Bobby Fischer has been hailed as one of the greatest players of all time along with Garry Kasparov and Magnus Carlsen, there is a debate around this but that is not what I will get myself into. I am here to analyze a more intriguing thing, his playing style.
As someone who has studied Bobby Fischer’s history, here is what I know:
Bobby Fischer is neither an aggressive nor a defensive type of player, he just plays the best move in the position whether it would be offensive or not. Bobby also plays positionally for the most part while occasionally winning endgames that appear to be drawn at first glance.
People are often confused with Bobby Fischer’s playing style since his game cannot seem to be easily worded, well, I am here to analyze what you know but cannot seem to explain.
I think I understand Bobby Fischer’s “real” playing style, it is not what you think it is.
Without further ado, let’s get started.
Bobby Fischer is neither an aggressive nor a defensive chess player
This is something that not a lot of people understand, in chess there is rarely any aggressive-only or defensive-only player since most can shift from time to time.
In fact one can even argue that a real professional player should excel in both offense and defense.
Many are confused when trying to describe Bobby Fischer’s playing style since they are focused on this simplistic thought of neither being an aggressive or defensive player. While there are players like this, many including Bobby Fischer are not one of them.
There are extreme attackers like Mikhail Tal, and turtle defenders like Tigran Petrosian. But the majority of players can choose to be aggressive or defensive depending on the situation, this is how flexible chess players should be.
If we are going to be simplistic it will be hard to pinpoint Bobby Fischer’s exact playing style, he is not too aggressive but also not too defensive that you can identify him as one over the other.
The best way to describe his play is he chooses the best move in the position, whether it will be aggressive or defensive. If being aggressive works for the position Bobby will play it, it is the same with defensive moves which Bobby also plays.
It is not like Bobby only resides in the extreme over the other (like Tal and Petrosian), he can shift gears if the situation calls for a specific playing style.
This I think is one of the reasons why Fischer is so strong, he doesn’t limit himself with a specific playing mindset.
Bobby Fischer’s main style involves grinding out theoretical endgames
If you are going to branch out dough and explore other playing styles (not just being aggressive or defensive) we might be able to categorize Bobby Fischer’s playing style.
If you have been watching some of his games then you would know that he is known as an endgame virtuoso, it is one of his signatures.
One of Bobby Fischer’s signature styles is grinding out theoretical drawn endgames similar to how Magnus Carlsen wins his games, many of his most memorable wins are from his endgame struggles.
Back during Bobby’s time chess didn’t have as much prize and he has developed this style in order to make a living, getting a win from a grandmaster is hard after all.
Bobby cannot afford to draw, which is why he is persistent in winning pretty much equal endgames.
I genuinely believe that since he has done so many endgames in his player history, he has taken it to the grand stage.
His play is really similar to Magnus (who also specialize in the endgame), with the difference of Bobby being slightly aggressive and Carlsen being slightly defensive.
Bobby Fischer play normally until 1-3 key moves dominate his opponent
If you look at Bobby Fischer’s play most of his moves are not really that special and probably other grandmasters would have played the same thing, however, he has 1-3 notable moves that just crushes his opponent into submission.
These 1-3 moves are so good sometimes that it is remembered years after it is played.
It is not like Bobby Fischer just completely dominates his opponents on the get go (although it has happened) since the best players in the world could at least keep up with theory.
However it is usually during the middlegame/endgame where classic moves from Bobby just reach the board.
Apart from these 1-3 classic moves that almost instantly crushes his opponent, most of his decisions are usually normal grandmaster moves that anybody could play.
I think one of his strong playing points is recognizing a winning position even when the advantage is minimal, this is also probably the reason why he is so good at endgames. You can say that this is Bobby Fischer’s “true playing style”.
Bobby Fischer don’t have a playing style, he just plays the best move
And this just loops back to the thing that I had said earlier in this article, Bobby Fischer really doesn’t have a specific playing style and just plays the best move that he can see over the board. I don’t even think that he believed in playing styles himself.
When playing against significantly weaker opponents Bobby Fischer’s style appears to be more highlighted than usual, he is just pure domination.
He is not aggressive nor defensive and can shift modes depending on the situation, he just outplays his opponent. He plays the best moves consistently and the advantage normally accrued until a final blow (move) is possible and delivered.
Against stronger opponents it is hard to see this truth since the positions are pretty much equal, the advantage is not visual for the non-analytical eye.
But against weaker opponents he is able to highlight this dominating play style even more which can be identified.
Bobby Fischer doesn’t have a “true” playing style (maybe except finding subtle winning moves in winning positions) since most of his games involve both offensive and defensive schemes.
He doesn’t limit himself into a particular playing style and can adapt to any situation.
His game is similar to Magnus Carlsen, he just plays the best move one over the other while advantages accrue up until the endgame (both are also notorious for winning equal endgames). That is all, thank you for reading.