I go to fangraphs.com both baseball sites. I noticed this at Fangraphs this morning: Poll: The Most Respected Athlete of All Time by Dave Cameron. Dave has listed three baseball and football players; and one each from basketball, boxing, hockey, and tennis. He also has an option of ‘other’ whereby you can type in the name of your other choice. I plugged in ‘Bobby Fischer’. Just for the record…
I wouldn’t call Bobby Fischer “most respected.” I wouldn’t even call him “most accomplished.” You want to compare him to an athlete, he’s like a golfer who wins huge at a couple of championships, then quits. In that regard, Tiger Woods lapped him years ago. (And, at his peak, was probably more respected than Fischer was at his peak, the Cold War notwithstanding.)
Now, if we’re collecting nominations for most respected chess player (not benchmarking chess players against other athletes), I’m still not sure the honor should go to Fischer. Garry Kasparov’s career was longer and largely unmarred by lunacy. He defended his title when it mattered. He retired with dignity. He mentors other players now. No doubt an argument can be made that there’s at least one other player out there more respected than Kasparov. But if there is, it isn’t Fischer, who cut his own career short after his peak and was an embarrassment to himself in retirement.
We are prisoners of our own time and tend to value the accomplishments of the most recent players in sports and other fields more highly. Players of the past recede because people have not seen them play, did not read the newspapers or magazines of the time, or read what their peers said about them. The unique quality of chess is that one can go back to look at the games as if they were played today.
There was an article lately in New In Chess on Jose Raoul Capablanca, who in his time was by far the most respected player of his time for his talent, ability, and performances. This was at a time when there were other stars of great magnitude - Lasker, Alekhine, Rubinstein, Tarrasch, Nimzovich, to name just a few. Capablanca was not only a celebrity in chess. He was also a celebrity on a wider scene, as the 1920’s were a heyday for sensationalist journalism, their day’s version of papparazi. Being a diplomat also helped him to be part of the elite social scene. His name was well known, even if one did not play chess. His looks and demeanor were compared to the dashing Rudolph Valentino, who made women swoon. Even his rivals called him a genius and had little or nothing bad to say about him as a person, a rarity if one knows of the jealousy among elite chess players. At times he seemed virtually invincible, which one can see by his record.
The respect, almost reverence, that international players have for Fischer’s game is well known. He may have been irascible and reclusive, and in later years paranoid, but his games are used as models of how to conduct certain middlegames or “cash in” endgames with exceptional technique. His is a mixed bag of accomplishment because of his personality and later acts. Kasparov is respected for his dynamism, will to win, and preparation. However, many top players have no fondness for him as a person, given his lack of loyalty to his colleagues, his self absorption, and their lack of trust of his motives. Kasparov’s comments on other GMs abilities also leave them cold.
On the whole, on the scale of respect I would rank Capablanca and Lasker above Fischer and Kasparov as champions and the impact they had on their times.
Funny - cause I thnk Mark Spitz would reasonably be on the list