Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Fischer or Kasparov. Who's the best?


  • 8 months ago · Quote · #281

    Ion_223ui

    Fisher is the best player of all time.

    Kasparov himself was asked this question and considering his "arrogance" his answer says it all and he said "i don't know but I know the names of the 2 greatest players: Fisher and Kasparov."

    Magnus Carlsen has said that "Fisher was a little better than Kasparov at his peak" though Kasparov held on to his peak for a greater time. (fisher left chess)

    Taking inflation into consideration Fisher still has the highest rating ever.

    The difference b/t the rating of Fisher's second best and Kasparov's second best, is greater in Fisher's case. (In Kasparov's case it being Anatoly Karpov whom he beat only 7 times more in some 178 classic games)

    Fisher's personality type is the personality type with greatest intellect and strategic vision i.e INTJ whereas Kasparov is a very intelligent ESTJ. (but an ESTJ) (very intelligent STJ types are sometimes mistaken for NTJ types)

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #282

    Ion_223ui

    Fisher in a, lets say 50 game match with Kasparov, with both of them being at their peak might lose some 3-4 games initially with some equal number of draws and 1-2 wins.

    Fisher being an exceptional tactician himself would adjust to Kasparov's play but Kasparov not being a relatively equal exceptional strategist (again " ""relatively"" equal exceptional strategist") would eventually lose the match.

    One might argue that what about Karpov? He was very strategic and lost to kasparov.

    Yes but Karpov was not an exceptional tactician unlike Fisher.

    Fisher's play is one of the most complete and universal. Hence the trophy would go to Fisher.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #283

    Darkness_Prevails

    'Magnus Carlsen has said that "Fisher was a little better than Kasparov at his peak'

    Source?thx

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #284

    MelvinDoucet

    Fischer because he was world champion.

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #285

    idreesarif

    MelvinDoucet wrote:

    Fischer because he was world champion.

    greatest comment in chess.com's history.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #286

    Aaronsky72

    Kasparov is better. He is comparable talent-wise and is more dynamic. The duration of his reign at the top is also unrivalled in modern chess.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #287

    millionairesdaughter

    Fischer stopped long before peaking, so potentially you could say he was a country mile clear.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #288

    HilarioFJunior

    Fisparov is better. 

    Closed Topic. 

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #289

    Elroch

    It's just a guess how Fischer would have performed later relative to his standard before Rejkjavic. Fischer (my chess role model when younger) found his best performance aiming for the world championship and was at a loss without this motivation. He may have lacked the ability of a Kasparov to improve further or to retain the spike in form he had in 1971-72: he was already 32, remember. He was surely one of the top handful of players ever. One appealing characteristic was his faithfulness to opening choices (e4 main lines as white; Najdorf, King's indian as black): most top players can't really be associated with single lines to the same extent.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #290

    millionairesdaughter

    All he really lacked was the ability to keep his mouth shut, something he shares in common with a horde of chess.commies.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #291

    Elroch

    idreesarif wrote:
    MelvinDoucet wrote:

    Fischer because he was world champion.

    greatest comment in chess.com's history.

    Yes, I see what you mean! Perhaps the news from 1985 will get to his part of the world soon.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #292

    JGambit

    Ion_223ui wrote:

    Fisher in a, lets say 50 game match with Kasparov, with both of them being at their peak might lose some 3-4 games initially with some equal number of draws and 1-2 wins.

    Fisher being an exceptional tactician himself would adjust to Kasparov's play but Kasparov not being a relatively equal exceptional strategist (again " ""relatively"" equal exceptional strategist") would eventually lose the match.

    One might argue that what about Karpov? He was very strategic and lost to kasparov.

    Yes but Karpov was not an exceptional tactician unlike Fisher.

    Fisher's play is one of the most complete and universal. Hence the trophy would go to Fisher.

    Karpov was exceptional tactically, no one else would have put up as much of a fight as he did against kasparov, takes very good tactical ability to get even one draw let alone however many he did.

    Yeah fischer was more gifted but saying that karpov is only a strategy player is quite ignorant

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #293

    JGambit

    Fischer is the Jordan of chess, the only difference is that fischer only came out of retirement way late (92)

    I would give the nod to Kasparov. very hard to beat a legend

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #294

    Long_Hair_Dont_Care

    Its a bit unfair that one was able to learn from the other and continue to build on it.

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #295

    Ion_223ui

    Fisher=INTJ-A (best personality for chess )

    Kasparov=ESTJ-T. Not an "intellectual" by the "definition". One can say he is ENTJ but he certainly is not. He doesnt have the "pace" of NT personality type. He is too quick to form judgments typical of ST personality. Just if you are interested (capabanca=ENTP, Tal=ENTP, Morphy=INTP, Carlesn=INTJ-A, Karpov=INTJ-A, Anand=INTP, Fabiano=INTP, Kramnik=ISTJ, Giri=ESTJ, Petrosian=ISTJ, Karjakin=ISTJ, Obama=INFJ, Russell Brand ENTJ, Ariana Grande=ENTJ, 50 cent=INTJ and the list goes on. This isn't a "biased" list built with the sole purpose of twisting information to "prove" fisher is the best. This is a very factual list. View this list as being out of the debate.

    INTJ's like chess when they only see it regardless of whether they play it or not. They "know" chess is for them.

    Kasparov said that he liked chess  after he was shown some beautiful tactics.

    Having said all of this take Kasparov a generation back and he will not be able to match the brutality by Fisher. Fisher essentially played "deeper" chess. Kasparov also said that he didn't know anything else other than too attack and that it turned out to be the best way. He attacked very well.

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #296

    Ion_223ui

    JGambit wrote:
    Ion_223ui wrote:

    Fisher in a, lets say 50 game match with Kasparov, with both of them being at their peak might lose some 3-4 games initially with some equal number of draws and 1-2 wins.

    Fisher being an exceptional tactician himself would adjust to Kasparov's play but Kasparov not being a relatively equal exceptional strategist (again " ""relatively"" equal exceptional strategist") would eventually lose the match.

    One might argue that what about Karpov? He was very strategic and lost to kasparov.

    Yes but Karpov was not an exceptional tactician unlike Fisher.

    Fisher's play is one of the most complete and universal. Hence the trophy would go to Fisher.

    Karpov was exceptional tactically, no one else would have put up as much of a fight as he did against kasparov, takes very good tactical ability to get even one draw let alone however many he did.

    Yeah fischer was more gifted but saying that karpov is only a strategy player is quite ignorant

    Karpov is not exceptionally good at tactics. Anand is. Kasparov is. But compared to a lower player Karpov can be called "exceptionally good". But compared to his class of players he cant be called "exceptionally skilled" at tactics. Kasparov, Tal, Morphy, Anand will certainly excel ahead.

    I was commenting in a relative meaning. And how can a judgement be formed when comparing players of different eras without taking into consideration all the well...  .. "relativity".

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #297

    Bonny-Rotten

    In Baku, Kasparov might shade it, but Fischer would be a monster in Reykjavik. Very tight over the two legs. Match could be decided on a coin toss and I can't see Fischer getting beaten at that, especially if the 2nd leg was in Reykjavik.


Back to Top

Post your reply: