Imo #1 fischer, #2 kasparov, #3 karpov
Fischer was a one-hit-wonder..!
Sort:
Monster_with_no_Name wrote:
Bobby was an awesome player *but* the problem with guys like him is:
As long as he is at the top, everything is fine... as soon as others overtake him he stops playing and making excuses
"chess is played out, its all openning prep" etc
Fischer is a baby just like Nick Diaz in MMA.. he cant wrestle.. so he calls wrestling "gay"
Gelfand is like that as well... except his thing is computers... computers this, computers that ,computers are destroying chess... all the while ignoring his priveledge of attending the soviet chess school which only a handful of people get. Computers everyone has equal access to
but Karpov didnt overtake him so you argument is absolutly meaningless.
Right now, Carlsen is probably the King of Chess. Carlsen, Aronian and Kramnik would beat Kasparov, Karpov or Fischer at their best, am I wrong?
Aetheldred wrote:
Right now, Carlsen is probably the King of Chess. Carlsen, Aronian and Kramnik would beat Kasparov, Karpov or Fischer at their best, am I wrong?
That is an impossible thing to say but i would Say Fischer would still beat everyone, about the rest i dont know.
I mean if everyone had time to prepare for the others, i would definetly go with Fischer.
>Karpov was WAY more dominant than Kasparov.<
This is an exceptionally contrarian view. I doubt you'll get many takers on it.
>Carlsen, Aronian and Kramnik would beat Kasparov, Karpov or Fischer at their best, am I wrong? <
You are wrong.
The Masked Bishop's Top Five Chess Players of All Time:
1) Bobby Fischer
2) Garry Kasparov
3) Emanuel Lasker
4) Jose Capablanca
5) Anatoly Karpov
[COMMENT DELETED]
The Masked Bishop's Second Top Five Chess Players of All Time:
6) Mikhail Botvinnik
7) Alexander Alekhine
8) Vladimir Kramnik
9) Viswanathan Anand
10) Paul Morphy
Psalm25 wrote:
Where's the evidence that Fischer was stingy and selfish?
He was stingy with his chess skills - he was the best at the time and he robbed the world of the chance to see anything more. That is selfish in respect to the world of chess (players and other GM's that wanted to play him).
Cowardly, because his ego was probably so tied up with being "World Champion" that he refused to give anyone another go.
His behaviour before and after winning could be understood by an average six year old. He won, and now he doesn't want to play anymore. Simple, and pathetic.
If Anand holds against Carlsen, he moves to number 8. It's hard to put active players on lists like this, since we don't have the benefit of history to evaluate their place in the overall game.
However, it seemed churlish to exclude the two dominant players of our era (Krammy and Vishy) just because they are active...and give those spots to players like Spassky or Bronstein or whomever.
Aetheldred wrote:
Right now, Carlsen is probably the King of Chess. Carlsen, Aronian and Kramnik would beat Kasparov, Karpov or Fischer at their best, am I wrong?
Aronian who? Ahaha, that's getting funny. Karpov and Kasparov in this order will still be better than anyone even 50 from now...
Marion Tinsley (February 3, 1927 – April 3, 1995) is considered the greatest checkers player who ever lived. He was world champion from 1955–1958 and 1975–1991. Tinsley never lost a World Championship match, and lost only seven games (two of them to the Chinook computer program) in his entire 45 year career.[1] He withdrew from championship play during the years 1958–1975, relinquishing the title during that time.
In one game, Chinook, playing with white pieces, made a mistake on the tenth move. Tinsley remarked, "You're going to regret that." Chinook resigned after move 36, fully 26 moves later. The lead programmer Schaeffer looked back into the database and discovered that Tinsley picked the only strategy that could have defeated Chinook from that point and Tinsley was able to see the win 64 moves into the future. [2][3]
Could Bobby do that ^^^ No, and he was not nice to people either and said some hurtful things. Dr Marion was a true gent and the best in the world from 1940s up to when he died in 1995.
No one could touch Dr Marion.
Fischer might have been the best - but he did not do this. The best can maintain their performance in the face of change. Bobby was a one hit wonder to some extent.
My list is pretty much supported by historical ratings/performance charts, influence on the development of the game, length of career, quality of opponents, and general awesomeness of play.
The difference is in the details...do you slot Gazza over Bobby? Capa over Lasker? Botvinnik over Alekhine? Those are personal choices.
You realise checkers =/= chess?
Scottrf wrote:
You realise checkers =/= chess?
I recently read that if a computer could solve checkers in one nanoseconds (which they can't - and not all imperfect positions have been assessed anyway), then it would take the same computer 300 years to "solve" chess.
300 years does not sound long. But a nonsecond is one billionth of a second. One nanosecond is to one second as one second is to 31.7 years!
Number of positions in checkers is 500 Billion Billion (10e20). Whereas in Chess it is immeasurable 10e40 to 10e50.
http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4003997
The main thing is that Dr Marion never showed any fear of his opponents, and lost only 7 games in 45 years - 2 of those to the Chinook computer.
Fischer did not do anything like this - he might of ended up like another Naseem Hamed or Mike Tyson had he continued.
GreedyPawnGrabber wrote:
maskedbishop wrote:
These three [Fischer, Kasparov, Lasker] are likely the Top Three of Chess. Arguing which is Number One is harder, since they represent different times.
LoL, Kasparov dominated the chess world between 1993 and 2000. Before that it was a battle for life with Karpov and Kasparov barely managed to defend his title. Saying that he dominated the chess world and picking up Fischer and Lasker is ridiculous. Karpov was WAY more dominant than Kasparov. When there was no Kasparov Karpov was unbeatable and when Kasparov became challenger and subsequently champion Karpov was not dominated - he played as equal with him..
*lol* Karpov's peek ELO was 2780 (July 1994)! He never ever surpased Fischer's 2785 in 1972! 
If you then take ELO inflation into account Fischer was by far stronger than Karpov! 
And for Emanuel Lasker 30 years strongest tournament player. Let's simply take the percentage of won tournaments - Lasker is far above Karpov!
You could also argue: Karpov would have never become WC had Fischer continued his way. Or had Carlsen be there ... History is like it was!
Fischer was WC #11, Karpov #12, Kasparov #13 and so on ...
PIRATCH wrote:
*lol* Karpov's peek ELO was 2780 (July 1994)! He never ever surpased Fischer's 2785 in 1972! If you then take ELO inflation into account Fischer was by far stronger than Karpov!
And for Emanuel Lasker 30 years strongest tournament player. Let's simply take the percentage of won tournaments - Lasker is far above Karpov!
You could also argue: Karpov would have never become WC had Fischer continued his way. Or had Carlsen be there ... History is like it was!
Fischer was WC #11, Karpov #12, Kasparov #13 and so on ...
ELO? What ELO? What does ELO mean when we are talking about Karpov? It's getting more and more funny. Fischer's and Kasparov's fanboys don't get tired making fool of themselves.
hese three are likely the Top Three of Chess. Arguing which is Number One is harder, since they represent different times.
LoL, Kasparov dominated the chess world between 1993 and 2000. Before that it was a battle for life with Karpov and Kasparov barely managed to defend his title. Saying that he dominated the chess world and picking up Fischer and Lasker is ridiculous. Karpov was WAY more dominant than Kasparov. When there was no Kasparov Karpov was unbeatable and when Kasparov became challenger and subsequently champion Karpov was not dominated - he played as equal with him..