Fischer vs. Kasparov

Even Fischer admitted that out of all the old grandmaster games he studied, he was most impressed by Capablanca. Also in an analysis of old games by all of the greatest players, it was determined that Capablanca's moves were the most perfect/correct. I say that Capablanca was the greatest chess genius ever, in a time before lots of study material was available.

In the Fischer vs Kasparov debate, I would have to say that it is a draw, they are both insanely good.

People are born with the great talent or not. If they don't, no matter what your chess coach tells you and how much you work, you will not become Fisher, Kasparov, Tal, Capablanca, Morphy, etc. Don't tell me that modern crap, that anybody can be super-GM. Take Magnus Carlsen - don't you think he has a great natural talent?  In his 17 he plays endgames like Capablanca. So, he will be the world champion, not somebody just working his ass off. Of course, talent should be multiplied  by work, but work without talent? By the way, Fisher worked much more than anybody else, chess was everything for him. I am not even his fan, never was, but I listened to super-GM Mark Taimanov many years ago and he knew Fisher (he lost to him 0:6) and that's what he said about him.

Fischer studied around 10 hours a day. Even without "natural talent" Im sure he would still have been one of the top GM's. Im still not even sure if he had natural talent. I wonder how you would go about proving such a thing..

 Without natural talent one doesnt become world champion, I dont care how much you work. He not only became world champion but is arguably the greatest ever.

 Well one certaintly cant be a dunce, but still with that much work put into it I could see most anybody becoming one of the top if not the top GM.

It would be quite a challenge to even equal someone who is a genius at the game and also works hard, like Anand or Kasparov, if you don't also have a motherlode of talent yourself.

Phelan - you too think that studying 10 hours a day will make you super-GM, it will not. Every top GM has a natural talent, otherwise he will not be there. Can you imagine musician without talent ( playing hundreds of hours) being top world piano performer?

Regarding Fisher - After the World Speed Chess championship at Hercegnovi, Yugoslavia, in 1970, "Fischer rattled off the scores of all his twenty-two games, involving more than 1,000 moves, from memory!". Do you remember any of your blitz games at all? Do you think studying 10 hours per day will make you to be able calculate like Kasparov or see combinations like Tal or feel the position like Petrosian or Botvinnik, or play the endgame like Capablanca or Smyslov ?

Nice points. I just felt like quoting it. It gives a bigger picture and doesn't nit-pick on their records against specific players.

 YES!!

 Yes I think if I studied intensely for 10 hours a day for a number of years I could become one of the greatest GM's in the world today. I think a lot of people could, but not many have the time or the perseverance to do such a thing.

and yes I can remember most of the moves I played in an OTB tournament last month from memory, but it wasnt blitz. I can remember the opening and some of the key positions in blitz games I have played here on chess.com but I think i would remember them better if I played them OTB.

I think that, in a way, Kasparov proved his greatness in ways Fischer didn't. He competed for a large number of years and, for a long time, beat everything that was thrown at him. He was consistently the greatest around for a very long time. He hated losing probably as much as anyone, and had a mind like a computer. Fischer never proved that he had that kind of consistency.

...But, at the same time, Fischer's competitive instincts were so inhumanly powerful that I think in a match against Kasparov, he would have found a way to shred him to pieces.

Phelan - you would have a little chance to become one of the  “greatest GM's in the world” if you were ~2200 (not here, of course, ELO J ) now, and you were <15 years old. Since you have long rating of 1633 here,  I would love to know how much time it will take you to get to 2000 ELO, then to 2100, then to 2200, then (even by some miracle you would get there) you will stop. Don’t bet your life on chess, there are many other things paying off much better on the time investment.

Isn't it said that Fischer had the best hardware, but Kasparov had the best software (i.e. preparation and study habits)?

also, on a side note, my great uncle played against Fischer and gave him the worst advice he ever gave anyone.  Fischer was 12 or 13 at the time, and my uncle was in his early 20s in the NYC chess clubs.  What he said was, "you're obviously a really bright guy, so don't devote your life to chess.  It's an impossible career, and you can make greater contributions elsewhere"

lol at my uncle (he's the first to admit that that was the worst advice he ever gave anyone)

 Im actually 16 but I just started getting back into chess. I stopped playing when I got into highschool when I was 14. I just played in my first OTB tournament in 2 years, this last december.

Im not looking to spend all my time playing chess. I just want to become a NM before I grow old and wrinkled .

Phelan - the goal of becoming NM is pretty real if you are just 16, good luck with that.

 Can you paste in the links to those sites you alluded to please.

I suspect BF was a little better if you compare them at their peak...if BF had grown up in a country where his passion could have been channelled at an early age, along with fellow chess players, he may well have been even stronger...both psychologically & as a player.

For natural chess strength you have to say Capablanca was #1 of all time. I mean, he didn't even have to try hard against anyone < 2600. Even the mighty Alekhine was too scared to play him after their big match.

This is a very tough question to answer.I like the both of them both of them were great at every aspect of the chess game.Fischer was a genius when it came to chess he just dominated everything.Kasparov was a mastermind beating computers and staying champion for many years.I would have to give it to garry kasparov just because he has stayed world champion for so many years.But only by a little bit is kasparov better fischer is very close just not close enough.

what you just said i agree with totally and you prove my point, he worked harder than most other GMs and he earned his reward, it was not just some natural born thing handed to him on a silver platter! Of course he was born with certain potential and it was his own choice to apply it to chess. All the other GMs also had been born with a potential level that they applied to chess, like Josh Watkins who applied it to chess and now has switched it to martial arts! talent is a combination of potential AND work AND choice of what to apply it to. I don't believe that anyone who works harder than Bobby will play better than Bobby but i frown on the miss conception that he just skipped passed a chess board one day and peeked over at it said "Oh what is that? How interesting! it looks like a fun game and if you move this piece there then it will be a forced checkmate in 21 moves unless your opponent makes a blunder." The truth is that he worked hard and studied with all his time. Too often people think that all the other masters had to work for it and Bobby didn't have to try. But i still think that anyone on this website who reads the same books as Bobby and has a chess teacher to help them get started with a good foundation and spends 10 hours every day checking out every possible move and practicing them against other very good players can at the very least reach a regional master rating especially if they start at age 7.

Kasparov also played against IBM's super computer Deep Blue (which i believe had every one of bobby's recorded games programed into it) and Kaspy shreded it to pieces.