Was Bobby Fischer a Patzer?

Hello friends,

I have just finished watching Pawn Sacrifice, a wonderful movie about the life of Bobby Fischer and his journey to chess greatness.

One thing that left me quite confused was how he played the World Championship match against Spassky, and his general approach to playing the Russians.

It seems Robert James Fischer's plan was to make seemingly random moves. He wanted to confuse and frustrate the Russians with extremely poor play. Just look at that bishop blunder in the World Championship game. His antics with the sounds of cameras and chairs were just mental games with his opponent. Is it fair to say Play Magnus age 5 could defeat a 1972 Boris Spassky?

Thanks

This subject is of great interest to me, therefore I have explored it in great detail. For reference I am providing you with some links to what I have written on the subject. 

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/fischer-s-c4-brilliancy-or-cheap-tricks

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/fischer-had-no-gamesmanship

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/bobby-fischer-fans-are-delusional

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/tobey-maguire-chess-training

I really need to buy a membership so I don't have to see these ads. Anybow, kinda on the same subject, Fischer fell victim to his own imagined greatness, a lesson some have yet to learn. All of us are just as good as our last game, no more, no less.

regardless of the game.

and, yeah, the ads suck. you can get in multiple tournaments buying the lowest plan if you want to play.

Your avatar--- that looks exhausting.

being a nihilist can do it.

mmm, i'm just gonna find a cash machine.

hell no. Boris Spassky is a great player, just look at his games. Let me start in the fact that play Magnus 5 blunders all of his pieces. Second, Bobby fischer is way better than all of us will ever be (probably). Bobby was mentally ill so yes, he lost that bishop in the first game because he wasn't able to play without complete silent. Look at game 6 in that match, you think that this game was a patzer game? if yes you are probably don't know how to play chess. Please look at the famous game between  Robert Byrne  and Fischer and you will have no doubts about the fact that Bobby fischer wan one of the best players ever

Hey VladimirHerceg91,

Fantastic list of resources! You've definitely given this topic a lot of thought. I agree with a lot of what you've said in those posts. When people think of Robert James and his game style, they think of a chaotic and ruthless style of play; but most fail to look beyond the board. Fischer played very aggressive chess for sure, but he would also play the same game through the way he conducted himself.

You mentioned Spassky would be accustomed to playing gentlemen, and I think most of us would feel the same. You would expect a chess player to uphold the rich gentlemen spirit that's so synonymous with the game, but not Robert James. All this talk about being the greatest, people fear me, etc. I'm a little shocked Spassky didn't resign the match due to the poor fundamental lack of respect for the game and opponents put on display by the American. I certainly wouldn't want to play someone who came across like that.

Fischer was a great mental tactician, ruthless in his psychological warfare games, and his popularity aided by American marketing.

I have "The Games of Robert J. Fischer" and there are a lot of analysis lines for the first game.
Struck me as strange that Mr Fischer did not write a book "From Taimanov to Spassky".
He could have answered all the questions in such a book.

Pawn Sacrifice is a movie  and as such changes certain events for drama.

How can anyone call Fischer a 'patzer' when he beat the best Russian player of his time ,Spassky ! .

Indeed it is. Also it is fair to say I could defeat Magnus by playing random moves to confuse and frustrate him.

yall r delusional if ya think Bobby was a patzer...his play was amazing not jus random moves....first actually look at his spectacular games then come back instead of watching a Hollywood movie

Of course not. But he was severly limited to understanding very few openings (transposed well tho'), was a deliquent memorizer, & lacked any credible creativity....whatsoever.

In essence, won mosta his games before they were ever played 'cuz he used to intimidate & witscare opponents. They say some players couldn't even tie their shoelaces or buckle their belt prior to a match w/ this grossly overated, flash in the pan, so-called champ.

He is better than anyone reading these posts for sure.  If you want to compare him saying he is a lesser opponent, you would need a very strong list of players and most likely world champions.

SwissGoat, I'll tell you what I really think.

Bobby Fischer was an absolute Patzer - he used to pat zer dog all the time.