The case for Bobby Fischer is the best/greatest chess player ever

Skols

I think Bobby Fischer is the best chess player ever and I am going to present my case.

 first of all, how do we define the best chess player ever? According to what?! some will look at the tournaments won and say Karpov is the greatest. let us look at this premise, is it true logic?

Karpov is the player with the most number of professional/high level tournament trophies but in 1985, 22 years old Kasparov beat him, they met 5 times between 1984 and 1990. Kasparov defeated him 3 times, one were tied and the other one was abandoned. Here, we can see that more tournament victories do not mean you are stronger. (some may say Karpov was older thus he lost but he was younger than 40 in the last match and 33 in the first match. peak years of chess players.) or think about Paul Morphy's opponents. when Paul faced them, they had more trophies. or think about Paul vs Adolf. Adolf was on top for years, Adolf had more trophies but Paul was superior to him.

so, what indicates player A is stronger than player B? THEIR MOVES. The player who makes more correct moves, who makes less incorrect moves, who makes better moves is better than the other one. The one who shined better is better than the other one. So, how can we know Fischer at his peak's moves were better than Kasparov at his peak's?We have to look at analysis and the way they shined.


When we look at Fischer 70-72 or maybe 68-72 he shined in a way no other chess player shined. He dominated tournaments with big margin, he defeated players with great scores. Did any other player shined like that? Even Morphy was not as shiny as Fischer was in 70-72.

when we look at the moves they made, according to wikipedia up untill 10 year perioed Fischer made the best moves more than any other champion. one more source.

Considering Fischer was making more best moves his chances are higher than others and at the same time it means they were making more incorrect moves than Fischer makes which gives Fischer high opportunities of winning, being better.

one more arguement for Bobby is his rating from Jeff Sonas, he reached the highest one (up untill 2005).

 

moreover, Morphy, Capablanca, Reshevsky, Fischer has higher possibility of being more talented than Tal, Petrosian, Kasparov, Karpov, Spassky because Fischer had to study, improve on his own while Karpov, Kasparov, Petrosian, Tal and others had a support from the soviet chess machine.

 

moreover, one more case for Bobby is commentaries from great chess players. Wishy Anand considers him to be better than Anatoly or Garry. Let me quote Korchnoi:

E.SUROV: Well, then let's talk about Kasparov and Karpov. Who do you appreciate more as a chess player?
 
V.KORCHNOI: Kasparov's chess is much better than Karpov's.

G.SOSONKO: Even than Fischer's?

V.KORCHNOI: (smiling, with a characteristic smooth hand gesture) Fischer... Fischer is in a class by himself. 

Magnus also said Fischer might have been better than Garry. I do not mean whatever a chess player says is true, these are presented just to support the case.

 Fischer reached there on his own while the others reached that high with the help of Soviet chess system. When Fischer played Spassky, Petrosian or other soviet masters he was not playing against Spassky or Petrosian or other X soviet master, he was playing against a soviet chess system, he was playing against Soviet masters. Karpov or Kasparov or Petrosian did not have such handicap, did not have such disadvantage. yet Fischer was as good as them if not better.

Some may say "Kasparov or Karpov or Wishy did not shine like Fischer did in 70-72 because their opponents knew theory more than Fischer's opponents."

while it is not accurate claim, let us assume it true. Yes, more theory might have been available for their opponents or more theory could have been available in later eras but the same theory was available for Kasparov or Karpov or Wishy as well. and the level of theory that was available to both Fischer and his opponents were the same. so, Fischer used the theory and made far greater gap than Garry or Anatoly or Wishy made, it means: in whatever era Fischer was at his peak he could have studied and made the same gap since the same level of theory was available for his opponents and for him. it too shows Bobby was better than his later successors.

