bobby fischer never really studied theory??

So what my understanding was after watching this video, he never really studies his own theory he actually says it himself i mean even though the title of the video says "fischer says chess is boring" because their are so much stuff put into like how many openings there are and how many moves u can make. He even says that there are so much theory that if you pit against players from the past that they would ultimately get wipe off the floor from players nowadays because how much theoryis produced. I honestly think thats why fischer left the game of chess cause he knew he was gonna get beat by upcomming players like karpov and kasparov or the fact he just got tired of the sport.

Heres the link so u guys get the concept a little more

http://youtu.be/7EuxVOgrEig

fischer ws the first person to bring in the importance of opening theory.

Fischer had a very narrow repetoire, which he studied very deeply.

After taking 20, 25 years off from chess, he was giving thought to returning. Problem was, if he did, he would have to catch up on all that theory he missed out on just to be competitive. So instead, he invented Chess960, hoping to get rid of Standard chess, and make opening theory irrelevant.

I thought it was capablanca

pdve wrote:

fischer ws the first person to bring in the importance of opening theory.

Not gonna lie chess 960 is hard

varelse1 wrote:

Fischer had a very narrow repetoire, which he studied very deeply.

After taking 20, 25 years off from chess, he was giving thought to returning. Problem was, if he did, he would have to catch up on all that theory he missed out on just to be competitive. So instead, he invented Chess960, hoping to get rid of Standard chess, and make opening theory irrelevant.

LOL

My 960 rating is 300 points below my standard.

Funniest part? I HATE studying openings. I thought 960 was going to be my solution!

Well im guessing somebody has to invent opening theory on 960. But im guessing its more tactical than theory

varelse1 wrote:

LOL

My 960 rating is 300 points below my standard.

Funniest part? I HATE studying openings. I thought 960 was going to be my solution!

This is ridiculous claim.

Opening theory has been actively studied from the dawn of professional chess.

Fischer studied chess obsessively, and was probably the reason he dominated his peers among his amazing ability to calculate. He read more chess books, columns, magazines, and articles than his peers and remembered them. He studied a ton of openings and knew them all well. This fact came to the forefront in his match with Spassky when he opened up one game with 1.c4, stunning Spassky as everyone thought he only knew 1.e4 openings. Fischer knew theory, studied a lot of theory, which in a way gives him more credibility when he talked about how "old chess" was bad primarily because of the vast amount of theory that had been produced for the game. But it is wrong to say Fischer never studied theory, he studied it a great deal, possibly one of the most of all time.

Let's be real. Top players know their theories back and forth. It may be possible that some of them understood theories very naturally. Therefore they spent more time nuturing other areas of chess (or any profession) to the point where some aspects were simply maintenance, but it's not like they said I can win without it so I don't care. Honestly, I think a lot of this is excuse for amateurs to not focus on the less flashy concepts... which is kinda pointless if you actually want to be more than a mediocure player. I think anyone who truly enjoys the game will put a lot of this aside and just play.

http://maddchess.blogspot.com/2013/03/competitive-chess-training-part-11.html

Fischer was very good at refuting opening innovations, and finding just the right move in crazy positions. And he had a chess board with him at all times. But mostly, he made his own analysis, because he didn't trust anybody else. That was the most awesome fact of his match against Spassky, that even if the russian had all the best players in the world to help him analyze the postponed finals, Fischer was better than him in those finals (except for the 1st game, which was utterly lost), that he analyzed himself with no help at all. He was that good.

BTW, Alekhine studied and analyzed openings a lot.

Cf #12, and allow me to remind you he learnt to read Russian just to read the Russian chess books. Such an intellectual investment would require a bit of trust in the interest of the objective.

Fischer was the ultimate theory hound! 

Fischer famously studied the Russian magazines. In one endgame, he famously suddenly started blitzing his moves. Afterwards, he said that he had studied analysis published in Shakhmaty. 

Fischer sent his second, Larry Evans, in search of out-of-date publications to come up with "novelties" in his world championship match against Spassky. Fischer immersed himself in theory and improved upon it!

I read his "My 60 memorable games". It is obvious he knew openings deeply, but diversed from opening theory.

He knew Sicilian, Ruy Lopez, Caro-Kann, French, Grundfeld, King indian, etc.

Compare to me, I don't even know Ruy Lopez and Caro Kann, neither do I study king Indian.

thats what i dont understand, why did Fischer need a chess board?? why didnt he just visualise?

Never studied theory?  He might as well have written the book on theory lol.

Did he learn Russian just to study the Russian publications? I think this is a myth. The fact is his mother spoke Russian and his sister also spoke Russian so maybe it was a fortunate coincidence that Russian was spoken in his household as a child and so he knew some Russian to begin with.

That's what I'd like to know also. Fischer is famous for being able to play blindfold chess and yet he always carried a chess wallet, in fact you can buy a replica of Fischer's chess wallet on the internet. 

Warning : unsourced.

From what I remember, some Russian player (Spassky (?)) said that Fischer was completely incapable of speaking Russian, though he obviously read a lot of russian chess literature. I agree that my original presentation could mislead into thinking that he started from nothing and reach a native level of Russian which is not the case - but still, it must be some decent work.