Comparing Elo ratings to answer this question, one should among other things consider that they only existed for just over 40 years. With the Chessmetrics system Steinitz had the biggest distance to #2, Kramnik meant that Lasker had the biggest distance to #2, and apart from everything else it's also a question of longevity. The week before Fischer played the match against Spassky after which he retired he had never had as big distance to #2 on a rating list as Carlsen does on the October list while still 22. Then he quit just after the match. It's very early to compare the careers of Carlsen and other top players of the past, and when it will be done it's also a question of how important distance in Elo rating to #2 is. For example Topalov had much bigger distance to #2 than Kramnik (who shared first at best), but has he been the greater player of the two? Carlsen has a bigger distance today than Karpov ever had, but I'd say Carlsen has a long way to go before he can be compared to Karpov. Etc etc
The best chess player ever
Ofc Fischer was the best.
If we talk about the very best, it has to be fischer no doubt.
here the words of a GM
In their quest for truth, chess players employ their knowledge and their specific view of chess. They are firm in their belief that their own style is the right one, the one that will bring them closest to the truth. Knowing what the aim of the game is, one may ask whose style is the right one: Tal's, Karpov's, Fischer's...?
The creative genius is no respecter of monuments: he does not build on; he starts from scratch. Fischer questioned everything established truths as well as discarded speculations.
He delved into the heritage of past generations. Fischer was not looking only for the odd pearl that had rolled under the carpet. Every old chestnut came under his minute scrutiny.
With the exception of the German Bisguier, who was the first to write a book on the theory of chess openings, all the other authors on the subject copied much of their material from one another, including mistakes which like a hereditary disease were handed down from one generation to the next.
Partly as a result of the awe in which a book is held as a source of truth, and partly because it is easier to learn than both learn and verify, a Fischer had to appear before the many dormant variants should come back to life. What was needed was a sharp and discerning eye, and the kind of patience and energy that move mountains.
He thus resurrected such variants as are described in the heaps of theoretical manuals as "... Black brings his game back on an even keel with any of the variations A, B, or C".
At the 1966 Chess Olympics in Havana, when Fischer first used such a variant, Portisch applied variation A, Gligoric variation B, and the Cuban Jimenez variation C. All three of them lost.
Years have gone by, and the Havana Olympics are gradually falling into oblivion. But this particular series of wins I am not very likely to forget. Several years later, Unzicker tried variation D in the same position. Fischer's win in that game was hailed to be the best in the eleventh volume of Chess Informant.
Fischer cleverly plays all kinds of positions: from the highly complex to the highly risky ones. No one has ever accused him of playing less well in certain positions, a charge that can be laid at virtually any chess player's door. This is why so many people believe that it is his conception and his style that are the closest to the absolute truth in chess.
By A. Matanovic
Fischer SWEPT two consecutive Candidates Matches 6-0 (Taimanov, Larsen), and won the first game against Petrosian before winning that match 6.5-2.5
Think about that: 13 straight VICTORIES at the highest levels of chess.
Kasparov nor Carlsen have never sniffed such domination.
This isn't even a fair question.
Kasparov and Carlsen had better opposition than during the Fischer era.
Not to mention that that type of sequences mean little with regards to who the best player ever is. Steinitz won 25 in a row against even higher ranked opposition than Fischer won against, and that in itself doesn't qualify him for best player ever half as much as his winning all the matches he played for a period of more than 30 years. If one would rank the greatest players ever based on numbers of games won in a row the list would look rather strange.
Good post as usual by Fabelhalf, for the answer in this thread. Kasparov is the best, his achievements shows it.
From his results we can safely conclude that Robert James Fischer is the strongest chess player the world has ever known. From the diversity of openings that he has played with a profound understanding, it is clear that in that area of the game his knowledge has never before been equaled. The precision with which he plays the endgame is almost frightening. Even strong Grandmasters cannot treat a "book draw" too lightly. His impeccable and often original handling of all types of middle game positions leaves nothing lacking.
-- Anonymous
Fischer SWEPT two consecutive Candidates Matches 6-0 (Taimanov, Larsen), and won the first game against Petrosian before winning that match 6.5-2.5
Think about that: 13 straight VICTORIES at the highest levels of chess.
Kasparov nor Carlsen have never sniffed such domination.
This isn't even a fair question.
Kasparov and Carlsen had better opposition than during the Fischer era.
Not to mention that that type of sequences mean little with regards to who the best player ever is. Steinitz won 25 in a row against even higher ranked opposition than Fischer won against, and that in itself doesn't qualify him for best player ever half as much as his winning all the matches he played for a period of more than 30 years. If one would rank the greatest players ever based on numbers of games won in a row the list would look rather strange.
Good post as usual by Fabelhalf, for the answer in this thread. Kasparov is the best, his achievements shows it.
no it doesnt
here the words of a GM
In their quest for truth, chess players employ their knowledge and their specific view of chess. They are firm in their belief that their own style is the right one, the one that will bring them closest to the truth. Knowing what the aim of the game is, one may ask whose style is the right one: Tal's, Karpov's, Fischer's...?
The creative genius is no respecter of monuments: he does not build on; he starts from scratch. Fischer questioned everything established truths as well as discarded speculations.
He delved into the heritage of past generations. Fischer was not looking only for the odd pearl that had rolled under the carpet. Every old chestnut came under his minute scrutiny.
