Artsew wrote:
RJFWC wrote:
I like waffles.
Me too!
awesome pic, where do they serve those waffles??
Best chess player ever
Sort:
i_r_n00b wrote:
PUMAPRIDE wrote:
well Fischer wasnt a nutcase,....
You also must not forget that whatever he said, may didnt sound nice, but he nev er hurt anyone. he just talked.
For me Fischer will always be a hero!!!!!
if you think fischer wasn't a nutcase, i think you don't know enough about Fischer. or we disagree with what a nutcase is.
he did resist arrest and i assume there was some physical confrontation. words can hurt though.
I respect the chess Fischer played on the board. however, he is a nutcase in his views aside from chess.
just look at the facts how genius fischer was in his saying. First he knew many years before that taimanov is weak, before he won 6 0. secondly he knew that petrosian would become wc, he said petrosian was the strongest if he just played more boldly. Fischer also knew that Computers would beat all humans one day. He said if he were only in for the money, he would be trade stocks instead of playing chess. he discovered the deep secret that the stock market and also chess both are based in the essence on pattern recognition. well many people dont even get that.
Fischer was in many cases a genius, kasparov was just a liar and verry cheap charavcter despite being wc for so long (wich is in case a verry seldom instance). just because Kasparov stayed longer nr1 doesnt prove anything, anyone can stay longer and beat others if they are the strongest, being one year or 20 the number doesnt prove that much.
just look at morphy, he could have been on top for 20 years if he wanted, but he didnt want to. You definetly cant say now steinitz was stronger because he was longer on top, morphy probably would have beaten him really hard
For consistency and genius, it just has to be Garry Kasparov.
Rook250 wrote:
For consistency and genius, it just has to be Garry Kasparov.
maybe for consistency(with reservation) yes but not for genius. Fischer was smarter in chess as in many other areas as kasparov.
no wait, fischer was even way more consistence than kasparov.
You just cannot compare Fischer, who won the the world title, refused to defend it and then went bananas to Kasparov, who defeated many fantastic players for many years.
I don't call him a "noob". He called himself a "n00b".
You did quote me incorrectly. On purpose. Don't deny it. Take a look and try again. I never misquoted you.
PUMAPRIDE wrote:
Rook250 wrote:
For consistency and genius, it just has to be Garry Kasparov.
maybe for consistency(with reservation) yes but not for genius. Fischer was smarter in chess as in many other areas as kasparov.
Really? What other areas would they be?
Wheres the no. 1 chess player right now
A monument to Noob, Art, IbeatU, and fabel, otherwise known as those who don't acknowledge Fischer's status as greatest Chess master of all time, and will play dirty if needed in the process of trumpeting their "knowledge".
RJFWC wrote:
A monument to Noob, Art, IbeatU, and fabel, otherwise known as those who don't acknowledge Fischer's status as greatest Chess master of all time, and will play dirty if needed in the process of trumpeting their "knowledge".
Your suggestions about Larsen and Reshevsky and many others being greater chess players than Kasparov, that Fischer would have beaten Kasparov if he had played him instead of Spassky in 1992, that Fischer won dozens of international tournaments in the strongest fields ever assembled, etc etc is real "knowledge" I suppose? :-)
Reshevsky, Larsen and others did not have computers do their work for them. That's a fact, whether you are too obtuse to acknowledge it or not.
I'm old enough to remeber chess before computers. Chess.com is an example (i.e. using computers) of how computers makes a player far better than he would be otherwise.
Fischer would have beaten Karpov in '75 at least as badly as Fischer beat Spassky in '72. He would also have only to win 12, instead of 12.5, and would not be saddled with a forfeit. If you really believe Karpov had Fischer's number in '75, you are definitely in the minority.
Fischer won enough tournaments to prove my point. Look at the record. He won practically everything he entered from 1960 to 1972. If he did not win, on occasion it was due to unfair tactics by officials that forced him to maintain his dignity and standards, and withdraw. In cases where he finished and did not win, he was usually within a half point of top spot, and you know how easy it was for collusion to work against him as well that way.
Rook250 wrote:
You just cannot compare Fischer, who won the the world title, refused to defend it and then went bananas to Kasparov, who defeated many fantastic players for many years.
he had defended it, karpov was just scared. he was scared to lose, so he disagreed with fischers normal demands, which were less than those karpov later demanded for himself.
Kasparov is a Liar and cheap.
Fischer was always the greatest.
brilliantboy wrote:
PUMAPRIDE wrote:
Rook250 wrote:
For consistency and genius, it just has to be Garry Kasparov.
maybe for consistency(with reservation) yes but not for genius. Fischer was smarter in chess as in many other areas as kasparov.
Really? What other areas would they be?
well he knew how the stock market worked, he spoke taugh himself many languages. He knew about computers, as i said before.. he was in many respect a genius. If it werent interested in chess, im pretty sure he could have become billionaire if he really wanted.
