Who is the greatest attacker in chess history?

Perhaps it's games like these that might lead people to consider Fischer a great attacker.

thank you riga, that is a very good example. i totally forgot about them. he was obvious also a great attacker. he was just not that kind of dubious player, he played best moves.

and that shirov is a strong attacking player we obviously dont need to mention.

Well, I was exaggerating about 10 whole moves.  Maybe only half a move, but that's enough to win a game :)

Tal had a problem with Fischer?  Funny, I thought they were 4-4 with 5 draws. Maybe I'm thinking of a different Fischer?

Here's Fischer sacing a rook to break through to Larsen's king.

well tal won against fische when he was young and one time of them he even tricked him off the board to lose the game. But when Fischer got older as far as i know he totally crushed him. look his game against tal, someone said (shame i forgot who made the video) i think it was dzindzi said only few people ever saw tal with a undeveloped bishop losing.. 

yeah fischer was the king he was in all the best...

its jsut my medication i cant have an own opinion and am succeptible to all kind of crazy talk.. yeah right like fischer is one of that endlessly boring endgame players. 

Any world champion caliber player is going to have many technical grinding wins and many sacrificial attacking wins.  These games aren't what defines their style.  It's when there are two equally good ways to continue the game which do they often choose? 

When attacking is clearly the way to go, if they can't follow up with an attack, then they probably aren't even GM strength.

Rigamagician...Thanks for the Fischer games.  The first is amazing, with the Queen sac, the check/discover-check combos with the knight and bishop and then the bishops, knight and rook having their way on a cleared board, calming walking the king to his death. 

In the second, it'd be great if someone explained the line that made resignation the only option...pardon me, I'm am only a neophyte.

you are definetly right... 

fischer played best moves. but honestly when you compare him to karpov and rubinstein and alikes. you definetly must say he was an attacker. ofc endgames are interesting too sometimes.

And Tal having a problem with Kasparov? I guess that's why he left the hospital in which he was dying from kidney failure in order to defeat Kasparov in their last game together. 

and to be honest waffle, fischers attacking goes beyond the quality of the usual attacking of a random gm.

and of course to all your trolls. if we aks what an attacker plays for openings and then we look at fischers opening. najdorf, grunfeld, kings indian. the sharper e 4 that is best by test. He played the most agressive set up for white against sicilian. Yes i know they say different now, but still. 

I mean if it were not for the medication you couldnt troll me rofl. But yea ofc he was also positional.

McDermo wrote:

"In the second, it'd be great if someone explained the line that made resignation the only option...pardon me, I'm am only a neophyte."

You are in good company.  After the game GM Robert Byrne wrote "The culminating combination is of such depth that, even at the very moment at which I resigned, both grandmasters who were commenting on the play for the spectators in a seperate room believed I had a won game."  Here are Fischer's comments from My 60 Memorable Games.

Well Fischer's legacy was never as a great attacking player.  Of the three phases he's known for his endgames.  On style he's known for a technical / logical / "clear" style, playing simple looking yet strong moves one after another.  He certainly didn't go for unbalanced wild positions.  It's been said he did less well when these wild positions appeared.  He's closer to a Capablanca type than a Tal type.

-------------------------

As for players who gave Tal trouble, Korchnoi had a very good record against him.

thx riga, the second game was one i was looking for for a long time but have forgotten who he played against.

well i thought he was known for his imagination and his harmony of his pieces.

fischer cared much for the harmony of the pieces and sacked a pawn to get his bishop into play. the technical endgame was just the means for his cause. 

his openings choices speak a clear language, you can stop the troll now.