Why do you consider Bobby Fischer overrated?

Personally I don't consider Fischer to be overrated. He was a chess machine, a god descended from the chess heavens (as per Tal), an unstoppable juggernaut - especially in '70-72.

Yes he was in the sense that he left the game wheb he should have showed the world what he could do after winning the title...he was just a coward...a very strong coward.but one none the less.

Well, Anand was the best player in the world 2007-08 but he would be overrated if people said that he was greater than Kasparov.

Bobby did more for chess than anyone before or since.
Yes, Kasparov has his activities, and the world is better off for them...the chess ones, that is.
But Bobby had an aura about him that no one before or since has had. Only Capablanca comes close.
What Fischer had, in the only measurable fact that allows us to compare him to great chessplayers past and present, was a dominance over his contemporaries that no one had matched before, and no one has matched since.
And unlike Kasparov, he never had a close rival like Karpov to first school him and then spur him on to ever greater accomplishments.
Kasparov, it needs to be remembered, barely beat Karpov in the matches he won from him.
Fischer never squeaked by ANYONE. He could even spot Spassky two games and come roaring back to eviscerate him in their match.
He beat "Iron Tigran" Petrosian, the hardest man in the world to beat, FOUR GAMES IN A ROW.
The guy was simply unstoppable.
In leaving FIDE to set up shop on his own, Kasparov did more lasting damage to the chess world than Fischer could ever do by refusing to defend his title. We are stuck with the remnants of Kasparov's decision today: truncated World title matches, short candidates events, and top players who cannot dream of being mentioned in the same breath as Petrosian and Spassky and Tal and Fischer.
That is in part why Bobby is revered and held in such esteem.
He did it all himself.
No hired teams of GMs to come up with novelties, no computers, no Botvinnik school, no rivals like Karpov.
Fischer was in a league of his own.
That's why so many consider him the greatest there ever was and the greatest there ever will be.

"Bobby did more for chess than anyone before or since"

Subjective and impossible to measure.

"Bobby had an aura about him that no one before or since has had"

Subjective and impossible to measure.

"a dominance over his contemporaries that no one had matched before"

Depends on who you ask, for example Kramnik means that Lasker was more dominant, others see Morphy or Philidor as more dominant

"unlike Kasparov, he never had a close rival like Karpov"

He has Spassky who he had +0-5=2 against in their first games, then he could have had Karpov if he hadn't refused to play him. And of course opponents like Tal or Geller who both had +2 against him.

"Kasparov, it needs to be remembered, barely beat Karpov in the matches he won from him. Fischer never squeaked by ANYONE"

He never played Karpov, did he? 

"Kasparov did more lasting damage to the chess world than Fischer could ever do by refusing to defend his title"

I disagree about that one. Kasparov just played the qualified challenger while FIDE eventually started their minimatch knockout World Championship. Kasparov also continued to play top level chess for 20 years after winning the title, while Fischer just quit.

"We are stuck with the remnants of Kasparov's decision today: truncated World title matches, short candidates events, and top players who cannot dream of being mentioned in the same breath as Petrosian and Spassky"

I consider Carlsen for one to be considerably greater than Petrosian and Spassky, and I think FIDE have much more to do with the title matches and candidates than Kasparov. Carlsen has been the best player in the world with a clear margin for a long time and won a dozen top events as World Champion. How did Petrosian and Spassky (or Fischer) do as World Champions?

I am the greatest and I am still alive all of you are foolish idiots!!!!!

A better question would be, "How good would today's top players have been in the late 50s, early 70s era?

 

No computers, gigantic databases, etc, and Bobby pretty much was a one man show, no army of seconds, coaches, etc.

Bobby had issues regardless of chess, IMHO

Absolutely !

One of the most time-unproven, worship-based overrated players of all time....IMO. He was on a crash course w/ Garry Kasparov & Garry would have had him for a light lunch w/ plenty of room left for a hot fudge banana split under some fresh toasted peanuts.

Either way, your were never gonna see BF again in form. He quit to preserve that phony see-thru enigma that some of the jesters on this site (led by a "Rebel") have purchased n2 'cuz they desperately sought a board game hero somewhere near the fringes of their sekondary skool. That & at the supper table, they were told that The Russians were coming to a town near them as they peered wide-eyed at the babbling fool in a crewcut at the head of the table.

