15700 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Ha ha ha, you are the only rational and others irrational,you are the only beautiful, intelligent, strong , virtuous etc. race on the earth. Others don't exist at all,right? Those who speak against your shallowness, or disagree with you are irrational, rabid, right? Ha ha ha....You should join CNN, BBC and other propaganda mediums, the "Business" that you have created. You will succeeded there like anything. Americans will simply love you.Who knows, you may even end up becoming a comic superhero....ha ha ha
You're really making a strong argument for being the rational one...maybe sprinkle in a few more of the "ha ha ha"...
Kasparov, wait, no karpov
for sure would win Kasparov Ivanovic Draga; but is a so boring machine of chess and so less human in his perfection of the game
If I have to comment on their styles, it would seem there is one thing we can all say about Karpov. Karpov with his indivdual playing style seemed to have enough force to beat Kasparov. Karpov was almost playing like Petrosian but with a little more agression apparently. This caused most of his oponents including Kasparov, to blunder. That is why Karpov in a couple of the matches they played each other, he would take an early lead. But ultimately, in terms of against Kasparov, Karpov's main weakness was his own style. After Kasparov picked up on the fact that Karpov was using a Boa-Constrictor style, this is what Kasparov used. Now, it was Karpov playing agressively and mistakenly at that. If only he could have adjusted his style in the matches, he just might have been you know what. This says something in particular about how useful this style was and is. It would seem Fischer, yet another agressive player, would have trouble against this type of style. One can only wonder, would the young Karpov have been able to do it? It is hard to say. I believe Karpov's style is enough to go against Fischer. But one of the more interesting factors is the fact that Fischer would have likely changed his style like Kasparov because he was evidently a great match player. Karpov throughout all this time, never adjusted his style. Again, if only this wonderful player could have played more than one different style.
About Fischer and his Title Run: I do not really understand how this statement comes about: Taimanov was a weak GM, Larsen was Sick, Petrosian was old, and Spassky was out of it in the 72 Match.
Just for clarity sake, if we look at a couple of factor's, none of the above seems to mean that much.
Taimanov in 1970 was 2590-2600. Fischer, I believe at this exact time was 2760. Fischer is between a 160-170 points ahead of him. I don't believe that would make him weak because, Fischer was ahead of Spassky by 125 points. But yet, Spassky not only had drawing, but also winning chances. Taimanov, apparently in one of his games, had a won game. But, he couldn't get past Fischer's defensive technique (Check Chessgames Fischer-Taimanov 1971 Match in Vancouver to double check). This kind of sounds like Petrosian a little. Against Bent Larsen: I strongly believe that even a sick, in his peak, Bent Larsen would have winning chances against Fischer. It seems inevitable. For Fischer to win 6-0 due to the weather or illness seems unlikely. Anyway, in this case, it would seem Bent Larsen is the only exception for losing to Fischer. Petrosian: Many say he was too old to win against Fischer. If that is the case, why was he a candidate for the world title in 1971, 1974, 1977, 1980? In 1971, he was just 43. Honestly some players can just last that long. Fischer himself said, you start phasing out in your 40s and 50s. That doesn't mean all players drop dead with their career at 40 to 50, or at least for some. If you have the stamina, you can do it. As for Spassky, besides Tal, he was yet another great attacker who gave Fischer a difficult time. It would seem that Spassky was too confident from the words of his second Karpov. If this is the case, I think Spassky didn't really prepare for the match as much as he could have. You almost can't blame him. If you were one of the only few who had a plus record against Fischer, and he had never even beaten you, it seems likely you might also get lazy. I think above anything, that was his biggest mistake. If he had applied more in studying and preparing, he could have played chess the way he always played. Besides that, it is clear he was a terrific player looking at his run from 65-73.
Taimanov was weak? O_O He'd still crush you and any of us effortlessly at 88.
I never said he was weak. I was referring to what others said about the oponents fischer faced in his title run.
untracking, too much text!
If Fischer was in his "normal" top state of mind, would have won, but closely.
How it happened, that just Fischer emerged with such luck!
If you think Petrosian was too old to play good chess in 71 how do you explain that he has an even record against both Kasparov and Karpov ?
Karpov would, Fischer is dead...
if fischer wasn't scared
then why did he not play
He was probably sick of dealing with FIDE
lots of people don't like fide
what did fide do? did he act mean to people?
who names their kid FIDE anyway
that is like a like a dog's name FIDO
I personally think he didn't cared enough anymore to bother. He had nothing left to prove. He toppled the indomitable Soviet chess juggernaut by himself, amid collusion. He had far more to lose than gain. All of the pressure to prove he was the greatest was on his shoulders and Karpov might have well been his kryptonite but, it would have been interesting to say the least.
I think comparing Fischer and Karpov to Petrosian and Spassky might give us the best clue we could hope for but, styles make fights. Who knows... ?
9/21/2014 - End to End
by melvinbluestone a few minutes ago
Chess Cave Pictures
by fburton a few minutes ago
True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?
by watcha 5 minutes ago
Converting Chess.com to USCF
by camberfoil 8 minutes ago
Blitz chess brings out the worst in people.
by Till_98 17 minutes ago
Stuff Non-Chess Players Say
by camberfoil 33 minutes ago
Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set
by ROBB_CHESS 44 minutes ago
Windows Phone App?
by PMHouser 47 minutes ago
9/18/2014 - Mate in 4
by ahmad_mughal 53 minutes ago
What will Nakamura's excuse be at Sinquefield 2014?
by 913Glorax12 67 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!