Didn't he say that on Fischer's comeback in the 90's, after being 20 years without playing professional chess? I'm sure that Kasparov wouldn't be so certain of beating Fischer in his prime days.
Kasparov Murders Fischer!
Sort:
It's a good question on whose 'better' - however, the proof doesn't come in a quote from either of the players, it should be proven with statistics and an outside source,I believe.
Aug 10, 2010
0
#4
Mimchi wrote:
For all these people debating who was better, Fischer or Kasparov, allow me to cite a quote from Kasparov that seems to solve the matter.
On how Bobby would fare against Kasparov:
" ... Maybe his strength is 2600 or 2650. It wouldn't be close between us. In fact, Bobby would lose a match against any of the top grandmasters today. If he were to play in a high-level tournament like Linares, one top player after the next gunning for him with modern ideas, Bobby would die before the end of the event. It wouldn't be a question of winning or losing. Bobby would die."*
- Garry Kasparov
*Mortal Games by Fred Waitzkin, Epilogue, page 298
That is a fantastic quote! Love it!
Aug 10, 2010
0
#5
bsrasmus wrote:
So all that is left is talk. Seriously.
And laughter! On this one, I don't need them to play in order to agree with Kasparov. In fact, he may have been giving Fischer a lot of credit by calling him a 2600
It seems impossible to prove which world champion was better to me. Statistics in this case would not validate either side, because we are talking about different generations of players who both have built on their predecessors. The same would go for all other statistics on any old world champions results, compared to the more recent ones.
It is impossible to compare things from different generations. Every genereation assimilates all the knowledge from previous generations. Of course Fischer would be outplayed by younger players that have access to the further advanced chess theory and youth. But, drop young baby Fischer into today with computer and international information available to him, and you would have a true beast. Lets just enjoy what these players are and stop trying to compare different ages.
trysts wrote:
bsrasmus wrote:
So all that is left is talk. Seriously.
And laughter! On this one, I don't need them to play in order to agree with Kasparov. In fact, he may have been giving Fischer a lot of credit by calling him a 2600
| Title | Grandmaster |
|---|---|
| World Champion | 1972–1975 |
| Peak rating | 2785 (July 1972) |
Way to take a quote out of context.
Aug 10, 2010
0
#10
bsrasmus wrote:
trysts wrote:
bsrasmus wrote:
So all that is left is talk. Seriously.
And laughter! On this one, I don't need them to play in order to agree with Kasparov. In fact, he may have been giving Fischer a lot of credit by calling him a 2600
You have a right to your opinion, but its an entirely subjective opinion. You don't have any relevant facts to point to.
Are you a cop? What do you mean I have a "right" to my opinion? I totally agree with Kasparov in that quote, it doesn't require proofs, or rights, or engaging in the problems of subject/object theories.
DeathScepter wrote:
It is impossible to compare things from different generations. Every genereation assimilates all the knowledge from previous generations. Of course Fischer would be outplayed by younger players that have access to the further advanced chess theory and youth. But, drop young baby Fischer into today with computer and international information available to him, and you would have a true beast. Lets just enjoy what these players are and stop trying to compare different ages.
Agreed, comparing a retired guy to a dead guy makes very little sense.
Aug 10, 2010
0
#12
Genius_IQ160 wrote:
trysts wrote:
bsrasmus wrote:
So all that is left is talk. Seriously.
And laughter! On this one, I don't need them to play in order to agree with Kasparov. In fact, he may have been giving Fischer a lot of credit by calling him a 2600
Title Grandmaster World Champion 1972–1975 Peak rating 2785 (July 1972)
It sounds like Kasparov was speaking in the context of Fischer playing in Linares for example, before he died. I don't think Kasparov was comparing peak years.
Yes you might be right there.
And then Morphy, with today's knowledge and analysis tools, might have both Kasparov and Fischer whimpering like lost puppies.
I doubt Kasparov envies Fischer at all; he has more important things on his mind, having noticed that chess is not the most important aspect of human existence.
Also, how does one compare a professional to an amateur? 8 hours a day of study against 1 or 2 hours?
Aug 10, 2010
0
#18
Mephisto wrote:
@bsrasmus- assigning 2300 to morphy is like saying newton knew less than 50 % of what modern physicist know. How does it matter ? It's actually incredible that he has a 2300 rating despite being 150 years back in theory ! A relatively better way of comparing players from different generations is to compare their dominance over their contemporaries, and morphy is unchallengeble in that regard.
Morphy certainly made 1600s look like they were 1200s. 2300 for Morphy today, seems right. And Newton would have loved today in physics! He would have had to see through dogma still, but with better lenses!
I'd be fun if chess.com created a poll on the subject.
For all these people debating who was better, Fischer or Kasparov, allow me to cite a quote from Kasparov that seems to solve the matter.
On how Bobby would fare against Kasparov:
" ... Maybe his strength is 2600 or 2650. It wouldn't be close between us. In fact, Bobby would lose a match against any of the top grandmasters today. If he were to play in a high-level tournament like Linares, one top player after the next gunning for him with modern ideas, Bobby would die before the end of the event. It wouldn't be a question of winning or losing. Bobby would die."*
- Garry Kasparov
*Mortal Games by Fred Waitzkin, Epilogue, page 298