Bobby Fisher or Kasprov ( Dont know how to spell his last name)
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
if you cant just say robert james fish thats to easy !!
of course fish is better
dont call him fish.
Ofc FIscher is better
TetsuoShima wrote:
dont call him fish.
Ofc FIscher is better
how about slash ?
why do you hate Bobby Fischer???
Jul 25, 2013
0
#6
I think it is generally accepted that Kasparov at his peak would have beaten Fisher at his peak. That is not to say Kasparov is better. Theory had evolved so more was known about the game.
Fisher was certaibly a more phenomenal player. He achieved his greatness on his own. Kasparov had the best players in the world studying with him to help him improve.
Fisher had no one. He was so much better than everyone in the USA that they would not have neen of any assistance. While Kasparov had the Soviet(later Russian) machine helping him to improve every part of his game.
deepmac wrote:
if you cant just say robert james fish thats to easy !!
of course fish is better
Wasn't he a Go Fish champion too?
kantifields wrote:
Fisher was certaibly a more phenomenal player. He achieved his greatness on his own.
Fisher had no one.
Not true, he trained with plenty of top players. One of his most famous pictures is him training with Larry Evans.
Conflagration_Planet wrote:
deepmac wrote:
if you cant just say robert james fish thats to easy !!
of course fish is better
Wasn't he a Go Fish champion too?
it dose !i dont hate fish !!! i love him
Scottrf wrote:
kantifields wrote:
Fisher was certaibly a more phenomenal player. He achieved his greatness on his own.
Fisher had no one.
Not true, he trained with plenty of top players. One of his most famous pictures is him training with Larry Evans.
Fischer chess achievments speak for themselves and make him the greatest player.
besides the soviet entire team analysed Fischers games, they all tried to pick apart his games and he still has beaten everyone.
For me Fischer was the greatest player ever
Yeah we know that.
But if anyone says that other players held the title for much longer (and actually defended it), you consider that irrelevant.
You see Karpov's many dozens of top level tournament wins as superflous.
In short your criteria for being a good chess player is whatever Fischer did. So naturally you will rate him highest.
Scottrf wrote:
Yeah we know that.
But if anyone says that other players held the title for much longer (and actually defended it), you consider that irrelevant.
You see Karpov's many dozens of top level tournament wins as superflous.
In short your criteria for being a good chess player is whatever Fischer did. So naturally you will rate him highest.
and everyone elses criteria is what Fischer didnt
Did Kasparov win candidates like Fischer, did he win the title with only one real lose (2 of his loses only come from not showing up and his bishop takes h2 experiment in a position he couldnt lose)
Did Kasparov play a game of the century with 13 years??
was Kasparov so much higher rated than the world champion he has beaten??
did everyone of Kasparovs opponent had the entire soviet machine for them working out variation and giving tipps and helped in to be resumed games??
Jul 25, 2013
0
#15
Scottrf wrote:
kantifields wrote:
Fisher was certaibly a more phenomenal player. He achieved his greatness on his own.
Fisher had no one.
Not true, he trained with plenty of top players. One of his most famous pictures is him training with Larry Evans.
You're kidding right? Larry Evans. Larry Evans was a useful companion, not a partner in analysis or training.
Young Karpov and Kasparov were having training sessions with the likes of Spassky, Petrosian, Keres, Roman, etc. The list goes on and on.
Larry Evans lol.
Reshevsky could have been of some help to a very young Fisher, but was not.
mashanator wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
why do you hate Bobby Fischer???
Why do you love him so much?
it must be a mix of his charisma and his awesome games.
mashanator wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
mashanator wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
why do you hate Bobby Fischer???
Why do you love him so much?
it must be a mix of his charisma and his awesome games.
Right, because Fischer was the only great chess player with charisma and awesome games. My mistake.
no ofc not but to me he topped them all
Jul 25, 2013
0
#18
I'm still a little unclear, TetsuoShima - do you prefer Fischer or Kasparov?
Time to "get off the fence" I think.
Jul 25, 2013
0
#19
If you can't spell something, try to google it. Google auto-spells various things as offerings for you to pick from.
As for that Fischer-Kasparov stuff...no one will ever know, so the question itself is kind of bogus: a Rorschach test for whether you find one or the other more disagreeable.
Jul 25, 2013
0
#20
Carlsen is right on Fisher's heels (without the antagonism). It's a different world. Fisher really was conspired against. Yet he prevailed (in chess).
The whole world loves Carlsen (me too).
Imagine if in the Tata tournament Aronian, Anand, and Onischuk all decided to play prepared draws against each other to conserve energy. Then used their time to collaborate to prepare lines to play against Carlsen. That happened to Fisher.