Tal thought that the greatest champion was Lasker, and I agree with that.
If Fischer would played Karpov for the World Champion, who would win?
Sort:
Really? The two K's as superior? Okay. I can dig that, in hindsight. (Although I'm not as late into this convo as you think, SS)
As it is, although Karpov's always been a straight shooter, you can hardly say that about Garry. Have at that.
Sports_Suck_2014 wrote:
Reb wrote:
Since I am one who considers Fischer the greatest player ever I will point out that I dont do so based ONLY on his one WC victory but also in the manner of his victory and dominance . He won 20 games straight against all GMs and won two candidates matches with perfect 6-0 scores . No other player has EVER accomplished such a feat in chess before or since Fischer . It is also likely that had he continued to play he would have become even stronger since he was 29 in 1972 and it seems most top players reach their peak in their 30s .
Here's one example. You not only consider Fischer the best on what he did, you even add in WHAT HE MIGHT HAVE DONE! Add to this that everytime someone gives factual information showing it's unlikely that Fischer is the greatest, you start saying, "end the hate", "stop hating". So one may infer that you are 'sure' Fischer is the greatest because you consider any rational arguement to the contrary as "haters hating."
You do understand that " consider " and "imo " and I " know " don't all mean the same thing ? Like everyone else I have an opinion , that doesnt mean I " know " . Karpov never even equaled Fischer's top rating of 2785 , even though he continued playing for decades after Fischer quit . The great Kasparov played a match against Kramnik in which he couldnt win a single game . I cannot even imagine anyone that Fischer couldnt win a game against in a match . Fischer won 20 games in a row against all GMs , whats Kasparovs record number of wins against all GMs ?
Reb wrote:
Sports_Suck_2014 wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
Sports_Suck_2014 Wrote:
Reb wrote:
Anyone who is " sure " that Karpov would have beaten Fischer in 75 is simply showing their ignorance of chess ...
Anyone who is "sure" that Fischer is the greatest of all time is simply showing their ignorance of chess...
I rather believe in a National master Red than a non-master. BTW in this thread a FIDE master said Fischer would of won and Kasparov said Fischer would won in 1975. Maybe you can explain why two masters and world champion Kasparov thought Fischer would of won in 1975 but you think Karpov would beat Fischer.
Ho hum... I never said Karpov would have won in 1975. I explicitly said I gave a slight advantage to Fischer in 1975 and Karpov in 1978 in one of my first posts on this topic...I even went into detail about how Karpov's lack of endurance in his youth would have been the deciding factor.
What I was pointing out in the above post is that Reb's 'sureness' that Fischer is the greatest of all time is just as irrational as the person who is 'sure" Karpov would have beaten Fischer in 75. In other words, Reb had no good arguement in pointing out that the person who is 'sure' that Karpov would have won because Reb himself was being just as irrational as the person he was degrading. I'm pretty sure Reb understood my point because he never responded, nor has he made any more comments like that.
I challenge you to point out any post of mine in which I have ever claimed that I " know " Fischer is the greatest of all time . Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension ?
I already answered this around 7 or 8 posts above this post. However, I will say this...first of all Reb, when you criticise someone for their supposed lack of reading comprehension, you shouldn't change a quotation from 'sure' to 'know' in the criticism, it makes you look ignorant.
Aug 13, 2014
0
#1026
Sports_Suck_2014 wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
Sports_Suck_2014 wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
Fischer was the sitting champion in 1975, had achieved the highest rating of all time (to that point), as well as the highest performance ratings against Taimanov and Larsen.
Furthermore, Reb was a contemporary of Fischer, though a few years younger. We all studied his games.
Karpov, on the other hand, was still rather young, and later admitted he would have been the underdog in 1975.
There is nothing irrational about that.
The irrational part is being 'sure' he was the greatest of all time. Try to keep up.
LOLZ, what a dolt.
How can I take seriously Pee-Wee Herman in drag with a fruit basket on his head?
