Putin? Nicholson?
I was thinking of Tal the Terrible
Fischer vs. Kasparov
Sort:
Fischer all the way, when you look at the games of both Fischer and Kasparov, you notice one thing. Kasparov is a great chess player you can't argue that but when you look at the games Fischer played leading up to the Match with Spassky you are looking at nothing less then perfection and you can't top thatno matter who you are. Kasparov is a great player but Fischer is god when it comes to chess.
Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Capablanca and so many others are all the greatest players of all time. However if you ask Kasparov and Fishcer they will tell you that the greatest of all time was Paul Murphy.
i think ficsher is a better player but he is totally messed up in the head so i really dont know.
Royd wrote: kasparov
im inviting you all to fight with me pls>>>>>>>
Kasparov...
although PETROSIAN is the man
end of discussion
Dec 12, 2007
0
#48
In a 1992 press conference in Yugoslavia, Fircher said (about Morphy):
"A popularly held theory about Paul Morphy is that if he returned to the chess world today and played our best contemporary players, he would come out the loser. Nothing is further from the truth. In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today.
"Perhaps the most accurate player who ever lived, he would beat anybody today in a set-match. He had complete sight of the board and seldom blundered even though he moved quite rapidly. I've played over hundreds of his games and am continually surprised and entertained by his ingenuity.
"Paul Morphy was a great chessplayer, a genius... Morphy, I think everyone agrees, was probably the greatest genius of them all..."
sentiments that echoed those in his 1964 Chessworld article, "The Ten Greatest Players of All Time."
Kasparov, however, while he recognized Morphy's unique place in chess history, would never have included Morphy in such a list.
Morphy, particularly in his later years, suffered from isolated paranoia and exhibited some eccentric behavior but I would hesitate to ever say he went crazy, insane or mad, unless in Emily Dickenson's conception that much madness is divinest sense. You can read about his mental problems here: http://sbchess.sinfree.net/morphybio14.html
It's like asking, who's a better novelist, Dostoevsky or Faulkner? Who knows, they're both the best!
Kasparov was best when he had ample time to study and prepare for his opponent. When he did not have this preparation time/opportunity, he did not fare so well, such as in tournaments, match against deep blue, etc. For all the reasons mentioned above, Fischer seems to me to be clearly the greatest. It is unfortunate that he had so many other eccentricities that distracted people from his true greatness as a player.
IvanK wrote:
It's like asking, who's a better novelist, Dostoevsky or Faulkner? Who knows, they're both the best!
Dostoevsky.
Incommunicado417 wrote:
Sure, I'll throw my completely uneducated opinion in here :
I think if they played each other in their primes Kasparov would have the edge because of the computer tools that Kasparov has had available to him. But I believe that Fischer was the better chess player.
Having been drawn into chess during the Fischer era, it makes me sad to think of all the good Bobby could have done for the game of chess (beyond what he did accomplish) had he not slipped off the deep end.
Just my two cents.
You give Kaspy the edge?
Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that many of Kaspy's brilliant games are the results of using other brilliant players 's discoveries. He had a chess team of brilliant masters and grandmasters working with him for many years.He used a great many of thier discoveries which made him look even greater!
That is not the case for Fischer. Fischer used his own stuff. What a brain .Even Capa fails against Fischer's brilliance. Tal, Morphy , Capa,Rubenstein, Alekhine,Charousek, Keres , Botvinnik, Bronstein, Lasker, the 3 K'S and all fail short when compared to Fischer! In short Robert James Fischer was as close to a chess god as mankind will ever see ...
Only TAL approaches Fischer in chess ability. Tal drank too much or maybe we would have seen him take the greatest spot..-SIX
What do we know? what is our opinion worth?
How could Capablanca use a computer when he was World Champion 30 years before the computer was invented?
Anyhoo, I'd throw my weight behind Kasparov but Fischer is undeniably one of the greatest too.
Puc_7 wrote:
Being someone who doesent have the greatest chess history knowledge. I would lilke to know some opinions on who was the better of the two well known grandmasters.
Bobby Fischer he was a natural Chess Player like Jose Capablanca and Paul Morphy pure fighting machine best of his generation.
Which of the legends ever won 20 in a row against fellow GMs ? Which of them won any major event with 100% score? Which of them ever shut out another top 10 player with 100% , how about doing this twice?! Oh, and which legend actually lost rating points by winning the world championship ? I know one ( and only one) who did ALL these things ! Fischer's record clearly speaks for itself.
Jan 8, 2009
0
#58
I contend that Fischer dominated his peers more so than Kasparov dominated his peers.
I further believe that Kasparov is the better player, if only because the increasing natural progression of talent.
Jan 8, 2009
0
#59
Easy, Kasparov would win because Bobby is dead. :)
If Bobby were alive, I'll simply quote Kasparov, "It wouldn't be close between us."
Now, considering them both in their prime...I'd STILL say Kasparov would win...but I'm a doofus 1600 player so what the heck do I know. :D
Reb wrote:
Which of the legends ever won 20 in a row against fellow GMs ? Which of them won any major event with 100% score? Which of them ever shut out another top 10 player with 100% , how about doing this twice?! Oh, and which legend actually lost rating points by winning the world championship ? I know one ( and only one) who did ALL these things ! Fischer's record clearly speaks for itself.
This is a bit forced... yes, I suppose if you cherry pick Fischer's accomplishments and ignore the accomplishments of others it's all very clear isn't it? But all of these truly impressive accomplishments happen within the space of what, two years? Less? Fischer's peak was quite sharp, but if staying power counts for anything you have to downgrade Fischer's score a bit. Of course, you can (and no doubt will) still maintain that Fischer was the best ever, plenty of people do... but please drop this combatitve attitude that there's no room for argument -- there's plenty of room for argument -- it seems to me that most people who look at all the data come away saying Kasparov's career outshines Fischer's, by a wide margin.
Jeff Sonas of Chessmetrics.com has put together a wonderful overview of the question who was "The Great Chess Player of All Time" -- Sonas is trying to be as objective as possible, using all data available. In my opinion Morphy probably doesn't get his due simply because there's isn't enough quality data to evaluate Morphy properly... but that's not Sonas' fault, and otherwise it's an great look at the question. I'm surprised Capablanca doesn't seem to contest for the #1 spot very strongly. I'm pleasantly surprised to see that Lasker *(my favorite 'legend') is really a more legit candidate for "best ever" than I'd realized. He dominated in remarkable ways.
It seems clear, datawise, that Fischer had the greatest chess year ever, by a rather wide margin... but the best career is a different question.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2345
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2354
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2372
http://www.chessbase.com/newsprint.asp?newsid=2409
Sure, I'll throw my completely uneducated opinion in here
:
I think if they played each other in their primes Kasparov would have the edge because of the computer tools that Kasparov has had available to him. But I believe that Fischer was the better chess player.
Having been drawn into chess during the Fischer era, it makes me sad to think of all the good Bobby could have done for the game of chess (beyond what he did accomplish) had he not slipped off the deep end.
Just my two cents.