Wht Bobby Fischer would have beaten Kasparov.

No one has ever achieved so many consecutive wins against the worlds best chess players. And his name was Bobby.

It was just before his sixth birthday that he started playing after looking at a chess problem his parents were trying to solve, and as he writes himself he had never played the game before that. I doubt he was coaxed into playing, but he got very interested in the game soon after learning the rules.

as this guy:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1006842

To try to work out who would have won I think we must first ignore Fischer the man and think only about Fischer the chess player. If we remember that Bobby had to learn enough Russian to be able to study their books and to prepare for matches without the use a chess engines his total dedication to study and playing the game we make a start. Look at his record and try to think what sort of a player he would have made with the help of the Internet and chess engines and if he had been backed by the Soviet Chess Machine! It was Bobby Fischer against the World in every sense. In my mind the would only have been one winner - Bobby Fischer!

Very true, but Fischer would have beaten all opposition.

I think Fischer was blessed with a superb talent and a phenomenal ability to work extremely hard. Given that he nurtured his ability singlehandedly, in a culture that had little or no regard for Chess and was pitted against a system

(Soviet Chess Inc) that viewed him as the only credible threat to their dominance - and Fischer managed to overcome all these obstacles to gain the world title - this is very very impressive.

Kasparov too showed outstanding talent and an ability to work very very hard too. But he was raised in a culture that nurtured chess and he lived in a country that played chess widely. naturally the level of competition that Kasparov faced in his home country (USSR) is something that Bobby did not have to deal with.

The decisive factor for me comes down to how hard each fought to gain/retain the title. Fischers struggle to gain the title was tougher I wager. Kasporov's struggle to retain the title was as tough.

In their respective primes, I'd have to give my decision in favour of Bobby Fischer but it would be a damn close match.

My own all time favourite is Paul Morphy

seems to be the mantra of every American champion, Beat every credible player in the world, go insane, die

Two words - Muhammad Ali

"Fischer is the best, but Kasparov is the greatest."

The "best" is very subjective. Everyone can have their own personal favourite.

Kasparov was World No. 1 ranked player for 255 months, by far the longest reign of all time, and nearly three times as long as his closest rival Karpov.

Fact of the matter is Kasparov has achieved far more and was World No. 1 for 20 years. That is not a matter of personal opinion or who people think is "best". It is FACT.

If Kasparov was an American, Fischer' short reign might have been forgoten long ago.

You must be joking

Think about it this way, the first Karpov Kasparov match lasted some 40+ games, and was aborted by FIDE, the Fischer Spassky Match lasted around 20, Kaspy and Karpov both had massive teams to assist them, Fischer was all alone, the only aid he had that could compare was Henry Kissinge, Spassky also held a team that included a lot of people.

Its an American site and I dont blame Americans for being Patriotic, and Bobby Fischer was a great player.

Frankly Ciljettu, I dont want to debate anything with you. You are a rude little hypocrite, trying to stir up trouble and arguments in every thread.

I like to compare the greatest chess players to stars in the sky. People tend to think of the stars that shine brightly,for the longest period of time, to be the most brilliant. Sometimes however, the most brilliant of the stars don't shine as long, but in their own way, are still more brilliant than any other in the sky. I feel this way about Fischer and Tal respectively. I think in they're short lived stays at the top, they were the two most brilliant I've seen among past players.

I am refering to your behaviour on another forum which got you banned, and on many others in which you are rude to people for no good reason. 

Really? so your calling people ignorant, moron, dumbass, lapdog etc does not qualify for rudeness? (and that was just a quick trawl of your posts)

You are right about being dragged down. Unlike you I do not usually engage in public slagging matches every night of the week. 

Do you have any sound reasoning for why he would have been dominated by Kasparov and Karpov? I tend to think it would have been very interesting to say the least, if he wouldn't have dominated those two.

I can only speak for myself. I came home one day, allowed myself a little quip.. intended as a joke, alright maybe not very funny, and I can understand not everyone is on the same humour wavelength.

But then you misread it, assumed for some reason it was aimed at you, and started to call me a moron etc. 

You interpret things in a slightly paranoid way. You then respond by offending people and then retreat into your  "Im not the primary aggressor" stuff.

Maybe people do gang up on you, but to be honest, you ask for it.

Very good point. 

I would say Fischer would have been quite formidable in the last 8 years of the 70's. They probably would have been his best. By the time the 80's rolled around he would most likely been starting to lose some of his skill.