Bobby Fischer: he excelled in all aspects of the game

---

 

Actually it's "Joseph Ralf Whitehead"...

---

Then why are they always being compared here? 

---

Except showing up to play.

If Fischer had access to all the computers now he would beat Kasparov because you would know that he would study 24/7  to do so.

---

 But like I said - Fischer would study to become more up-to-date and would have the edge over Kasparov.

---

But Fischer didn't like to study so much, before he died he said it was bad enough back when he was doing it and "now it's a joke". If you listen to what Fischer is saying, he is telling you that the reason he quit when he did is mainly because of the rapidly expanding opening theory that he had no interest in keeping up with anymore (on a world class level). That's why he invented Fischer Random.    

---

 That's the older Fischer who had lost interest in chess- when he was younger he would have prepared more than anyone.

---

Kasparov vs fischer would be like morphy vs botvinik

 

Very different times and opening theory plus no engins for fischer!

Fischer was universal great tactics and posi. play.

Kasparov great calculation and tactics.

Kasparov doesnt have the positional awarness, intuition, deepnes(positional not tactical), and vision that fischer did.

 

Kaparovs tacticas were based more on calculation, while fischer on positional awarness. And in the end it is positional play which sees deeper and makes the difference. We will never know!!!

We will never know, Kaspy could calculate more but fischer was positionally more deep and aware.

Kaspys tactics are based mostly on calc while fischers on positional awarness, and in the end it is positional play which sees deeper and makes the difference.

Example of the to kinds of tactics are present in famous games of theres

Kasparov vs topalov 1999

Byrne vs Fischer 1963

Fischer tactical play was based on positional features over calculation, while Kaspys on calculation over PF.

 

so whats the conclusion?

Fischer or Kasparov?

Never heard of either one of them.

Kasparov was already World Champion when pc's still looked like this, so the "if Fisher had compooters" argument doesn't hold up too well

"Aaaa, it's like War Games!!!"

(And sadly, ICC still looks like that.) 

---

Thanks for your opinion Paul211,

i will skip every topic about Fischer vs Kasparov in the future

---

 Has Fischer lost to a machine with 200 million moves per second?

For me Fischer number 1

1. Fischer

2. Kasparov

3.Karpov

It would be quite the clash of ideals. Kasparov, the last great product of the Soviet chess machine, vs. Fischer, the lone-wolf American. Fischer would probably be at an opening disadvantage since he almost exclusively played e4 as white but he would have the edge in the endgame...

In the end, I'm going with Fischer. He had an unparalleled devotion to chess... Imagine how frightening he would be if he had today's wealth of chess knowledge to study!

I would give the edge to Kasparov only because he played in an era where computers could be so useful in assisting players improve. I would root for Fischer just because he was the reason that i had an interest in chess and i found him to be more interesting as a person.

"What opening or any move that he invented? Zilch or niet"

Kasparov was always a great opening theoretician, as even Nakamura knows :-)