Fischer vs. Kasparov

I agree.  I think he practically brought the importance of it out for all to see.  I bet his database even from the 90's would be interesting to look at.  Botvinnik would have been proud.  My point with Fischer though was he was pretty OCD and didn't have any interests really beyond Chess, sort of like those savants you see that are extremely good at something but totally lost in other areas.  I also don't think he had nearly as high of an IQ people claim, but he did love his Chess.

I guess so technically, though I see very few differences.

*rubs temples*
*exhales sharply*

Kind of ironic though Fezzik, because even though I do think Fischer was the best - I still like Spassky better.  He was a gentleman, soft spoken, and honest.  He really took alot of torment from Fischer but gave back nothing but "love" it seemed like.  He really saved Fischer's ass alot.  For example, he could have retained World Champion in '72 by refusing to play in the backroom for game 3.   I seem to recall an interview of him saying he could have beat Fischer in a game in the 1992 match, but didn't think it would be good press so he purposefully made a less than stellar move during one of his games because he felt Fischer might stop playing at one point if he lost another game.  Then you have his letter to the President offering to to go to prison with Fischer due to the sanctions that Fischer violated, something like "Put us in the same cell and give us a chess board", which Fischer immediately shot down with "I don't want to be in a cell with him", LOL!  Spassky really liked Fischer, whereas I think Fischer only kind of liked Spassky, who was once quoted as calling him his "Frienemy".

There's some more but those are what I can think of off the top of my head, Spassky was a great guy.  So how's that for "nationalism".  ;-P

While pursuing Fischer, I took a liking to Spassky.  And while pursuing Kasparov, I actually took a liking to Karpov.  Somewhat odd perhaps, but that's how it's gone for me.

 Bobby was speaking Russian when he was 10. In fact a Russian Chess magazine, dated 1953 with Bobby's name on it, sold for a lot of money at a recent auction.  Bobby was also learning French, German, Spanish and Portuguese from his mother who spoke these languages fluently. When Kasparov was 10 do you think he was reading English? He probably was---because of BOBBY FISCHER!  Who was his hero!

Kasparov is the best chess player of all times.

I found Tal charismatic but never Fischer. The things the latter often said about women, Russians, Jews, cheating opponents, etc, didn't make him look sympathetic. He repeated such stuff more than a decade before becoming World Champion. If Fischer hadn't been good at chess people would have liked him less and criticised him more, while a Tal that was the worst chess player in the world still would have been a charismatic person it would have been easy to like.

I agree.

(Oh, what the hey.)

  With both in their primes, I'd bet on Fischer, IF you could get him to play a tournament without balking.

  But I think Lasker or Capablanca would have schooled them both.  

A lot of people believe that Fischer and Kasparov were the greatest 2 players of all time, but I disagree.

Kasparov was the greatest chess player of all times, with a whopping elo rating of 2851.

Fischer was probably amongst the top 10 of all time, and was the best in the world for his time, but he lost many games too, and would never have stood a chance against Kasparov in his peak form or the Anand we know today.

To be honest, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Fischer was an American prodigy and the USA pretty much owns the global media. Morphy was regarded as one of the greatest chess players of all times too, but do you really think he was that much better than Alekhine or Capablanca?

Just ask yourself this: If Fischer was Russian, would he still be as famous as Kasparov? I don't think so. Infact, I think he would be even less famous than Karpov, Anand and Morozevich.

I guess it had nothing to do with any of the following : 

Fischer is the only player EVER to win two major matches ( Taimanov & Larsen ) with 100 % ! 

Fischer is the only player to ever win a major tournament ( US Closed Championship ) with 100 % ! 

Fischer is the only player ever to LOSE rating points by winning the world championship !  

Before Fischer Spassky won about $300. when he won the world championship against Petrosian in 1969 !  Fischer is the one who brought serious money to chess, before him they played for peanuts.  

I could go on an on but I think you should get the picture by now...... 

Let me clarify .... Fischer is the only Challenger to beat the world champion for the world championship and lose rating points doing so...... 

Fischer played one single title match and won 12.5-8.5 against a Spassky past his peak. If he had been Russian he would maybe have been remembered as one of the ten greatest, but I don't think anyone would compare him with Lasker and Kasparov based on a couple of good years 1970-72. Tal also won 12.5-8.5 in his first title match, Karpov scored 14-1 against Spassky, etc, and scored top results 20 years later.

I dont know how anyone could consider Spassky past his peak in 1972 when he won the Soviet/USSR championship in 1973 !?  Karpov also played in the 73 championship but finished behind Spassky. If you think Fischer only had a couple of good years you obviously don't know much about him and his career...... Also, in the 80s Spassky came first in a Linares tournament with Karpov playing and Karpov was the reigning WC during the event. Spassky was certainly NOT past his peak in 1972. 

Spassky was at his best in the 1960s, as he himself has said. It's just to look at his results, he crushed all opposition in the matches he played in 1968-69, and that was some strong opponents he faced back then. Chessmetrics have him at his highest rating in November 1962 and July 1969. That he won a strong tournament in 1973 and another in 1983 doesn't mean that he was at his best then, but he was still good enough to win something now and then.

In 1973 Spassky also played in Amsterdam (top three: Planinc, Petrosian, Kavalek), Tallinn (Tal won with +9, Spassky scored +3), Chigorin Memorial (Tal won), and in his first tournament in 1974 he was far behind Kavalek and Polugaevsky. Spassky was a great player but he was no longer at his best when he played Fischer (or Karpov, 1-14 in wins against the latter).

So you are telling me a Spassky almost 2 decades past his peak has an even score against Kasparov ?!  How can this be ?  

Have not Spassky coached K&K? 
Tal refers to Spassky (and Botvinnik) as to god of arena, same do Kasparov. Further, both authors abhor Fisher (as person) and make strong critics on his games.

Petrosian also had an even score thanks to some games against a teenage Kasparov, but Spassky and Petrosian were great players also when they were past their peak.

All I've heard so far was "Fischer won xxx closed tournament and lost rating points so therefore he is the best!" Well guess what? I can name about 50 different grandmasters who have all done unique things in the chess community which no other player had ever done. I mean, look at Alexander Alekhine for example. He won the world championship match 12-0. Think about Giaccino Grego. He beat a grandmaster in 8 moves!!!

The reason a rating system was invented was so that you could compare one person to another when they had never played each other or had the same achievements as each other, and as far as I'm concerned, Fischer's rating wasn't even close to Kasparov's.

And don't bring "rating inflation" into this. The reason rating appeared to "inflate" was because there are more grandmasters nowadays than there were 50 years ago. In general, people are becoming better at chess, and with all the new technology and software, it's not a surprise.

I give Fischer credit for doing so well in such a primitive world, and he would probably have been so much better had he have been born 50 years later, but as he was at his peak compared to Kasparov at his peak, Fischer would have lost.

Alekhine won 12-0 in which world championship and who was his opponent ?  This is simply NOT true. 

G Greco may have beaten someone in 8 moves but it certainly could NOT have been a GM since the title didnt even exist in his day . 

Fischers best of 2785 isnt even close to 2851 ?  I guess that depends on one's definition of "close ". In any event Fischer would surely have broken 2800 as well had he continued playing ... but he didn't. 

Why not bring rating inflation ?  I think it does exist as I simply do NOT believe that every 2700+ GM today is better than Spassky was at his best rating of 2680. Do you ? 

Fischer also had a streak of 20 wins against all GMs !  What's Kasparovs longest win streak against GMs ?  Does anyone even know ?