I think the best player isn't the one who memorizes openings to the first 30 moves and has a computer analyze his games (In other words, out of the two id pick fischer based on his imagination, the fact that he had a streak of 20-0 in the candidates and interzonal and that no one could come close to beating him in blitz chess)
Fischer or Kasparov. Who's the best?
Sort:
the_checkmater wrote:
I think the best player isn't the one who memorizes openings to the first 30 moves and has a computer analyze his games (In other words, out of the two id pick fischer based on his imagination, the fact that he had a streak of 20-0 in the candidates and interzonal and that no one could come close to beating him in blitz chess)
Fischer's truly amazing demolition in match play of the best players in the world on the way to defeating Spassky for the World Championship is more than proof enough for me. Fischer is the best chessplayer that ever touched a pawn!!!!!!
I say this even though Fischer himself declared Morphy the greatest chess genius! Look how rarely Paul Morphy is even mentioned when this subject is discussed ! Possible that it should go Fischer, Morphy Kasparov , Capablanca..
Also agree that had Tal not had health problems( "plus vodhka problems") the potential was there for him to eclipse both the greatest "Fischer" , Kasparov ,Lasker etc......
For longevity and TOP play nobody beats Emanuel Lasker not even David Bronstien. Lasker was playing TOP level at 69 years old.
Also I have as yet to mentioned Akiba Rubinstein. A true chess genius . The greatest endgame player ever! The player that Lasker avoided playing a title match against.
Far TOO many give Paul Keres little credit when this subject is discussed but he was a brilliant player that STAYED a top player for over a quarter century. Kere's games are pure delight to go over but one must do so reading annotations by Bronstien or some other top grandmaster or else much will be missed.
Also given short praise is the amazing Reshevsky . Another certified child prodigy that went on to be among the best in the world.
By the way a fantastic chessbook is -"The Sorcerer's Apprentice" by David Bronstien AND Tom Furstenberg-- Cadogen Chess . This book with Bronstiens annotation's and revelations about behind the scenes events from his career is off the charts fantastic.-SIX
You shouldn't compare players from different eras like this, obviously if we had a time machine and could take kasparov circa 1999 back to 1972 to play Fischer...Kasparov would win simply because chess has progressed since Fischer's day.
The only way to have a clear decision would be to take Kasparov as an infant back in time and expose him to the chess conditions in the 50s...and then have him play Fischer (or on the flipside, take Fischer as a kid and bring him into the 70s so he's around the same age as kasparov). Since none of this is possible there is no point in arguing who is better. I enjoy both of their games and the more pleasant parts of their respective personalities.
Tough question.
"Comparisons are odious"- Oscar Wilde.
Fischer, of course. He became numero uno without the benefit of a Kasparov game or a Kasparov annotation. Kasparov, on the other hand, learned a lot from Fischer and his contemporaries (Spassky, Petrosian, Tahl, Byrne, Botvinnik,Korchnoi, Larsen, Gligoric, etc.)
Cats would make the best chessplayers, but they can't be bothered.
Oh, and anyway, I believe that Fischer was scared of Karpov.
KASPAROV!!!! though my flag is Yugoslavian, I am American, Kasparov's games just impress me much more. No offense to anyones opinion.
I think Kasprov is better player than late Fischer.
Here are career percentages of some of the great players in chess : Bent Larsen 60.9% - Tigran V Petrosian 64%- Y Geller 59.8%- L Aronian 62.7% - V Anand 62.8 % - V Topalov 57.4 % - B Spassky 61.4%- V Kramnik 62.8%- A Karpov 65% , M Tal 65%- G Kasparov 69.4%- R Fischer 72.6 % Nuff said !
I decided to check the internet for some info on Elo rating inflation and came across this site: http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=196540SSSSS3S000000000000111000000000000010100, which tries to rank players according to their historical performance. So if any rating inflation exists (which I still doubt) then this website should clear the problem of comparing player ratings from different generations. The link shows peek performances for each player within certain time periods (1 year, 2, 3, etc.) and according to it - Kasparov's peek rating, for all the categories except the 1 year period, is higher than Fischer's. Surprisingly enough, it also states that Kasparov's 20-year peek averages higher than Fischer's 4-year peek.
Kasparov did not dominate Karpov the way Fischer dominated Spassky. Fischers career % of 72.6 is well above Kaspys 69.4% , however, Alekhine has the top career % at 72.9% and Keres weighs in at 70.2% , which is better than all the world champions but 3 ! Fischer, Alekhine and Capablanca
ketchuplover wrote: KillaBeez wrote:
If you compare the two, you'll find that Kasparov is a little bit better. Yes I think Kasparov and I am American.
ditto!
If Kaspy is better why didnt he beat Petrosian and Spassky? Fischer did, and how !
ketchuplover wrote: Reb wrote: Kasparov did not dominate Karpov the way Fischer dominated Spassky. Fischers career % of 72.6 is well above Kaspys 69.4% , however, Alekhine has the top career % at 72.9% and Keres weighs in at 70.2% , which is better than all the world champions but 3 ! Fischer, Alekhine and Capablanca
Morphy beats all those chaps :)
This is actually true but I didnt include Morphy for several reasons. He wasnt world champion officially, so few games, he played fewer games than Fischer won! Morphy had over 84% career wise which is incredible ! Fischer even said that Morphy was the greatest genius of them all. Tell you what, if you wanna admit Morphy is better than Kaspy and all the others I will too......after all, not only was he American but he was a Southerner too! 
So, career percentage wise the greatest of all time would be : Morphy, Alekhine, Fischer, Capablanca , Keres !! Top 5 all time .
PurpleHaze wrote: rootworm wrote: najdorf wrote: I think Kasparov is a better player.
do you have any reason behind this? let me ask you something... Has Kasparov ever defeated two opponents in back-to-back matches with perfect scores in order to play for the world championship? I think not.
I'll have to go with Kasparov too. On top of the fact that he has a higher Elo and IQ rating than Fischer; he's also the only chess player that I know of who has participated in simuls against GM teams and beat them.
Seriously, are you smoking some crack?! Where are you getting this B.S.? 1) Kasparov's rating is inflated. 2) Fischer's IQ was MUCH higher than Kasparov's. 3) Fisher was one of the first to give simuls against GMs and beat them. I think you need to do some reading before you decide to give your horribly wrong opinion. Would you like for me to give some book names you could read?
Feb 12, 2008
0
#39
I find it hard to believe Kasparov could over come Fischer's dynamics and unpredictability.
The really sad thing, this should most likely be a very easy decision since it's hard to believe we ever saw Fischer in his prime.
Feb 12, 2008
0
#40
rootworm wrote: PurpleHaze wrote: rootworm wrote: najdorf wrote: I think Kasparov is a better player.
do you have any reason behind this? let me ask you something... Has Kasparov ever defeated two opponents in back-to-back matches with perfect scores in order to play for the world championship? I think not.
I'll have to go with Kasparov too. On top of the fact that he has a higher Elo and IQ rating than Fischer; he's also the only chess player that I know of who has participated in simuls against GM teams and beat them.
Seriously, are you smoking some crack?!
That made me chuckle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Haze_%28marijuana%29
I think many of you are overlooking the genius and brilliance of Mikhail Tal in his peak years. Although he never beat kasparov they were generations apart and much like comparing greatness in any field, it is nigh on impossible to compare these two geniuses. You can only compare people with respect to peers of their own generation and using that arguement i would say Lasker, Capablanca, Tal, Fischer and Kasparov were all the greatest players of their respective generations (probably in that chronological order).