Another conference gem

You have to agree with Carlsen. Let's not all forget that Fischer had only archives and hard copies of chess matches. The note taking and memorization and innovation of Fischer in his prime was transcendant. Also note that Carlsen's tutor is none other than Garry himself. Carlsen's opinion is purely academic and devoid of the usual ego that both Fischer and Kasparov had.  Carlsen will break 3000 in the next 5 years. Never to be approached by humans for many years to come.

You are a ponzi. 3000 is impossible. He would have to win almost every game he plays. That will not happen. Likely 2900 is feasible.

Does anyone remember that Fischer never had an engine to check his analysis? Nor the advanced opening prep of our time? How about....etc

Botvinnik was a patzer compared to Fischer. He nearly lost to Fischer when he was WCC in '62 and Fischer was 19 years old and a decade away from his peak. Botvinnik had white and only scraped out a draw because he had a half-dozen GMs feverishly analyzing the adjourned position all night while Botvinnik got his beauty sleep. Fischer would have mopped the floor with Botvinnik if they ever played a match, and Botvinnik, to his credit, admitted that, though I think he said his expectation was that Fischer would win.

Yeah.  And Kasparov was a relatively unknown and weak player until computers got strong enough that GMs could use them to analyse...

I'm just saying these guys never had the tools to prepare so in-depthly as the professionals these days.

From my view....their opening preparation was simply incredible given it was not checked by an engine or computer analyzed or generated. Think about that for a second. In no way am i undermining kasparov's home preparation....he was simply a genius of hard work at it. I thought he had A LOT of outside help though. Didnt he?

Lots of refutations to common lines are well known now, lots of well known lines are busted, vise versa on "bad" openings are now playable.

So players today have to work twice as hard to prepare for the opening phase :p

But yeah, players like Fischer were amazing.  I'm not saying one guy or other was the best ever, just playing the devil's advocate.

This is one of fischer's great discoveries....without an engine!

Fischer was so amazing that the way he played in 1972 would place him around #4-5 in the world today. That's really impressive!

But for people to argue that chess has stood still, or even regressed (which is what the argument really amounts to) since Fischer's day is ridiculous. Of course chess has moved on since Fischer's day. Even Hikaru Nakamura has passed Fischer's highest rating. The first person to pass Fischer was Kasparov, in 1980. Kasparov's own record rating of 2851 lasted 13 years. That's really impressive, especially if the ratings inflation crowd were right (which they aren't). 

If you argue that computers have changed chess, and that there's been tremendous rating inflation, then the conclusion remains: Kasparov's achievements just before the computer revolution are still even greater than Fischer's!

I'm guessing it frees up the QR with a tempo for a tactic?  (Not sure, I'll go look with my engine lol...)

Yeah, pretty much this.

Not that Fischer's accomplishments aren't one of a kind.  It's simply unfair to compare the level of chess of past champions to today.

Well, I was right about the queen's rook, but I've seen this idea before in a different position.  Fischer found it on his own and made sure it worked for all the deep GM reasons GMs need to know if a move is playable or not.  I was just referencing something I'd seen before and guessing (hey isn't that how we all play entire games lol).

You claim this was a Fischer invention? In my database, Walter Browne was the first to play it.

I'm not convinced that a 2700 rating today indicates the same level of playing strength that a 2700 rating indicated in 1972. Mathematically, rating inflation is inevitable when the size of the rated population increases... and I'm pretty sure that there are far more FIDE rated players nowadays than there were in the early 1970's.

no the story goes that fischer found it first, and was saving it against petrosian i think, that is until Walter Browne famously found this move OTB...which is even more incredible.

Fischer found it and kept it as secret preparation for the semi-final match vs Petrosian (a known Petroff player). Petrosian avoided the line in his match with Fischer. A year or two later, Fischer showed it to Browne after swearing him to secrecy. The next time Browne faced this position (vs Bisguier), he reneged on his promise and revealed Fischer's secret weapon.

You can bet that was the last "secret weapon" Fischer ever showed to Browne. Bisguier's comment: "I feel like an innocent victim".

Nakamura is not half the player Fischer was.  Can't compare ELO. 

Remember that rating inflation is somthing real!!!

That's awesome. I didn't know fischer showed him haha.

Cool story, Blueemu! Thanks for sharing it. 

fyy0r wrote:

GreedyPawnGrabber wrote:

Kasparov was better than Fischer and a notch below Anatoly Karpov.

What I find interesting about this is everyone says Kasparov is the best of all time but when you actually check the match score Kasparov had vs Karpov it was so damn close it can't be said with complete acceptance personally.  They were both head and shoulders above the rest during their reign.  Kasparov and Karpov played over a hundred match games for world titles and Kasparov just BARELY edged out Karpov by like 1 or 2 wins, out of HUNDREDS of games.  It's kind of crazy how close the Karpov Kasparov matches were.  Karpov doesn't get the credit he deserves I think sometimes. 

… Karpov is also a far more likable person IMO. I have him in my top 5 all time, Kasparov is 6th...If Anand beats Carlsen, I'll bump Kasparov down another spot or if Carlsen manages 3 titles, I'd put him ahead of Kasparov also. I also think Kasparov was aided by computers more than he is given credit for.

anyways it shows how much of a boss, fischer was