Who is the greatest chess player of all time ?? Bobby Fischer ??
Sort:
Underpants_Gnome89
Jan 4, 2018
0
#1421
These GOAT arguments can be fun really they are all nothing but BSing what I will say about Bob though is that he was probably the strongest mentally. I don’t think anyone could preform like he did with the Cold War pressure on their back. The USSR had been dominating the chess world and he essentially stood alone repenting the USA and won one of if not the most important chess game ever played. In that aspect I will say he was the most impressive chess player ever.
Without engines: Bobby Fischer!!!!!!
Jan 6, 2018
0
#1423
Bobby Fischer the stongest? Who shall say? The most legendary? Without the shadow of a doubt.
Jackykiller wrote:
No doubt, Capablanca is the best(computer said that)
Capablanca is definitely in the top 5 or 10. I'd put Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen and Lasker ahead of him though.
I've not found one yet I'd let mind the kids
Jan 7, 2018
0
#1427
Unpopular opinion: the only reason Anand is brought up in the conversation is because of chess nationalism. The same phenomenon occurs with Fischer too, actually, but he has more chess accomplishments, enough to warrant being in a top 3-5 ever.
ChessGm101 wrote:
well we all agree that he beat both bent larsen and mark taimanov 6-0 right?
Yes, when Fischer was at his peak in 1971-1972, he was the GOAT. Nobody has ever matched his 1971 Candidates performance. Kasparov was the best for the longest period of time though (in the modern era). Carlsen plays like a computer. I don't think he'd be as great as Fischer or Kasparov without using a computer for his training. Lasker was incredible for the era that he played in (well before computers were even thought of). He totally dominated, during much of his lifetime (he was World Champion for 27 years, until he got older and Capablanca finally took the title from him).
Indeed, Bobby Fischer its the greates chess player that lived
yeeterer wrote:
Fischer said that Paul Morphy, if given time to study modern theory, would've been better than any current player.
Fischer was very probably wrong on this. For one reason --the population of chess players has greatly increased and those who are at the very top have skills that Morphy never had or used.
I think Jeremy Fisher was a really good player as well and when he met up with Sir Isaac Newton for dinner I thought sparks would fly, but they had roasted grasshopper and lady bird source,Mr Alderman Ptolemy Tortoise had salad, which they all enjoyed. (but I think it sounds rather nasty.)
yeeterer wrote:
Fischer said that Paul Morphy, if given time to study modern theory, would've been better than any current player.
Oh yeah. I forgot about Morphy. Maybe it should be: 1. Fischer 2. Kasparov 3. Morphy 4. Carlsen 5. Lasker. Carlsen could move up a slot or two before his career is over though.
yeeterer wrote:
Like Fischer said, Morphy had a very high level of natural talent. He just didn't have access to modern chess theory, so some theoretical things that may be well known to low-level chess players today were not known to him.
I guess we'll never know. It's all just speculation. Even giving them all CAPS scores won't prove anything, because the level of competition back then was also handicapped by not having the latest advances in theory. So, Morphy didn't have to make the #1 computer move each time, to beat the Masters of his era.
yeeterer wrote:
JeffGreen333 wrote:
I guess we'll never know. It's all just speculation. Even giving them all CAPS scores won't prove anything, because the level of competition back then was also handicapped by not having the latest advances in theory. So, Morphy didn't have to make the #1 computer move each time, to beat the Masters of his era.
You don't need the number one computer move to beat the masters of this era either.
True. However, I was referring to the idea of giving them all CAPS scores, to compare champions of different eras.
kindaspongey wrote:
Ok, I didn't know they already compared their CAPS scores. Carlsen and Kramnik grew up in the computer age though, so their moves should more naturally match computer moves (for example, Carlsen often plays the computer-produced opening move of h4). I seriously doubt that Kramnik would have beaten Fischer at his peak though, if they played head to head, without the help of computer openings. Kasparov (at his peak) probably would have given Fischer a run for his money. What an epic match that would have been.
”Carlsen often plays the computer-produced opening move of h4”
Carlsen has never played h4, and no chess engine would suggest it...
”I don't think he'd be as great as Fischer or Kasparov without using a computer for his training”
This is a common type of comparison that is a bit unfair on Carlsen. It isn’t easy to show the same dominance as Fischer and Kasparov if you do not have the same opportunities as your competitors. It would be just as fair to say that Fischer and Kasparov wouldn’t be as great as Carlsen if their opponents had chess engines.
I think Carlsen claimed that his basic development as chess player was not really affected by chess engines, apparently his first coaches were amazed at how computer illitterate he was, not even knowing what Chessbase was. I don’t know how true that is, but his chess strikes me as more human that chess engine influenced, with his strength being in the endgame rather than in the openings.
fabelhaft wrote:
”Carlsen often plays the computer-produced opening move of h4”
Carlsen has never played h4, and no chess engine would suggest it...
I didn't mean for move #1. He plays it around move 4 or 5 sometimes though.
fabelhaft wrote:
”I don't think he'd be as great as Fischer or Kasparov without using a computer for his training”
This is a common type of comparison that is a bit unfair on Carlsen. It isn’t easy to show the same dominance as Fischer and Kasparov if you do not have the same opportunities as your competitors. It would be just as fair to say that Fischer and Kasparov wouldn’t be as great as Carlsen if their opponents had chess engines.
I think Carlsen claimed that his basic development as chess player was not really affected by chess engines, apparently his first coaches were amazed at how computer illitterate he was, not even knowing what Chessbase was. I don’t know how true that is, but his chess strikes me as more human that chess engine influenced, with his strength being in the endgame rather than in the openings.
I don't agree. I've seen some of his games and, if I didn't know better, would have thought that Stockfish or Houdini was playing. Maybe I just don't understand the logic of some of his moves yet or maybe he's memorizing computer openings 15-20 moves deep. He does have an awesome memory. I was able to follow Fischer's and Kasparov's games and make sense out of them though. They played more "human moves", although very advanced ones.