FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Bobby Fischer is considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time
You say it. Up to now a lot of forums have been written here on chess.com on this subject.
It depends on what is most important in your eyes, the "strongest", the greatest natural player, the greatest practical player ( my hero Emanuel Lasker ! ), the greatest tournament player, the greatest match player, the greatest positional player, the greatest strategist, the greatest attacking player, you name it.
You say : "by many", yes, and so are Kasparov and Anand..
Nice question, unanswerable without specs and details, What is your own opinion and why ?
Fischer did several things that no other player has done : winning a major tournament with 100 % , winning 2 candidates matches with 100% , winning 20 games in a row against all GMs !! No other great player has done even one of these things !
fischer was afraid to face karpov i think he could have been defeated by the russian genius in his prime
Kasparov, Fischer was good but only for a short period of time.
I dont know why you would think that since Karpov's top rating never surpassed Fischer's ?
Granted that Kasparov was good for a longer period of time and with so much more time you would think he could have done just one of the four things Fischer did ( listed above ) and yet he did not . If being good longer is the decisive criteria then you have to go with Lasker anyway ....
objectively speaking i think fischer knew that karpov could be a very tough opponent and i think he has a little fear in his heart to lose the crown, and maybe fischer in 1975 has better chances but not for a great margin anyway i think the solid positional karpov chess would be frustrating vs fischer i think he could have been what kramnik was for kasparov in 2000
Kasparov never played in as weak events as the US Championship though, so the 100% score in one of those is maybe not the best measure of greatness. Then it's another question if it is a more impressive achievement to qualify for the title match on the first attempt, like Kasparov did, or to fail several times to eventually score a higher percentage once one finally succeeds, like Fischer.
For me the greatest of all was Capablanca, one of my heroes, not just in chess but in life. The most gifted of all in my opinion. I would love to see what it would have been like if all these three Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov were playing at the exact same time... my money would be on Capablanca...
makes a great point, the fact is greatness is defined differently by different people. what appeals to you is how you will judge... Having looked recently at a few of Petrosians game (especially against Hort) he has a claim too, as he was so highly rated for sooooo long (I would be interested to know if he was the strongest over the longest period). and his ability to suffocate an opponent on the board, he never ever seemed in a hurry.
Capablanca as ive said earlier for me the greatest, because he didnt study, and was unbeaten for an incredibly long time, and also that he saw and lived life beyond chess...and no one saw the truth in a position as quickly as he did...
Tal the greatest attacker?
Reti the most innovative, or Nimzowitsch?
Fischer the most determined and biggest character?
RomyGers pick Lasker-The deepest most complex thinker?
Botvinnik the most disciplined?
The history of Chess is full of heroes, and for me its probably the thing I love more than the game itself, the history of those that played it...think Smyslov, a world champion and an opera singer, winning the title (after losing before) from Botvinnik, a world champion and an electrical engineer and computer scientist!!!!
The great artist and the great engineer reach the very top in chess, at the same time...those great minds that seem so different can truly communicate on the chess board..
That always amazes me, chess crosses ALL barriers and meets in the middle; the 'center', where else.... for all who play it!
Karpov was around 2780-2790 in 1994. In fact 2700chess.com gives him an all time high live rating of 2790 : one more point than Fischer.(obviously this happenned 20 years after the cancelled match and has nothing to do with it.)
I'm not sure that the US chamionship in the 60's can be called a top tournament. And I think that Kasparov or Carlsen would have been able to score 100% against the field of 2014 US championship (with a lot of luck).By the way, Kasparov also has a few achievements : winning 15 tournament in a row, winning 5 WC matchs...
As far as winning tournaments go Karpov is the one with most tourney victories ... even Kasparov cannot match him in that .
Anand. And one more thing: I hate Carlsen. lol
fischer was definitely the best and most natural talented, no seconds and no use of computer engines
The number isn't always the most important thing though. Taimanov won more tournaments than Fischer, and Nakamura has probably won more than Carlsen, but winning the strongest tournaments is another matter. Karpov and Kasparov played numerous tournaments together for decades, but Karpov only finished ahead of Kasparov twice, and one of them was when Kasparov was 18 years old.
How do you measure that Fischer definitely was more talented than Morphy or Capablanca or Carlsen?