That's exactly right. It's the element of mystery that makes the legend. What could he have done if he'd tried? How long could he have stayed champion? Could he have maintained that level of dominance much longer? When would he have gone back to being "just" another one of the world's best players? Nobody knows.

That's why Fischer is more legendary than someone like Kasparov, who, given the advance of chess knowledge, was almost certainly a stronger player, and equally dominant (over everyone except Karpov). But there's much less mystery with Kasparov. He quit a little prematurely, but we pretty much saw what he was capable of. Fifteen years world champion, 20 years World #1. He might have gone on a while longer, but he was already starting very slowly to slide into the pack when he quit. His unfulfilled potential is far less than Fischer's was.

The word "genius" is thrown around so frivolously today. You can write a few really funny half hours of television and have critics call you a genius, so how much more tempting is it to use the term about chess players?

But yeah, I think you're right. Fischer, like all Top GM's obviously had a huge aptitude for chess. But I think the key ingredient to his success was not genius, so much as the fact that he worked his butt off on chess, day and night, for 15 years, to the exclusion of all else.

I don't claim Larsen to be equal to Fischer in terms of playing strenght - I'm saying, that they were in fact in the same leaque - among the very best in the world in the late 1960'es.

There was then - as now - a difference between being no. 3 and no. 1. But that doesn't mean that no. 1 is out of reach.

The 6 - 0 elimination of Larsen was maybe a fair result under the circumstances - with a less performing Larsen taking risks in an attempt to equalize after the missed chanches in their first game.

No one could seriously claim that the 6 - 0 result was "a fair" result in terms of actual playing strenght. Then the score should properly have been like a 60 - 40 % score - with Fischer on top of course.

His 20-0 streak against the leading GMs of his day is one of the most amazing parts of his claim to greatness, and no one has ever come close to matching that: neither Lasker nor Alekhine among the older greats; neither Kasparov nor Karpov among the moderns--nobody.

This may not make him the greatest player of all time (I'm not even exactly sure what a title like that would mean), but he was definitely a genius.

Genius is having the knowledge and drive to perfect what came before you, garnering more than average amounts of awe and admiration. Shakespeare did this, as almost all of his material was lifted from other sources. Archimedes and Einstein did this, working off the foundations of math before them. Fisher did this too. For his time, he did study enough to achieve genius status, or there wouldn't be so much awe of him today.

<ugaaaaa>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sl-...

A) 20.e5 Kg8 21.exd6 Qe3+ and 22... Qg5
B) 20.Rxh6+ Bxh6 21.Qxh6+ Kg8 22.e5 f5 23.exf6 Qe3+

possibilities could be
20.Rxh6+ Bxh6 21.Qxh6+ Kg8 22.Qg5+ Kg8 (22... Kg7 23.e5+ f5 24.exf6+) 23.Qf6+ Kg8 24.e5 Qe6 25.Qg5+ Kh8 26.Qh5+ and mate follows

but
20.Rxh6+ Bxh6 21.Qxh6+ Kg8 22.Qg5+ Kg8 23.Qf6+ Kg8 24.e5 Qd8 25.Qh6 f5 26.exf6 Rf7 27.??? (27.Bg6 Qf8)

Well, my friend. After 19... h6 20.e5 g8 why not just follow the master with 21.e2?