10501 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!
Kasparov is the best. Fischer is maximum the 4-th after Kasparov, Karpov, Carlsen.
I love these fact based debates.
You are right, it was 15 and not 13. Although many folks will argue that since he formed the PCA in 1993 he should only be considered WCC for 8 years. Still, the fact remains, he defended his title and didn't hide from his opponents like Fisher did.
He did not play Shirov, who earned the right to play him.
He choose to play Kramnik when Anand was the #2 player in the world.
Tell me again about how he defended his title and didn't hide from his opponents.
What are you saying? That Kasparov didn't play Shirov because he feared him? That would be strange considering Shirov has never beaten Kasparov a single time.
And you're ignoring the fact that Kasparov also tried to organize a match with Anand but negotiations broke down and a match with the next best player at the time, Kramnik, was organized.
It's really hard to compare chess players.
Au contraire, nothing could be easier (people do it here all the time).
Guys, guys - there is only one way to answer this....
Fischer has to be considered the greatest. His run through chess was fairy tale in its rise. Kasparov's dominance was longer I guess, but if Fischer kept playing he would of ran through Karpov for another some odd years. I don't know much about all the seconds that helped Kasparov, but Fischer did it on his own more than any other player. I refuse to give too much credit to "team Kasparov" however. Surely he was great outside of the books, his sacrifices are part of what make his games so appealing.
This is not about playing the "What if?" game. This about who is actually better based on what actually happened.
I'm saying the claim that Kasparov defended his title against everyone who had a legitimate claim to challenge him is false. It is a matter of historical fact that he did not do that.
Fischer was the best. It's a pity we didn't see more of him.
Chessguevara, Cinderella had a better fairy tale....you want to consider her the best chess player too??
daw55124, So Kasparov became WCC in 1985 and as minimum he played in the following WCC events:
# 1985 Kasparov-Karpov (+5 -3 =16)# 1986 Kasparov-Karpov (+5 -4 =15)# 1987 Kasparov-Karpov (+4 -4 =16)# 1990 Kasparov-Karpov (+4 -3 =17)# 1993 (PCA) Kasparov-Short (+6 -1 =13)# 1995 (PCA) Kasparov-Anand (+4 -1 =13)2000 (Braingames) Kramnik-Kasparov (+2 -0 =13)
How many times did Fisher defended the title? Just answer how many?
And again, don't forget that between 1985-2000 he also played in numerous international tournaments. He did not hide!
The claim that Kasparov defended his title against all legitimate contenders is false. He didn't. That doesn't say he didn't defend his title. That doesn't say he wasn't a deserving champion. That doesn't say he shouldn't be included in a discussion of who the "greatest" (whatever that means in any particular context) player was. However, if one wishes to debate who the "greatest" player of all time was, and one chooses to take other people to task over their opinion on the debate being invalid because all the fact support one's own view, it does help if the "facts" one chooses to cite are, well, factual.
Personally I have no dog in this fight. I think the whole exercise is more than merely silly, it's sophomoric. Without defining what one means to claim by a player being "the greatest," and doing so in a way that doesn't assume the conclussion one is trying to draw out in the first place, it is nothing more than a bunch of people talking past each other with statements that basically read as: "My guy did x, y, and z, which impress me, therefore you're wrong."
I looked up great and the first definition was 'notably large in size'.
Of the current GMs maybe Ben Finegold is the greatest right now. Although there are some class players near me who are even greater.
What made Fischer's rise so "fairy tale" was that he completely dominated. You can call my comment about "if Fischer kept playing" a hypothetical, but do you realistically think Karpov would of beaten Fischer had they played for the title? So in effect its not really a hypothetical if you do think so. Just b/c he didn't play doesn't mean he wasn't the best.
I'm not going to pretend like I'm a chess historian here, so somebody more informed can tell me: Compared to the times periods they were actively playing in did Kasparov's performance in chess have as much dominance as Fischer's? I'm under the impression that Fischer beating top level GMs as soon as he was 17. Overall when looking at it technically Kasparov is the greatest. He played for so much longer than Fishcer and acquired so much more wins. But I feel like if you look at the context of their rise in chess that Fischer's run was more impressive, even if it was shorter.
Kasparov was sent to a top level tournament in Bosnia when he was 16 (Banja Luka). Accidentally -- the Soviet chess authorities thought it was a youth tournament. Since he didn't have any international experience before then, he was unrated at the time.
He won it, and got his first official rating -- 2595. #15 in the world at the time.
He also won the World Championship at 22, in his second match for it. Fischer became World Champion at 29.
Kasparov was the youngest ever world number one on the rating list (later broken by Kramnik and then Carlsen).
The thing I find most impressive in Kasparov's long carreer is something he did that you hardly ever hear about: he played the national teams of several countries (Israel, Czech Republic) in clock simuls. He beat the national team of Israel (4 players averaging over 2600) over two days, 4-0 and 3-1.
Beating 4 GMs in a row, ok, but in a clock simul? Playing half the games as black? He beat the Czech Republic team (all 2500+ GMs) 5.5-2.5 in a similar match.
Added to that his decades-long #1 on the rating list, numerous top-level tournament wins, etc, I think he was more dominating than Fischer was.
Except for the candidates cycle and match leading to Fischer's World Championship, of course. That was magic.
OK, let's get something a bit more challenging going here: Asztalos or Thomas? Canal or Colle? Breyer or C Torre?
Who was your favorite Steiner?
Who was the stronger Johner brother, Hans or Paul?
Cthulu or Archangel Michael?
Thor or Loki?
Rigel or Betelgeuse?
M101 or Andromeda?
Kwaloffer, that is a good point. I have only heard of those clocked simuls once. Shankland mentioned it in one of the videos here. That is beyond impressive, no doubt about it. I guess the title of the GOAT has to go to Kasparov. But, it is worth noting though, that Kasparov himself said "no one" would of been able to catch Fischer's ELO if he kept playing. But yeah, I guess Bobby's reluctance to play more games just keeps him from being a clear favorite.
Also though, I should mention is that Fischer was boycotting the tournaments for a long time. Considering how dominant he was Fischer was the greatest player alive before he won the title.
Lasker finished in 3rd, a half-point from the winners in Moscow 1935 when he was 66 years old. He won New York 1924 (by 1 1/2 points ahead of Capablanca) 3 years after Capa beat him in their match. Think how much better he would've done if he'd cared more about the game.
Alekhine won San Remo 1930 by 3 1/2 points and Bled 1931 by 5 1/2 points. Think how much better he would've done if he hadn't been a drunk.
Capablanca didn't lose a game for 8 years. Think how much better he would've done if he'd cared more about the game.
I don't get the relevance of the last two posts.
by sammynouri a few minutes ago
by LoekBergman 2 minutes ago
Idea about the difference of Fide rating and chess.com rating for a player
by yorygregovich 2 minutes ago
Any good sites where I can find unlimited openings
by kikvors 3 minutes ago
Carlsen Supplies New Evidence That Chess Is A Draw With No Mistakes
by brankz 5 minutes ago
12/7/2013 - 1001 Brilliant ways to Checkmate by Reinfeld, #404
by EkeA 7 minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by jojojopo 11 minutes ago
How do I have a group no longer in use deleted?
by ConnorMacleod_151 15 minutes ago
Conservative vs. progressive chess societies
by watcha 15 minutes ago
Can Anyone Become Grandmaster?
by Lou-for-you 18 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 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!