It's one thing to say that Fischer was the best ever (which he wasn't), it's another thing entirely to suggest he had the potential to be the best ever. There's no way to prove or disprove the latter.
Another conference gem
Sort:
SmyslovFan wrote:
It's one thing to say that Fischer was the best ever (which he wasn't), it's another thing entirely to suggest he had the potential to be the best ever. There's no way to prove or disprove the latter.
your, he wasnt statement is subjective and pointless... as is the idea of reminding people that there isnt a time machine to prove or disprove anything....so other than to reiterate your opinion that we have already read, your post has no point....and for me, it has none at all, for my memory isnt that bad yet....
....it would appear you are wanting to argue or stir up the muck....bottom feeders do that for an easy meal...you should improve your tastes......
nameno1had wrote:
… Karpov is also a far more likable person IMO.
i never thought of Karpov as "likable person" 
a story from Ivanchuk on Karpov:
"I recall Karpov getting extremely angry with me when I was his partner in Belote [game with cards], and I made some mistakes. (Laughs) He was beside himself with anger, which really amazed me: I was playing for fun and didn’t treat the game so seriously. ... At that time, as a 17-year-old, I was sure that someone who was able to play chess well must, a priori, be a wonderful person who’s positive in every way. And conversely – if someone had negative qualities then he’d never be able to play chess well. Well, Karpov disabused me of that idea, making it very clear that those are absolutely different things, that personal and professional qualities have nothing in common." 
Estragon wrote:
Oh, please! The Fischer vs Karpov vs Kasparov debate is NOT like the Morphy vs Botvinnink debate. Obviously comparing players whose careers and lives didn't overlap is an exercise in opinion.
But Fischer didn't die in 1972. Karpov was quite active, as were Korchnoi, Portisch, Hort, Tal, and other very strong players. Fischer was only 40 when Kasparov played Karpov the first match. Ivanchuk, Sokolov, Yusopov, Shirov, and Gelfand were coming up.
Now, even if you believe Fischer was correct in refusing to defend his title due to FIDE rules, nothing prevented him from playing matches on his own, for which the sponsorship was ready and waiting. Nothing stopped him from playing in tournaments - organizers were bending over backwards to meet his demands.
The ONLY reason Fischer never played the great players who followed him was because he CHOSE not to play them. None of the new generation, nor Korchnoi or Tal, played a limited schedule, they were all active all over the world.
How does the fact alone that someone choses to play another one or not prove if he's a better player or not from the other one?
(and anyway, as you said, he stopped official chess completely, right after winning the WC, not right before having to defend it...)
oh, and, didn't Morphy stop playing chess early in his life, too?
ok now i hate Carlsen forever
Estragon wrote:
Eseles wrote:
How does the fact alone that someone choses to play another one or not prove if he's a better player or not from the other one?
(and anyway, as you said, he stopped official chess completely, right after winning the WC, not right before having to defend it...)
oh, and, didn't Morphy stop playing chess early in his life, too?
If you are going to claim someone is the best of all time, the fact that he avoided playing any of those who might challenge that impression, even at the loss of millions of dollars in fees, is certainly germane.
Fischer was young and in his prime in 1972, but he avoided playing the world's best after beating Spassky. It was HIS choice. Maybe he was crazy already, maybe he was scared. But you cannot blame Karpov or Kasparov for the fact they never played Fischer, that was 100% the decision of Fischer.
but you also cant say they are better
Just remember one important fact.....Fischer did it on his own.....no teams of GMs helping him....
Noreaster wrote:
Just remember one important fact.....Fischer did it on his own.....no teams of GMs helping him....
Nonsense of course.
Even if it was true, since when was a sub-obtimal training strategy something to boast about anyway?
waffllemaster wrote:
He said Fischer was stronger than his contemporaries and Kasparov was the "best of all time."
*lol* I think Carlsen is wrong (in two ways)! 
1) For me Fischer was better than Kasparov (otherwise I cannot understand why Kasparov was worried about Fischer)!
2) Carlsen forgot about himself! *rofl* But this makes him very nice! 
so Carlsen said kasparov is the best.ofcours he is the best
One reason for Carlsen not picking Karpov as the best all time player is that he knows he can never achieve the Karpovian perfection. He can use some dirty tricks to push his ELO even above 2900 but he cannot achieve the Karpovian quality of chess...
GreedyPawnGrabber wrote:
One reason for Carlsen not picking Karpov as the best all time player is that he knows he can never achieve the Karpovian perfection. He can use some dirty tricks to push his ELO even above 2900 but he cannot achieve the Karpovian quality of chess...
lol
SmyslovFan wrote:
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.
Hmm..but I though that a few months ago when they ran the anaylsis of all former world champions moves during their careers using Houdini 3 the closest match over 1 year was Fischer, over 5 and 10 years Kasparov and over 15 years Capablanca.
That would make Capa incredibly strong and able to compete even today surely?
And I'm sorry but I simply don't believe that Nakamura (as he is now) would beat a peak Fischer or Capa over the board (even if they were stuck in their respective eras with no access to engines and up to date theory - which of course wouldn't be the fair way to do the comparison anyway).
"Hmm..but I though that a few months ago when they ran the anaylsis of all former world champions moves during their careers using Houdini 3 the closest match over 1 year was Fischer, over 5 and 10 years Kasparov and over 15 years Capablanca."
I'm not sure about that, but a recent analysis showed Capablanca's matchup rate is due to playing uncomplicated positions.
http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4009400/the-quality-of-play-at-the-candidates-090413.aspx
Looking at the comparison of champions, play has improved, and this fits with all logical deductions.
Scottrf wrote:
"Hmm..but I though that a few months ago when they ran the anaylsis of all former world champions moves during their careers using Houdini 3 the closest match over 1 year was Fischer, over 5 and 10 years Kasparov and over 15 years Capablanca."
I'm not sure about that, but a recent analysis showed Capablanca's matchup rate is due to playing uncomplicated positions.
http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4009400/the-quality-of-play-at-the-candidates-090413.aspx
Looking at the comparison of champions, play has improved, and this fits with all logical deductions.
Fascinating, thanx.
But even after adjusting for complexity, you'll note that Capa's play in World Chess Championships is closer to the engine ideal than Fischer or Kasparov's. In fact it's better than anyone's apart from Anand and Kramnik
Of course to be fair Fischer's best play was in the year before the final, when he slaughtered all the Candidates.
Also I wonder about inherent bias the other way - all grandmasters nowadays (and Kramnik and Anand in particular) have very deep engine-based oepning prep. In a match sitaution you would surely expect them to use engine prep beyond the 12 move starting point used by the authors. Didn't Anand get into the Elista position 3 times vs Topalov for example?
Never heard of the Elista position.
BTP_Excession wrote:
I'm not sure about that, but a recent analysis showed Capablanca's matchup rate is due to playing uncomplicated positions.
http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4009400/the-quality-of-play-at-the-candidates-090413.aspx
Although interesting, it is rather silly and pointless. For example Boris Gelfand who learned the chess over the board not with computer gets low scores.
Scottrf wrote:
Never heard of the Elista position.
To be true to your avatar you should say things like "I don't often hear of the Elista position, but when I do, I don't know what it is."
I personally think if the us government would have taken good care of Bobby and encouraged him, nuturing him and US Chess teams, he could have easily dominated until the advent of modern chess engine
s. There is no doubt in my mind that he would've and should have been the greatest of all time with no one even a close 2nd. I actually consider that he knew that and didn't feel the need to prove what he already knew.