 

one more arguement that can be used in favour of the other candidate is "Bobby did not stay in top while Garry/or other candidate stayed for, say, 10 years." it is true, Anatoly or Garry or Wishy or Vladimir or Magnus stayed in top more than Bobby stayed but does staying in top for longer demonstrate you are better? when Vladimir and Garry played their match, Garry has been staing in top for about 15 years compared to 2 or 3 months of Vladimir but Vladimir defeated him. What do you think on Paul Morphy's opponents? when Paul faced them, they all were on top for years, top 5 or top 10 let it be, but they were on top compared to Paul but Paul destroyed them. So, we can see that the arguement "he was in top for longer thus he is better" is nonsense.

 

even though, Bobby is regularly compared to Garry he is often compared to Anatoly as well. Their opponents may mean something, when Tigran, Misha Tal played Bobby they were younger and closer to their best from than they were when they played Anatoly. While Bobby was demolishing mature, better Petrosian, Misha Anatoly was having difficuluty with Misha or Tigran whose peaks were long gone who were getting older.

HorsesGalore

"Karpov is the player with the most number of professional/high level tournament trophies but in 1985, 22 years old Kasparov beat him, they met 5 times between 1984 and 1990. Kasparov defeated him 3 times, one were tied and the other one was abandoned. Here, we can see that more tournament victories do not mean you are stronger. "

The above tries to negate Karpov from the argument of who is best.   I disagree with that premise, as tennis has the same situation.    Roger Federer is considered by many to be the GOAT.   However Nadal has a big plus score against Federer.

Why must someone be considered the Best of All time ?    Sit back and enjoy the many great masterpieces produced by the Grandmasters of Chess,  each game in and of itself can be looked on as great pieces of Art ! 

JDA1958

Sick of seeing Bobby Fischer threads. Superb chessplayer, the reason I taught myself to play chess at school. Mad as a sack of cats.

TalsKnight

yeah another useless beat a dead horse thread.

Bobby-J-Fischer

Its not really parodoxical chess is a search for truth right,and im searching for the truth.

Bobby-J-Fischer

It always amazes me how people say they are sick of Bobby Fischer threads like they had to click on it and moan.

Cattus-Norweggicus

love these Fischer threads! his detractors are always trying to put up some ridiculously puny case as to why someone from the engine age could have beaten him!

Lenudan

A large part of being a superstar in any sport deals with your conduct on and off the court, field, course, board....

Fischer?  Yup.. he was a great piece pusher...

But he was also a horrbile, spoiled, arrogant, mean-spirited, paranoidal, anti-semitic, 9-11 'truther' and that alone should immediatly void any chance of him ever being mentioned among the greats... ever...

Cattus-Norweggicus

let he without blemish cast judgement.

Lenudan
theonlycatintheworld wrote:

let he without blemish cast judgement.

I'm happy to say I am neither horrbile, spoiled, arrogant, mean-spirited, paranoidal, anti-semitic, or a 9-11 'truther' ..  may I 'cast' now ?

Cattus-Norweggicus

i don't believe you, as your post9 is spiteful. sorry man, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Senior-Lazarus_Long

  

Lenudan
theonlycatintheworld wrote:

i don't believe you, as your post9 is spiteful. sorry man, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

If you consider a 100% factual statement of truth as spiteful, then you might want to reconsider your position in life....  and if you're a native Jamacian, you might want to research what Fischer had to say about your country and its people...

Skols
HorsesGalore wrote:

The above tries to negate Karpov from the argument of who is best.   I disagree with that premise, as tennis has the same situation.    Roger Federer is considered by many to be the GOAT.   However Nadal has a big plus score against Federer.

no, the above tries to negate the arguement "he has higher number of trophies, thus he is better". 

 

when Morphy played european players such as Anderssen, they all had more trophies than Morphy but Morphy destroyed them.

Skols
JDA1958 wrote:

Sick of seeing Bobby Fischer threads. Superb chessplayer, the reason I taught myself to play chess at school. Mad as a sack of cats.

and

TalsKnight wrote:

yeah another useless beat a dead horse thread.

I would want to discover the reason why a person enters into a thread which annoys him/her? from the title of the thread, it is well known that this thread is about something that you are tired of, what makes you come here when you have a chance to skip, ignore it?

