Bobby Fischer-Garry Kasparov

mvtjc because i know the determination of people in general and i know Fischer. Yes it could be said for other world champions as well, but i guess Fischer surpassed them all, also his imagination is something that is not so easy to acquire.

It's just funny that people assume chess doesn't evolve like other sports.

With the worlds strongest engine rating at 3300, the players of today (like Anand, Carlsen, Aronion) all have such a huge edge on guys from the past.

These guys have the benefit of a 3300 machine to prepare for all of their games. Anands opening prep is astounding and he uses an engine that powerful for it all. How can it be claimed that players from 40 years ago are as strong? It just doesn't make sense.

You'll get people saying,'Ah but if Fischer had Houdini then his natural skill would make him better'...Fine, that may be true, but he didn't. He had what he had, players today have what they have.

The fact is, due to engine prep, players today have a big advantage over players from Fischers era.

I think it's extremely sad to assume that chess has stood still all these years, with nobody out performing a guy from 40 years ago. That would mean the sport is stagnant.

I completely agree, Genghis. That's not taking anything away from the greatness of past players. It's just recognising that this is the golden age of chess, at least in terms of playing strength.

Though I disagree with Tetsu about "Fishcer is the best" part, I diasgree with you in this one. Chess hasn't changed it's rules and as long as it doesn't, time doesn't affect anything. Yes players today are stronger due to better study materials/procedures but chess do still stand still. I don't know where you get the concept of being stagnant, as I've said, as long as the rules are the same, it is stagnant. Though openings or other principles chnage, they really do not change the game, they are just discovered but are already present since the chess we know today was invented.

mvtjc, the rules governing running track haven't changed, but runners are running faster now than they did 40 years ago. Chess has evolved, not just in terms of openings, but also in the middlegame and endgame as well. 

Positions that used to be thought completely lost are now recognised as fully playable. Endgames that were once thought to be drawn have now been proven to be winning.  And of course, there's the most obvious aspect, the openings. 

Chess has really changed dramatically since 1972.

yes but its not like Fischer played openings like they played in the 19th century. Houdini wont find Fischers lines losing, most of them that is.

I think fischers line against the Kings gambit is still correct, his Najdorf line is refuted....

Anyway i refuse to argue anymore about it i just will post Fischer is better. 

You contradict yourself. It's not about the rules remaining the same, it is about training and study opportunities changing.

Not to mention that they have to face far tougher opposition for the same reason.

As Smyslov fan said, the rules of track haven't changed, yet the athletes are better. It' not because they have different rules, it's because they have better training equipment, better diet, better pysios...etc etc.

Just because the rules don't change, doesn;t mean that the sport is standing still. Everything competitors do now to prepare, that they didn't do before, is an evolution.

The rules of football haven't changed in any significant way for decades. Still, put Spain from today up against the Famous Brazillian team of the 70s and I know who will win.

Houdini is an evolution in chess. That can't be denied.

i think you guys just like to talk and dont care for anyones or you own opinion

I think that if you can't understand the simplistic point that sport evolves, then you should probably not take part in a conversation about it.

Uhmm if you read your comments carefully you are talking about the players, not the game itself.

ghenghis no i might not understand it, but i understand the troll. You just ruled out something hypothetical like access to computers. And now you make the hypothetical standpoint that because of the whim of fashion Fischer wouldnt be as strong anymore???

No you just like to talk thats all. you dont care about the truth, you just want to run an incoherent discussion for eternity.

Tetsuo, if you reall believe the only thing that has changed in chess is fashion, then you really don't understand chess at all.

Let me ask you this, how did FISCHER change chess?

Mvtjc - right ok. If you want to be pedantic, the actual game itself has not changed.

Sport comes into it when 2 people play one another though. The game itself is worth nothing if nobody plays it. The sport of chess has evolved because the players have. Without the players, there is no sport.

-------------------

Tetso - What are you jabbering about now? There is no hypothetical standpoint. The GMs of today have a 3300 engine to do all of their opening prep. FACT.

I said that Kasparov didn't use super computers to get to GM strength. Also FACT.

As I have suggested to you many times before....Google something once in a while. In this instance you should start with the word 'hypothetical.

With regards to not caring about the truth. Name one thing I have said that isn't true. Just 1.

You, on the other hand have made wild, ill informed statements about both Kasparov and your hero Fischer (You'd think for someone who loves him so much you'd know something about him).

You also talked a bunch of rubbish about boxing, which you clearly didn't understand.

To be honest, you don't seem to know very much about anything. Yet you speak about everything with such authority. I have corrected you and told you to look things up about 20 times in the past week. However, once proven wrong, you just ignore the facts and make something else up.

Just read a book once in a while. Maybe make use of google. That way, not everything that comes out of your mouth will be nonsense.

Ghenghis thank you, your words are the highest honor for me.

Sounds about right. Ignore the facts, spew some other rubbish. Par for the course

I do look forward to Tetsuo answering my question about what Fischer contributed to chess.

No need, I'll tell you how it will go.

Tetsuo: Fischer invented the Queen. Without him there would be no Queen in chess

Genghis: Tetsuo, that's nonsense. Here is a very informative link explaining the origin of chess www.tetsuoshouldlooksomethingupnowandthen.com. In fact, you may be surprised to know, the queen has been used for centuries

Tetsuo: Well I think I read something like that. If it wasn't the queen, it was the knight

Genghis: Once again, Fischer did not invent any of the pieces. He was good, sure, but he wasn't the inventor of any of the pieces.

Tetsuo: Well, I might be wrong. I don't think I am, but I might be. Even if I am, it was definitely his idea to have black and white squares

Genghis: (facepalm)

Tetsuo: You're just not interested in the truth

Genghis: (facepalm)

sounds like an exciting life you have there.

ok ghenghis i admit that was very funny.