skullyvick wrote:
Mrmath wrote:
varelse1 proposed:
We should invent a game where everybody wins!
LOL!!! Sure... LIKE WHAT? good idea though.
Like being born! Only game I know where everyone wins.
.
Not if they're born into my family, they're not!
Carlsen vs Kasparov vs Fischer vs Capablanca: Who would win?!
Sort:
Bobby Fischer is still my all time favorite to this day. Carlsen comes a close second. In this type though I would have to say that I think Carlsen would come out on top. Now in four way chess. I think it would be a tie between Carlsen and Kasparov because they both drew in the past between each other.
Capablanca also won his very first International tournament, he changed history by doing so, this affected the history of chess and the lives of no less than 4 chess players. Janowsky was never the same again, Lasker lost to him, Rubinstein lost his chance at the world title, and Capablanca went on to win it.
Capablanca also somewhat was very responsible for starting FIDE with his suggestion in 1922 after becoming world Chess Champion. With that respect; Capablanca, Fischer and Kasparov all three did contribute to the world chess Federation changes.
Capablanca was also one of the first five players to be given the title of Grandmaster by the Czar of Russia.
In comparing anyone and anything, it has to be done at the same level or as the saying goes: apples to apples. Be it musicians, artist or world chess champions. Therefore let us assume that Capablanca, Fischer, Karpov, Kassparov, and Carlsen, etc. are in their prime one facing another or all of the others. I would pick Capablanca to be the best and to beat them all. Capablanca was a prodigy; Fischer was not as many people erroneously classify him to have been. He was just as Henry Ford, Bill Gates, etc. determined early in life what he liked and what he was going to do, and then he did it. Once he proved himself to himself, nothing else mattered, what others said did not mean anything, he proved himself to himself and that was what counted. He was a true Chess Champion; money etc. meant nothing to him that was not his objective. He one lost a game as a kid at the Village, and he cried. When he was asked why he was crying, he said: because I am going to be world champion one day, and I lost to this patzer.
Capablanca did not study chess, he was a real chess prodigy, he could have been a professional baseball player, tennis player anything he wanted, he was good at many things. He did not lose the championship to Alekhine; Alekhine board him to death with 34 games and then afterwards never gave him a rematch because he knew what would have happened, as a matter of fact he made arrangements with the tournament organizers not to allow Capablanca in the same tournaments he was going to play in.
Fischer and Capablanca were true original chess players, artist, pioneers; Capablanca being better in my opinion and that of many. All of the greats learned from Capablanca: Fischer, Botvinnink, Karpov, Smyslov, etc.
In those days, there were no computers with a myriad of opening in storage, these players created their feats from their own minds. Capablanca unofficially won the Cuban Championship from Corzo at the age of 12. He would have won the world title at the youngest age if it wasn’t for the outbreak of ww, and Lasker’s delays. He was undefeated against any of the top players in the world for 8 years! (1916-1924). Most if not every gm or world champion loses a game per tournament or once a year, even Fischer, etc. Capablanca still holds the world record for winning a world championship undefeated 4-0! He only lost 32(?) games in his whole career! He refuted the feared Marshall Attack over the board. He won his very first International Tournament, he won many tournaments undefeated and simply did not want to ruin other player’s chances, so he drew the games knowing he was the tournament winner already.
I read somewhere that someone wrote it was nothing for Fischer to win 6-0 against Taimonov and Larsen. Ok let them try it. Asides from this, after winning 4-0 he did not have to play on. Also he went on to beat Petrosian and finally Spassky for the world chess championship. How many times did he win the US Championship? He won 13 consecutive times, winning every single game in most cases. Those were true feats by real chess players not using computers. How did he fair in the qualifying candidates matches? Interzonals?
He was the first player to reach 2800!, he broke many other records as well, he had the game of the century. Capablanca also sacrificed his queen in a very deep combination at the age of 12 against Corzo a national champion and master. They reached their ratings with sheer mind, tactics, creations etc. The current players all use computer data bases of endless openings, middle games and endgames at their disposal.
It’s ridiculous how long the current world champions last, and how they become world champions, with speed games, etc. In Fischer’s time it was rough prove it interzonals, the best in the world got a chance at it, and only the strong real players survived. Now a day; unknown players are champions, whose names are longer than their champion life.
Carlsen did not win, Anand lost. In the next match you will see Anand, the real Anand. It will be like Capablanca vs Alekhine re-match that will happen as opposed to Alekhine running from Capablanca. When Capablanca thought he had a chance again at the world Chess Championship after being disappointed, betrayed by Alekhine, he won major tournaments against the young and the best, but history is history, it never happened. Nor did a Fischer vs Karpov, Korchnoi match etc. take place. Fischer did not fear anyone, he did not have to prove anything, he had already done so to himself, and that was all that mattered to him.
