Why Bobby Fischer is Better than Modern Players! 

Fischer had no coach, no nutritionist, no MD, no sport psychologist, no dietician, no gf (Carlsen has all that & sponsors all over). All Fischer had was books he could afford to buy from the prize money he got, a couple decent clothes, a dubrovnik chess set, & a small chess set he reviewed moves before he slept. Also, his mom hated him. Their personalities crashed against each other. Fischer was the Rambo of chess. He destroyed the gov sponsored Soviet Chess Team, all by himself with no support at all.

"I like it when I crush a man's ego." -Bobby Fisher

Something else that's often forgotten is that Fischer played in the era of adjournments. He would be in his hotel alone, analyzing, meanwhile the other 8 Soviet grandmasters in the tournament would be collaborating on the overnight analysis of Fischer' s game.😮

I resigned for white from my couch. I couldn't take the pressure.

*FISCHER* in my opinion was the greatest player ever. What a freaking insane game that was. Beating Larsen, Taimanov both 6-0 and then Iron Tigran Petrosian 6.5-2.5 was a truly Herculean show of chess strength just to progress to the World Championship against Spassky. Such a task will never be repeated in the world of chess. I'm sure that if Fide accepted his conditions to a match against Karpov who was challenger, Karpov would have been defeated, but that is another subject of conversation. It's a shame that USA went against him after the rematch against Spassky in 1992 for playing in Yugoslavia.

Yes, Bobby was a "Psychic Murderer" and said he crushed his opponent's ego. A Chess Maniac on a Mission the like of which may never be seen again, including the 145 point ELO rating he held above the World's #2 after he became World Champion.

Bro got so bored of chess he made his own variation of chess which is still played at top level till this day

without engines or social media and a masterful mind all of his own, there's absolutely no doubt Bobby Fisher is the greatest of all time... I really enjoy your style to analyze chess games and I hope your channel continues to grow... Greetings from Mexico 🇲🇽

Never confuse the player and the man. He was the Morphy of early 1970s. Candidates performance was remarkable. Then to forfeit to the second match in World Championship. One has to admire Boris for insisting on playing…

To beat Petrosian with that margin in a match is unbelieveable. 😮

I think Fischer achieved a streak of 19 wins against Great Masters, a record never goten anymore.

I LIKE so much your historical comments! Thanks. Very informative.

thanks John for your continued exhibition of these classic games. I'm preparing for a tournament myself, and I've been studying Fischer's lines against the French defense since it gives me so much trouble. thanks a lot for the focus on structures here, because once your ELO gets over 2000 or so, you really need to understand when and how to transform your structure, simplify, how to best convert a winning advantage. I think Lasker said something like, the hardest game to win is a won game. Time is running, nerves are frayed, and it's easy to blunder under those conditions. My favorite chess book is Bronstein's "Zurich International Tournament, 1953. Taught me so much more about how to think about and evaluate chess positions. :)

Thank you for excellent commentary and analysis. You are a wonderful teacher!!!😇

I love your breakdowns. Much faster paced than other channels.

allowing larsen to make a queen at the end was beautiful

Great video mate - keep it up!

Awesome game by Fischer !!1 Excellent analysis & background info !!

I played Bobby in a 20-board simul three months before his Spassky match. He had just steamrolled Taimanov, Larsen, and Petrosian. He steamrolled the twenty of us in 42 minutes. He was a chess hurricane.

That was intense, all the way to the last second.

Bobby's chess intuition reigns supreme. If he had 55% of the coaching, eidetic memory & access to computers that Magnus possesses he would be the GOAT. That is why Magnus is Gretzky, Kasparov is Orr & Bobby is Lemieux. Like Mario had Bobby gone further they both likely would have surpassed the greats.

Fantastic game and fantastic video - thank you!

the bishop-pawn cordination in the endgame was beautiful

Good job Always nice to see other Fischer fans

I enjoyed that. The pace of commentary is very nice.

I like the way you explained everything. Thank you

Nicely done!

A very nice example of Fischer’s cold blooded approach and the confidence he had in both his ability to calculate and his intuitive ability to assess positions .

The Fischer era was when I learned to play. As a beginner it was so hard to make sense of many of the moves like a4 in this French. Good explanations were hard to find. Thank you for your analysis.

ChessDawg, you are the most pleasant, clear, and inspiring chess commentator out there. Please keep it up!

thanks for nice analysis and the excellent game choice.

