Originally posted by chrspayn
The first wins the world championship, then spends the rest of his career running away from Capablanca, he even went so far as to refuse to play in tournaments that Capablanca attended. Fischer won the world championship, and then ran away from chess entirely rather then defend it. Both claimed that there were valid reasons for there running away, match conditions, money and so on, but it is very obvious when a man wants to play and when he is afraid.
Any particular reason you decided to rant here provocatively? We have a debates forum too.
Anyway, onto the rebuttal: Alekhine freely admitted that Capablanca was a better player, and the reason they did not play was because both
of them were intense rivals. they wouldn't even sit at a board together, so it was not all Alekhine's fault, despite you clearly liking Capablanca from the looks of it.
Fischer disputed conditions all through his life and was not exactly afraid to say what he thought. If you knew anything about his matches with Spassky, before he became world champion, he famously disputed the match conditions. Then when he gave up chess, Morphy did too, going even further and saying P and M odds for everyone. To be fair, he can't have been that scared- he crushed Spassky and got a lot more criticism from leving chess than he would have by losing once.