Best chess player ever

Like I have said before, the best chess player ever is NOT a ''fact", so there is no way to prove it.

An off-topic comment here... this thread is reaching 1000 posts soon.

Start with the smallest increment... work your way up... name one acheivement even on par with these listed here...

One Game? Greatest at one game... Fischer... Game of the Century played against Byrne... while Fischer was still a child!

One match... Six Game Shutout of Larsen!

Two consecutive matches... Six Game Shutouts of Taimanov and Larsen! (12-0!)

Consecutive GM Wins... 20 straight! Interzonal thru Petrosian game 1!

Three consectutive matches... Taimanov, Larsen, Petrosian! 17 wins, 1 loss, 3 draws!

Four consecutive matches in a WC cycle... Taimanov, Larsen, Petrosian, Spassky! 24 wins, 3 losses, 14 draws!

Tournament... Interzonal at Palma! 15 wins, 1 loss (Larsen), 7 draws!

Stretch of single WC Cycle... 1970-72, including all the above! 39 wins, 4 losses, 21 draws... an astounding 39 wins in 64 games!

1970-1972 including the above... Rovini +10, -1, =6... Buenos Aires +13, -0, =4... Manhattan Blitz +21, -0, =1... CCCP v World (v Petrosian) +2, -0, =2... Olympiad Siegen +8, -1, =4... an astounding +93, -6, =38... over 2/3 wins! 81.75% score!

Match any of that, against such strong competition... and we'll look at the larger picture.

Fischer actually LOST points in his ELO by trouncing Spassky! Never before or since has that happened.

Look in the mirror again, 1+1... and blow your nose.

Wouldn't that mean Spassky was much worse than him?

Turn it around. Fischer was far superior... like never before, or since.

The point is, Fischer was so far superior than the WC (his nearest rival), that after defeating him, he even lost points via the Elo method.

It again shows, that Fischer was head and shoulders better than all extent competition, like never before, or ever since.

You finally may be learning, ICU. Wake the frick up.

So, you see this series of increments... begin with a single game, and move up in increments...

Is there no case in history that you can point to, where a player has a more impressive set of progressively larget incremental measures of greatness... ???

And if not, will you admit that Fischer, by any measure you wish up to an equivalent period as the 70-72 stretch, exhibited far more greatness (best ever) than any chess master in history... ??

If you do admit, then you exhibit integrity in your dealings on this issue.

So far, every one of the Fischer haters (and you damn well know who you are, and why) refuses even to address the issue.

Their only tools therefor, are obfuscation, misdirection, smear, and attacking the one who states the truth.

Checkmate.

Yes, I have saw everything you have posted about Fischer, but that doesn't mean I am not allowed to think that Kasparov and Capablanca are better.

I wonder what is the maximum percentage of their life someone has spent obsessing about their hero?

By the way...You can only relatively accumulate ELO points by taking them from someone superior, on average, in the pool of players you share space with.

It's the huge defect in the Elo system, and causes anamolies like the current ratings inflation, by having points pumped into the system.

A far better measure is statistical analysis based on win probability against the peer group... say GM's for example.

In that case, Fischer's romp from 70-72 is even more impressive than just a rating measure.

100%

I wonder if Elroch the Troll or any of the other Fischer haters (all related, of course) would say any of his dirt if his beloved Kasparov's facts were being presented... ahhh no.

This is one place you are wrong.

This is another

And this is another

This is another:

I was going to stop posting on this topic, but 'fabelhaft's remarks deserve a response. 'Evidence' is not proof. I never said was. If all of my posts would have been read it would have been noticed that I said I believed Fischer would have probably lost a match to Karpov in 1975 because Fischer had not been playing. Also, comparing the Spassky of 1972 to the Spassky of 1974 might seem logical on the surface, but is actually a mistake, as I also noted in another post-Spassky himself said he was never the same player after the Fischer match. The Soviet press shredded him, and he never again had the intesity or fire that he once had. Now maybe Spassky is lying, but there is 'evidence' that he is not. Are not Spassky and Korchnoi contemporaries? At least in the sense that they shared 'primes'. When Spassky and Korchnoi were still in their primes, who played for and won the world championship. 'Not Korchnoi' Korchnoi only plays for it after Spassky's decline, intrestingly enough, after the Fischer loss. When Spassky [five or 6 years Korchnoi's jr] slipped from his 'prime' he was below Korchnoi, but when Spassky was in his 'prime' he was better. Based on the 'evidence'. My points have only been about where the 'evidence' leads as regards to a Kasparov- Fischer match. I notice that when pro-Kasparov people present 'evidence' [such as the Karpov - Spassky match] it's suppose to mean something, otherwise why say it. But if someone shows 'evidence' to the contrary then all of a sudden 'evidence' doesn't matter.

So since you cannot establish comparable achievements, here is the closest...

Single match whitewashes...

Note that Fischer's opponents were better than the other victims. Note also that Fischer's whitewashes were consecutive.

I don't see any Kasparov, or Lasker on this list.

While Staunton and Steinitz' achievements are impressive, you'd have to be strongly anti-Fischer to argue that they are comparable to the 71 Candidates sweeps.