TetsuoShima, Carlsen's competing for the World Championship ... that should be enough for you - and look at his gmes to see how good he really is instead looking at some numbers indicating wins and losses.
The best chess player ever
Sort:
Oct 1, 2013
0
#83
fabelhaft wrote:
In the first Candidates tournaments Fischer played he was several points from finishing in the top three, at least Carlsen already won it :-)
Didn't you know?
The only reason Fischer Didn't come in first is because the Russians and Isrealis were conspiring against him, to derail his career.
Had the tables been level, Bobby would have dominated!
That's your speculation.
varelse1 wrote:
fabelhaft wrote:
In the first Candidates tournaments Fischer played he was several points from finishing in the top three, at least Carlsen already won it :-)
Didn't you know?
The only reason Fischer Didn't come in first is because the Russians and Isrealis were conspiring against him, to derail his career.
Had the tables been level, Bobby would have dominated!
Yes, in his first Candidates tournament Fischer was 7.5 points from winning (Carlsen just won his first Candidates tournament?), but that was mainly bad luck. The second time the 30 years older Keres played some short draws, so Fischer got so tired in the end (after having to play two days in a row at some occasions!) that he finished three points behind him and half a point more from first instead of winning :-) Luckily Fischer pointed out many times that he was in fact better than Keres, and that the outcome wasn't fair :-)
Agent_of_Darkness wrote:
TetsuoShima, Carlsen's competing for the World Championship ... that should be enough for you - and look at his gmes to see how good he really is instead looking at some numbers indicating wins and losses.
He is Good just Not 10 or 15 years ahead of his time like fischer
What do you about how chess will look like 10 to 15 years from now? 
fabelhaft wrote:
varelse1 wrote:
fabelhaft wrote:
In the first Candidates tournaments Fischer played he was several points from finishing in the top three, at least Carlsen already won it :-)
Didn't you know?
The only reason Fischer Didn't come in first is because the Russians and Isrealis were conspiring against him, to derail his career.
Had the tables been level, Bobby would have dominated!
Yes, in his first Candidates tournament Fischer was 7.5 points from winning (Carlsen just won his first Candidates tournament?), but that was mainly bad luck. The second time the 30 years older Keres played some short draws, so Fischer got so tired in the end (after having to play two days in a row at some occasions!) that he finished three points behind him and half a point more from first instead of winning :-) And he was four points behind a couple of weeks before the end. Luckily Fischer pointed out many times that he was in fact better than Keres, and that the outcome wasn't fair :-)
Well they cheated him, thats why they changed ist, when they changed it in a way were they couldnt cheat him he won 6 0 6 0
But why die Carlsen want the candidates to be changed to tournamet?
Why did the candidates had to be made in a Way were his strength alone isnt the deciding factor?
But also luck?
TetsuoShima wrote:
Well they cheated him, thats why they changed ist, when they changed it in a way were they couldnt cheat him he won 6 0 6 0
But why die Carlsen want the candidates to be changed to tournamet?
Why did the candidates had to be made in a Way were his strength alone isnt the deciding factor?
But also luck?
Abolishing the minimatch knockout Candidates didn't introduce "luck". To me it was rather the opposite, it's just to compare knockout World Champions like Kasimdzhanov, Khalifman, Ushenina etc with round robin Candidates winners like Tal, Smyslov, Petrosian, Carlsen etc.
In Fischer's case, he didn't refuse to participate until they removed the tournament and introduced matches, as long as it was a tournament Candidates he played in 1959 and 1962, after it was changed he refused to play the next cycle, and withdrew from the one after that. Then, in the cycle after that (the fifth where he possibly could have qualified for a title match) he had improved enough to participate, and win easily. But not because of the format, it's not as if he played the same level in 1962 and 1971 and the only difference was some short draws by Keres. He was just far from strong enough in 1962 and clearly best in 1971.
Well Even if we Would agree it were true, it still doesnt make Carlsen 10 or 15 years ahead of his time
Oct 1, 2013
0
#91
You see?!
Its all a world-wide conspiracy against Bobby Fischer, I tell ya!
TetsuoShima wrote:
Well Even if we Would agree it were true, it still doesnt make Carlsen 10 or 15 years ahead of his time
At least he is 74 points ahead of #2 while 22 years old. Let's see in 10-15 years if some other player has reached 2870, I'm quite sure no one will be even close.
Bondar Dmytro is a great player.
He's at age 8 and has a rating of over 2000.
I Disagree fabelhaft, not everyone everyone cares about all tournaments, candidates maters more to all People and there he also was not better than kramnik
I'm looking at the world championship as being a required feat in order to claim being the best of all times. That may not be true, but it's a place to start. The current champion is Viswanathan Anand. Anand is champion with all players having the largest data bases known to mankind and the best and fastest software programs. If the game didn't evolve over time then I wouldn't put so much weight on being the current world champion. But chess has evolved. What one could get away with in the past, can no longer be tried with expectations of success. The number of title defenses should also play into it.1. Anand beat Gelfand 2. Anand beat Topolov. 3. Anand beat Kramnik. That's three different contenders he's taken out consecutively. I know Anand lost to Kasparov once, but that was prior to Anand's world championship strength. It's like saying Spasky beat Fischer the majority of times prior to 1972, therefore Spasky is better. If Kasparov wants to prove he's better than Anand, he needs to get back into chess and earn it. I think once Anand defeats Carlson, more people will understand that he, Viswanathan Anand, is truly the greatest chesss player to ever inhabit this planet.
chuckfloyd2011 wrote:
Viswanathan Anand, is truly the greatest chesss player to ever inhabit this planet.
Just look at Anand's results as World Champion or latest title matches or world ranking. There's just no way he is the greatest chess player ever. Maybe top ten, but he's no Lasker or Kasparov.
what about kramnik and anand
The answer is #13. Fischer. These are the all time highest ratings ever achieved. Look at the dates. The 1972 for Fischer is just amazing. He's still #13 after 40 years of ratings inflation. Nobody has ever had as gargantuan a lead against their peers of the time, and nobody has ever had a ratings mark that has held up like this one.
In the first Candidates tournaments Fischer played he was several points from finishing in the top three, at least Carlsen already won it :-)