Look at the 15305432673 threads already discusting this subject.
The DEADLY "fischer" vs The BEAST "kasparov"
Sort:
Kasparov, because Fischer was a 'murican.
*grabs popcorn
FIscher would win. because i say so.
It's a really good question, and while I may not be as deep a thinker as some of the excellent contributors to this thread, notably GeorgeBlackChess123, until FIDE sanctions the freezing of the alive bodies of SuperGMs, it's going to be difficult to get a really good answer to such a fundamental question, instead of answers to the effect "my dog likes Garry, so it has to be him".
paulgottlieb wrote:
Mikhail Botvinnik, who was certainly qualified to judge said: "From a combinational point of view I suggest Kasparov has outstripped Fischer, but in the endgame Fischer was stronger."
well even if the first point were true(what i dont say), its hilarious to just reduce Fischer to the endgame(endgame is great dont get me wrong).
Fischer would at least be better also strategically and positionally in my honest opinion!!!!
Also Fischer in my believe not only did awesome opening preparation, he also seem to know much more what his opponent would play, at least from the spassky match it seemed in some games like Fischer exactly knew everything about Spassky. But maybe thats just my imagination.
But to me Fischer seemed to know everything in advanced, like all his opponents were an open book.
I know Kasparov did some cool things too with Karpov but I think Fischer is untouchable in that regard.
paulgottlieb wrote:
There's a great book called "Russians against Fischer," where the author got access to all of the documents prepared by the Soviet chess establishment as they tried to prepare to meet the "Fischer Problem." Almost all the top grandmasters were required to prepare a written analysis of Fischer's strengths and weaknesses. In almost every single one of those analyses the same two points were made: 1)He is a tireless fighter who will continue to struggle for a win as long as there is any life at all in the position, and will tenaciously defend an inferior position with all him might. 2) The worst possible fate is to be in an inferior ending against Fischer, particularly if you have no counterplay. He is tireless, relentless, and has near-perfect endgame technique.
At least that's what Tal, Geller, Korchnoi, Petrosian and company believed.
if you read the book you would have noticed that many GMs made nonsensical obersvations, that its already funny how non of them got punished.
The book is very good, but the assessment of the players is sometimes really really hilarious.
But the funniest guy was Korchnoi. Tal and Petrsian were both dreaming of how good Fischer was and Korchnoi said nah he isnt that good or something like that.
But ofc that being said, just because he is marvelous in endgames doesnt mean it was his only strength.
you can be the best endgame player and still also be the best strategist, there is no contradiction.
Also i have the hunch that Fischers style was the most versatile.
TetsuoShima wrote:
if you read the book you would have noticed that many GMs made nonsensical obersvations, that its already funny how non of them got punished.
The book is very good, but the assessment of the players is sometimes really really hilarious.
But the funniest guy was Korchnoi. Tal and Petrsian were both dreaming of how good Fischer was and Korchnoi said nah he isnt that good or something like that.
But ofc that being said, just because he is marvelous in endgames doesnt mean it was his only strength.
you can be the best endgame player and still also be the best strategist, there is no contradiction.
Also i have the hunch that Fischers style was the most versatile.
I read that while other Soviet GMs weren't too worried, Korchnoi was warning them that Fischer was continuing to improve and may be a big problem.
waffllemaster wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
if you read the book you would have noticed that many GMs made nonsensical obersvations, that its already funny how non of them got punished.
The book is very good, but the assessment of the players is sometimes really really hilarious.
But the funniest guy was Korchnoi. Tal and Petrsian were both dreaming of how good Fischer was and Korchnoi said nah he isnt that good or something like that.
But ofc that being said, just because he is marvelous in endgames doesnt mean it was his only strength.
you can be the best endgame player and still also be the best strategist, there is no contradiction.
Also i have the hunch that Fischers style was the most versatile.
I read that while other Soviet GMs weren't too worried, Korchnoi was warning them that Fischer was continuing to improve and may be a big problem.
Maybe Korchnoi was just talking about the blitz championship Fischer won. Yes i believe you are right i got confused.
Let's discuss whether Humphrey Bogart would have whupped Sam Sloan.
paulgottlieb wrote:
Don't be ridiculous! The only important question is who would win a chess game between Tarzan and Batman?
BAtman would beat em all, you got to be really tricky and scheeming to find those robins without blowing up the cover.
Kasparov, unless someone can channel Fischer from beyond the grave.
Did someone ask for a ghost whisperer ?
TetsuoShima wrote:
paulgottlieb wrote:
Don't be ridiculous! The only important question is who would win a chess game between Tarzan and Batman?
BAtman would beat em all, you got to be really tricky and scheeming to find those robins without blowing up the cover.
But could Batman beat Mr. Ed?
no ofc he couldnt beat mr ed. by the way i really like the pictures
Haha klfay1 nice man! I think personally Fischer WAS a better player as both don't compete anymore. But I also enjoy Kasparov's games. Like his immortal against Topalov his series against Karpov. But then there's just the sheer brilliance of Fischer and that's what wins my vote.
Chessbe17 wrote:
Haha klfay1 nice man! I think personally Fischer WAS a better player as both don't compete anymore. But I also enjoy Kasparov's games. Like his immortal against Topalov his series against Karpov. But then there's just the sheer brilliance of Fischer and that's what wins my vote.
i think i agree.
by the way how much did Kasparovs training had influence on Shankland becoming GM??
Not that i want to try to emulate that, just curiousity....
EricJohnLamano wrote:
Kasparov will win the Match. Yes, Fischer was great, no doubt about it. He trounced both Taimanov and Larsen without a single loss but it doesn't guarantee that he can beat Gazza, who, throughout his whole career praised by his rivals for his deep preparation and admires his ability in playing well complicated positions. He truly has it all; He attacks like Tal and defends like Lasker. Superior in playing tournaments or matches. He is a universal player. He can play 1.e4 and 2.d4 equally well not to mention his knowledge in other "flank" openings. His middle games was unique, combine with sharp combinations. Excellent endgame player, he will squeeze his opponent to death. Well-versed in both tactical and strategical complex. He is a very formidable opponent even to a genius like Fischer.
what about Linares, did Ivanchuk find Kasparovs weak spot or was it just a bad day?
lets not make machines predict the results or play their moves to determine who wins but rather lets discuss and conclude this drama ryt here infact tittled players are more than welcome to drop some fine answers.. Both at there peak level.. Who would outplay the other in say a 25 game match! Defend and reason your answer with honesty dont just answer becoz you are a fan just be honest and share your reasons with us! As for me i love kasparov the most but these two titan's crash would be war!! It would be THE incredible hulk vs WOLVERING :) personaly I've tried analysing who would win but its just not enough. Please feel free!