LOLZ! You lose, sonny.
Again SS, who is this team that helped Fischer in 1959, 1962, 2967? Wow. Most be an awesome collaboration which hasn't ever (never) been mentioned before that you know of. Kudos.
(Oops. "1967". Sorry)
JamieDelarosa wrote:
Sports_Suck_2014 wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
Fischer was the sitting champion in 1975, had achieved the highest rating of all time (to that point), as well as the highest performance ratings against Taimanov and Larsen.
Furthermore, Reb was a contemporary of Fischer, though a few years younger. We all studied his games.
Karpov, on the other hand, was still rather young, and later admitted he would have been the underdog in 1975.
There is nothing irrational about that.
The irrational part is being 'sure' he was the greatest of all time. Try to keep up.
LOLZ, what a dolt.
I'm growing tired of arguing with two senior citizens with erectile dysfunction of their micropenises and i.q.'s in the double digits. I think I'll just walk away as the winner of the discussion.
Aug 13, 2014
0
#1030
Spiritbro77 wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
Sports_Suck_2014 Wrote:
Reb wrote:
Anyone who is " sure " that Karpov would have beaten Fischer in 75 is simply showing their ignorance of chess ...
Anyone who is "sure" that Fischer is the greatest of all time is simply showing their ignorance of chess...
I rather believe in a National master Red than a non-master. BTW in this thread a FIDE master said Fischer would of won and Kasparov said Fischer would won in 1975. Maybe you can explain why two masters and world champion Kasparov thought Fischer would of won in 1975 but you think Karpov would beat Fischer.
I read Kasparov's book on Fischer and he wrote he believed Karpov would have won in 75. Not that it means anything really. They didn't play so NO ONE knows for sure. But Kasparov did write he thought Karpov would have won. Peace
From the Wall Street Journal, 19 July 2004, by Gary Kasparov
"Despite his short stay at the top there is little to debate about the chess of Bobby Fischer. He changed the game in a way that hadn't been seen since the late 19th century. The gap between Mr. Fischer and his contemporaries was the largest ever. He singlehandedly revitalized a game that had been stagnating under the control of the Communists of the Soviet sports hierarchy."
Aug 13, 2014
0
#1031
Sports_Suck_2014 wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
Sports_Suck_2014 wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
Fischer was the sitting champion in 1975, had achieved the highest rating of all time (to that point), as well as the highest performance ratings against Taimanov and Larsen.
Furthermore, Reb was a contemporary of Fischer, though a few years younger. We all studied his games.
Karpov, on the other hand, was still rather young, and later admitted he would have been the underdog in 1975.
There is nothing irrational about that.
The irrational part is being 'sure' he was the greatest of all time. Try to keep up.
LOLZ, what a dolt.
I'm growing tired of arguing with two senior citizens with erectile dysfunction of their micropenises and i.q.'s in the double digits. I think I'll just walk away as the winner of the discussion.
Keep that tail tucked close!! Good bye. Hahahaha.
Jamie I notice you never quote Kasparov from, "My Great Predecessor's," vols IV and V where he states that he believes Karpov would have won in 1975 and also explains why he believes that.
Aug 13, 2014
0
#1033
strngdrvnthng wrote:
Jamie I notice you never quote Kasparov from, "My Great Predecessor's," vols IV and V where he states that he believes Karpov would have won in 1975 and also explains why he believes that.
I haven't read it. Feel free to quote the passage, if you wish.
Too much typing on an i-pad but it's in there, cheers John C. By the way they are both worth reading, in my opinion. Cheers, John C.
Maybe so, I don't see it that way but you may be correct.
"The great Kasparov played a match against Kramnik in which he couldnt win a single game"
"Fischer won 20 games in a row against all GMs , whats Kasparovs record number of wins against all GMs ?"
These arguments for Fischer being greater than Kasparov have been repeated quite a few times in this and other threads, but there are things to question here. First a minor quibble: if forfeited games count as won by Fischer one could just as well count the forfeited match as won by Karpov, and I think not all Fischer's opponents were GMs but I may well be wrong about that one.
