If Fischer played those ICC games, why was it he was not exceptionally strong
in 1992?
Kasparov Greatest Player of all times?
Sort:
Feb 23, 2012
0
#43
Kingpatzer wrote:
Estragon wrote:
Any argument for anyone to be stronger than Kasparov is based purely on emotion, not facts.
Chessmetric site notes that Lasker spent 24.3 years as #1 on the rating list compared to Kasparov's 21.9 years.
Bobby Fischer reached the highest rating for a single year
The strongest tournament ever according would have been Vienna 1882 with Steinitz and Winawer each scoring +12.
The best individual event performance was Karpov in LInsares in 1994 followed by Fischer.
The idea that there are no facts to back up another opinion is foolishness.
Indeed, unless someone wants to actually define what they mean by "greatest player of all time" any declaration for or against a particular player is always going to be based on personal interpretation of a collection of data that is, generally speaking, filtered by personal experience and prejudice.
kinpatzer is always right
beardogjones wrote:
If Fischer played those ICC games, why was it he was not exceptionally strong
in 1992?
It's useless to reason with these people
Because the match in 1992 was just a "money maker." And who he was playing against...? The old Spassky (which by the way, got money too) There was no need for Bobby to play "exceptionally strong." And why would a notorious GM Nigel Short go telling that he got his "butt" whipped from someone that played "handicap" openings online? Bobby Fischer was the "Michael Jordan" of Basketball, the "Pele" of Soccer, The Babe Ruth of Baseball, The Mozart of Music, the Einstein of Science... etc... The person that accomplised something great for humanity that has put the game of chess on the "world map". In otherwords: has changed the way people viewed the game of Chess, forever, after he won in 1972.
Yeah we get it, Bobby Fischer died for our sins
Feb 23, 2012
0
#47
nonnob3 wrote:
Because the match in 1992 was just a "money maker." And who he was playing against...? The old Spassky (which by the way, got money too) There was no need for Bobby to play "exceptionally strong." And why would a notorious GM Nigel Short go telling that he got his "butt" whipped from someone that played "handicap" openings online? Bobby Fischer was the "Michael Jordan" of Basketball, the "Pele" of Soccer, The Babe Ruth of Baseball, The Mozart of Music, the Einstein of Science... etc... The person that accomplised something great for humanity that has put the game of chess on the "world map". In otherwords: has changed the way people viewed the game of Chess, forever, after he won in 1972.
You're loopy.
I think you guys might be missing the boat on this one. There's this guy named Tom who lives up the street, and I've never beaten him. Not once! That's pretty darn good, wouldn't you say? You can play him yourself, just come after 5 pm or so. He has to work during the day. I bet you can't beat him. Seriously!
No knob? Really? Are you sure that you want to advertise it?
trysts wrote:
nonnob3 wrote:
Because the match in 1992 was just a "money maker." And who he was playing against...? The old Spassky (which by the way, got money too) There was no need for Bobby to play "exceptionally strong." And why would a notorious GM Nigel Short go telling that he got his "butt" whipped from someone that played "handicap" openings online? Bobby Fischer was the "Michael Jordan" of Basketball, the "Pele" of Soccer, The Babe Ruth of Baseball, The Mozart of Music, the Einstein of Science... etc... The person that accomplised something great for humanity that has put the game of chess on the "world map". In otherwords: has changed the way people viewed the game of Chess, forever, after he won in 1972.
You're loopy.
... yeah, I had some wine last night... 
Arctor wrote:
Yeah we get it, Bobby Fischer died for our sins
LOL... :)
Feb 24, 2012
0
#53
nonnob3 wrote:
... yeah, I had some wine last night...
That's some powerful "wine" you smoked
If there was a set of 16 chess pieces that beat most of the players, of any chess age, most of the times, and that set of pieces was driven by a human and not by a computer, that human would surelly be Kasparov: In that sense, i think he is "the greatest player of all times" (maybe Carlsen can change this in a few years).
One could speak of Fischer, i think he was a genius and the player that got the greater gap to his oponnents (in his time), but not..."the greatest player of all times".
One could speak of Capablanca, the greatest natural talent of all times, but not..."the greatest player of all times".
One could speak about Tal or Alekhine, two of the greatest tacticians of all times, but not..."the greatest player of all times".
One could also speak about Lasker, Karpov, Bronstein or Ivanchuk but, for one reason or another, they were not "the greatest players of all times".
Anand should not be left out of these discussions.
trysts wrote:
nonnob3 wrote:
... yeah, I had some wine last night...
That's some powerful "wine" you smoked
Very powerful... I play better after I have a few glasses.
I can visualize the board and pieces in 4D... lol
Since defeating Kasparov and being a world champion, Kramnik obviously has had a blip in form. But as things stand now in 2012, I would say that Kramnik is again the best player. While in form, he is easily the hardest player to defeat when matches between Kramnik, Carlsen, Nakamura, Topalov and Anand takes place, and Vladimir finds ways to win games he "should" win better than anyone else. When world champion match between Kasparov and Kramnik took place in 2000, Kasparov didn´t find ways to get through Kramnik´s defence and Vlad too slight advantage and won games when Kasparov got exhausted while banging his head into a wall. I see that match as the greatest and most high quality ever. Like I wrote, I know Kramnik has had a blip in form since that, but I see Kramnik being best player again.
Greatest ever ? I would throw names like Morphy, Fischer, Kasparov and Karpov. For how well they played and treated chess socially. They did not just sacrife chess pieces while playing, they sacrificied much much much more for the game also. To make it a better game to play and be for everyone. Obviously Kasparov and Karpov still going on.
Personally, I love Veselin Topalov´s chess style !!
Janne2012 wrote:
But as things stand now in 2012, I would say that Kramnik is again the best player.
I wonder if he ever has been the best player, but lately he has had bad results against the top 10. His successes have been thanks to beating lower ranked opponents (London and Dortmund), but against the stronger players his results have been bad (only two wins against players in the top 30 in 2011 but losses against Svidler (twice), Nakamura, Carlsen, Nepomniachtchi and Karjakin). I think he's a bit behind Carlsen and Aronian, but would rank him in the top 5, just behind Anand, who has scored very good results against Kramnik the last years.
Janne2012 wrote:
...Greatest ever ? I would throw names like Morphy, Fischer, Kasparov and Karpov. For how well they played and treated chess socially. They did not just sacrife chess pieces while playing, they sacrificied much much much more for the game also. To make it a better game to play and be for everyone. ...
Nicely put. I would throw in Michael Tal there, too...
Bobby Fischer will not say he did. Then why he offered to play Nigel Short under "guest?" Of course he is gona say "no." He did not want to advertise it...
Right. So the fact that someone did not want to use their name means that it must have been Fischer.