Spassky was great for his time, but against the modern day chess theory we have now, I think he would be no better than the average 2700 player you see nowadays.
Also Fischer was probably about as good as Anand or Karpov. Not even close to Kasparov.
Maybe you dont know the record between Karpov and Kasparov but their record was close. I dont think you know what you are talking about.....
That is why I like other chess players more than Fischer. They had lives. They were engineers, professors, some of them were great piano players... Fischer was just a weirdo.
Being hyper-elite in chess is as good as the next accomplishment, though feeding hungry children ought not be held as less worthy, etcetera.
Spassky was great for his time, but against the modern day chess theory we have now, I think he would be no better than the average 2700 player you see nowadays.
Also Fischer was probably about as good as Anand or Karpov. Not even close to Kasparov.
Maybe you dont know the record between Karpov and Kasparov but their record was close. I dont think you know what you are talking about.....
I know it was close, but Kasparov wasn't at his peak until AFTER Karpov retired. Also, Kasparov smashed Anand and I think Anand would beat Fischer in a 12 game match.
Spassky was great for his time, but against the modern day chess theory we have now, I think he would be no better than the average 2700 player you see nowadays.
Also Fischer was probably about as good as Anand or Karpov. Not even close to Kasparov.
Maybe you dont know the record between Karpov and Kasparov but their record was close. I dont think you know what you are talking about.....
I know it was close, but Kasparov wasn't at his peak until AFTER Karpov retired. Also, Kasparov smashed Anand and I think Anand would beat Fischer in a 12 game match.
Kasparov was actually behind in his match with Anand, and then he upset Anand by accusing him of stealing some analysis or some other such dirty trick and only then Anand started losing..... Kasparov was unable to win a single game from Kramnik and Anand beat Kramnik decisively in a match after that. I am sure Karpov played plenty of games against Kasparov when Gary was in his prime. Gary became WC in 1985 , when do you think his prime was ?
That is why I like other chess players more than Fischer. They had lives. They were engineers, professors, some of them were great piano players... Fischer was just a weirdo.
For every great piano player or engineer you can name---I can name a crook, a gigolo, a drunk.
Ok, I will take that challenge. But we are talking about super GM's here. And you can not match my "university professor" with "he used to drink from time to time...
Lets start with Mark Taimanov, and his piano duet that found it's place on "Great Pianists of the 20th Century" Find me an equaly good drunk super GM.
Lets start with Mark Taimanov, and his piano duet that found it's place on "Great Pianists of the 20th Century" Find me an equaly good drunk super GM.
Alekhine, Blackburne, Mason and many others.
Alekhine.
Ok, I will take that challenge. But we are talking about super GM's here. And you can not match my "university professor" with "he used to drink from time to time...
I dont really get the great professor gig. Name some GMs who were great professors. Just because they were great GMs does not a great professor make!
And I don't get that drunk gig also. Show me one who died of liver cirrhosis. Give me great drunks of 20th century. You are just a troll.
You set the bar for drunkenness pretty high. Jackie Gleason is about as legendary a drunk as I can think of and he didn't die of cirrhosis.
With apologies to Dean Martin, who also was not killed by his liver.
Truth is " best ever " is completely subjective as there is no way to prove who was and there are many who believe Fischer was the best ever, I am one of them.
Kasparov suggested a way to select the best ever---and I like it! His suggestion was, who was the player who had the greatest distance between him and #2.
Thats easy---Fischer was over a hundred elo points above Spassky. Kasparov's #2 was always on his tail. Thats a no contest---next question
And I don't get that drunk gig also. Show me one who died of liver cirrhosis. Give me great drunks of 20th century. You are just a troll.
Thats just pure ignorance amigo.
There are a few interesting approaches to tackling this problem here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_for_comparing_top_chess_players_throughout_history#Chessmetrics
I always found this one interesting:
http://web.zone.ee/chessanalysis/summary450.pdf
Ignorance? You are ignorant for trying to compare people who did something in thier lives, with drunks and crooks. People had lives. Others were just normal. Fischer was just a lunatic.
What is going on is I am being persecuted night and day by the Jews, for telling it like it is. They want to put me in jail, they're robbing me of everything I have, they're continuously lying about me. I've had enough of this shit. The latest thing they've done is I had some stuff in storage back in Pasadena for 12 years, spent a fortune on storage fees, a fortune on safes... and these **** Jews in America have just gone and grabbed it all.
Yup, crazy as a loon.
Spassky was great for his time, but against the modern day chess theory we have now, I think he would be no better than the average 2700 player you see nowadays.
Also Fischer was probably about as good as Anand or Karpov. Not even close to Kasparov.
The problem with gauging players this way is that people like Capablanca become average nothings.