In any case, Steinitz won 25 in a row against on average higher ranked opposition, and if number of wins in a row is the prime measure of greatness he would be well ahead of Fischer and Kasparov. But number of wins in a row at one time is a bad measure of greatness. Being the best player in the world for 20 years trumps winning more games in a row at some point achievement wise, as I see it. Just like Tal and Kramnik having the longest unbeaten game streaks doesn't by default rank them as greater than Lasker and Kasparov.
Then the thing about Kasparov and Lasker not being as great as Fischer for losing their 8th title matches rather badly, Lasker when well into his 50s. There's no saying what would have happened if Fischer had played more than one title match, but if he had been able to match the greatness of Kasparov and Lasker in that respect he might also have run into trouble in his 8th title match or at some earlier stage. But having just played one title match and his last tournament when he was 27 he never had the "chance" to as Kasparov spend 20 years playing numerous very long title matches and lots of top tournaments. In the end some bad result comes, but I think it is a worse result to not even play them.
Aug 13, 2014
0
#1037
strngdrvnthng wrote:
Too much typing on an i-pad but it's in there, cheers John C. By the way they are both worth reading, in my opinion. Cheers, John C.
I'm not doubtng you. I just can't comment on something I have not read.
Aug 13, 2014
0
#1038
fabelhaft wrote:
"The great Kasparov played a match against Kramnik in which he couldnt win a single game"
"Fischer won 20 games in a row against all GMs , whats Kasparovs record number of wins against all GMs ?"
These arguments for Fischer being greater than Kasparov have been repeated quite a few times in this and other threads, but there are things to question here. First a minor quibble: if forfeited games count as won by Fischer one could just as well count the forfeited match as won by Karpov, and I think not all Fischer's opponents were GMs but I may well be wrong about that one.
In any case, Steinitz won 25 in a row against on average higher ranked opposition, and if number of wins in a row is the prime measure of greatness he would be well ahead of Fischer and Kasparov. But number of wins in a row at one time is a bad measure of greatness. Being the best player in the world for 20 years trumps winning more games in a row at some point achievement wise, as I see it. Just like Tal and Kramnik having the longest unbeaten game streaks doesn't by default rank them as greater than Lasker and Kasparov.
Then the thing about Kasparov and Lasker not being as great as Fischer for losing their 8th title matches rather badly, Lasker when well into his 50s. There's no saying what would have happened if Fischer had played more than one title match, but if he had been able to match the greatness of Kasparov and Lasker in that respect he might also have run into trouble in his 8th title match or at some earlier stage. But having just played one title match and his last tournament when he was 27 he never had the "chance" to as Kasparov spend 20 years playing numerous very long title matches and lots of top tournaments. In the end some bad result comes, but I think it is a worse result to not even play them.
There was no forfeited match between Fischer and Karpov.
Nor did Fischer win a forfeited game, if you refer to the Panno game in the Interzonal. Panno resigned the game in protest. But I personally don't count that as part of the streak.
Can't stay in the kitchen, SS? Woo.
Noo surprise. (Challenge me anytime)
I toldja ta give it up. IF YOU STOPPED AT FISCHER BEATING KARPOV IN 1975, COOL. But you HADTA keep spouting off...your ego, shrinking along with whatever dignity you had. Alas, I bid you adieu. Cool. Take care.!
"There was no forfeited match between Fischer and Karpov. Nor did Fischer win a forfeited game, if you refer to the Panno game in the Interzonal. Panno resigned the game in protest"
Fischer won that game when Panno resigned instead of playing, just like Karpov won the title after Fischer resigned it without playing. Regardless what it is called I think both in themselves should not count as much of an achievement for the winners, but 19 in a row is quite good too.
One of the Soviet chess elite, I can't remember whom, was asked who was the finest product of the Soviet 'school' and they answered Fischer : ) which is actually quite true when you think about it.