Fischer vs. Kasparov

So that's why Capablanca was known as 'the chess machine'!

 The match between Kasparov and Kramnik is "questionable" to say the least !  Kasparov has never lost a game to Shirov who beat Kramnik in a match, Kramnik not winning a single game. Kasparov also beat Anand convincingly in a match yet Anand destroys Kramnik, surely I am not the only one who sees the Kramnik/Kasparov match as highly suspicious ? Another suspicious factor is that Kramnik never gave Kasparov a rematch AND spent the rest of Kasparov's career avoiding Kasparov !

 Kramnik and Kasparov are friends though, he simply retired from Chess.

Also I think it is very unlikely that Kasparov would play the Soviet chess system like that.

I think that the question has to be defined more clearly. Who had the highest level of play? Kasparov, largely because he came later and could study all the developments before him. But using that logic, Anand may be better than both, and the current top programs most certainly are. But is the question who would win without having been able to study at all, i.e. who is more talented? There are a couple of problems in figuring this out, i.e. Fischer studied like mad just as Kasparov did, and if you want to pit them against each other in, say Chess960, there are further developments beyond just openings that Kasparov could have studied. This question, which could perhaps be rephrased as who was more ahead of his time, is a much harder one, bt it also brings other people into the mix. Morphy? Capablanca? Steinitz? Pillsbury? Philidor? Botvinnik? Lasker? It's really very hard to say.

There is no logic. Reb has an undying love for Fischer and a rabid hatred for Kramnik.  

 I do not love Fischer, I never met the man. I do admire his chess though and what he did for chess, especially US chess. As for Kramnik , I also dont hate him, I just dont like him and find his games boring and his approach to chess cowardly. I dont like him because he didnt qualify to play Kasparov, Shirov did, yet Kramnik played him. Another reason is he never gave Kasparov a rematch and avoided playing Kasparov anymore after he won their match, even withdrawing from at least one Russian championship he had already entered after Kasparov also entered.

Correct me if I'm wrong but when Capablanca was alive there were no computers as we know them. Give credit where credit is due!

BTW Capablanca translates to White Cape.

Fischer was the greatest player of all time. Kasparov was second. Humphrey Bogart third, and Mikhail Tal fourth. Capablanca and Alekhine I believe are tied for fifth. Jerry Seinfeld sixth. Linda Fiorentino a clear seventh. Emanuel Lasker eighth. Ninth place is currently vacant for no good reason. Tenth place is up for sale by Governor Blagoiovich (however you spell his name). Fide is auctioning off the next 90 places for the top 100.

I am amazed at all the Kasparov supporters that IGNORE the well known fact that much of his play was ideals/plans found for him by his "chess team". He had a team of other fantastic top chess analysts/masters researching for many many years with him. Also Fischer defeated not just Spassky but the entire Soviet chess machine! That was even greater than him winning against Spassky in th championship match.

Such demolishing of the then world's best has never been done before or since.

For many it is hard to give Fischer his due for many reasons.

THE BEST EVER WAS ROBERT JAMES FISCHER.

After that you guys can debate on second place going to Capa, Lasker ,Alekhine, Morphy,Rubinstien,Botvinik,Bronstien,Kasp, Karp, Kram ,Anand etc...--SIXGUNS

 I agree with Sixguns. Bobby was the best, ever. His accomplishments were amazing and his play unequalled. That he had no chess machine to train him makes his ability even more amazing. He didn't even have players in his own country to provide adequate challenge. Yet he rose like a Phoenix.

His faults are another issue.

though since Capablanca was in the late 1800's and the early 1900 i must say it would have been a worthlessly slow computer!!!!

 In my opinion Fischer had been the best player ever because:

1) He's a natural talent, maybe the greatest natural talent ever (others: Capablanca, Pillsbury, Reshewsky, Talj, Morphy - Almost all americans, curious thing!...).

2) He did all by itself, Kasparov had a team of seconds and in his late career the possibility of using databases and chess engines.

3) Probably Fischer played 1/10 games than Kasparov but, if you think, how many games of Fischer do you immediately can remember and how many of Kasparov?

4) Fischer truly had an entire nation USSR against him and clearly beated it.

5) Don't remember the value of Fischer battles for professional play! Instead, what Kasparov caused?

Greetings to all! Lorenzo

Sorry,

5) Don't forget the value of Fischer battles for professional play...

sic - my poor english...

I saw an old interview WITH bobby and he did not claim to HAVE understanding but in the interview on video he claimed to study and try anything and everything until he found something unexpected so when he went to tournament he would surprise them with something they weren't ready for! and when he ran out of unexpected replys or if everyone figured out responses to his game then he would run off and study some more. This is the same as any GM would do. Kasparov's ElO rating is in the 2900 range and Bobby's the 2600 range, Bobby said any female player was like playing a beginner and there isn't a female that could beat him even if he took both of his knights of the board, he was arrogant because he became a GM at age 18 but not to far latter Judit Polgar became GM at age 15 stealing Bobby's title of youngest GM ever!!! Judit's ELO rating is in the 2700-2800 range.

 Actually , Bobby made GM at age 15, the youngest ever to do so, at the time. Todays ratings are inflated by 100 points , some say more , some say less, but there's no doubt that ratings today are inflated.

Fischer was no more born with natural tallent than any other GM Bobby went to chess classes and had a chess teacher that beat him all the time Bobby read books and studied and memorized and worked his freak'n little kid butt off because his parents paid for him to go to chess classes. He is good because he worked just like anyone reading this post could get better if they work harder and memorize and study like Bobby did, he BECAME a GM it wasn't born to him. He loved it which is why he TRIED to understand it. Same as every GM. 

sorry you are right! Judit Polgar beat bobby by a whole month! but the point is that people are so caught up on his name because he was advertised on tv and the government used him as a political media tool and so few others get recognized like K. Humpy age 15 Peter Leko age 14 Etienne Bacrot age 14 RPonomariov age 14 T. Radjabov age 14 Bu Xiangzhi age 13 M. Carlsen age 13 Sergey Karjakin age 12 

And don't forget our liitle champion Fabiano Caruana GM at the age of 14...

On www.chessmetrics.com some crazy people calculated the elo rating of all the players of the history of chess based on actual calculations so, let see that Fischer touched, altough for a little, before to disappear () the highest elo rating ever: 2893!! if I well remember... Kasparov stood around 2850-80, but for years...

Then... who have had won in an hypotetic match Fischer-Karpov in 1975? My opinion: Fischer in 1975, Karpov the rematch.

pastoryoshi: I don't think it matters how much I study chess, I'll never get as good as Fischer was. This might be due in part to having started later, and not having had lessons, but I'm sure there are lots of people in the world who do play obsessively and are trained as much as you like, who never get anywhere near Fischer's level. So, to say his success wasn't down to talent is a little...wrong, in my opinion.