Skols
Lenudan wrote:

A large part of being a superstar in any sport deals with your conduct on and off the court, field, course, board....

Fischer?  Yup.. he was a great piece pusher...

But he was also a horrbile, spoiled, arrogant, mean-spirited, paranoidal, anti-semitic, 9-11 'truther' and that alone should immediatly void any chance of him ever being mentioned among the greats... ever...

offtopic, we are talking about his chess, not his personality. if someone plays/played chess/football/basketball/baseball/e.t.c better than everybody then he/she is the best chess/football/e.t.c player. may be he/she is someone you should avoid shaking hands with,  you should avoid talking to but it does not take anything from his play.

aman_makhija

The strangest thing is they say MAGNUS could beat Robert! This is just laughable. That 25 yr old chap is at his prime, yet still loses to 2500 players consistently! I would say Paul and Robert may well beat any player alive today.

HorsesGalore
HorsesGalore wrote:

The above tries to negate Karpov from the argument of who is best.   I disagree with that premise, as tennis has the same situation.    Roger Federer is considered by many to be the GOAT.   However Nadal has a big plus score against Federer.

to which Skols says -- no, the above tries to negate the arguement "he has higher number of trophies, thus he is better". 

when Morphy played european players such as Anderssen, they all had more trophies than Morphy but Morphy destroyed them.

HorsesGalore continues.......yes, your original argument about Karpov mentioned he won a great deal of tournaments.  however you then ( in first post) said that alone would not make him best, because Kasparov had a very good, positive score against Karpov during the time period Karpov won many tournaments.

And so my tennis argument still holds because Nadal beat Federer many times during Federer's peak.    In today's world, there is no unknown person that can emerge from Kalamazoo ( or down under ) to challenge Federer and win -- similar to Morphy who had to make a perilous journey ( in those days) to reach the shores of Europe to challenge the best at that time.

 

 

 

JDA1958
Skols wrote:
JDA1958 wrote:

Sick of seeing Bobby Fischer threads. Superb chessplayer, the reason I taught myself to play chess at school. Mad as a sack of cats.

and

TalsKnight wrote:

yeah another useless beat a dead horse thread.

I would want to discover the reason why a person enters into a thread which annoys him/her? from the title of the thread, it is well known that this thread is about something that you are tired of, what makes you come here when you have a chance to skip, ignore it?

I read the forums while waiting to play a move. When you have read the same biased drivel repeatedly, you are entitled to be sick of it and have an opinion about it. :)

Skols
HorsesGalore wrote:
HorsesGalore wrote:

The above tries to negate Karpov from the argument of who is best.   I disagree with that premise, as tennis has the same situation.    Roger Federer is considered by many to be the GOAT.   However Nadal has a big plus score against Federer.

to which Skols says -- no, the above tries to negate the arguement "he has higher number of trophies, thus he is better". 

when Morphy played european players such as Anderssen, they all had more trophies than Morphy but Morphy destroyed them.

HorsesGalore continues.......yes, your original argument about Karpov mentioned he won a great deal of tournaments.  however you then ( in first post) said that alone would not make him best, because Kasparov had a very good, positive score against Karpov during the time period Karpov won many tournaments.

And so my tennis argument still holds because Nadal beat Federer many times during Federer's peak.    In today's world, there is no unknown person that can emerge from Kalamazoo ( or down under ) to challenge Federer and win -- similar to Morphy who had to make a perilous journey ( in those days) to reach the shores of Europe to challenge the best at that time. 

yes, that alone can not make somebody the greatest of all time when that somebody obviously is not. no matter how many trophies you have if you lose your games to Garry Kasparov, it means Garry is better than you.

this also refutes your arguement from tennis, no matter how many trophies Federer has, if he regularly loses to nadal or any other person, that means Nadal or any other person who defeats him regularly is better than Federer.

Adolf Anderssen probably had more trophies than Paul Morphy but it does not do anything with Morphy destroying him, trophies do not make you better than someone who defeats you.