FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Yeah. RJF will always be up there in Chess Hierarchy. He is, was, always will be the Epitome of clarity, truth and the everlasting staple of Universal player.
If you insist, but i will settle for one mighty chess player.
I think Fischer is a legend, but Kasparov and Tal are above him.
Of course, if we're talking about a period of time, Bobby ruled over all.
There is no "ifs", "ands" or "buts".
AFTER that... okay, dude.
If precedence means anything to you, you would realize Fischer started it all.
"The One Mighty Player"
I think Botvinnik really was the one who started dominating the rest of the field. Even Capablanca and Alekhine showed glimpses of dominance. Fischer didn't start many things, though he was the first person to relinquish his title over childish demands.
You are either an ignorant or a lier. Choose for yourself.
Just to repeat and close my comments, and I am a contemporary of Fischer.
The modern Chess player is better paid than ever because of the "childish" Fischer.
Karpov was only a rising star prior to 1975, and Fischer had indicated withdrawal before Karpov became candidate.
Fischer was not overly scared of someone whose reputation was not yet established for one thing, and he wanted good conditions for another. Have you ever seen pictures of Karpov in the early 1970s. He was scrawny, not the sleek dapper Karpov of recent years, He was very unterrifying.
Fischer was, unfortunately, a very disturbed man, but formidable still and recognised as a genius at Chess.
He is hated for various reaons today. In another 50 years, perhaps, some perspective will be seen.
Had the prospective opponent been Kasparov, the " 'fraidy Fischer" charge might have more legs. What a match!
So be it, if I am not believed.
I honestly think Fischer is a very good chess player and all, and maybe the strongest player of all time, but I just can't agree with him relinquishing his World Championship title over some problems with funding. I feel he should have defended his title and played against Karpov in '75. That's the only reason I like maybe Kasparov over Fischer, because he defended his title and didn't just quit chess like Fischer.
Personal problems aside, Fischer was without any doubt a genius chessmaster, a formidable player and tactician par excellence
Not to rehash an old comment, but I think there are some parallels between Fischer and Tiger Woods. Assuming Woods is washed up (i.e. won't win another major), then we have to conclude Jack Nicklaus is the greatest golfer of all time. But if we started a similar thread to this one - was Tiger Woods really not that great? - I think the answer would be the same. Of course he was great. Not the greatest of all time, because of various problems and excuses, but certainly great. We wish he had behaved differently though.
i don't know
When you duck the strongest players of the era (Karpov, Kasparov) to play exhibitions against a lower-rated player, Spassky, you cannot call yourself the greatest of all time.