Each and everyone of us have different preference regarding who is the better player,or even the best.Some say that a player maybe the best on his time and on his prime but if you try to look for extra ordinary circumstances like beating another challenger with two straight wins with two different contenders on a straight winning streak with no lost is really something.So i think FISCHER has the edge over Kasparov.He really is the greatest player of all time and even with an IQ that is greater than Einstein.
Who is this guy?
do you have any reason behind this? let me ask you something... Has Kasparov ever defeated two opponents in back-to-back matches with perfect scores in order to play for the world championship? I think not.
Kasparov do have higher elo...
I find Fischer more innovative though, his games are lovely to watch
I'll have to go with Kasparov too. On top of the fact that he has a higher Elo and IQ rating than Fischer; he's also the only chess player that I know of who has participated in simuls against GM teams and beat them.
Almost everyone agrees that today's elo ratings are inflated. The disagreement comes concerning by how much are the inflated compared to the 60s and 70s? 100 Points seems to be fair by most who argue this point, so add 100 to Fischers best of 2785 and you have 2885 , which puts Fischer as the highest rated of all time. Ofcourse some here are going to argue that the ratings are not inflated today. For them I have a question. Do you think every player today rated over 2700 elo is better than Spassky was in his prime? Spassky never broke 2700 elo, his best was about 2680. One more thing I want to point out, not only has Fischer had amazing feats in chess that Kasparov has not even approached but Kasparov only has 50% score against both Spassky and the late Tigran Petrosian and Kasparov was white in all of his games with Petrosian. Do I really need to remind anyone here what Fischer did to them?
kasparov is by far the better player 1 question though
who the hell is boungcloud??
How can you be so sure that ratings today are inflated without providing any concrete evidence? Yes, I could understand your argument about Spassky's Elo rating, when he was world champion, compared to GM ratings of today; but I believe that ratings today are so much higher because chess players now have access to more chess theory and computer programs, which makes learning chess easier and faster, and as a result - they're better at chess than their predecessors.
The Kasparov's and Fischer's score against Spassky argument also seems good, but it's quite flawed. Sure, it might seem logical to compare their scores againt the same opponent, but it's not accurate. First of all, Kasparov wasn't in his prime when he played against Spassky or Petrosian. Second, Fischer played around 50 games against Spassky (half of which were played in 92') and 30 against Petrosian, while Kasparov played only 8 games against Spassky and 4 against Petrosian.
If longevity at the top is what matters most to you , you should be a Lasker fan and not Kasparov.
A link for the "evidence" on today's rating inflation was provided in another thread by batgirl I believe. Ask her for the link. From your response it seems you believe there is no rating inflation. Do you think all the players over 2700 today (more than 20 of them) are better then than Spassky was in his prime? I do not. While I agree with you that Kasparov was not yet in his prime when he played both Spassky and Petrosian that is counterbalanced by the fact that both of them were also well past their prime. Its interesting that Fischer himself once said that "Morphy was the greatest genius of them all" and yet few hold up Morphy as possibly the best of all time.
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.