This is one of my favorite games from Bobby, and it really highlights his positional understanding and powers of calculation. Surely, no player today would be able to easily brush aside the genius Fischer. However, I do think we can be a little biased towards past players, because we tend to only be familiar with their greatest games.

Thank you for your great channel where your always pick excellent games, given succinct but clear analysis and offer nice history of games, tournaments, and players. I love your title here and agree with you completely...and apparently you have a number of subscribers/commenters that agree...that Fischer was better than current grandmasters, even the exceptional ones. I know that Karpov, Kasparov, Carlsen, and some others are phenomenal players and have had amazing accomplishments, but as others on here note, Fischer not only played phenomenally well, but he did it before computers, when there wasn't a lot of depth to US chess, and when the Soviets all worked together to control the world championship and to dominate other major tournaments. As someone noted, at adjurnment, Fischer was basically alone--perhaps with one "second", as with Fr. William Lombardy in Reykjavik in '72--whereas the Soviets had many top grandmasters, several of them former world champions, helping analyze positions and to prepare for future rounds. Futhermore, the US has, sadly, never valued chess consistently (only after Fischer won in '72 and it was a "fad" to many for a few years), and Fischer learned the game from his sister, Joan, and was largely self-taught, working tirelessly for years (including dropping out of high school to singlemindedly pursue chess) and without any significant sponsorship. Yet, virtually alone, he won (with his first championship at age 14) a still-unparalleled eight US Open Chess Championships losing only three games in all eight and winning in 1964 by 11-0 (also still unparalleled); beating Taimanov and then Larsen, each 6-0 in the '71 Candidates; was getting over a respiratory illness when he sealed his challenger spot against Spassky by beating Petrosian 6 and 1/2 to 2 and 1/2 in Buenos Aires; handily beat Spassky by 12 and 1/2 to 8 and 1/2 to be the first official American world champion, even after having lost game 2 by forfeit when he refused to appear; and then after living in significant isolation for 20 years and playing no tournaments during that time, he came out of retirement in 1992 to again play Spassky, beating him 10-5, with 15 draws. In my opinion, Fischer was better--perhaps significantly so--than all modern grandmasters. And, being a beacon for US chess and a national hero, how the US government treated him in 1992, when he defied the ridiculous US sports sanctions against Yugoslavia (especially considering that humanitarian, art, educational, sports, and cultural exceptions have always been made even with travel to Cuba) and played Spassky there (and the US DOJ issued an arrest warrant, even coercing Japan to jail him for a while), was immoral and disgraceful. Thank goodness the Icelandic Althing (parliament) quickly granted him asylum and citizenship, and he was able to live out his life in a wonderful country amongst wonderful people that valued and loved him, as opposed to his birth country which betrayed him.

He's(Fischer) the only reason to why I studied and loved chess in my early grade sch yrs in the mid 70s... Chess became so popular worldwide, just because of him beating the then Soviet champion, Boris Spassky.. Back in those days, it's almost impossible doing that to them... And incidentally, other Soviet grandmasters fell to him at the candidates' matches leading to him playing for the world title against Spassky... That's why, he was and still the greatest chess player of all time. Single-handedly demolishing the entire Soviet chess machinery!

This was a great rundown. It felt like watching a segment on ESPN.

That a7 allowing white to Queen conveys Fischer's character! Since his quote is "Play the board, not the man", he played the move for artistic reasons. Excellent presentation. Thanks.

That was amazing!!

Bobby was the man, though it cost him his health. Thank you for showing us “ the greatest achievement in chess history “. Always a pleasure taking one of your tours of the chess board.

I remember it well. Saw every game on TV, then after, NYC Mayor Lindsey gave Bobby a ticker tape parade down B'way. I met RJF, then we all watched him crush the Manhattan Chess Club's best in blitz: Score 21.5 out of 22. RJF: The all-time greatest!

Good video.👍

awesome, thanks

The craziest thing about this game is Fischer's insight from 23. Rxe5 to (at least) his 28th. The most natural move (to a hack like me) is preventing mate and saving Q by 28. Qc5. But back around move 23 Fischer must have seen this move leaves him exchange down in worse position and had therefore to play 28. Bc5! leading to great piece play, cozy K, and speedy pawns. The depth and subtlety of his calculation is amazing.

This was The Game of the Century. Do not forget that Spassky won six Candidate Matches in the 60's against better players than Fischer faced.

Hi ChessDawg. Can you tell me what the candidates rules were, for the games in 1971? E.g. how many moves in what time frame? how many games/wins required against each opponent? how many opponents a candidate needed to beat, to be the official challenger for the world title? the game you presented was amazing. i thought there were moments fischer had lost! he was a magician to get out of this game! how would larsen have felt throughout the match? larsen was probably wondering how he didn't win in those latter stages?

