Fischer or Carlsen?

Emanuel Lasker

Im a fischer fan but not all he says are agreeable to  me. He may have the notion of lossing to another russian just when hes enjoying the title of world champion. He may have been all-played -out and seeing spassky lose in a very short match with lopsided result might have given him the fear of karpov. Then kasparov came and broke his record. Pre-arranged? i agree with you that the it is impossible to have a match pre-arranged coz if they did that would mean that both karpov and kasparov are weaklings but look, they became the two most dominating players of their time and the closest persuers are so far left behind. What i may agree with fischer on is  "the present day pre-arranged chess" coz nowadays with the aid of computers openings last up to 30 moves deep.

Carlsen ... no doubt about it !!

No point asking the trolls :)

I guess to be fair to Carlsen, he has been the best in the world for a couple of years by now.  Ultimately, it's an apples to oranges thing.

I wouldn't say Fischer was the best player in the world already in 1966. Just look at Spassky's results against Fischer and other players up until 1970. When GM's were asked in a big poll at the end of 1968 who the best player in the world was Spassky got most votes, ahead of World Champion Petrosian.

ugh, another nurture vs nature problem. perhaps if morphy were alive now he'd be as good as carlsen, or if carlsen were 22 in 1860 he'd be making poor moves in his openings.

One thing i will say, i beleive carlsen will actually show up to defend his title. fischer did not.

and honestly even though i am american and a fan of fischer, i think being out of chess for 3 years he was probably rusty adn would have lost to karpov. if carlsen defends his title, i cannot argue about best ever but i can argue he is better than fischer, so only time will tell.

55.48% of the games are won by Fischer. That's over 50%. 33.16% are draws, 11.36% are lost. And he included 3 of his lost game in My 60 memorable games.

First he had to face Taimanov in candidate match. Ugh, no problem. In Botvinnik remark: Fischer was not a genius, unless ......

Taimanov was one of the few chess players who has beaten six world champions (Botvinnik, Vasily Smyslov, Mikhail Tal, Tigran Petrosian, Spassky, and Anatoly Karpov).

Had Taimanov not lost to Fischer so badly, he would have been one the best players in the world along with Capa, Lasker, etc.

He was still one the best chess players in the world no matter what. He should hold his head high.

Carlsen.

True, the soviet block had a stranglehold on world chess and Fischer was in reality the best player in the world for a long time before finally becoming the champion. 

carlsen is a patzer,i saw s0'me games and he played  1.a4 , 1.Nf3 b5...  patzer openings..   s0 the best is Fischer, no doubt

How can you say Carlsen is a patzer? You should know 1. Nf3 is the best opening by far. Fischer didn't know how to play this kind of opening. So maybe Carlsen would have beaten Fischer since Fischer is so bad in opening. Not to mention Fischer end game is terrible. Fischer jsut got this publicity, but he is not that good compare to Carlsen.

I would laugh to hear the above sentences.

At least Fischer played the rematch against Spassky in 1990. Carlsen hasn't played a single game since becoming WC!

Fischer..he was the most prepared chess player ever. Position..tactics..and a long term chess vision on the board that was unmatched. All of these things that were done over the board and in his own studying and analysis. No Fritz..no databases..no computer help..none of that, and at his peak he had a lot more to lose than magnus. Magnus is a great player no doubt about it but i think he is not a "Bobby Fischer"...more of a Karpov..just my opinion..

Come to think of it there are many similarities. They are the two biggest favourites ever to be challengers in a title match. There they faced the only top player they had a minus score against, in both cases -3 at the start of the match. A few months before that they were both 70 points ahead of number 2 on the rating list, and they won the Chess Oscar a few years in a row before winning the title.

That's very unusual though, and even those games aren't pre-arranged. GM Giri just wrote that "Carlsen will get you out of your book on move 5 and the game will start from scratch", and when the player with the best opening preparation in the world can't get anything out of his preparation in a match against Carlsen the talk about how there is no creativity left in the game seems exaggerated.

Fischer could do fine with any openings. Do you see he played a variety of openings? We didn't see much of French or Sicialian form Anand - Carlsen match.

I imagine that Fischer played Sicialian vs Carlsen as black.

I also imagine Fischer played 1. c4 vs Carlsen as white.

Both would be won by Fischer with no contest. Carlsen could prepare any openings, Fischer would not have a slight problem.

In terms of creativity, Fischer was far ahead of Carlsen. Oh, well, I don't have to mention what Fischer was capable of doing. People can fed up with me.

I just want to say if you haven't read his "My memorable 60 games", you don't know much about him. I think there are more 20 opening variations in that book. And he seemed to do fine with them.

Here is Catalan, closed played by Fischer and Spassky in 1992. They also played Benoni in 1992.

Troll/multi-user account confirmed.