With all these crazee Bobby Fischer thread popping up all over the place, I thought....well....I should have one too.

So, if he was that great, then why does he only have the Fischer Defense and the Sozin Attack (aka Fischer-Sozin Attack) to his name ?

The Fischer Defense seems like a hellapassive answer to the King's Gambit (and rarely played) and Sozin was the main person to come up with his own namesake before Fischer was ever born.

Anywayz, just curious.

I do give him a little credit for Chess960. And the Fischer Clock is kind of a weird thing to be doing. Either way, neither one of these two have caught on much.

Questions....Comments....Concerns ?

....and I don't know much about him, but wasn't he kinda long-term untested ? I mean, sometimes I feel he played just one too many games of chess. There, I said it.

And how many openings does Carlsen have named after him? The earlier chess champions were at a big advantage in that there was so much to discover about openings, Steinitz had a shit-ton of openings named after him and yet would be considered very poor by today's super GM standards. Even Lasker had a few even though he was noted as flagrantly going against theory and even opening principles. 

Okay, he did not create much about chess, but his games are brilliant.

Yes he did! He was a renowned chess opening theoretician who published many articles on openings and showed the correct way in many of his games.

Fischer contributed a lot to the theoretical chess world, much more than most chess champions. 

He made a new chess clock and a new chess game too and a new brand of bikini.

Oh nuts! the new chess game was already mentioned by the thread Ghostess! shyzer!

Bobby Fischer Lacked Creativity?

To that notion I say with a resounding cry... BULLSHIT!

I must have gained 400 ELO points for whacking guys over 2000 with his Poisoned Pawn. Loved the name of it! It was like setting a scorpion or snake or tarantula loose on the board.

The Najdorf variation where black grabs the b2 pawn. Not to be confused with the Winawer which Fischer actually had massive difficulty against. 

that's true, spagster, I've been doing pretty well with 4Nge2 instead.

Chessexplained had a vid a little bit ago where he showed where Fischer went into a structure everyone at the time thought was just losing for black. Turns out Fischer was right.

No, I don't think he was the strongest ever. But his games are not lacking in creativity at all. He was pretty awesome

I suggest you look at his games against other GM's getting to the 1972 Championship in Iceland those against Taminov, Larsen and Petrosian. Never has any one so dominated their competition. Then take a real good look at Game 6 and Game 13 in Iceland. QGD (Tartakower) and Alekhine's Defense masterpieces and remember Spassky had pushed Fischer around pretty good before that like at the Piatagorsky Cup in Santa Monica in 1966. The man was brilliant at Chess and he was on a mission through to his 1972 Championship. During his playing career he had many games considered modern brilliancies to bring the game of Chess forward to where it is today. Remember also he had no chess software to study past games or board positions like you guys today. He pretty much had a 45 caliber will and memory and took down Russian Chess dominanation in one rather easy lesson. Today's players have no idea about the lack of tools and conditions they played under before and during Fischer's rise. He did a lot for Chess particularly in the US. He knew six languages well enough to follow even Russian women's Chess. How many today can or are capable of doing that. He was a genius with over a 180 IQ and he deserves a lot more respect than a "whack job" that played during the 50's, 60's and 70's.

The Fischer clock is everywhere.

I'm not saying he wasn't a great player. I'm saying he seems to have lacked creativity 'cuz he only has one and a half namesakes. Don't you think that's kinda odd since everyone's always making such a big deal over him ?

YKW ?....I think feel ppl are more mystified by him and less about his chess playing skills. That and that he was a US citizen. I'm sorry. Just me.

And the Fischer clock isn't everywhere. Yes, it's out there but it's not a rammadamma big deal....IMO. I mean, his name is on it, but did he really make it up ?

It seems a bit silly to equate a lack of openings named after someone with that person's creativity and chess playing ability.

What about Karpov and Kasparov, two chess giants who dominated and contributed a ton to opening theory in the years following BF? They each have one variation of an opening named after them.

The majority of the creative analysis these guys contributed was for openings that already had names. But they were each the best of the best at the time. BF did indeed have some crazy ideas and say some stupid stuff, and he certainly got more attention because he was a lone American who stood up to the Soviet chess machine, but that's not why people make a big deal about him. He really was the best of his time, and among the top few ever to play the game. 

Fischer came up with many brilliant creative plans (or at least brought them to prominance).

The most important ones I can think of are h5-h4 in the sozin as black when white has a knight on g3, his Nh5 idea in the world championship, and Kh1-Rg1-g4 in certain hedgehog positions, and that is with my limited knowledge and isn't even counting his opening contributions, which were plentiful.

I don't think that devoting one's life to the mastery of chess inevitably leads to mental or emtional issues. Rather, I think that often those who excel at such a level are inherently imbalanced and may be obsessive by nature and lack the perspective of an average person. The same imbalance which impels them to greatness also takes its toll, but it's not chess that did it. There are examples of elite players who did not lose their faculties or balance after a long career in chess. Korchnoi and Kasparov jump to mind.

If life has no meaning, then do you feel that non-life has no meaning ?

IOW's, does the Universe have meaning or not ? If it does, then pleez explain. If it doesn't, then why is it here ?....or is it ?

Or, could it be that sometimes it has meaning and sometimes it doesn't. Or, if you believe in mytempsychoses, then could it be that life once had meaning and now it doesn't....or vice-versa ? 

Am I in the Twilight Zone ?