FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
As far as the world is concern Kasparov has the record that is undisputed and unmatched.
@mcris, I have nothing to do with your arrogance, look elsewhere!
Finally, he brought more MONEY into the game. In this respect he could be considered the greatest.
How does bringing money into the game make him a great player? And did he do it out of philanthropy towards his fellow chess players or to line his own wallet?
Look up what Eidinow, Brady, Saidy, Evans and others who have lived through those times have to say about the Fischer years or the Fischer boom: for a year or two following Reykjavik it was as though money were falling from the sky; GMs and even some IMs could make a decent living out of chess alone. USCF membership doubled between 1971 and 1973 and peaked in 1974, and stores ran out of chess sets. Chess suddenly moved the front pages. Posters of celebrities ranging from actors to politicians playing chess were everywhere. It wasn't just money, it was exposure... a true phenomenon!
You better study some dictionary, too.
This may all be true, but did RJF ask for all the money that he did out of concern for his fellow chess players or for purely selfish reasons, and the money for the others came as a by-product?
After 1972 he was offered milions of dollars by crowned heads to play demonstrative games, but refused. So, personal greed is out of the question.
Dont feed the troll FIscher is best ever. I'm out!
@ mcris, You are a rude person, I demand your banishment!
It was a bit of both. Selfish yes, but not purely so. To a certain extent he wanted to upgrade the game as he put it in one interview. Better lighting, larger venues, bigger prizes, better playing conditions in general. He felt that top chess players should be as rich and famous as athletes. And he also felt that the game should receive more publicity and more people should pick up chess, even if only as a past time. So by-product or not, his demands meant improvements for others too not just him, and he must have known it. Not all of these outlasted Fischer himself sadly, but that wasn't Fischer's fault.
Ignore him, @lytonn. You are far too sensitive.
Having said that, he is right about Fischer, but we will have to live with that, both of us.
@camter, What I say about Fischer is true, correct!
Un petit peu!
As Camter put it, you are far too sensitive, seek professional help.
Opinions differ from generation to generation, about how strongly the former USSR wanted to hold onto their position as far as chess hegemony was concerned.
Being that Bobby was the first to challenge it, change the culture from even within their "own" players eventually says a lot. Going beyond the play. The game.
Evidently, I don't need to repeat Garry's behavior after the fall
this chart should put to rest any question of who the greatest is was and should be...
Scroll down to the chart that ranks the players based on 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 year periods and Kasparov knocks them all out of the park.
One thing most people don't take into consideration, is that Kasparov was the first World champion to play and win against the world's best computer, until the programmers gave it an opening library. World champions, before the computer age, were not the same caliber of player you have today... ask any computer ;D
We can say that a chess computer of the 90s was significantly less strong than a chess engine today, anyway in a 16-game match the best Kasparov would most certainly lose against Stockfish 8 !. Kramnik who is very strong against a chess engine loses in match against this one!
Zurab Azmaiparashvili is very good.