With the exception of the German Bisguier, who was the first to write a book on the theory of chess openings, all the other authors on the subject copied much of their material from one another, including mistakes which like a hereditary disease were handed down from one generation to the next.
Partly as a result of the awe in which a book is held as a source of truth, and partly because it is easier to learn than both learn and verify, a Fischer had to appear before the many dormant variants should come back to life. What was needed was a sharp and discerning eye, and the kind of patience and energy that move mountains.
He thus resurrected such variants as are described in the heaps of theoretical manuals as "... Black brings his game back on an even keel with any of the variations A, B, or C".
At the 1966 Chess Olympics in Havana, when Fischer first used such a variant, Portisch applied variation A, Gligoric variation B, and the Cuban Jimenez variation C. All three of them lost.
Years have gone by, and the Havana Olympics are gradually falling into oblivion. But this particular series of wins I am not very likely to forget. Several years later, Unzicker tried variation D in the same position. Fischer's win in that game was hailed to be the best in the eleventh volume of Chess Informant.
Fischer cleverly plays all kinds of positions: from the highly complex to the highly risky ones. No one has ever accused him of playing less well in certain positions, a charge that can be laid at virtually any chess player's door. This is why so many people believe that it is his conception and his style that are the closest to the absolute truth in chess.
By A. Matanovic
And your point? Many GM also has words of awe and admiration regarding Kasparov,Karpov, Tal etc on their play.
jamby but the majority of GMs voted for bobby fischer and the independent even said so in their article.
secondly if you read what you wrote you would know that Fischer is the best
Fischer SWEPT two consecutive Candidates Matches 6-0 (Taimanov, Larsen), and won the first game against Petrosian before winning that match 6.5-2.5
Think about that: 13 straight VICTORIES at the highest levels of chess.
Kasparov nor Carlsen have never sniffed such domination.
This isn't even a fair question.
Kasparov and Carlsen had better opposition than during the Fischer era.
Not to mention that that type of sequences mean little with regards to who the best player ever is. Steinitz won 25 in a row against even higher ranked opposition than Fischer won against, and that in itself doesn't qualify him for best player ever half as much as his winning all the matches he played for a period of more than 30 years. If one would rank the greatest players ever based on numbers of games won in a row the list would look rather strange.
Good post as usual by Fabelhalf, for the answer in this thread. Kasparov is the best, his achievements shows it.
no it doesnt
Says who from a homer scrub player Fischer fan like you? Just an advice you can't force anybody to think what you think about Fischer. You are so obssesed and desperate with Fischer
jamby you just cant make up facts, GM voted for the truth. Everything you say doesnt change that.
jamby but the majority of GMs voted for bobby fischer and the independent even said so in their article.
secondly if you read what you wrote you would know that Fischer is the best
Well that is your scrub opinion and dreams. Nope Fischer is not the best, and many GM thinks he is not the best. Karpov is even better than Fischer for me.
well jamby GMs voted officialy who the best player of the 20th century is and FIscher won.
jamby but the majority of GMs voted for bobby fischer and the independent even said so in their article.
secondly if you read what you wrote you would know that Fischer is the best
Nope, not true, and Matanovic is from Fischer's era, of course he will be bias.
jamby but the majority of GMs voted for bobby fischer and the independent even said so in their article.
secondly if you read what you wrote you would know that Fischer is the best
Nope, not true, and Matanovic is from Fischer's era, of course he will be bias.
there was a vote where all GMs voted for the strongest player of the 20th century and the majority voted for Fischer.
lol why would he be biased if he were from his era?? seriously GMs wouldnt be GMs if they wouldnt question things critically...
The vote too place 30 years after Fischer wolrd championship, that means the voters were mostly biased against Fischer.
AND ALL THOSE ANTIFISCHER PEOPLE VOTED FOR HIM!!!
WHICH MAKES HIM EVEN GREATER!!!!!
jamby but the majority of GMs voted for bobby fischer and the independent even said so in their article.
secondly if you read what you wrote you would know that Fischer is the best
Nope, not true, and Matanovic is from Fischer's era, of course he will be bias.
there was a vote where all GMs voted for the strongest player of the 20th century and the majority voted for Fischer.
lol why would he be biased if he were from his era?? seriously GMs wouldnt be GMs if they wouldnt question things critically...
The vote too place 30 years after Fischer wolrd championship, that means the voters were mostly biased against Fischer.
AND ALL THOSE ANTIFISCHER PEOPLE VOTED FOR HIM!!!
WHICH MAKES HIM EVEN GREATER!!!!!
Nope Kasparov is the best for me, and many GM thinks that. What would you do? You will cry? Fischer's achievements is weak compare to Karpov and Kasparov.
Jamby but the majority of GMs think it is Fischer. Its the truth. I will just point out the truth
Jamby but the majority of GMs think it is Fischer. Its the truth. I will just point out the truth
Fischer's accomplishement is weak compare to Kasparov and Karpov, that's the truth.
Jamby but the majority of GMs think it is Fischer. Its the truth. I will just point out the truth
Fischer's accomplishement is weak compare to Kasparov and Karpov, that's the truth.
GMs voted for Fischer, that is the truth
Jamby but the majority of GMs think it is Fischer. Its the truth. I will just point out the truth
Fischer's accomplishement is weak compare to Kasparov and Karpov, that's the truth.
GMs voted for Fischer, that is the truth
And still many think Fischer is overrated and not the best
abeyer wrote:
1. Fischer 2. Kasparov
I agree