14564 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!
I should have read all this sooner... so basically we discard Capablanca because he sucked at chess and Fischer because he had a big mouth? Makes sense to me. I guess that just leaves James Mason and Abram Model.
Mason could beat them all at Drunk Chess. Make everyone consume at least half a pint of whiskey before the games, Mason reigns supreme!
You could have atleast picked a better team. Fischer steam rolled the field in winning the world chess championship. The Browns can't even get to the super bowl...bad analogy...
Bobby Fischer didn't bet on and throw chess games...horrible comparison
The laws you are discussing, while still the law, are subjective in their morality. It is clearly obvious, not every law is righteous and shouldn't be enacted. Do we need to have a lengthy review of human history to reiterate how many times this has occured and "every" culture...? horrible disqualification on that basis....
Fischer's opening preference, defensively is irrelevant, we all have our kryptonite, even superman...disqualifying someone for not being perfect is hypocrytical. I can say the same thing about Capablanca in your post.
As a trained electrician, it is certainly plausible that Fischer did have a possible sensitivity to lighting levels and considering that from an electrical theory stand point, 77 watts will only produce so many lumens of light. You say that as if you assume that you know better than I do that changing the wattage of the lamps in the fixtures, or the ballasts and bulb combinations could make a difference for the better or worse. If it had no possible relevance at all, I would know, but to quote another person here that understands the underlying issue here....
S T O P T H E H A T E
He did say some things that were derrogatory, I suppose you doing it too, somehow makes the situation right through your own wrongs ? Wow, you and Fischer appear to have that in common...
plenty of Criteria... domination of peers, Length of WC held, Number of title defences, Analysis compared to top engine, # of blunders/game, Tournament record during WC Reign...
Say what you like about him, Fischer single-handedly won the world championship against the full might of the Soviet chess machine. If you don't find that amazing, you're a dim bulb.
yeah hanging out with GM's and top players in NYC during his formative years had NOTHING to do with his strength. He did it 'all by himself'...
At least from his comeback in 1970 through the Spassky match, Fischer required lighting to be 1100 lumens of indirect (flourescent) lighting, without specifying wattage. 1100 lumens is roughly daylight at noon on the equinox with a clear sky - but without the glare.
"Indirect" means diffused, as flourescent lighting usually is, through the translucent covers commonly on fixtures in public buildings, preventing glare.
If you have ever had to play a tournament game in a poorly-lit room, you would appreciate what Fischer did with his demands for optimal lighting. For that, I thank him.
So you're comparing a massive decades-long government-subsidized chess program in the Soviet Union, not to mention Soviet control of FIDE... with "hanging out" in NYC. Right...
If you reread what I said... I was objecting to the 'did it all by himself' which is complete nonsense. He did more than just 'hang out' with the top GMS in NYC, and to say that he developed in a vacuum is more nonsense. I know he was up against the soviet chess machine, but this does not equate to developing all by himself.
Without speaking from direct experience, but similar experience, I am sure most patzers can't relate to the effects of human eyes of having to stare at a chess board so often. After a time, it is only feasible in certain circumstances for optimal performance...
I never base judgment on where they are from. It's an assanine comparison. That's like saying you are amazed that a Montana kid can beat kids from New York City in the National Spelling Bee contest. Come on, man!
You starting to get racial here? Because I'm not Russian, it's a miracle if I win in chess. If I'm not Black, it's amazing I can jump, let alone dunk. If I'm not White, while I can technically enter the Masters in Augusta, I have a hate target across my head. If I'm not a woman, then I must be gay if I ever do anything like Ballet or Gymnastics.
As for lighting, I have been in a place that's too dim before, but outside of that, you can put a 1000 watt bulb in the room and I'm fine. Not picky!
The 8 I listed (which are not "ranked", but rather, listed in sequence of when they either held the title or would have held the title) I would take over Fischer easily.
It's not about Fischer being strong. It's about Fischer having weak opposition in the United States, and happened to hit his stride at the right time for 1 year in 1972. Ok, you don't want to use the Cleveland Browns? Fine! Florida Marlins! (Now known as the Miami Marlins) Happened to strike gold in both 1997 and 2003 and completely flopped in 1998 and 2004!
fischer is still the best, that's all.
