FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Fischer because he was world champion.
greatest comment in chess.com's history.
Fischer stopped long before peaking, so potentially you could say he was a country mile clear.
Fisparov is better. Closed Topic.
It's just a guess how Fischer would have performed later relative to his standard before Rejkjavic. Fischer (my chess role model when younger) found his best performance aiming for the world championship and was at a loss without this motivation. He may have lacked the ability of a Kasparov to improve further or to retain the spike in form he had in 1971-72: he was already 32, remember. He was surely one of the top handful of players ever. One appealing characteristic was his faithfulness to opening choices (e4 main lines as white; Najdorf, King's indian as black): most top players can't really be associated with single lines to the same extent.
All he really lacked was the ability to keep his mouth shut, something he shares in common with a horde of chess.commies.
Yes, I see what you mean! Perhaps the news from 1985 will get to his part of the world soon.
Fisher in a, lets say 50 game match with Kasparov, with both of them being at their peak might lose some 3-4 games initially with some equal number of draws and 1-2 wins.
Fisher being an exceptional tactician himself would adjust to Kasparov's play but Kasparov not being a relatively equal exceptional strategist (again " ""relatively"" equal exceptional strategist") would eventually lose the match.
One might argue that what about Karpov? He was very strategic and lost to kasparov.
Yes but Karpov was not an exceptional tactician unlike Fisher.
Fisher's play is one of the most complete and universal. Hence the trophy would go to Fisher.
Karpov was exceptional tactically, no one else would have put up as much of a fight as he did against kasparov, takes very good tactical ability to get even one draw let alone however many he did.
Yeah fischer was more gifted but saying that karpov is only a strategy player is quite ignorant
Fischer is the Jordan of chess, the only difference is that fischer only came out of retirement way late (92)
I would give the nod to Kasparov. very hard to beat a legend
Its a bit unfair that one was able to learn from the other and continue to build on it.
Fisher=INTJ-A (best personality for chess )
Kasparov=ESTJ-T. Not an "intellectual" by the "definition". One can say he is ENTJ but he certainly is not. He doesnt have the "pace" of NT personality type. He is too quick to form judgments typical of ST personality. Just if you are interested (capabanca=ENTP, Tal=ENTP, Morphy=INTP, Carlesn=INTJ-A, Karpov=INTJ-A, Anand=INTP, Fabiano=INTP, Kramnik=ISTJ, Giri=ESTJ, Petrosian=ISTJ, Karjakin=ISTJ, Obama=INFJ, Russell Brand ENTJ, Ariana Grande=ENTJ, 50 cent=INTJ and the list goes on. This isn't a "biased" list built with the sole purpose of twisting information to "prove" fisher is the best. This is a very factual list. View this list as being out of the debate.
INTJ's like chess when they only see it regardless of whether they play it or not. They "know" chess is for them.
Kasparov said that he liked chess after he was shown some beautiful tactics.
Having said all of this take Kasparov a generation back and he will not be able to match the brutality by Fisher. Fisher essentially played "deeper" chess. Kasparov also said that he didn't know anything else other than too attack and that it turned out to be the best way. He attacked very well.
Karpov is not exceptionally good at tactics. Anand is. Kasparov is. But compared to a lower player Karpov can be called "exceptionally good". But compared to his class of players he cant be called "exceptionally skilled" at tactics. Kasparov, Tal, Morphy, Anand will certainly excel ahead.
I was commenting in a relative meaning. And how can a judgement be formed when comparing players of different eras without taking into consideration all the well... .. "relativity".
In Baku, Kasparov might shade it, but Fischer would be a monster in Reykjavik. Very tight over the two legs. Match could be decided on a coin toss and I can't see Fischer getting beaten at that, especially if the 2nd leg was in Reykjavik.
Kasparov had feats that fischer couldn't touch either. He was world champion for 25 years.
neneko wrote: Kasparov do have higher elo...I find Fischer more innovative though, his games are lovely to watchAlmost everyone agrees that today's elo ratings are inflated. The disagreement comes concerning by how much are the inflated compared to the 60s and 70s? 100 Points seems to be fair by most who argue this point, so add 100 to Fischers best of 2785 and you have 2885 , which puts Fischer as the highest rated of all time. Ofcourse some here are going to argue that the ratings are not inflated today. For them I have a question. Do you think every player today rated over 2700 elo is better than Spassky was in his prime? Spassky never broke 2700 elo, his best was about 2680. One more thing I want to point out, not only has Fischer had amazing feats in chess that Kasparov has not even approached but Kasparov only has 50% score against both Spassky and the late Tigran Petrosian and Kasparov was white in all of his games with Petrosian. Do I really need to remind anyone here what Fischer did to them?
I vote for Fischer or Kasparov
THE GREAT LEGEND FISCHER BEYOND A DOUBT CHESSBOARD CLOSED
OR THE HISTORY OF CHESS CLOSED