One of the secrets of Fischer's success is that he realized that the difference between White and Black is only one tempo. Some GM's hunker down and just try to survive their games with Black, while others realize that the advantage of the first move is relatively small and easily lost through imprecise play.

Here are my findings:

<White score>

1. Alekhine 0.89
2. Capablanca 0.86
3. Lasker 0.82
= Fischer 0.82
5. Botvinnik 0.80
6. Karpov 0.75
= Kasparov 0.75
8. Tal 0.73

<Black score>

1. Botvinnik 0.81
= Capablanca 0.81
3. Alekhine 0.78
4. Lasker 0.76
5. Fischer 0.74
6. Karpov 0.64
7. Kasparov 0.63
8. Tal 0.59

<White bonus>

1. Tal 0.14
2. Kasparov 0.12
3. Alekhine 0.11
= Karpov 0.11
5. Fischer 0.08
6. Lasker 0.06
7. Capablanca 0.05
8. Botvinnik -0.01

<White losses>

1. Alekhine 0.00
= Capablanca 0.00
3. Kasparov 0.01
4. Botvinnik 0.03
5. Fischer 0.05
= Karpov 0.05
7. Lasker 0.09
8. Tal 0.10

<Black losses>

1. Capablanca 0.00
2. Alekhine 0.05
3. Fischer 0.07
= Karpov 0.07
5. Kasparov 0.10
6. Lasker 0.12
7. Botvinnik 0.17
8. Tal 0.21

<Comments>

Over time, scoring rates as both colours have declined due to the stronger competition. Nonetheless, Tal notably underperforms here.

As expected, scores as Black are generally lower. The more tactical players seem to derive the most benefit from the white pieces. Botvinnik is an unusual case, scoring slightly better with Black. In fact, from 1944-1946 he scored +23 =1(!!) -5 as black!

That's right. I used Big Database 2005, and the following 3 year peak periods:

Lasker: 1896-1900 [given 5 years, since he was inactive for 2 of them]

Capablanca: 1918-1921 [4 years, since no serious games in 1920. N.B. Only 42 serious games during this period, making his statistics far less reliable than anyone else's.]

Alekhine: 1930-1932

Botvinnik: 1944-1946

Tal: 1959-1961

Fischer: 1970-1972

Karpov: 1976-1978

Doesn't look that way...unless there is some reason that Botvinnik, whose career ended 38 years ago, <is not> a modern professional, while Fischer, whose career ended 36 years ago, <is> a modern professional.

And Fischer's attitude was a big part of that: Fischer simply wanted to crush you whether he had the White or Black pieces, every game.

<If Kramnik had won the first three games of the Taimanov and Larsen matches like Fischer, he would have crawled into a shell and tried to draw out the match. Fischer, on the other hand, proceded to win the next three games in a row as well(!), beating both Taimanov and Larsen by identical, incredible scores of 6-0(!!!).>

<I'm thinking in terms of the whole career. Of course, Botvinnik had impressive results. Maybe he did have a remarkable 3 year run. Over his career though, his results with black don't measure up to Fischer's results with black.>

You are mistaken. Here are their career figures with Black.

Botvinnik

+265/43.7%
-96 /15.8%
=245/40.4%

Overall percentage with Black: 63.9%

Fischer

+211/47.5%
- 79/17.8%
=154/34.7%

Overall percentage with Black: 64.9%

So, slight advantage to Fischer. He also won (and lost) slightly more often.

But this isn't fair to Botvinnik, since he played until he was 59, and Fischer retired at the age of 29. To get a fairer comparison, I measured Botvinnik through his winning of the world title in 1948:

+142/52.6%
-37/13.7%
=91/33.7%

Overall percentage with Black: 69.4%

Indeed.

Who else thinks Spassky is a despicable, cowardly little pantywaist for not trying to annihilate Larsen 6-0?

Must I always place a :-) after my posts to show that I am not serious.

Of course drawing out a match is the correct thing to do for 99.9999999% of chess players. I was using the Taimanov and Larsen matches as examples of Fischer's -UNBELIEVABLE- will to win damn near every game he played: he was still playing Siclians and King's Indians though he was way ahead in those matches!

No problem.

Fischer's strength was his attitude.