Anand is better than kasparov!!!!!!!

I think you might have missed the point.

Just in case you're not joking lol

It's the same reason you don't count his results as a kid when talking about how great a player he was.  When arguing for the greatest anything (not just chess) you look at the height of what that person accomplished.  Fischer was obviously a different player comparing the first few games he played Spassky and the next 50 or so (whatever batgirl said).

Or, rather, you look at the height of what Fischer accomplished and compare it to Kasparov's life stats against Karpov :-) Kasparov went 11-4 against Karpov after turning 25, in case one would be a bit selective also with his stats. But I don't think positive career stats against Karpov can be used against someone, since he is one of the greatest players ever and just having a plus against him is difficult enough. Even if Fischer would have had a bigger career plus against Spassky than Kasparov had against Karpov I don't think that would have proved much. Karpov scored 12-1 against Spassky, by the way, and all those wins came many years before 1992 :-)

Fischer was certainly further ahead of Spassky in 1972 than Kasparov was ahead of Karpov when they played their matches, but comparing a Fischer at his peak facing Spassky with a young Kasparov facing Karpov at his best is difficult.

 ... maybe in cricket.

^
I take their 90s match as just exhibition.  IIRC Spassky had been fairly inactive in tournament chess (Fischer of course non-existent).  So those results are interesting, but have nothing to do with the legacy of each player IMO.

Kasparov is pretty snarky, but for what it's wroth he said they were playing at something like 2500 level (again, if I recall correctly).

This is why it's difficult for me to rate Fischer higher than Kasparov.  Kasparov's "body of work" so to speak, is more impressive.  Fischer had a brilliant moment in the spotlight but then immediately left.

But we're talking about best in blitz, so it's even more subjective heh.

I was unaware of the player Batgirl mentioned, Genrikh Chepukaitis.  It's amazing that an IM strength player could finish blitz tournaments ahead of people like Tal and Korchnoi.

While best blitzer may be a debate, there's ZERO debate on Nakamura being the best bullet player. He is by far the best there has ever been at 60-second chess. I'll never forget watching him clear 3500 on the playchess server. As Yasser Seirawan put it once while we were watching:  "Simply amazing!"

In Smart Chip from St. Petersburg, Genna Sosonko presented Chepukaitis in a rather long article.  Here are a couple excerpts:

"Chepukaitis talked more than once about his head-to-heads with Mikhail Tal. The very first one took place in Lennngrad, in a hotel;  the elderly man that Chip met there, and whom he first mistook for Misha's uncle, turned out to be Rashid Nezhmetdinov. Chepukaitis beat the master of combinations with a score of 5-2, after which Tal entered the room and got involved.  He also played seven games and according to Chip lost almost all of them, although the following day he won  rematch."

"The most common one [type of odds] that Chepukaitis gave was one minute against five. On more than one occasion I have witnessed him playing with these odds against candidate masters. . ."

No other super gm takes one-minute seriously. As far as they're concerned, he can have it. I'm pretty sure they think of him as the "idiot" of the chess world.

I don't know how easy it is to look down on the current #6 player in the world  (?)

I mean, I agree... I don't imagine that elite players give blitz (or bullet) champs much respect.  But again Naka's "real" rating is very impressive as well.

Again this is NOT about OTB play. personal scores in OTB play are irrelevent.  My question is about blitz. There are players that are much stronger at blitz than OTB play for various reasons. There are "amateurs" that are outstanding at blitz as mentioned by an earlier post. One of these was GM Ruben Fine and GM Dake who were both outstanding rapid players (10 sec a move) which was a more common time control back in their day. {and an interesting one to try out}

It should also be mentioned that Naka also had the top position in 3 min 5 min and 15 min and I believe standard as well. ONLINE blitz is different than face to face though. I do agree though Naka played 1 min better than most GM's play 3 min. Naka doesnt have the same dominance in face to face blitz though (losing a casual blitz match to Carlsen as an example)

It was you who brought up Kasparov's career score against Karpov :-) I think you mean classical and not OTB by the way, but in general it seems as if the best players usually are the best blitz players. Today most would agree that Carlsen, Aronian, Anand, Kramnik, Radjabov and Nakamura are the six strongest blitz players and they are also top six on the latest rating list. Fischer was the best blitz player of his day and so was Kasparov.

Comparing over time is as usual difficult. My guess is that today's players in general are stronger blitz players than those of previous generations. Blitz was less common in the past, for example Botvinnik famously stated to have played only one blitz game in his entire life, and he was World Champion less than 50 years ago. I think this also is the reason that there existed a few blitz specialist that did well against the top players in the past, while you won't find any such players today when all the best players have played thousands of blitz games.

Your posts are almost always incredibly abrasive, ignorant, or rude in some way. You are aware there are times when you can take a break from being so completely unlikeable, right? I'm betting you're a perfect gentleman out in public when people can confront you face-to-face...

Capablanca

morphy

that's like saying Arkimedes for the smartest person of all times, morphy was good but just about every player after him have built on his games making alot of people better than him.

that's like saying Arkimedes for the smartest person of all times, Capablanca was good but just about every player after him have built on his games making alot of people better than him.

By this logic the question is moot. Taken to its conclusion, the best of all time will always be the current champion.