Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Who Do You Think Is Better? - Chess Forums - Page 2

FessMate

Apr 30, 2010

0

#21

kasparov with no doubt

also i think karpov better then fisher

orangehonda

Apr 30, 2010

0

#22

Thread # 295482 on this subject... oh well...

I go back and forth sometimes. Kasparov really left nothing else to be proven, he was a chess giant. Fischer at full strength, for his own meteoric domination, was comparatively a flash in the pan -- it's hard for me to decide. Karpov is certainly up there with the all time greats, but what other proof do you need than the extensive KvsK matches? Didn't they play over 100 match games between each other?

And I don't think many ever argue that Karpov > Fischer.

smileative

Apr 30, 2010

0

#23

who actually really gives a flyin' ??

wingtzun

Apr 30, 2010

0

#24

Fischer chickened out of playing Karpov for the world championship because he knew he would lose. (do not be fooled by Fischer's other rantings and demands- basically he knew he could not defeat Karpov). So Karpov is the better player!

1. Kasparov

2. Karpov

3. Fischer

slvnfernando

Apr 30, 2010

0

#25

Fischer is the genious!

baronspam

Apr 30, 2010

0

#26

mkirk wrote:

woodshover wrote:

How about Waitzkin? Where would he rank?

Waitzkin? He is not an all time chess great, although clearly is very competent (as an IM). Probably has natural talent but lacked discipline (i.e. did not take the advice of Mark Dvoretsky as he was too lazy basically - lots of disciplined training required).

BTW, Is Waitzkin coming back to chess? - it would be nice to see him make GM.

I did a web search on him the other day. It seems he is invovled in Martial Arts these days. I don't think he will ever make a serious attempt at chess again. Although he played very strongly very early, he peaked early as well. Waitzkin certainly would beat me blindfold and drunk, I dont think he really would compete at the highest level, although I do think he probably could make grandmaster if he really focused on it.

Gambitknight

Apr 30, 2010

0

#27

When talking about Kasparov and Karpov, I've always inclined to think that there really is only a miniscule difference between them. Considering the age difference, and the fact that all of their matches were so class, and their career head to head so close, I kind of see it as a 1, 1a kind of deal, with Kasparov being the slightly greater, but again, not by much.

Compared to Fischer, I have to place him third, primarilly because the longevity. Karpov and Kasparov dominated chess for two decades. Fischer, genius that he was, could not.

seansurfgood

Apr 30, 2010

0

#28

i think jeff sarwer is more likely to come back to chess, than josh waitzkin. But i think they ought to both come back and settle the old score. :P

Quasimorphy

Apr 30, 2010

0

#29

seansurfgood wrote:

i think jeff sarwer is more likely to come back to chess, than josh waitzkin. But i think they ought to both come back and settle the old score. :P

I wish they had made a movie about Jeff Sarwer instead of Josh Waitzkin. He was not treated fairly(as the Jonathan Poe character.)

mattattack99

Apr 30, 2010

0

#30

Kasparov

dwolf1

Apr 30, 2010

0

#31

BrilliantChampion wrote:

Kasparov, Karpov, or Fischer? I would choose Kasparov of course. He is simply a brilliant player. Karpov and Fischer are also brilliant. But there is something about Kasparov that over-rules them. So this is my opinion. Kasparov, your thoughts?

I vote Kasparov is a brilliant player, very flexible in the attacking and defense, very solid and has the best intuition in the game...

dwolf1

Apr 30, 2010

0

#32

BrilliantChampion wrote:

Kasparov, Karpov, or Fischer? I would choose Kasparov of course. He is simply a brilliant player. Karpov and Fischer are also brilliant. But there is something about Kasparov that over-rules them. So this is my opinion. Kasparov, your thoughts?

I vote Kasparov is a brilliant player, very flexible in the attacking and defense, very solid and has the best intuition in the game...

EmperorPenguin

Apr 30, 2010

0

#33

Why isn't Capablanca considered?

Gambitknight

Apr 30, 2010

0

#34

EmperorPenguin: I don't think this is a best ever question.

However, if the topic was meant to be one, I agree: let's put Capablanca there as well.

eXecute

Apr 30, 2010

0

#35

Bobby Fischer of course. With the amount of resources Kasparov had, I think that simply because Fischer quit early in his career, doesn't mean that Kasparov is any better player in their primes.

Chesspro76

Apr 30, 2010

0

#36

zxb995511 wrote:

mkirk wrote:

I have read his book 'Attacking Chess'. Yes, I see what you mean. Still, he should be a GM I feel

He didin't have the endurance for it, it seems. "A Grandmaster of chess not only knows but dominates all aspects of chess" and this is what he could not achieve. He was to caught up with "I have my own style" and "I can't learn to play like Karpov cuz I'm a natural attacking player" and that sort of stuff doesn't work in chess. To become a GM you have to (in my humble opinion and from what I have seen) master absolutely everything. You can't just ALWAYS play a position how you want to play it- often times the position will almost play you...and in those times you can't afford to "have a style" and that is what Josh never wanted to give up. The moment he saw that he HAD to learn to play in "all styles" and all positions he said he "lost the love of the game" which is a fancy way of saying he didin't know how to do anything other than attack and when he was being taught how to play in other ways he found it too boring\hard\annoying.

I see what you are getting at but why cant having your own style and being masterful at that get you to the level of GM (not saying he was but just in general). I mean if you beat most anybody to include some GMs do you not deserve that ranking even if you are not efficient in every playing style/position? I am not an expert, but part of what makes chess so great is that there are many ways of doing things in order to be successful.....

Wall05

Apr 30, 2010

0

#37

Kasparov definitely. Fischer retired early from chess for whatever reason and robbed the world of the opportunity to see him play Karpov. For this reason we cannot ever know. Ficsher won the World championship and never defended it while Kasparov won it and defended it 3 times. I believe Kasparov was the first player to obtain a rating of over 2800 and was world champion for 15 years!

Fischer was a one trick pony who got a lot of attention because he was the first non-Soviet player to win the world championship since WW2 and wouldn't make my top 3.

NM TheOldReb

Apr 30, 2010

0

#38

When did Kasparov ever win 20 games in a row against all GMs ?? Oh, he didnt.

eXecute

Apr 30, 2010

0

#39

Wall05 wrote:

Kasparov definitely. Fischer retired early from chess for whatever reason and robbed the world of the opportunity to see him play Karpov. For this reason we cannot ever know. Ficsher won the World championship and never defended it while Kasparov won it and defended it 3 times. I believe Kasparov was the first player to obtain a rating of over 2800 and was world champion for 15 years!

Fischer was a one trick pony who got a lot of attention because he was the first non-Soviet player to win the world championship since WW2 and wouldn't make my top 3.

We can know, although Fischer's career was cut short, at the time he was world champ and even before that, he was dominating against ALL other GMs. Going undefeated in US championship and beating so many top players throughout the 60s. I can't even count the amount of tournaments he's won with a huge lead.

It's really lame of you to insult Fischer as a one-trick pony. He probably had to work twice as hard as Kasparov to get to where he is and with less games and resources to analyze and learn from.

EmperorPenguin

May 1, 2010

0

#40

What about Lasker? Why isn't he considered? He was world champion for twenty-seven years.