Why do you consider Bobby Fischer overrated?

I'm not sure how you can say that it is hard to say what Fischer thought and then say he "certainly never wanted to play them." 

I've never bought in to the argument that someone would spend there lives with the sole purpose of being the best at something and then be afraid to play.  I'm not a member of the Fischer fan club but I don't think cowardace was one or his faults.

That he didn't want to play seems rather obvious since he chose not to play (in 1992 he wanted to play Spassky and did it so he could of course have played others if he had wanted to), it's the reason why he didn't want to play that is harder to know. Matches against stronger opponents all fell through (not only the one against Karpov, but Korchnoi, Polgar, Anand, and several others before that). To me it would make more sense if someone that spent his whole life with the sole purpose of becoming #1 would get afraid of playing after that goal is reached, rather than someone with a more relaxed attitude like Tal.

on why he didn't defend his title after winning it, here is quote from a web page excerpting his letter with what terms he wanted, and it comes down to how players who play for wins are at a disadvantage against players who play for draws-- BS chess vs playing to win: "A player should not be allowed to 'back into' retaining or winning the title by drawing the last game, the way he could in the old odious limited 24-game system. In the unlimited system, the champion must keep or take the title like a man by winning the last game."

Here is the link: http://www.bobby-fischer.net/fischer_vs_fide.htm

There are 2 main reasons why Bobby Fischer is considered over rated.

Reason 1: He is the chess equivilent of a 1 hit wonder in music.

Reason 2: People absolutely hate his racist personality & b/c of the way he thinks about certain things they want to discredit him.

Fischer didn't play any chess at all, so I wonder if all his strange demands regarding match rules (that Karpov must win 10-8 to win the title etc) were the central thing. If he had wanted to prove that he was more of a champion than Karpov he could have played tournaments the way Karpov did for decades. But Fischer just didn't want to play chess.

Fischer was sick of kissing Russian/FIDE ass and thought maybe he would no longer have to after becoming champion but he was wrong. When he saw he was wrong he simply quit..... who can blame him ?  Certainly not I . 

Fischer had already been retired for years (not a single game in his 2.5 years as Champion) and was maybe just looking for an excuse not to have to play. The rules he demanded were impractical, first to ten wins was bad enough even if FIDE eventually accepted, but forcing Karpov to win 10-8 was just so unfair that the most surprising thing is that FIDE were so close to give in also to that demand, it was just a question of a couple of votes.

Rpbert James fisher (Bobby) was a great chessman.  He and Spassky were the cause of revolution of Chess in all the world.  Before no pc´s only books,creativity, talent---

I do not consider bobby fischer overrated

In the linked page excerpting Fischer's letter to FIDE, he makes a good case for why it isn't so unfair to karpov to have to actually win the championship.  How great is a system that nearly assures victory to the first one to win a single game makes certain that the "winner" will be killing any chances and forcing draws at every oppurtunity.  The champ used to set the terms, and the soviets twisted the system to fit their needs.  How unfair was the Botvinnik rule?  Fischer wanted it to be about wins, as we all do.

He didn't just quit chess. He became a recluse because he was mentally ill. Probably schizophrenia. 

10 WC-matches were played under this system. In 6 of them the player who won the first game also won the match, in 4 he didnt. Doesnt seem to be a big deal.

 fablehaft, do you really consider Euwe an untried challenger?  Do you really call Kramnik an untried challenger? How do you define an untried challenger? 

Perhaps when Kasparov says Karpov would have won in 75' he was just trying to convince himself that since he had beat Karpov and Karpov would have beaten Fischer---Voila---he was better than Fischer!  I think Kasparov was trying to improve his place in chess history and also he was tired of seeing Fischer dominating him in most of the polls through the years.

Comparatively untried challengers, as I said, yes. Euwe had never been considered a serious candidate, and he had lost matches to Bogo (twice) and Capa. Alekhine had beaten Bogo (twice) and Capa clearly in matches and few thought he would lose against Euwe.

Kramnik was 25 and had played a few matches with quite bad results, very clear losses against Kamsky and Shirov as well as another loss against Gelfand. His results in World Championship cycles were bad but he was given a match without qualifying for it.

Kasparov has of course never said that Karpov would have won in 1975, but if he had thought something like that it is definitely possible that it could have been because he wanted to convince himself that he was better than Fischer. But then he did also play for decades after winning the title, so he did more than enough on the chess board after winning the title.

In his review of Brady's book Kasparov summed up his view on the unplayed match like this:

"There is a great deal of evidence to build Fischer’s case as the overwhelming favorite had the match taken place. This includes testimony by Karpov himself, who said Fischer was the favorite and later put his own chances of victory at 40 percent. Nor am I arguing that Karpov would have been the favorite, or that he was a better player than Fischer in 1975. But I do think there is a strong circumstantial case for Fischer having good reasons not to like what he saw in his challenger. Remember that Fischer had not played a serious game of chess in three years."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/bobby-fischer-defense/

I think Fischer's overrated because he didn't go with FIDE when he was supposed to meet Karpov in 1975.  A great player, just didn't like what he did outside of chess.  No offense or anything.

 In 1935 Euwe had played in most of the big tournaments during the past 15 years. He had played many of the elite players in  close matches. And the proof is in the pudding---when he played Alekhine for the title---he won!  You can call him anything you want to but, untried is not a good description on Euwe.

Kramnik, at 12 yrs of age was selected by Botvinik to attend the Botvinik-Kasparov chess school. He won a gold medal in the 92 Olympiads as a 16 yr old. He was selected by Kasparov to be his second in the 95' World Championship.

In Jan 96' Kramnik became the number one rated player in the world. This was the first time since 85' that Kasparov was not rated number one. And of course the proof is in the pudding---when he played Kasparov for the title in 2000---Kasparov did not win a single game  (this was only the second time in history that a World Champion had lost a match without winning a single game).

Untried challenger ? Fablehaft please tell me you are kidding. You can call Kramnik anything you want to but untried challenger aint going to cut it.

As I said few experts believed that Euwe would win in 1935 and that Kramnik would win in 2000, one can't just claim that "the proof is in the pudding" because they did in fact win. They were still huge underdogs, not only because they had failed to win their matches against much weaker opposition, but because they faced opponents that never lost another serious match except those in 1935 and 2000.

Bogoljubow had not only beaten Euwe twice in matches, but won top tournaments ahead of really strong fields more than once. He won Moscow 1925 ahead of Lasker and Capablanca, Bad Kissingen 1928 ahead of Capablanca and Rubinstein, still he is often seen as never deserving of being given a match.

Kramnik lost his qualification matches badly, and when the Shirov match fell through Anand was offered a match but declined, then it was eventually given to Kramnik instead. After his going 0-3 against Kamsky, 0-2 against Shirov and also losing 1-2 against Gelfand in his latest WC cycle matches few saw Kramnik as a favourite to beat Kasparov, who had a career score of at least 30-1 against the players Kramnik just scored 1-7 against.

The usual thing for a challenger has been to do well in important matches leading up to the title match. Euwe and Kramnik both lost all their most important matches before being given a title match. Compare that with someone I would not call a comparatively untried challenger, like Spassky. He won matches against Geller, Larsen and Korchnoi, +3 in all of them, before facing Petrosian in 1969. Before that he had won many important matches, already played a title match, and shared third in the Candidates as far back as in 1956. Spassky's challenger Fischer had also won matches with impressive scores and participated in Candidates many years earlier.

Fisher was Fisher.  Karvos is Karpov.   Kramnik is Kramnik.   No comparisons.

well his 'game of the century' as by term indeed highly overrated.