Thanks!

Wonderful commentary. It’s been 25 years since I last reviewed this masterpiece!

excellent analysis one of my favourite games ever

Nice video

Another great presentation by ChessDawg!

That really was magical

The game ended after 41. Bb6 but it is always good to see the why in full

Fischer's win rate on his run to the World Championship was incredible. High level chess back then was much more drawish than it is today, so he was more than one step ahead of his opponents back then. Unfortunately he was done after the 72 match.

Excellent video, man. Fischer is the goat, for sure.

The fact that Bobby was nearly 2800 with only books and magazines. I love the pre-cpu era because it showed true strength. Not saying players aren't great today.

I feel really good for finding queen c6 then bishop c5 on my own at 8:40

What a flex letting him have his queen with check at the end lol

Yo Dawg!! Another excellent analysis and presentation. Keep it up, your style is spot-on for an old wood pusher like me. I do think bobby was the best (by test!?) but it is just one old fool's opinion. Comparing matches between the greatest players of different generations is impossible of course, it can't be done for any sport (Bjorn Borg vs Rafa on clay?! Roger vs McEnroe on hardcourt, the Joker vs Sampras at Wimbledon? etc.) It all leads to opinions and no end of arguments. Remember the famous "Computer Match" between Ali and Rocky Marciano? Huge controversy and even a lawsuit I think brought by Ali for the "loss"! So more arguing and no end of complaining. But how about this: Unlike all the other sports perhaps chess and chess alone has an arbiter, a truly impartial referee that can give us a judgement that is way better than opinion-bickering. How about if someone with the proper skills and access does the following evaluation: Pick the top 10 best chess players of all time (the exact list and exact rankings will vary a little of course but for sure the very best players ever will be somewhere on the list. Then choose say 50 games from each IN THEIR PRIME and let Stockfish or Alpha Zero evaluate their best games and see what their average percent accuracy turns out to be! Yeah it would take some work but the engines would do the heavy lifting faily quickly and the result would be very interesting. I can't do it; Dawg you keep doing what you are doing because it is great! Maybe some young buck techno-wizard will pick up the sword and charge ahead and show us the true GOAT!

and a prophet , memorization is not chess, 960chess is the cure for chess engines

I think this game shows how good Larsen was just as well as Fischer. He made Bobby sweat and made him find only moves

That ending is insane.

No one can show the power of the bishop pair like Bobby Fischer

What I adore most of all is the sheer beauty of Fischer’s games. There is something quite poetic about them and often frighteningly nerve wracking.

Great game and video, though I'm not sure you can really compare fischer, or any past player, with modern players. I think if he grew up with engines he'd still likely be the best player but I'm guessing he wouldn't be as insanely dominant now as he was then. The field is much stronger and more competitive now.

Allowing black to promote the queen was next level humor

Bent Larsen was such a good player. Until Fischer he was the only non-Soviet (western) player that stood a chance against the best from the CCCP. But they would collaborate against their western opponents. They'd train and analyze together - even throw games to fix match results, if it benefitted the CCCP - so he was at a disadvantage. When looking back at his games, people unfairly criticise Larsen's play. They point to where he played suboptimal moves, or outright "bad" openings. In reality, he was basically forced to use unusual openings, just to get the Soviets out of their superior prep....kind of like how Carlsen is now famous for playing "weird" opening moves today. Larsen's unusual style and choice of openings made for more interesting chess. It showed other players that you dont always have to "stick to the script". That you can win without always playing the "correct move". As a danish person it hurts a bit that Larsen is only ever mentioned as "the one who got thoroughly beaten 6-0 by Fischer". He deserves a lot more credit than that.

I've read quite a few of Dvoretsky's books and he had a high opinion of Fischer's games. Dvoretsky knew what he was talking about.

Arguably, the greatest natural chess player was Paul Morphy, or perhaps Capablanca. Fischer was right up there, too. But, as we all know, Fischer hated chess (late in life) because it had become mostly brute memorization rather than OTB thinking.

I agree with everything you said if instead it was about Morphy.

To be fair, Petrosian wasn't at the peak of his powers in 1971. As a matter of fact, even before his first match with Spassky his tournament results weren't impressive, and most people expected his defeat. By 1969, Spassky's win seemed like a mere formality. And in his 1971 matches against Hübner and Korchnoi he didn't show great form, either. That being said, his games against Fischer were always interesting. The 8th game has been my favorite Fischer game for many years.

