There was also Lombardy who once won the world junior championship with a 100% score . Unfortunately he didnt seem to live up to his early promise/strength . Perhaps his dedication to the Church derailed his chess career ?
Who is the greatest chess player of all time ?? Bobby Fischer ??
Sort:
Mar 10, 2016
0
#463
Statistically, Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest basketball player ever. He AVERAGED a double double for most of his career! He would have dominated more categories, except those stats weren't kept back when he was playing. averaged 50 points per game one season, and that's before there was such a thing as a three-point shot. And yeah, even tho he was a big guy, he shot from outside too.
Ok, Jordan was a more complete player, being able to shoot, rebound, assist, and defend. Ok, Steph Curry is incredible, extending the shooting range to 35 feet or more.
But if you want to look at the most dominant force in all of basketball history, it wasn't Oscar or Russell or Kareem, it was Wilt. He gets serious demerits for being an arrogant jerk, but wow, he was amazing.
How would Wilt or Kareem do today? Not as well as they did in their heyday. The players today are all better athletes, and would test them more on a daily basis. But they would still be really impressive.
Bobby Fischer set some incredible records, some of which will never be broken. He fully deserves our admiration. He dominated the US chess scene when there was no other realy world-class player. (Reshevsky had fallen back in the 1960s, and Evans, Bisguier and Byrne just weren't up to the level of the Soviets.)
Bobby was about 20 years ahead of the rest of the world. There have been few times in history that there has been such a large gap. Philidor and Morphy were the only ones before Fischer.
Kasparov and Karpov were two of the greatest players ever. We were extremely lucky to have both of them playing against each other. They elevated each other's games. Either one would have been considered the greatest without the other. But Kasparov benefitted more by his matches with Karpov. He needed Karpov to become the greatest ever. Take a look at Kasparov's tournament history, and his titanic fights against Karpov.
Fischer, for all his brilliance, can't match Kasparov's tournament record.
Kasparov was #1 in the world for 19.8 straight years, a record (Lasker is #2 at 12.6)
Kasparov had the most +2820 performance rated tournaments (using Sonas' scale): 17. Lasker was #2, at 6
Kasparov had the most top performing years: 16. Karpov was #2 at 11. Karpov and Kasparov together were #1 or #2 for more than any other player Karpov was #1 or #2 for 23 years, Kasparov was #1 or #2 for 21 years.
Fischer was #1 in the world for 4 years. Fischer had only two +2820 tournament performances (US Championships and Palma de Mallorca 1970).
Yes, some of these records reflect longevity while Fischer was a flash in the pan. But in terms of ratings and intrinsic performance ratings (Regan), Fischer is now 16th all-time.
In every important way to measure greatness, Fischer has been eclipsed.
Fischer still inspires us. His chess was brilliant, and his will to win was unmatched at the time. The players who followed him achieved greatness in large measure because of Fischer's work, both in chess, and chess as a profession.
But, forty years later, Fischer is no longer the best ever. He's not even the best American chess player ever. He was the best of his time.
Mar 10, 2016
0
#464
In 1963, only one American player was in the top 10 in the world. Larry Evans, who finished second, was ranked #30 in the world, and Pal Benko was ranked 26th. Reshevsky was ranked 18th
http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=196301SSSSS3S035554000000131000000000008310100
http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=196301SSSSS3S010653000000131000000000002410100
SF , post #493 might help you understand why the US Championship was a major national championship at the time . I dont know if it is still considered one today ?
Mar 10, 2016
0
#466
Last year, there were three Americans in the top 10, and Kamsky, who was ranked about 50th.
Even so, the US Championship has never been considered a major event in large measure because there is so little depth.
In 1963, the only major tournament held in the US was the first Piatgorsky Cup.
The strongest tournament in the US last year was the Sinquefield Cup.
Mar 10, 2016
0
#467
Reb wrote:
SF , post #493 might help you understand why the US Championship was a major national championship at the time . I dont know if it is still considered one today ?