RJFWC wrote:
Reshevsky, Larsen and others did not have computers do their work for them. That's a fact, whether you are too obtuse to acknowledge it or not.
I'm old enough to remeber chess before computers. Chess.com is an example (i.e. using computers) of how computers makes a player far better than he would be otherwise.
Fischer would have beaten Karpov in '75 at least as badly as Fischer beat Spassky in '72. He would also have only to win 12, instead of 12.5, and would not be saddled with a forfeit. If you really believe Karpov had Fischer's number in '75, you are definitely in the minority.
Fischer won enough tournaments to prove my point. Look at the record. He won practically everything he entered from 1960 to 1972. If he did not win, on occasion it was due to unfair tactics by officials that forced him to maintain his dignity and standards, and withdraw. In cases where he finished and did not win, he was usually within a half point of top spot, and you know how easy it was for collusion to work against him as well that way.
Reshevsky and Larsen didn't have computers do their work for them but neither did Kasparov. At least his first decades as a top player chess engines just weren't strong enough to be useful. And when they did get strong enough everyone used them so I wouldn't say that Larsen was a greater chess player than Kasparov because there were no computers in his days. It's also a simplification to imply that Kasparov was the best player in the world for more than 20 years because computers did his work for him. He did the work himself and used computers, as all others, later in his career. And in Larsen's days no one used computers and he never got close to being the best player in the world.
I don't know if Fischer would have found Karpov an easier opponent in 1975 than Spassky was in 1972. Karpov was a stronger player than Spassky and Fischer hadn't played for three years. Karpov was very impressive in the match against Spassky in 1974. But Fischer was of course one of the greatest players ever, no one would dream of denying that.
fabelhaft wrote:
RJFWC wrote:
Reshevsky, Larsen and others did not have computers do their work for them. That's a fact, whether you are too obtuse to acknowledge it or not.
I'm old enough to remeber chess before computers. Chess.com is an example (i.e. using computers) of how computers makes a player far better than he would be otherwise.
Fischer would have beaten Karpov in '75 at least as badly as Fischer beat Spassky in '72. He would also have only to win 12, instead of 12.5, and would not be saddled with a forfeit. If you really believe Karpov had Fischer's number in '75, you are definitely in the minority.
Fischer won enough tournaments to prove my point. Look at the record. He won practically everything he entered from 1960 to 1972. If he did not win, on occasion it was due to unfair tactics by officials that forced him to maintain his dignity and standards, and withdraw. In cases where he finished and did not win, he was usually within a half point of top spot, and you know how easy it was for collusion to work against him as well that way.
Reshevsky and Larsen didn't have computers do their work for them but neither did Kasparov. At least his first decades as a top player chess engines just weren't strong enough to be useful. And when they did get strong enough everyone used them so I wouldn't say that Larsen was a greater chess player than Kasparov because there were no computers in his days. It's also a simplification to imply that Kasparov was the best player in the world for more than 20 years because computers did his work for him. He did the work himself and used computers, as all others, later in his career. And in Larsen's days no one used computers and he never got close to being the best player in the world.
I don't know if Fischer would have found Karpov an easier opponent in 1975 than Spassky was in 1972. Karpov was a stronger player than Spassky and Fischer hadn't played for three years. Karpov was very impressive in the match against Spassky in 1974. But Fischer was of course one of the greatest players ever, no one would dream of denying that.
Well but Kasparov always had soviet gms doing the opening preparation for him, or do studying plans for him or help him in other chess areas.
Fischer not only had to prepare the Openings alone, he had to analyse his games alone, make his own study plan and think about improving his weak areas all alone.
also IN RUSSIANS VERSUS FISCHER, KARPOV SAIDB IN 1975, THERE WAS NO1 WHO COULD BEAT FISCHER. It was even highlighted by the authors with bold letters
Spassky thought that Fischer (v Karpov) would have won in 1975, and he was in the best seat to see this. Good enough opinion for anyone who isn't incredibly biased against Fischer.
Too bad FIDE hated Fischer so much... robbed us all of a great match. They were desperate to crown someone else, and did... without a match.
Attribution without factuality is another lie...
Typical behavior of the disrupting. Muddy those waters more Art.
I was hoping for such a reaction.
In fact you totally misquoted me, and since I thought we had the same kind "freedom off speech" I thought I just did the same.
If you quoted me entirely then you can see that I have no trouble whatsoever with facts, just you insulting others.
Calling someone a noob because he disagrees is not really a nice thing to say now is it? And misquoting someone,... well you have just experienced that yourself
-edit-
Just to be complete:
This is my post from which you conclude I have problems with you bringing facts
"RFJC stop this nonsense. If you want to be such an extreme fan off Fischer that you really think that other great players are ants in comparison to him, that is fine. There is no need to insult people who think otherwise."