Amazing video! What's your name, man?

Fischer was the most intimidating player chess has ever seen.

I'm afraid I think this is true... he was a natural virtuoso, without props, bots, or engines to help him. He was also visionary/genius enough to foresee this current chess era, and invented something to breath life into it "Fischer Random"!

Stunning game! Tamed the great Dane!

Let's not forget that Fischer got sick in the match against Petrosian. After the first game, which Fischer won, he came down with a cold and lost the second game. Then followed three draws, and when Fischer had fully recovered he won the next four in a row. If it hadn't been for Fischer's illness, the match would've ended 6-0 just like the other matches.

Wish candidates went back to this knock out tourney format. It shows a players true 1 vs 1 strength to prove as a true candidate for the world championship.

10:22 hehe "these effin g pawns!" sounded like you were cursing but censoring yourself. hehehe Wow, it looked grim for Bobby when the two rooks and queen were lined up. Those defense moves did seem like miracles. If one piece was off one square those wouldn't have been available.

A logical and convincing argument for why Fisher is the greatest player of all time without modern technologies to study.

Fischer had a 20-0 run: before the Candidates matches, he had 7-0 in the last games from the Interzonal. Today, only computers can do this.

Players are so much better now, no one will be able to do what Fischer did but at the same time he could have never done that today

Bobby the real genius hikaru engine memorization😂😂😂😂

Fischer was dominant for too short a time, because of his psychological fragility. At his best, would he have dominated Kasparov or Carlsen at their best? Maybe, maybe not. But when you take everything into account, including mental strength, there is no way Fischer was better.

I see Larsen wasn't weak at all…!…! 😳 😳 💥 💥 STUNNING Game, *STUNNING!!*

as a chess coach myself, if my (amateur) student plays a7 instead of Be3, I'd be very, very unhappy.

This video evidently convincing that Bobby Fischer trully a genius. l really fail to predict what next move of his.

He ended up being a crazy old dude and hated chess

What a great game!!!

Fischer was the greatest of his era, at the end of his activity in 1970-72. BUT we can never be sure that he would have dominated another era. There's a game where Fischer crushes Reshevsky in a Dragon Sicilian in 15 moves. Fischer used a trap that had recenntly been analyzed in Soviet chess literature. that was unknown to other players in the US. In today's chess world, every serious player would be aware of the trap, used by Fischer, within days of it first being played, no matter where it was first essayed. Before mega-databases and chess engines, Fischer's work habits and amanzing memory put him at a huge advantage vs his contemporaries. But today, that advantage would have been far less.

If Fischer was so good why didn't he play Karpov? The 1992 re-match vs Spassky was ridiculous.

after being defeated by Bobby Fischer , Tigran Petrocian said he was sure that Fischer shall defeat Boris Spasky .🔥

Why does the Winawer violate strategic principles? Is it because of trading the bishop for the knight? Just curious. I'm new to opening theory.

Jesus, I've never seen a game played like this. There were several points where i thought he would lose and he pulls a check, or does a move I didn't see. I bet he was extremely intimidating to play.

Chess styles have changed from the days of Fischer. Nowadays, strong grandmasters (even Carlsen) do not want to use their first mover advantage. They rely on their skills in the middle and end game. The current crop of chess players are not used to handling the initiative of the white pieces.

Wow so right, nobody except Bobby would allow the pawn to queen just to make the point

Fischer was a freaking beast. Playing decades ahead of his time. Fantastic game review.

Add the score and taken pieces to your board

Was* Rest in peace Champ.

Well-done and enjoyable tape. However, are you sure the end of the lecture is accurate where supposedly Fischer jettisoned the simple B-e3 win for a complicated ending. What the speaker outlines I saw in a possible variation, not the actual game and that would make more sense. Otherwise well-done, and I think the exhaustion and demanding nature of this game and the second led to a letdown and the lopsided score.

Fine commenting on a stunning and entertaining game

bro by the way I saw other analyses of this game from different people and they all said Larsen resigned here 12:10 like what the heck? what's your source? where can I find this game? did these people got the analyses wrong for some reason?

You can't accurately compare players from different eras of play. It's an entirely different ballgame. Different culture, worldview, tournament culture, public perception, and most importantly resources. Saying something like fischer would've crushed if he had access to engine analysis and practice with others is not confirmable. Meanwhile you have gms today playing eachother with equal access to resources and still excelling above their peers like magnus, ian, and hikaru. They are all great.