u missed the the main one viswanathan anand
Best chess player ever
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
I am able to deal with the truth about Fischer. It is just that I think Capa's era was stronger.
And I am not anti-Fischer. I know I am talking to a brick wall about this kind of stuff, though.
I am also talking to a brick wall when I repeatedly say the correct record of Kasparov-Karpov (screenshot from chessgames.com, yet STILL denied!).
YOU STILL TRY TO CREATE AN ILLUSION... MORON!!!!
I SAID >>> OVER AND OVER... WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP GAMES...
KASPAROV AND KARPOV PLAYED 144 WC GAMES !!!!
+19, -21, =104...
GET IT !!! ???
BRICK WALL MY ASS... YOU ARE OBTUSE BEYOND BELIEF, OR A RAVING MORON, OR JUST ANOTHER G-DAM FISCHER HATING SOB...
Stick it.
There is no statistic for best player ever. Therefore, this will go on forever.
I don't mean the WCC games, I mean every single game they played.
Why would you only care about WCC games?
[COMMENT DELETED]
Yes I know the facts. Fischer did beat twenty gms in a row. So what. I read on this thread that Kasparov won something like 100 tourneys in a row, which is completely unheard of.
Aug 16, 2011
0
#953
An significant parallel between Fischer and Kasparov is that they both won an interzonal at a very young age (both 19, I think). A difference is that Kasparov succeeded in getting to a world championship match (which ended up not being completed), whereas Fischer came 4th in the extremely strong candidates tournament that followed, getting a negative score against Korchnoi and Geller (losing twice to them both). Then Fischer had a hiatus from chess for several months.
Crucial is that although there is good evidence that there was an agreement between Petrosian, Keres and Geller to agree draws (not infringing any rules, admittedly), Korchnoi, being in conflict with the powers that be in Russia (later a defector) was completely excluded from this arrangement. So if Fischer had a weak excuse for losing to Petrosian, Keres and Geller, he had no excuse for losing to Korchnoi (a player who got a 5:5 score against Fischer over his entire tournament career). Compare this to Kasparov's first match with Karpov being terminated against the will of both players and against the agreed rules of the match (no game limit, 6 wins to decide) directly after Kasparov had won 2 games in a row.
As for Kasparov's world championship record, he won 3 matches against Karpov, drew one (to retain title) and of course the first match was never completed. He beat Short and Anand outside the auspices of FIDE and finally lost to Kramnik (he had tipped him as his likely successor when Kramnik was a junior!). All of these players were stronger than Spassky, in my opinion. [I feel guilty about saying negative things about Spassky - he is by all accounts a great guy!]
Kasparov's record is more impressive than Fischer's due to the strength and range of his opposition. Both are superb but imperfect, and Fischer's record only looks less imperfect if you give him too much credit for firstly avoiding the world championship cycle for 8 years, and finally avoiding losing playing at all (or else if you blame all his losses on "cheating" commies).
Elroch, I think we are all talking to a brick wall. Everything we said will just be responded with, "Fischer hater!". or, "Kasparov cheated!" or "Fischer was undisputably best in '70 to '72!" or something like that.
It is also almost like he has some sort of book which has everything to say after every good point that someone makes about Kasparov.
Kasparov's 'match' record only looks good if Karpov is actually much stronger than Spassky. Which [in match play] he clearly was not. It's understandable that people would be confused about Spassky not being in his prime after 1972, but he said himself the was never the same player after the Fischer loss. When Spassky was in his prime [in matches] he defeated Geller twice, the 2nd time by +3, he defeated Keres, Larsen by +3, and Korchnoi [5 or 6 years his senior] by +3. Karpov defeated a 47 year old Korchnoi by a single point in 1978, and failed to win any matches from Kasparov [even one in which he was ahead by a score of 5-0 in a race to 6] There is zero evidence that Karpov was a better match player than Spassky when Spassky was in his prime. Of course if we ignore Spassky's own admissions as to his decline and except the less logical idea that Korchnoi was blossoming at age 47 then it's a different story I guess. When Spassky declined after the Fischer match he was clearly lower than Korchnoi. Yet, when Spassky was in his prime he was clearly better than Korchnoi. The 'evidence' is in the matches. Karpov's 4-1 win over a declined Spassky is really more of statement of how much Spassky declined than how good Karpov was, this is evidenced by how well Kornchnoi did against Karpov.
Aug 16, 2011
0
#958
Right. So you give Fischer credit for Spassky beating Korchnoi (despite him not doing so well against Korchnoi himself) and take more notice of Korchnoi's age than his standard of chess (his peak rating of 2695 was a year later when he was 48). Korchnoi is one of a very small number of candidates for best non-world champion, and the clear best of all players at maintaining his standard as he became old. Even now, 33 years after you suggest he was weak because of his age (not his rating), he has played 21 games in the last few months and is anticipated to gain a few rating points from his current 2556). He got to play Karpov by eliminating all the other players. Oh, and Korchnoi's career record against Spassky is +29-18=39. Presumably Fischer gets the credit for that too, due to winning in 1972. Korchnoi was really only dominated by two players over the majority of his career. Karpov +35-17=69 and Kasparov +18-1=6 (some of which was when he was slightly off his peak).
Then you suggest Kasparov was not that good because Karpov wasn't very strong because he never won a match against Kasparov. Notice a teeny weeny problem with that argument?
No problem with the argument at all, unless you're so against factual data being your determining factor.
It's simple. In Fischer's case, he destroyed the field. Everybody. Took no prisoners 39 wins and only 4 losses in a 64 game stretch. Against top GM. Against Candidates qualifyers. Against the reigning WC, Spassky.
Kasparov? Lucky to even get the title. Barely edged Karpov in 144 WC games. If you reverse the sequence of the drawn match, Karpov held the title longer. With luck in a few games, it's Karpov Five straight.
No dominance by Kasparov... squeaky edge tied matches even.
Elroch's problems are well known. Of course, being a stooge for Berezovsky is what Kasparov does best these days, so Elroch emulates his idol. Hasbara pay must be pretty good these days.
RJFWC wrote:
No problem with the argument at all, unless you're so against factual data being your determining factor.
It's simple. In Fischer's case, he destroyed the field. Everybody. Took no prisoners 39 wins and only 4 losses in a 64 game stretch. Against top GM. Against Candidates qualifyers. Against the reigning WC, Spassky.
Kasparov? Lucky to even get the title. Barely edged Karpov in 144 WC games. If you reverse the sequence of the drawn match, Karpov held the title longer. With luck in a few games, it's Karpov Five straight.
No dominance by Kasparov... squeaky edge tied matches even.
Elroch's problems are well known. Of course, being a stooge for Berezovsky is what Kasparov does best these days, so Elroch emulates his idol. Hasbara pay must be pretty good these days.
You're kidding, right? Spassky is not NEARLY as good as Karpov. Karpov is often considered in the top three along with Kasparov and Fischer! Against Karpov, simply beating him is enough to get on the short list, in my opinion.
mshaune...
What you are dealing with here is the massive HYPOCRISY of the anti-Fischer tribal gang.
Get used to it. They ain't gonna change.