Dirty_Sandbagger wrote:
You must be kidding, is this a troll post ?
Kidding. Lol.
Chess "GOAT" discussion
Sort:
It does not speak of Fischer lacking confidence in his ability to beat him either. There are other possible explanations:
1). Fischer being paranoid about Soviet attempts to interfere with the match and wanting to remove as many possible ways for them to do so.
2). Fischer being unwilling to or incapable of backing down on the conditions he had set for the match.
3). Fischer behaving like a primadonna and assuming that FIDE would cave in to whatever he demanded.
4). Anything else I haven't thought of.
I stand ready to be corrected by anyone who is capable of communicating with the dead and capable of getting a truthful, unbiased account from them... 
Jun 1, 2015
0
#24
I didn't say Fischer was great because he had never lost the title.
He was great. He never lost the title. That was my intention but it is the fact and you cannot deny that no one defeated Bobby in Championship match.
We can say that Lasker didn't deserve to be World Champion because there were some players better than him (Rubinstein for instance) and he was avoiding competing with them. However can we deny that he was World Champion for 27 years? No because it is unquestionable fact even if some people accuse him of being a coward.
Jun 1, 2015
0
#25
Definitely the answer is not easy as comparing players from different times seems to be an impossible task. However, a milestone research was made in this field http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params= . Kasparov appears to be the answer although it's still just about the numbers. Personally, I think the GOAT should be someone living and playing in the pre-computer era. Among these people Fischer is the one whom I respect the most but Lasker is also underestimated even though he dominated the chess world for the longest time in history and brought psychology to the game.
CPOTM, Chess Player of the Millenium .... sounds catchy.
Jun 1, 2015
0
#27
It is true that basketball history is shorter than chess one. That's why it is pretty much harder to choose the greatest one. Maybe let's point 20th century the best player. They all didin't have computers and it was the matter of pure abilities.
It can be suprising for many people, but I think the strongest player was Karpov. He won the biggest number of tournaments in history, was on the top or near the top for over 20 years. He lost the title to Kasparov, but the matches was very close and Kasparov had better opening preparation. I think that Karpov was a little stronger than Kasparov in term of pure play, but Kasparov thanks to openings gave to the games character that suit him better.Fischer was very strong, but in my opinion his peek was too short to be the best of all time.
Jun 1, 2015
0
#32
@ Kubas1010
Karpov... Right. By the way I am terribly surprised no one has mentioned any of stragical Masters like Capablanca, Botvinnik, Smyslov.
You told Fischer hadn't been on top long enough to name him the Chess GOAT. So maybe Korchnoi? It sounds paradoxically because he was never the World Champion but on the other hand he was the Challenger twice (78 and 81) and in 1984 he was defeated by Kasparov in final match. Anyway Korchnoi was on top even when he was 70 years old. It is amazing. In my opinion if he hadn't been forced to move to Amsterdam due to political issues he might have defeated Karpov. He was emotionally imbalanced and that was the reason.
That no one defeated Bobby in Championship match is a fact. That being available to every WC is another one.
Robert0905 wrote:
Alekhine really had the will to win.
Nobody had a greater will to win than Fischer , which is why he did several things in chess that has never been done before or since .
Jun 1, 2015
0
#35
Greatest Of All Time ?
You mean greatest up till NOW !
Maybe the G.O.A.T. has not been born yet.
Maybe he ( she? ) has.
If the question is : greatest of all time, up till the present...I would vote for Paul Charles Morphy.
Apart from Magnus Carlsen, I think we have seen the major contenders at their peak. ( Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Capablanca, Alekhine etc. )
We never saw Morphy at his VERY best.
His U.S. Championship victory and subsequent tour of Europe afforded us a glimpse of his supra-natural talent.
I think it safe to assume that if things had transpired differently, the games of Paul Morphy at his peak would have been mind-boggling.
Of course, there would have to be some players to push Morphy to play his very best.
Maybe he did peak in Europe...but I doubt it.
He was born one-hundred years too early !
Jun 1, 2015
0
#36
I must admit that my expectations were exceeded.
The discussion is great!
Morphy? Of course, outstanding player, passion, attack.
Mateusz_Dubinski wrote:
It is very hard to compare players who were playing in different times. I have played chess for 20 years but b-ball is the second passion of my life. That's why I asked my question that way.
There were many great players who can be considered as the GOAT (Wilt, Bill Russell, Moses Malone, Magic, Bird, Olajuwon, Jordan, Kobe, LeBron) but that's MJ23 is the guy who leads in most surveys and fans' opinions.
We can see the same situation in chess. Who's better: "psychologist" Lasker or Rubinstein who used to play against pieces not an opponent, master of Strategy Botvinnik or master of an attack Tal, brilliant Fischer or "the CPU" Carlsen?
That is very interesting.
I can not believe you named a bunch of has been Basket Ball players. The only exception is Jordan. You didn't even mention Shaq? How could you call yourself a Basketball Fan! For Shame!
As for Lasker being psychologist. I think that is some speculation. I believe people called him a psychologist becuase they thought his moves were inferior. When his moves were actually good moves. They simply didn't understand. He was on a whole other level than them.
Further more, I have read some articles on Lasker and from my interpretation. I do not believe Jose Capablanca truly beat him. I believe Lasker handed Jose that Title so to speak. I believe Lasker was older at the time and got tired of completing in serious World Championship Matches. I can not prove this obviously. I was not there. However, it does seem that way.
Jun 1, 2015
0
#38
Have I written anything like: that's the list ALL basketball players who deverved to be named GOAT?
NO!
I haven't mentioned also: Tim Duncan, Jerry West, Clyde Drexler, Karl Malone, Allen Iverson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Geaorge Gervin, have I? Does it mean that I am trying to devalue treir achievements?
NO!
I have listed only few players as an example.
Don't pick holes in everything.
Russell won more than anyone. He improved his game every year. He made his teammates better. When he played against Chamberlain, Wilt often outscored him.
Bill didn't care about that. He was about winning.
Now, the same can be said for MJ (Magic and Bird, also). The difference is that MJ played in a 24/7 TV and radio world, with talking heads always saying how great he was.
"We can say that Lasker didn't deserve to be World Champion because there were some players better than him (Rubinstein for instance)"
Lasker didn't deserve to be World Champion?! I think he together with Kasparov are the two players that are most difficult to avoid in GOAT discussions. Rubinstein never finished ahead of Lasker during his career, as far as I know, so stating that he was better than Lasker is dubious.
By the way, do you know that there are 2 World Champions who never lost the title? What is obviously obvious, the present one, Carlsen and Fischer himself. He should have played against Karpov i 1975 but refused to play.
Alekhine took the title to his grave but he had lost and taken back the Championship previously.
That's the point for Bobby!
You must be kidding, is this a troll post ?
Regardless of Fischers chess skill (which was indeed great), how can chickening out of a match be proof of anything ?
Especially when considering that Karpov would have been a much harder opponent than Spassky, it does not speak of Fischer having confidence in his ability to beat him.