Will Carlsen be Universially Recognized as the Best in History?

There's at least 3 sides to every story ;).  The truth, and 2 biased accounts.

Fischer never played the Karpov match, but we'll never know Fischer's exact motivations there.  You say he was afraid of Karpov, others say he was just angry with FIDE.  

Do you also feel that Kasparov was "afraid" when he refused to play under FIDE rules?

Saying that Karpov was the superior player is a load of crap, though.  Karpov and Kasparov have both said that Fischer was probably stronger at that time.  Fischer is a polarizing figure, but it is still possible to be objective about his chess skills and set aside his personal demons. 

The other two mentions have already been adequately addressed.

roflpwned

WoW players -----> that way.

Well, there's some difference there. Fischer refused to play, Kasparov played under the traditional rules against the challenger that won the qualification. Another difference is that Kasparov won the World Championship against an opponent that had a rematch, and abolished the rematch for himself (even if he regretted that). Fischer went the opposite way, and wanted to make it more difficult for the challenger than he had it as challenger himself.

While I do agree about Fischer not being anywhere close to be the greatest player ever based on one title match and a handful of tournament wins, I do rank him ahead of players like Anand and Kramnik. I don't think one should be too rigid with numbers of title matches and tournament victories as criteria of greatness.

The major difference is personal temperment...Fischer could also have jumped ship and formed a new chess organization; he was more famous than FIDE and all of the rest of the chess world put together at the time.  That was not the kind of person he was, though.  Kasparov...well, let's face it, he's been looking to wield power over a large organization his whole life ;).  

         btickler; I have to respectfully disagree with you. Kasparov was screwed by FIDE many yrs ago. He just wants to return the favor. And at the time Fischer couldn't blow his nose by himself.

Perhaps you are not aware of Kasparov's attempts at a political career? ;)

As for Fischer's state at the time, perhaps you are not aware of this, either.  This would make sense, since only a handful of people were, and most published information on the topic is speculation by people only indirectly connected to Fischer.

Fischer quit playing chess in 1972, and that had nothing to do with FIDE. He could have played a lot the years before he started arguing about title match regulations, but just didn't want to play chess, and he had no interest in putting the title at stake. In 1992 he still considered himself the one and only World Champion. As Fischer saw it no World Championship cycles or regulations or challengers were needed, he could keep the title without playing a game for 20 years.

Kasparov played the challenger that went through the FIDE qualification, and while FIDE introduced World Championship knockouts Kasparov held on to the match tradition. I don't think what Kasparov did had much to do with fear, but that doesn't mean that he was right and FIDE were wrong in everything. In Fischer's case it's easy to see that Fischer was wrong though. One just can't have matches first to ten wins where the challenger must win 10-8 to get the title, or a World Champion that demands to decide every rule by himself.

           Your right; I'm not aware of GK's political desires. But what about it??   Would he really be a terrible politician??   and   Fischer could of got a ticker tape parade, if he knew how to enjoy it. His mother and sister helped him to become a hermit in Calif. (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Ummm...where did I say that Fischer was not wrong?  I said that calling Fischer afraid to play Karpov is an unsupportable assertion.

Also, Fischer stopped playing rated tournaments/matches in 1972.  That's all you'll ever know with certainty.  The assertion that he stopped playing entirely and did not keep his skills up is also unsupportable.

Obviously, the Newton quote, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" applies to Carlsen, and pulling players out of time and zapping them in a room with no prep, Carlsen takes all comers. Not much room for debate there. Carlsen has read through every Fischer game, every Karpov game, etc., and has much deeper theoretical knowledge than any historical chess figure.

The only question we can really debate is who distanced themselves most from their peers. Mind you, I am not saying this indicates the "greatest in history"...I do not think that question is determinable.

And I vote Fischer..at his peak, he was leaps and bounds better than anyone on the planet. Capablanca second.

You didn't say Fischer was not wrong. You suggested a parallel between seeing Fischer as being afraid to play under FIDE's rules and Kasparov as being afraid to play under FIDE's rules, which I think would be to stretch it quite a bit. As for it being unsupportable that Fischer didn't keep his skill up, well, what matters is rather that he didn't play any official games. Since he refused to play his hypothetical skill is less important.

Well, I think the original question in this thread has been thoroughly answered.... NO!

:)

I don't know why so many people are so ignorant and think Fischer was better than Carlsen. Fischer wouldn't stand a chance against Carlsen, and I'm not saying that because of their peak ratings but because of the computer-like play of Carlsen. Fischer played super interesting chess and he was extremely talented, but he wasn't born in the 90's like Magnus and didn't use computer in his preparation. Some could argue that Fischer was a greater talent than Carlsen and that might be true, but Carlsen>Fischer objectively speaking. No one other than Kasparov came at least closer to Carlsen's precision in playing.

One shouldn't forget that Fischer's score against Spassky after the title match was 7-6 in wins, and the difference wasn't that big between Fischer and other top players of the day like Korchnoi and Geller either. Fischer might still be considered greater than Carlsen achievement wise, but in objective playing strength I think Carlsen reaches higher, even if such comparisons always are a bit unfair for the older player.

Thanks for admitting I was right on both counts... ;)  

Longevity.

I thought you knew better about those forums.

I agree with the first part. Carlsen has the chance to be one of the very greatest (it will be nearly impossible to surpass Kasparov though, IMO). He needs a couple of more title defenses and more longevity with his tournament dominance. He's definitely capable of it.

I don't EXPECT Carlsen to have a long reign and dominate, however. He certainly can do it, but is he driven to the degree Kasparov was?

As I've said many times, I put Fischer in my Top 10, but probably not Top 5, because in my view he didn't achieve ENOUGH in his career, politics be damned. If Carlsen wins his upcoming World Championship match, I would definitely place him ahead of Fischer, no questions asked.

Steinitz and Lasker definitely get shorted in these "greatest" lists, especially Steinitz, who took on all comers in matches and beat them (until Lasker), and was the greatest tournament player of his time, by far.

I believe I am correct in saying that he is not even as good now as he will be 10 or 20 years from now. That's a bit scary since he has achieved WC at 23. I guess only time can tell.

He's definitely far from the #1 ever spot, after all he turned 23 just a few months ago and can't compete with what players like Kasparov and Lasker did during decades of domination.

At the same time it isn't so much the match against Anand that is the central thing in Carlsen's case. His achievement is rather to be very clear #1, and being rated best player in the world for five years in a row in the Chess Oscar discussions. Since his latest loss (in a game where he had a winning position) he has scored something like +16 -0 =19 against players currently ranked in the top ten.

This type of domination today is something else than beating Anand. Many other players rated very highly never won a match against some hungry top-of-the-game challenger. Fischer didn't, Capa didn't, Karpov only won against a 20 years older Korchnoi, Alekhine's challengers were Bogo and Euwe, and he didn't even win all those matches. Still they are all among the greatest ever, and so is Carlsen, even if not yet in their class. He could be quite soon though, considering his results the last 5-6 years.