Do players outside the United States think Bobby Fischer wasn't actually that good?

good game that was surprised black chose e5 and not e6 in an old benoni but it looked playable for a bit , well played Brian Baerentsen

 You can't understand these things by 'studying' chess. You have to study history and how Soviet state functioned in that period and how chess was seen by the Soviet state. Read about Nikolai Krylenko and his role and ideas about chess. 

1) I never said Anand is an all time great. And even if he was, everyone has a rise and fall.

2) everyone(Tal or anyone else) on Soviet payroll had to listen to them whether they liked it or not especially if your family lived lived in soviet union. So when politbureau tells you to drop a game, you have to drop a game.

Kasparov, Carlsen & Karpov at their peaks are better than Fischer in his prime. Fischer is still an all-time great, the fourth best player of all time.

Fischer at his best in 1972 would have been good enough to compete in the Candidates tournament of 2018! That's incredible. 

The problem is that isn't enough for many Fischer fans who argue that he is the best ever, and all the progress that chess has made since 1972 has been an illusion.

Yeah, he's considered an all-time great and top 5 in most lists, but not G.O.A.T as USA people consider him to be.

Fischer's performance, leading up to the World Championship, was so far beyond the competition it was almost unbelievable.  In the Palma Interzonal - to choose the candidates - in 1970 he was 15W, 7D, 1L.

Then, in the 1971, candidates knockout-matches, he was 6W, 0D, 0L against Taimanov, 6W, 0D, 0L against Larsen, then 6W 3D 1L against 1963-66 World Champion Petrosian - where he was ill during that match.

When, in any other era, did I player dominate the other top GM's so strongly?

The match against Spassky began badly, with two losses - one by forfeit.  But Bobby had no problem gaining the lead and then playing draws to get to the required points.

Of course, Bobby's behavior was so awful that everyone felt sorry for Spassky and someone said, during the Cold War when Americans hated the Soviet Union, "Only Bobby Fischer could make Americans root for the Russians!"

hi mickinmd ,

Interzonal tournament Miontreal 1979 Tal records 6 wins no loss this follows interzonal at Talinn same year 8 wins 1 draw then at riga same year interzonal a staggering 11 wins no loss

health affected 1980 but in 81 he recorded at Moscow for ussr board 7 3 wins no loss , followed by Talinn interzonal 5 wins no loss , then interzonal Malaga 3 wins no loss then board 1 russia 5 wins then interzonal lvov only 5 wins , came 2/=1st  , but rounds year of at Riga 7 wins first place

i can go on but the post will be too long lol ,

i like how no discussion on Fischer can ever be complete without mentioning Tal

To be honest, none of the players during Fischer's time were even near his level. Petrosian and Spassky were considered some of the weakest world champions, and Tal was too unpredictable, while Karpov was too young. Others like Karpov and Kasparov had to face strong opposition (each other, Ivanchuk, Anand, Shirov, Topalov, Kramnik etc) who were much stronger than Fischer's opposition. And tbf, Kasparov still managed to dominate some of them (eg Shirov, Topalov, Anand). Btw, Carlsen's contemporaries are much stronger, but he is still #1 for a long time, and that is much superior to Fischer's 6-0 6-0 because it was over a longer period of time.

Add to these impressive feats that Fischer is the only GM to win 20 games in a row against GMs AND the only player to ever win a candidates match with 100% (twice for emphasis ! )  AND the only player to ever win their national championship with 100 % .  When some other great manages even one of these feats I might consider them as great as Fischer . Lets also remember he quit competitive play at age 29 , if he had continued to play there is little doubt that he would have broken 2800 in rating . 

i think its conclusive , irrespective of your views on bobbys views in other matters , outside of America he is generally held in high esteem by the many who love chess in the greater part of our world , but give me Tal anyday , but yeah Fischer deserves praise for what he did in chess

I love all classical players, who had their own creative mind ( like Fischer ).... They had no modern chess engines.... everything that they discovered, was their own hard work..... Modern players ( Maximum ) are just following them or they are using software to learn in more depth.... I don't mean that they have no creative idea... I mean just .. It is easier to learn chess now a days than in classical time

This is another die hard anti-Fischer myth. Have a look Fischer's, Karpov's and Kasparov's first world championship results below, as well as the preceding qualifying events. 

The point is clear: at least in events which were part of the world championship cycle, Fischer's opposition wasn't always weaker than Kasparov's and Karpov's. And even when that was the case, Fischer didn't win by a 1-2 point margin, but played like a top GM of today.

For those of you who still think Kasparov would have done much better later in his career against a GM from Fischer's era, consider this: in 1993, he defeated Short (then rated 2655, a mere 5 points below Spassky's 1972 rating) by a 12.5/20 score, i.e. the exact same score Fischer had against Spassky...

There is also the fact that Petrosian had an even record against both Karpov and Kasparov and we know what Fischer did to Petrosian .  Spassky also has an even record against Kasparov yet some say Spassky was a weak champion while they say Kasparov was the best ever .... go figure .  

I like that table you presented , I have never seen it before . Do you have a link ? 

I compiled it myself. 

For rating data, I used the Olimpbase (http://www.olimpbase.org/index.html?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.olimpbase.org%2FElo%2Fsummary.html) as well as the Chessbase database.

For performance rating calculations I used Fritz/Chessbase's calculator, but there are free online calculators as well, for example FIDE's, or this one: http://chess.kivij.info/performance_calculator.shtml

ok and thanks ! 

Well, if you think Spassky and Petrosian are as strong as some of Karpov and Kasparov's top rivals, then you're wrong. Full stop. They had high ratings because those days their opposition was also weak (reason they even became world champion) . In My Great Predecessors, Kasparov mentions that Botvinnik by 1963 was on the wane of his powers, and then even a relatively strong GM could beat him. Petrosian did it. Spassky was stronger than Petrosian, but he too was nowhere near Fischer. If you think Spassky and Petrosian are stronger than Korchnoi, Ivanchuk, Anand etc, then you're just wrong.