Bobby Fischer fans are delusional

I've recently started researching chess and the greats of the game. I found that Bobby Fischer is mentioned too much as being "the greatest player ever". I say this simply because of ratings. Bobby Fischer's highest rating is 2785, that's nowhere near Magnus Carlsen's 2882, or Kasparov's 2851. It's simple math, Magnus Carlsen and Garry Kasparov are the greatest players of all time. I learned about Peter Svidler as well recently, his ratings are pretty comparable to Bobby Fischer's and he's never considered to be the best ever. I think the delusion comes from the fact that Fischer was American, and Americans tend to hype up their athletes. So they ignore the ratings and make excuses like "rating inflation" in order consider him the best ever. I think its true for chess as it is for any other sport. The fact is as a sport evolves the players get better. Its only natural that the new generation of players will dominate the last generation. If this wasn't the case, the sport would be dying. 

It's the exact same when people say Wilt Chamberlain is the best basketball player ever. Let Lebron James play in that system in the 60's he'll average 80 points a game. 

You say 40 years they won't be considered good? But we already have advanced computers, so players are probably already trying to emulate their "brute force" calculations. So if we already have all this advancement, how much better can humans get than Carlsen?

Also chess 960 is a different game, I was talking specifically about classical chess. Like Svidler could be better at the game of Go as well, but who cares?

Magnus Carlsen 
Number of games in database: 2,403
Years covered: 1999 to 2016
Last FIDE rating: 2853 (2894 rapid, 2873 blitz)
Highest rating achieved in database: 2882
Overall record: +642 -262 =636 (62.3%)*

Robert James Fischer 
Number of games in database: 998
Years covered: 1953 to 1992
Last FIDE rating: 2780
Highest rating achieved in database: 2785
Overall record: +420 -86 =246 (72.2%)*

Hi B9...

Welcome to the post. I don't quite understand what those statistics represent. Are you implying that Bob Fischer is better because he had a higher winning percentage? That could just be because of the fact that he played against worst competition. Players back then didn't have computers to prepare. Nowadays there are more players and they all have access to computers, and theory. Therefore, the competition is stiffer. 

Rating inflation is real, it does not matter how strong the field is, imagine the top 10 players are around 2000 fide, even if the best player ever would arise and he would never lose a game it would be impossible for this player ever to reach Magnus' or Fischers rating.

The rating of the 'best' is heavily dependant on the rating of the field.

Fischer his rating in his prime was nearly 150 points higher than the number 5 at that moment, Magnus doesn't even get near that achievement.

Now I'm not saying Fischer is better than Magnus, it's impossible to come to an objective conclusion, but discarding inflation as 'American bias' is pure ignorance.

It is possible to come up with an objective conclusion. Compare Fischer's games to Magnus' and investigate who comes up with the computer move more often. I think it will be Magnus in my opinion. So I believe that the higher rating does correspond to better chess. 

Ok listen carefully.

What ever you say or think it's up to you, I'm not here to change your mind, but I can tell you one thing , that you are not very smart or simply young.

Bobby Fischer is like a Bible, like a Quran, like a God, how dear you are even compare his to someone or something? !

Bobby Fischer achieved rating of almost 2800 when no one even heard that number before, even now days his in the top 5-10 with this kind of rating and when was it? That's right last century.

Bobby Fischer achieved everything himself without a team, coaches, COMPUTERS, support PLUS hall world was against him! Trying to bring him down.

Man I donto even want to explain further it's just silly

He crushed every one with BLACK pieces , he was against arranged games etc...

He invented chess 960, fischer increment times, he brought chess to Elite sport with $$$ he did so much for us today!

What did Magnus did or any other? Sure they are talented but NOTHING compare to a Legend.

Give Bobby Fischer computer now and pUT him in his prime I wouldn't be surprise he hits 3300 rating mark

Unfair.

There was no Computer Chess in Fischers time for him to learn from and copy the style from.

I understand that he did a lot from the game. But please don't make assumptions like "Give him a computer, and I wouldn't be surprised if he got to 3300", you don't know that. You can appreciate him as player, and what he did for the sport. But don't ignore the fact that he would lose to Magnus, and any other top 5 player in the world today. 

I want to remove this post though, I understand that it might have not been worded correctly, and I will inadvertently offend many people with this post. How can I go about doing this? 

Actually computers tend to equalize things I think, maybe I could stand a chance against Bruce Lee if both of us are carrying guns to the fight.

I could easily beat Bruce Lee without any weapon.

I hate when I have to moderate these forums. Guys I know you have the freedom to discuss anything, but please keep it to chess. On my last post, I had a guy talking about classical music. I had to be stern with him so I'll be stern here as well. This is a discussion about chess, and weather or not Robert Fischer is overrated. Please don't discuss weapons, or martial arts on this forum. I don't hate Bruce Lee, I just think he is irrelevant here. Thank you guys, and I don't mean to be rude. 

I don't know. I don't usually read the posts of others, I just post what's on my mind. What's wrong with being curious? Forum regulars can ignore my post if they wish. 

It was a metaphora, [vulgarity in Spanish removed - mod].

Also, please keep it to english. I don't understand Spanish. You clearly have the ability to speak english so why are you using Spanish? I assume that last word means idiot or something. All I'm asking is to keep it civil. I do however see how your comment could compare to chess. I would argue that it's more of an analogy rather than a metaphor though. 

I think every post has its own little intricacies. So I don't think an exact post like mine has been posted recently.