Is Anand a better player than Fischer

And the award for the best reply goes to Paul Gottlieb. 

Yes! I've copy pasted his reply and stored in my comp, I want to read it again and again. 

Very nice. Thank you. 

Do you think the best players 100 years from now will be able to regularly beat the best engines of today? I suppose none of us can really answer that, but I'm curious.

When Fischer was running up again the Soviets, his access to state of the art chess "science" was limited. He had very limited resources, limited sponsorship, but tremendous devotion. He even had to read Russian literature to keep up with novelties. Against him there was an entire state sponsored professional squad with all the talents that an already historically strong nation could muster; one that allegedly fixed games against him in qualifying tournaments. He in fact was alone against a machine. So, if you look at the fact who overcame greater odds to become the greatest, the answer is obvious.

I think lasker was the best ,Fischer was certainly greatest! player of my time. Kasparov is the longest standing champion!

So what can i say I love chess and all the colorful players,but I still face 64 squares and I'm ready for the next challenge ? That's what keeps chess moving! 

+1

It depends on what you mean by "better."  In my view, Anand is better insofar as he's been a far more productive world champion who has contributed probably hundreds of games as reigning world champion.  Also, Anand is a better ambassador for chess because he seems to be a decent, regular guy rather than a pathological personality.  On the other hand, Fischer is better insofar as he did more to popularize and expand chess across the globe (which was probably at least partially due to his personal eccentricities).  Also, I believe that Fischer has sold more as an author, and hence is better along that dimension.  

As far as the stronger player, or the more naturally talented, well, who knows.  All of that's a matter of idle speculation since direct comparison isn't possible. 

no

He certainly is better-groomed.

@Eric Dodson to say Fischer did more to popularize chess around the globe is to ignore the huge rise in popularity that chess has had in India during Anand's comepetative  career. 

While he has certainly not done that single-handedly, I would be willing to be that in terms of sheer number of people playing chess today because of either person's actions on the world stage, Anand would have the larger count. 

I think Anand is better.

@Kingpatzer:  Yeah, that's a good point.  It might be that Fischer's global effect seems bigger to me simply because I live in the U.S., whereas Anand might well have affected more people.  

All very cogent points, with an undeniable ring of truth to them (so naturally they're completely irrelevant around here). 

This article can go on and on for years, but when it really comes down to it - the thing that the pundits dont want you to think about ......are rivals. Rivals signify that you may not be as great as you think. Did Morphy have any real rivals.....Did Fischer?????????????? NOT IN MATCH PLAY THEY DIDNT.....Kasparov played Karpov 400 thousand times and usually won by a point or half. Hardly a showing of dominance. Guys like fischer, morphy, etc...they were burning pillars of chess....they didn't really have anything close to an equal....Morphy, Fischer....no one's light has shown any brighter than those two. I would put Lasker up there but he barely escaped with his life against Schlecter....once...again.....you have to have an opposing force. Fischer, Morphy....they were beyond the beyond

Marshall ,Frank james..
Is my best teacher,, then Morphy .. Fischer
If you wanna to compare any one by fischer you can compare him by kasparov nowadays ..

Does chess.com have a FAQ section for this kind of query?

case closed also for future topic Fischer vs ....?

KASPAROV

This is an irrelevant thread who cares.

Was Einstein a better physicist than Newton?