Here's a real list top 10. # 10. LASKER: A great champ who managed 2 hold his tittle long enough though his greatness could not b proven when he encountered a living endgame human matchine ' u know whom am refering 2' # 9. PETROSIAN: a fantastic GM who could not only fantasize his own position and make strategic plans but his opponents positions aswel, in short this master was unpredictable. # 8. ALEKHINE: a great tactician that stood out ontop in complicated positions. # 7. PAUL MORPHY: this super GM played the most dangerous moves in open positions and deserves this spot. # 6. ANAND. This indian GM is unbelievable, he plays swift moves and unpredictable attacking moves. # 5. KRAMNIK. His spot here is not at all debatable. He proved it in 2000 and this guy can nurse his advantage throughout an entire game so a single mistake against this GM would prove fatal against this GM. # 4. CAPABLANCA. oh my! This guy played simple moves and played like an engine.. Some GMs have got 2 the point where they accuse him of using a computer lol.. Very funny. His endgames where simple yet fatal i mean i dont need to explain it all, u know it # 3. KARPOV: the best positional player the world has ever seen he could wear out his opponents position slowly and steady and the advantage would then be visible to our eyes after a long strategic plan, kasparov himself comfessd that its his games against this positional specialist that made him even stronger! # 2: MIKHAIL TAL. Many dont appreciate this guy " the drunken master '' playing chess while holding a bottle of strong jack daniels lol all of a sudden Qxb2!! What! Next Bxf2!! What! Lol. Master of sacrifises! # 1: is it KASPAROV... Is it FISCHER... is it CARLSEN... HAHAHAHA!! Only GOD KNOWS!!
i wonder who authored such rankings among these champions..if it were you,then i dont believe it..your thoughts are not credible towards the matter,hehehe..id rather believe these grandmasters than you.
I was the strongest from 1964 to 1970, but in 1971 Fischer was already stronger. - Boris Spassky
I mean, most of modern chess is his offering. Myself and the rest had those moves ready for us when we started out, but it had to take someone to discover them first. Bobby Fischer was that person. He was that person for entire generations of chess players. His was a singular life in that sense. He's made it easier for us today. - Viswanathan Anand
What I admired most about him was his ability to make what was in fact so difficult look easy to us. I try to emulate him. - Magnus Carlsen
Bobby Fischer is the greatest Chess genius of all time! - Alexander Kotov
I believe that Fischer surpassed all the former and currently living grandmasters in the ability to produce and process chess ideas. - Anatoly Karpov
If only I had had my duel with Fischer, my fighting level would be of a higher order. Once I had attained and mastered such a level - a level which for Kasparov is completely unattainable - I would have recalled it whenever necessary. - Anatoly Karpov
Fischer’s beautiful chess and his immortal games will stand forever as a central pillar in the history of our game. - Garry Kasparov
I like Nizman's list best!
NN. Almost certainly the most experienced player, if only (s)he could learn from all that experience, (s)he'd be unstoppable.
I vote John Doe as the second best chess player.
My pet peeve with these lists is that people usually place Kramnik far ahead of Lasker and Steinitz.
i guess maybe the debate should be, would modern players have discovered and featured what their predecessors did ?
Drueke chess set
by real_tzs a few minutes ago
d4 players, which black defense to 1.d4 are you least happy to play against?
by Serotonine a few minutes ago
Need tips for playing with minor pieces against major pieces
by LongIslandMark a few minutes ago
Is there ANYONE who can challenge ZOD?
by Addicted-to-Chess97 4 minutes ago
Just When Ya Think You've Seen It All !
by ROBB_CHESS 4 minutes ago
by Here_Is_Plenty 8 minutes ago
Rating list in groups
by Serotonine 13 minutes ago
sharpest reply against d4
by XPLAYERJX 14 minutes ago
Everything c3 Sicilian
by Serotonine 15 minutes ago
Need Book Suggestions
by ThrillerFan 15 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!