Now....pass the salt........

BF's big claim to fame was in 1971 when he beat a bunch of old & in the way has-beens in the Candidates Matches. That was a Alzheimer's joke.

And we should literally be asterisking the WC against BS in 1972. He couldn't play by the very terms and conditions he signed prior to, & then cried for an oversized pacifier. They told him "get it yourself" & that it was in the back closet. And so, he shamelessly went in the get it & BS was foolish enough to follow him in there.

And lo & behold....there sat a chessboard.

True

 

But the guy did rack up an amazing record in his time.

 

And he beat the Russians, that was a big deal in the height of the cold war era.

if Fischer was as boring as Carlsen, nobody would have given a plonk! I mean everyone still talks about him more long after he quit. Bad boys come first is such a true saying.

He proved how poorly he could play in 1992. That was chess as it hadn't evolved after 20 years. That rematch against BS was an epic howler of magnanimous blunders. If fact, some of those moves by BF would've sent yogurt thru the nose of a morn-snacking 1800 grandpatzer. His moves were that poverty stricken. 

Funny thing about it ?....BF was trying his hardest ! 

Someone explain to me that Bobby Fischer chess then was not tops and how you or your favorite player today would beat him.

Funny, that wasn't mentioned til now.

He's

Kasparov put Bobby's play in 1992 at 2600 or maybe 2650.  Was that still top 10 in the world at that time?  I think 20 years off from tournament chess might leave one, even a legendary GM, a little rusty.

I read somewhere, probably here, that someone ran a bunch of great grandmaster players games through a strong computer engines analysis, and claimed Fischer made the most accurate move more often than anyone he analyzed.

 

Not sure if true or not.

Spassky69 wrote:

Bobby did more for chess than anyone before or since.Yes, Kasparov has his activities, and the world is better off for them...the chess ones, that is.But Bobby had an aura about him that no one before or since has had. Only Capablanca comes close.What Fischer had, in the only measurable fact that allows us to compare him to great chessplayers past and present, was a dominance over his contemporaries that no one had matched before, and no one has matched since.And unlike Kasparov, he never had a close rival like Karpov to first school him and then spur him on to ever greater accomplishments.Kasparov, it needs to be remembered, barely beat Karpov in the matches he won from him. Fischer never squeaked by ANYONE. He could even spot Spassky two games and come roaring back to eviscerate him in their match.He beat "Iron Tigran" Petrosian, the hardest man in the world to beat, FOUR GAMES IN A ROW.The guy was simply unstoppable.In leaving FIDE to set up shop on his own, Kasparov did more lasting damage to the chess world than Fischer could ever do by refusing to defend his title. We are stuck with the remnants of Kasparov's decision today: truncated World title matches, short candidates events, and top players who cannot dream of being mentioned in the same breath as Petrosian and Spassky and Tal and Fischer.That is in part why Bobby is revered and held in such esteem.He did it all himself.No hired teams of GMs to come up with novelties, no computers, no Botvinnik school, no rivals like Karpov.Fischer was in a league of his own. That's why so many consider him the greatest there ever was and the greatest there ever will be.

He was so great that he even didnt need to play a single game as champion!!

Sorry but what was Karpovs personal score against Spassky?

And why did it take so long for Fischer to Defeat Spassky? And why were his achievements from 60-70 not that great compared to someone like Kasparov? How top tournaments did Bobby win 60-70? And why only 2 tournament performances of 2820+ compared to 17 for Kasparov?

He had a great run 70-72, but aside from that nothing special. He shouldnt even be included in the dame sentence as Kasparov, atleast Garry had the balls to take on all commers unlike Fischer with his ridiculous reqests for the Karpov match. Why avoid Karpov and rob the world of great chess? Nothing great about that.....greatest ever?

Only in a pro american's deluded fantasy mythical mind was he the greatest ever.

That's a bit harsh.

20 years since he played at the highest level, 1992 was always going to present the greatest risk to Fischer's legacy in the sport. I can't pretend to know enough about top flight chess to know if his play was that bad in 1992.

Authors like Seirawan suggest that Fischer was not far off top 10 level in 1992.

If that assessment is accurate, with a bit more tournament play at the top level Fischer could have improved and perhaps given sufficient time regain the level he played at in his prime.