Here's a link to all the zonal tournaments in 1963. The US only sent three to the intezonal round! Of all of the zonals, it may have been the easiest!
http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/zonals/1963-66.htm
Mar 10, 2016
0
#468
Bent Larsen on the 1963-1964 US Championship: "Fischer was playing against children."
Fischer declined to play in the Amsterdam Interzonal. No American qualified for the next round out of that tournament.
Mar 10, 2016
0
#469
I think Fisher was the greatest natural chess talent the game has ever seen. That being said, regardless if chess caused his mental break or his chess ability was caused by his mental illness he was a small part of chess history. Came in, transformed the game, and then left. I think Kasparov is the greatest of all time because of his longevity.
ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The question was; "was the US championship a major national title?" Smyslov just demonstrated the answer is yes.Not to mention Fischer was the best player in the world in 1964.
Larsen never did like Fischer and was envious of him so ofcourse he would never give him credit for anything . Larsen even believed he was better than Fischer and when he got his chance to prove it he failed miserably when Fischer demolished him 6-0 !
Yeah. Larson played first board for the world team in 1970 and Fischer played 2 nd board,but Fischer had been largely innactive the previous 2 years and he was the only one to spank the Russians easily.That was why the Russians invited him to the world speed chess championship.They thaught they had stacked the deck with Korchnoi,Tal,and Petrosian all playing,but of course Fischer destroyed the field there too.
Mar 10, 2016
0
#474
I'm going to reiterate part of a post I made a few hours ago.
I still admire Fischer. Fischer was the greatest player in the world when I was first learning about competitive chess. But I acknowledge that chess has progressed since then.
"Fischer, for all his brilliance, can't match Kasparov's tournament record.
Kasparov was #1 in the world for 19.8 straight years, a record (Lasker is #2 at 12.6)
Kasparov had the most +2820 performance rated tournaments (using Sonas' scale): 17. Lasker was #2, at 6
Kasparov had the most top performing years: 16. Karpov was #2 at 11. Karpov and Kasparov together were #1 or #2 for more than any other player Karpov was #1 or #2 for 23 years, Kasparov was #1 or #2 for 21 years.
Fischer was #1 in the world for 4 years. Fischer had only two +2820 tournament performances (US Championships and Palma de Mallorca 1970).
Yes, some of these records reflect longevity while Fischer was a flash in the pan. But in terms of ratings and intrinsic performance ratings (Regan), Fischer is now 16th all-time.
In every important way to measure greatness, Fischer has been eclipsed. "
The only player even close to Fischer,would be coach Ditka,but I think Bobby would have beaten him too.
My favourite and best player is Capablanca, but as I learned more about Lasker, I really like his style and character too! If you use a computer to analyse the games of the greatest players, Capablanca is the most accurate player.
Mar 10, 2016
0
#477
Kwokman, that same study showing Capablanca as the most accurate among world champions found that Vyacheslav Ikonnikov is the most accurate player of all time. Capablanca ranks only 8th in accuracy.
http://chess-db.com/public/top100pqi.jsp
Sometimes, matching up to a computer doesn't reflect everything that goes on in a game. Today's players have learned how to make the game far more complicated.
Of all the great impossible matches I'd like to see,
Tal-Capablanca, when both were healthy, ranks right at the top. I think Tal would win, and Capa would have no idea why!
Mar 10, 2016
0
#478
Is it really unAmerican to be objective?
For what it's worth, I'm rooting for Naka and Caruana in this Candidates' match. I know, there are some who don't consider either of them "proper" Americans.
Mar 10, 2016
0
#479
From a "Chess Aesthetics" standpoint, BF was effective, correct, & he unified his pieces with precision.
He was kinda lousy at disguise, intentionally exposing his major pieces/King for farsighted compensation, and he definitely wasn't very original.
IOW's, he kinda played like a steroidic computer.
....and Garry Kasparov would have watered him down to a hopeless bridesmaid.
fischer was afraid to face karpov i think he could have been defeated by the russian genius in his prime
I just think fischer was stubborn, thats why he didn't face karpov