're anti-Jewish or such major Ficher-fans they'll overlook and defend any personal failings).

However, as chess player, he was undoubtedly a force. I think for a brief time he dominated everyone around him in a way few others have. However, I believe as a chess player - even setting aside his personal problems - he was overrated because he simply didn't play long enough to prove himself the best of all time. He ended his career with a 19-win streak and then dominating performances of Petrosian and Spassky. I'd say that undoubtedly makes him the greatest of his time ... but to be considered the greatest of all time? Steinitz dominated just as much as Fischer did for a brief time (actually, not so brief, more like 15-20 years), but we don't consider him the greatest of all time. Why? Because he kept playing, and it became obvious he was mortal. Lasker came along, and like Fischer was dominant for 4-5 years - maybe 8-9 years. Then Capablanca came around, and we saw he was mortal. Capa lost to Alekhine, etc. If Fischer had kept playing, he would have proven he was another in a long line of dominating players who have their limits ... I suspect he would have lost to Karpov in 78 (maybe even in 75), and if not, then certainly to Kasparov.

Fischer was an amazing chess player, and is only overrated in the sense that many consider him to be without any doubt in their minds the perfect chessplayer who would've beaten anyone alive today with ease. I just dont think either his own record or the pattern of champions throughout chess history support this viewpoint.

In my own opinion, Fischer would be the 3rd or 4th best player of all time - definitely behind Kasparov and Karpov (in my mind) and possibly behind Anand.

e4nf3

Dec 15, 2011

0

#23

With Magnus Carlsen on the world stage now, one can't help but speculate about how future generations will view Bobby Fischer the boy wonder of chess.

trysts

Dec 15, 2011

0

#24

e4nf3 wrote:

With Magnus Carlsen on the world stage now, one can't help but speculate about how future generations will view Bobby Fischer the boy wonder of chess.

What?

e4nf3

Dec 15, 2011

0

#25

That is a ponderous query: "What?"

Maybe Hikaru Nakamura is good to think about, too.

Who knows, maybe you prefer Fischer.

Shrug. No skin off my elbow.

browni3141

Dec 15, 2011

0

#26

NimzoRoy wrote:

browni3141 so playing a chess match in a nation engaged in genocide after the US State Dept told him not to is your version of a good idea? If he spat on a US Order telling him not to play at Auschwitz or Dachau during WW 2 would you also admire that as well? BTW the US embargo was part of the UN embargo it wasn't just unilateral on the part of the US. Try reading the sources below and then see how much you respect Fischer for playing chess in Yugoslavia in 1992. BTW I'm not just another jingoistic flag waving butthead who blindly supports everything the US does (I don't) but Fischer's attitude was just another example of his sociopath personality (ie asshole in layman's terms)

"The war (in Yugoslavia) was characterized by bitter fighting, indiscriminate shelling of cities and towns, ethnic cleansing, systematic mass rape and genocide mostly led by the Serb forces. Events such as the Siege of Sarajevo and the Srebrenica massacre would become iconic of the conflict."

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War

"Think of Bosnia overrun by Serbian-backed militias. Then think of the chess genius Bobby Fischer violating United Nations sanctions, and decency itself, to play a chess match for profit in Serbia against his old rival Boris Spassky.

The contrast reeks of callousness, not to mention disregard for international law. The match also violates President Bush's executive order forbidding Americans to do business in Yugoslavia."

SOURCE: NYT 09.22.92 http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/92fs$$.htm

I guess the way I look at it is that it is more of personal matter. I just don't understand why it matters where he played.

trysts

Dec 15, 2011

0

#27

e4nf3 wrote:

That is a ponderous query: "What?"

Maybe Hikaru Nakamura is good to think about, too.

Who knows, maybe you prefer Fischer.

Shrug. No skin off my elbow.

Sorry, I was shocked that "future generations" would have to remember poor Bobby

Benkobaby

Dec 15, 2011

0

#28

I'm glad to see that at least one person mentioned Karpov in this thread. He's (Karpov) generally "overstepped" when it comes to such discussions - it usually drifts from Fischer straight to Kasparov.

Anatoly Karpov would have been the most formidable opponent Fischer had ever faced - yet Bobby avoided the confrontation. Does anyone suggest that with Fischer's ego he would have avoided a Fischer/Karpov match if he (Fischer) thought he could win?!

My guess is that Fischer's paranoia and obvious mental illness played a huge part in his decision to "drop out" - Despite his mental health, I also think that "Bobby" may have been cognisant of the fact that he was about to face a "new breed" - part python ... part viper.

Anatoly Karpov was just such a creature.

GuyOnTheCouch

Dec 15, 2011

0

#29

browni3141 wrote:

Wikipedia:

"The U.S. Department of the Treasury had warned Fischer beforehand that his participation was illegal as it violated President George H. W. Bush's Executive Order 12810[265] that implemented United Nations sanctions against engaging in economic activities in Yugoslavia.[266] In response, Fischer called a conference and, in front of the international press, literally spat on the U.S. order forbidding him to play, announcing "This is my reply". Following the match, the Department obtained an arrest warrant against him. Fischer remained wanted by the United States government for the rest of his life and never returned to America."

Bravo for Fischer! He literally spat on the U.S. order. That definitely increases my respect for him. I might have done the same thing. The U.S. discusts me sometimes.

Hell yes! I would have done the same thing.

NimzoRoy

Dec 15, 2011

0

#30

I guess the way I look at it is that it is more of personal matter. I just don't understand why it matters where he played. browni3141

Let's put it this way: If you lost some friends or relatives in the 911 attack on the WTC would it matter to YOU if Fischer played chess there (in the rubble) the day after the attack?

