TetuoShima:
You don't seem to be very knowledgeable about chess history. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but when youmake incorrect statements like "Karpov ducked Fischer," then I know you have no idea what you're talking about.
The best chess player ever
Sort:
Clearly the best player ever was the Chess Automaton. The 'turk' could beat everybody, and could even nod its head. Two nods signified a check and three nods meant mate. And it could even smoke a pipe. Not even Houdini 3 can do that.
Shame about that fire though.
WhiteMajesty wrote:
craiggillies67 wrote:
So who does everyone think is the best player ever I would say Kasparov or Karpov
There is no question who the greatest female chess player is.
Polgar, with no doubt.
varelse1 wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
No he didnt, karpov ducked him
Bobby ran away crying like a frieghtened schoolgirl!
Noooooo! Not Karpov!!!!
Andre_Harding wrote:
TetuoShima:
You don't seem to be very knowledgeable about chess history. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but when youmake incorrect statements like "Karpov ducked Fischer," then I know you have no idea what you're talking about.
you have no clue what you talking about.
Fischer made a clear statement under what condition he would play
Greatest Chess Talent ever? Paul Morphy according to Fischer himself. Apart from that in my humble opinion Fischer was the best,at his best!.
Fischer didn't quit chess in 1972 because he didn't get to force Karpov to win with a margin of two games while dancing rhumba backwards for it to count in 1975. It had been very difficult for him to make himself play also against Spassky (as in previous cycles). After 1972 it just wasn't possible anymore, otherwise he would obviosuly had been playing lots of tournaments like all other top players, not just between 1972 and 1975.
It was bad enough that FIDE caved in to Fischer's first to ten wins demand (the first Kasparov vs Karpov match was first to six and still had to be abandoned after five months without anyone getting there). They were very close (I think it was three votes) to accept also his demand that Karpov had to win with a margin of two games to get the title. If so, he would probably have continued making new demands or refused to play anyway in the end. If he had wanted to play chess he would have played other events after 1972, or other players that accepted his demands.
the truth is, it was the luckiest thing ever happened to Karpov, FIscher would have easily crushed him. Karpov would have lost his motivation and no1 would ever know him.
Actually Karpov should thank FIscher every day. Thanks to you Fischer people know me...
Oct 6, 2013
0
#251
@TetsuoShima: Other chess players in his time used to say that Karpov had one big advantage in comparison to the other players: he did not have to play against Karpov.
It was very difficult to beat Karpov. Fischer might have won, who knows?, but crushing Karpov? I doubt that.
Kasparov himself is of the opinion that Karpov would have won the match. It is very difficult to call, but for sure it was a new challenge, the like of which Fischer had not faced previously.
Magnus Carlsen. No doubt.
Akiba Rubinstein because of his phenominal endgame understanding.
I think Fischer would win the first match but Karpov would win a rematch. I normally respect Kasparov's authority, but he isn't exactly an objective judge in this case. It sure feels good to say a guy you beat in turn is better than Fischer. Of course Kasparov's objectively better than Fischer but he had the Botvinnik school backing him up and even immigrated to Russia (from Armenia?) because of his recognized talent. The US had no such support back then.
LoekBergman wrote:
Similar like Tal and Petrosian:
What great hair!
JMB2010 wrote:
Kasparov himself is of the opinion that Karpov would have won the match. It is very difficult to call, but for sure it was a new challenge, the like of which Fischer had not faced previously.
well than obviously either Kasparov but me shizophrene or you are not telling the truth. because Kasparov said fischer was 15 years ahead of time, if he met Karpov and was ahead of him, how could he think he would lose??
LoekBergman wrote:
@TetsuoShima: Other chess players in his time used to say that Karpov had one big advantage in comparison to the other players: he did not have to play against Karpov.
It was very difficult to beat Karpov. Fischer might have won, who knows?, but crushing Karpov? I doubt that.
Karpov himself said Fischer would have won.
Well i believe he would have crushed him, well do you remember where Karpov blundered against Korchnoi???
That is pressure, that would have happened much more often against FIscher.
TetsuoShima wrote:
JMB2010 wrote:
Kasparov himself is of the opinion that Karpov would have won the match. It is very difficult to call, but for sure it was a new challenge, the like of which Fischer had not faced previously.
well than obviously either Kasparov but me shizophrene or you are not telling the truth. because Kasparov said fischer was 15 years ahead of time, if he met Karpov and was ahead of him, how could he think he would lose??
It is all chronicled in his volumes of My Great Predecessors.
If one may judge a player's strength by comparing him with his contemporaries, it seems to me that Fischer's achievement is unsurpassed - the gap between him and his closest rivals was the widest there ever was between a World Champion and the other top-ranking players of his time. He was some 10-15 years ahead of his time in his preparation and understanding. This could be attributed in part to his dedication to the game, which was unequalled by any other player before or since.
that is a quote by Kasparov, if he was 15 years ahead of his time in understanding, he definetly was ahead of Karpov.
Similar like Tal and Petrosian: