aveumluhe, don't worry, you are not alone in this

From the learning standpoints, Fischer *games* are terrific, but not so his comments. Usually, one learns more by studying the Fischer games commented by someone else rather than Fischer, because Bobby's notes are too full of variations without pinpointing the crucial points.
Besides, he is often biased about this and that opening variation (just like Botvinnik), and often dogmatic in his assessments.

Alekhine's or Bronstein way of annotating is much more appealing for a student (and they look much more objective in their verbal statements)

I'd much prefer to include Bobby's book in the "just because" section, I find batter many other games collection.

As far as we talk of Chernev, obviously as a player he cannot be compared to Bobby, but as an annotator *for teaching purposes*, I think he was 400 elo points higher than most top GMs