Kasparov had Botvinnink as a trainer, all of Russia as well; Fischer defeated all of them single handedly. Carlsen had computers and Kasparov as his aid and trainer against Anand.
That was the very reason Fischer succeeded, he carried every bit of information in his mind, the Opponents when they arrived at the table, chess board, no longer had the entourage, computers etc. to help them.
Capablanca just played one move more than his opponents; he created over the board with lightning speed.
Capablanca was, and remains the best ever. Fisher follows than anyone else you want after that. How could anyone including Capablanca and Fischer want to have changed Chess? Who has ever mastered the classical chess?
What has Carlsen done, proven other than to use a data base to win. It is no longer the person; it is the software, luck, team, etc.
Capablanca also won his very first International tournament, he changed history by doing so, this affected the history of chess and the lives of no less than 4 chess players. Janowsky was never the same again, Lasker lost to him, Rubinstein lost his chance at the world title, and Capablanca went on to win it.
Capablanca also somewhat was very responsible for starting FIDE with his suggestion in 1922 after becoming world Chess Champion. With that respect; Capablanca, Fischer and Kasparov all three did contribute to the world chess Federation changes.
Capablanca was also one of the first five players to be given the title of Grandmaster by the Czar of Russia.
skullyvick wrote:
Mrmath wrote:
varelse1 proposed:
We should invent a game where everybody wins!
LOL!!! Sure... LIKE WHAT? good idea though.
Like being born! Only game I know where everyone wins. Then your troubles with winning really begin and death will become your final disappointment. -Phil Ossifer
Not everyone wins... Think about all the billions of your brothers and sisters you let die because you fertilized the egg.
xBrainChildx wrote:
skullyvick wrote:
Mrmath wrote:
varelse1 proposed:
We should invent a game where everybody wins!
LOL!!! Sure... LIKE WHAT? good idea though.
Like being born! Only game I know where everyone wins. Then your troubles with winning really begin and death will become your final disappointment. -Phil Ossifer
Not everyone wins... Think about all the billions of your brothers and sisters you let die because you fertilized the egg.
.
Yeah.
And my parents still cannot understand how, out of those 3 million, I was the fastest swimmer......
The egg is the controlling individual. If there is no egg... then you and your brothers and sisters all die... so touche! Now the egg person sometimes takes contraceptives or abstains during ovulation. There's your angel of death my friends. Life is sooo unfair! -Jess Watt Deweydo
capachess14 wrote:
In comparing anyone and anything, it has to be done at the same level or as the saying goes: apples to apples. Be it musicians, artist or world chess champions. Therefore let us assume that Capablanca, Fischer, Karpov, Kassparov, and Carlsen, etc. are in their prime one facing another or all of the others. I would pick Capablanca to be the best and to beat them all. Capablanca was a prodigy; Fischer was not as many people erroneously classify him to have been. He was just as Henry Ford, Bill Gates, etc. determined early in life what he liked and what he was going to do, and then he did it. Once he proved himself to himself, nothing else mattered, what others said did not mean anything, he proved himself to himself and that was what counted. He was a true Chess Champion; money etc. meant nothing to him that was not his objective. He one lost a game as a kid at the Village, and he cried. When he was asked why he was crying, he said: because I am going to be world champion one day, and I lost to this patzer.
Capablanca did not study chess, he was a real chess prodigy, he could have been a professional baseball player, tennis player anything he wanted, he was good at many things. He did not lose the championship to Alekhine; Alekhine board him to death with 34 games and then afterwards never gave him a rematch because he knew what would have happened, as a matter of fact he made arrangements with the tournament organizers not to allow Capablanca in the same tournaments he was going to play in.
Fischer and Capablanca were true original chess players, artist, pioneers; Capablanca being better in my opinion and that of many. All of the greats learned from Capablanca: Fischer, Botvinnink, Karpov, Smyslov, etc.
In those days, there were no computers with a myriad of opening in storage, these players created their feats from their own minds. Capablanca unofficially won the Cuban Championship from Corzo at the age of 12. He would have won the world title at the youngest age if it wasn’t for the outbreak of ww, and Lasker’s delays. He was undefeated against any of the top players in the world for 8 years! (1916-1924). Most if not every gm or world champion loses a game per tournament or once a year, even Fischer, etc. Capablanca still holds the world record for winning a world championship undefeated 4-0! He only lost 32(?) games in his whole career! He refuted the feared Marshall Attack over the board. He won his very first International Tournament, he won many tournaments undefeated and simply did not want to ruin other player’s chances, so he drew the games knowing he was the tournament winner already.
