I have a theory on Bobby Fischer and Jose Capablanca

So my theory goes like this:

Bobby Fischer is one of the greatest players of all time, he holds the record for the largest rating gap between him and 2nd place and him and the rating average of 2nd - 10th place.

Bobby Fischer was asked in multiple interviews if he thinks he's the greatest / most talented player of all time and he very confidently replied that he believes he is.

Bobby Fischer is known for being an unpleasant person and not a very good gentlemen. Bobby Fischer quit chess just before Anatoly Karpov came into the chess scene as world champion and Fischer probably knew from analysis Karpov's game looked much stronger than Boris Spassky's. 

Many believe he did this because he didn't want to risk being beaten and wanted to remain as the best / most talented ever (This isn't the theory, hang in there).

So Bobby Fischer, possibly quit chess before Karpov became world champion to not risk being proved wrong, he wasn't a very good gentlemen and he claimed that opening theory has ruined chess.

So where does Jose Capablanca come into all this? Well Capablanca believed that to become a great chess player you need to study the endgame as appose to Fischer's claim of the opening. Capablanca was also much more well known for being a gentlemen however there were still some squabbles in chess around that era. 

So this is my theory, Bobby Fischer wants to remain the most talented chess player to have ever been born, he possibility stopped playing chess to avoid Karpov and as well as that claimed that opening theory has ruined chess and all of the games are just memorization.

But what if he's wrong? And what if he knows he's wrong and purposly said that in order to hinder future generations of chess players study quality as an attempt to increase his chances of remaining as the best / most talented ever? This could definetly be the case in my view especially when you have another super strong master like Capablanca who says the opposite.

That was my theory and if you read this far then well done.

Please share your thoughts and tell me what you think!

Is that your approach to history lessons as well?

Just because it's in the past doesn't mean it can't be up for discussion, I think it's an interesting theory and would like to know what others think.

Not likely. If he knew he was wrong, he'd also know he eventually would get exposed.

Bobby stopped playing because he was fed up of the circus and just wanted to chill. As for Capa, Bobby called him out for some of the claims that he made like, 'I played a flawless endgame', when Bobs said he was talking pants.  He also rightly pointed out that Capa hardly ever got anything out of the opening.

mm curry, chapatis and beer, thats smokin!

I don't know much about Capablanca. As for Fischer, I can only guess: He wasn't afraid of Karpov, he was just...

After Fischer won the WC - way before Karpov was declared as the new Challenger - he never played a single official game until 1992. Perhaps you can consider his short visit to the Philippines in 1973 and the games against Greenblatt computer. I like to think I have now debunked your theory that he was afraid of Karpov. And also, he would play Karpov only if FIDE would give in to ALL his match conditions.

My theory wasn't that he was afraid of Karpov. Read to the end.

I apologise. I thought you were implying it. Anyway, you said many believe he quit be he didn't want to take risk and wanted people to have the impression that he was the best ever. That's probably true because he wasn't anticipating strong engines would come out and evaluate his each and every move (not including the theoretical lines of course). I think chess.com already did that and proclaimed Magnus Carlsen as the most accurate chess player ever.

Magnus is from different era, at this point in time machine for that matter available to provide in depth accurate analysis. Therefore he is most accurate. 

If that’s what Bobby Fischer thought: memorization of the first thirty moves of a game shouldn’t be memorized. I definitely agree. And I don’t think he was trying to hinder chess in the future just by disagreeing with Capablanca, Bobby just had a different opinion. Sure he was arrogant but even he knew that a reigning chess career can only last so long. 

Also, when it comes to Karpov he may have been afraid of him. I’m not sure about Fischer’s history. But being an arrogant person it doesn’t seem likely that he would’ve been scared of anyone. It is more possible that he just needed to retire. 

In a match: Fischer(late) vs. Karpov(early), my money is still on Fischer.

A Did you know trivia about Bobby Fischer's life after his 1972 match with Spassky: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/dis-covering-bobby-fischer-bobby-fischers-life-in-1970s-after-the-championship-match

coincidence that ruhu is here (sup my dude), but its a well known fact that the spassky karpov beat is not the same spassky that fischer played, nor was he the same spassky that played during 1970. for one, iirc, karpov had a huge opening advantage on spassky (didnt spassky destroy him in one of those 1982 games when karpov decided to use an opening that spassky was an expert at, or something?), as well as the fact that spassky completely underestimated him. Karpov was indeed a fabulous player by that point, but circumstances surrounded the guy, to say the least. 

lol i kinda agree, kinda dont? 

like, the second paragraph is almost facts tbh, but the game not being as good? i disagree. but then again, he hasnt seen magnus play

Regarding Capablanca’s endgames: Fischer, “The Ten Greatest Chess Masters” (1964),

Fischer was also a proficient endgame player.
Fischer did not rely on opening theory: in his game against Botvinnik for example he refuted the home analysis of Botvinnik over the board.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008417 

Fischer may not have been a nice guy in life, but at the board (i.e., during the game) he had the reputation of being a complete gentleman.

I don't think that the Fischer of 1975 was all that much different than the Fischer of 1972.  It is a miracle that the 1972 match happened at all.  By then his demons had already started to overtake him.  Too bad we'll never know how he would have fared against Karpov - personally I think he would have destroyed Karpov almost as bad as Spassky, and I think he believed so too.