Benkobaby

Dec 15, 2011

0

#31

NimzoRoy wrote:

I guess the way I look at it is that it is more of personal matter. I just don't understand why it matters where he played. browni3141

Let's put it this way: If you lost some friends or relatives in the 911 attack on the WTC would it matter to YOU if Fischer played chess there (in the rubble) the day after the attack?

But did Fischer do that!?

This reads like political nonsense.

Welcome the entire Republican field!

musicalhair

Dec 15, 2011

0

#32

Fischer didn't just win the championship as if it was some thing all players were equally fighting for-- he wasn't one of many chess players. He defeated an entire state-run system that threw games and rigged draws and games the system to ensure the chess champion was not just a Soviet but a favored son of the soviet system. No one out of all the champions and would be champions did that except Fischer. He is without an equal in chess for that achievement. I don't know he was better than Kasparov, Alekhine, Anand, or anyone else. But none of them had to over come what he had to overcome to win the championship.

FlowerFlowers

Dec 15, 2011

0

#33

browni3141 wrote:

NimzoRoy wrote:

browni3141 so playing a chess match in a nation engaged in genocide after the US State Dept told him not to is your version of a good idea? If he spat on a US Order telling him not to play at Auschwitz or Dachau during WW 2 would you also admire that as well? BTW the US embargo was part of the UN embargo it wasn't just unilateral on the part of the US. Try reading the sources below and then see how much you respect Fischer for playing chess in Yugoslavia in 1992. BTW I'm not just another jingoistic flag waving butthead who blindly supports everything the US does (I don't) but Fischer's attitude was just another example of his sociopath personality (ie asshole in layman's terms)

"The war (in Yugoslavia) was characterized by bitter fighting, indiscriminate shelling of cities and towns, ethnic cleansing, systematic mass rape and genocide mostly led by the Serb forces. Events such as the Siege of Sarajevo and the Srebrenica massacre would become iconic of the conflict."

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War

"Think of Bosnia overrun by Serbian-backed militias. Then think of the chess genius Bobby Fischer violating United Nations sanctions, and decency itself, to play a chess match for profit in Serbia against his old rival Boris Spassky.

The contrast reeks of callousness, not to mention disregard for international law. The match also violates President Bush's executive order forbidding Americans to do business in Yugoslavia."

SOURCE: NYT 09.22.92 http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/92fs$$.htm

I guess the way I look at it is that it is more of personal matter. I just don't understand why it matters where he played.

http://files.chesscomfiles.com/images_users/tiny_mce/echecs06/4palms.jpg

AndyClifton

Dec 15, 2011

0

#34

Yeah, anybody with a USCF rating of 2814 has to be overrated...right?

Bubatz

Dec 16, 2011

0

#35

IoftheHungarianTiger wrote:

I think Bobby's overrated, not because he's not an amazing player ... he is. He had an admittedly amazing streak of 19 wins over top-notch grandmasters. But A lot of people talk about him as "the best ever." and seem to believe if he had come out of retirement he would've thrashed Kasparov. I firmly believe that if Fischer had stayed in competition, we would have seen him for what he was ... an amazing player, who, like all other amazing players, has flaws, is a mortal, and will in time be fade against the following generations. It happened to Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca ... I believe if any one of these men had stopped playing either when they took the title, or just a few years after ... they'd have had a mystique about them too. If Lasker had stopped playing chess in 1905 or right after his big tournament victory of 1914, I suspect there would be the idea that Lasker would have been capable of beating anyone today. Because he played on, and chess theory continued to develop, and he grew older, we recognize such a belief is ridiculous. But when we are faced with players like Fischer and Morphy, who rose to the top and then voluntarily retired, without defending their legacy, we simply assume they would have been successful.

This.

jesterville

Dec 16, 2011

0

#36

Fischer was without a doubt one of the best ever when it comes to chess. He was also "anti-everything under the sun"...and of course Fischer considered no one else but himself. A role model he was not.

Was he the best of all time? This is where I personally believe he is "over-rated". Not enough time to objectively judge...flash in the pan?...strategically quit to save his rating?...afraid to loose?

The truth is that players like Karpov and Kasparov in my book, deserves this title more because they did not run and hide from competition, but faced all challengers, and put their rating at risk.

Only over time can someone's performance be judged...and the truth is that no matter how good you are, someone better than you will always come along. In Fisher's case, he did not wait for this to happen....he jumped ship long before.

And what about the point of his contribution? Of course his contribution was huge...modern day players make as much because of him...but the truth also, is that he could have contributed sooo much more to the game and his legacy, if only he was not as selfish.

fabelhaft

Dec 17, 2011

0

#37

Mister_Do wrote:

If you do, of course.

Is it because he never defended his world title?

Just curious, as I am still relatively new to chess.

Many declare Fischer as the greatest ever without doubts or discussions, and in this respect I consider him to be "overrated". He won four matches, in 1971-72, one of them being a title match. Just in his first title match against Karpov Kasparov played more games than Fischer did in all those four matches. 15 years after his fifth title match Kasparov continued to top the rating list. 15 minutes after his only title match Fischer had played his last serious game of chess. Fischer was a great player of course, I just don't think beating Spassky in one match and then retiring is enough to compare his career with that of players like Lasker, Karpov and Kasparov.

Pawnm0wer

Dec 17, 2011

0

#38

No one has yet mentioned Fischer's performance in the Candidates match. Just wait until this year's candidates match, then compare Fischer's performance with ANY of the players' performance in the candidates match...Then you will see why Fischer is not over rated.

electricpawn

Dec 17, 2011

0

#39

Stop talking about Bobby Fischer! Just stop, you'll be OK! Very few of us aRE Good enough to even have an opinion on your question.

goldendog

Dec 17, 2011

0

#40

The problem with having known Steinitz as a young man is losing touch with who Kasparov is.