I read somewhere that someone wrote it was nothing for Fischer to win 6-0 against Taimonov and Larsen. Ok let them try it. Asides from this, after winning 4-0 he did not have to play on. Also he went on to beat Petrosian and finally Spassky for the world chess championship. How many times did he win the US Championship? He won 13 consecutive times, winning every single game in most cases. Those were true feats by real chess players not using computers. How did he fair in the qualifying candidates matches? Interzonals?
He was the first player to reach 2800!, he broke many other records as well, he had the game of the century. Capablanca also sacrificed his queen in a very deep combination at the age of 12 against Corzo a national champion and master. They reached their ratings with sheer mind, tactics, creations etc. The current players all use computer data bases of endless openings, middle games and endgames at their disposal.
It’s ridiculous how long the current world champions last, and how they become world champions, with speed games, etc. In Fischer’s time it was rough prove it interzonals, the best in the world got a chance at it, and only the strong real players survived. Now a day; unknown players are champions, whose names are longer than their champion life.
Carlsen did not win, Anand lost. In the next match you will see Anand, the real Anand. It will be like Capablanca vs Alekhine re-match that will happen as opposed to Alekhine running from Capablanca. When Capablanca thought he had a chance again at the world Chess Championship after being disappointed, betrayed by Alekhine, he won major tournaments against the young and the best, but history is history, it never happened. Nor did a Fischer vs Karpov, Korchnoi match etc. take place. Fischer did not fear anyone, he did not have to prove anything, he had already done so to himself, and that was all that mattered to him.
Kasparov had Botvinnink as a trainer, all of Russia as well; Fischer defeated all of them single handedly. Carlsen had computers and Kasparov as his aid and trainer against Anand.
That was the very reason Fischer succeeded, he carried every bit of information in his mind, the Opponents when they arrived at the table, chess board, no longer had the entourage, computers etc. to help them.
Capablanca just played one move more than his opponents; he created over the board with lightning speed.
Capablanca was, and remains the best ever. Fisher follows than anyone else you want after that. How could anyone including Capablanca and Fischer want to have changed Chess? Who has ever mastered the classical chess?
What has Carlsen done, proven other than to use a data base to win. It is no longer the person; it is the software, luck, team, etc.
Capablanca also won his very first International tournament, he changed history by doing so, this affected the history of chess and the lives of no less than 4 chess players. Janowsky was never the same again, Lasker lost to him, Rubinstein lost his chance at the world title, and Capablanca went on to win it.
Capablanca also somewhat was very responsible for starting FIDE with his suggestion in 1922 after becoming world Chess Champion. With that respect; Capablanca, Fischer and Kasparov all three did contribute to the world chess Federation changes.
Capablanca was also one of the first five players to be given the title of Grandmaster by the Czar of Russia.
Good post, but Fischer never reached 2800! Only six people have. (Kasparov, Topalov, Carlsen, Anand, Kramnik and Aronian; maybe even Caruana)
vultureway hat geschrieben:
whilst the elo system is great to compare players that are active during the same period of time, you should not forget that the rating got highly inflated due to more and more people playing in more and more tournaments, thus leading to the scenario where more and more points travel upwards the pyramid.
It's ridicoulous ratings. Almost approching 3000! Let's go by true realistic results. Tournaments, games won, lost drawn and moves made.
no human can handle 64 pieces
All four players are above human status
913Glorax12 wrote:
All four players are above human status
YEAH!
Just like Coco!
"What has Carlsen done, proven other than to use a data base to win. It is no longer the person; it is the software, luck, team, etc"
That's even below ridiculous :-)
fabelhaft wrote:
"What has Carlsen done, proven other than to use a data base to win. It is no longer the person; it is the software, luck, team, etc"
That's even below ridiculous :-)
That istrue. Fischer's opponents were never armed with all these databases, computers, etc. Not only is Carlsen thriving, but thriving against much tougher opposition than Fischer/Capa/Lasker evern had to face.
Ammanian wrote:
It will end as a draw I guess
All four players playing on the same board, as a draw??
But that would be the most anti-climatic game ever
We should invent a game where everybody wins!
LOL!!! Sure... LIKE WHAT? good idea though.
Like being born! Only game I know where everyone wins. Then your troubles with winning really begin and death will become your final disappointment. -Phil Ossifer