Fischer might never have been the world champ if it were not for Pal Benko.
Pal Benko opened the door, and Fischer blasted through the Russian state-sponsored-chess-mafia with a record that (most likely) will never be equaled.
It's sad he was mentally ill. He deserves some empathy, and some (well deserved) criticism, as well. But we are all imperfect beings.
Fischer
Fischer
Unfollowing
Bye-bye
Fischer would likely have beaten Karpov, he just didn't want to yield to the Soviet machine's rules after fighting it for a decade.
However, Kasparov at his peak was incredible and dynamic in his approach, so it's not unreasonable to think that he could have beaten Fischer with both at top form. Of the Soviet world champs, I think that only Petrosian and Kasparov deserve comparison to Fischer, though to be fair they didn't have to work as hard as Fischer did to become World Champion.
Kasparov kept getting better after he beat Karpov - which is rare for a World Champion (Emmanuel Lasker is the only other who comes to mind). Overall, Kasparov seemed more flexible in his approach to the game than Fischer was (though the latter changed gears when it was called for), so I'd give him an edge head-to-head, albeit a slight one.
fitsher catch kasparov like a fish.
fitsher catch kasparov like a fish.
Fischer would likely have beaten Karpov, he just didn't want to yield to the Soviet machine's rules after fighting it for a decade.
No way! Fischer barely won the world title, thanks to his unprofessional and paranoid behavior. Because of his talent, most people dismissed his unruly and juvenile manners. Yet I feel he was simply afraid to take on Karpov. Nothing else makes sense. He had the entire chess industry bend over backwards for him. Yet Bobby knew chess and I'm sure he knew if he was capable of beating Karpov, he, of all people would know it. The excuse of not wanting to continue "fighting the Russian machine' was just a smokescreen for admitting he was afraid to lose. The only thing Bobby was fighting was his own ego and inability to deal with defeat.
There is no the best, but the better
Oh my gawwd not this crap again! Superior forces of their respective generations. But yeah, Fischer's been more intimidating. It's a shame that we lost the Fischer v Karpov era.
I agree. This debate is pointless, as both players were against different competition and in different stages of the development of chess (Similar to the debates about Messi and Pele, or Michael Jordan and Lebron James, interestingly).
Kasparov was better than Fischer like Mike Trout is better than Jedd Gyorko or Jesus Christ is better than Donald Trump. It's a landslide!
Both players faced some similar players. Robert Byrne said that Fischer was the best player he had ever seen until Kasparov came along. But Kasparov was clearly better.
I'm glad that in this thread, at least people aren't debating what the word "best". Means.
Both players faced some similar players. Robert Byrne said that Fischer was the best player he had ever seen until Kasparov came along. But Kasparov was clearly better.
I'm glad that in this thread, at least people aren't debating what the word "best". Means.
What do you mean by "best?"
Kasparov was better than Fischer like Mike Trout is better than Jedd Gyorko or Jesus Christ is better than Donald Trump. It's a landslide!
Though I disagree with you, your analogies are spot on, my friend.
Both players faced some similar players. Robert Byrne said that Fischer was the best player he had ever seen until Kasparov came along. But Kasparov was clearly better.
I'm glad that in this thread, at least people aren't debating what the word "best". Means.
What do you mean by "best?"
Very simple: Who played higher quality chess. That's without filters, without "well, if x was born in decade y", or any of that other ahistorical nonsense. The historical Fischer, with 1972 knowledge and skill, is not better than the historical Garry Kasparov with the knowledge and skill he had in 2000. There's no sliding scale to compensate for the passage of time. Best is best.
In general, today's players have a very real advantage over players from the past. We have all learned from them, and some have even stood on the shoulders of giants to see farther and play better.
Best means best.
The only grey area for me is whether a one-time performance is as good as a slightly lower but consistently higher rating is better. In other words, is Carlsen's 2882 peak FIDE rating better than Kasparov's tenure as World Champion and time spent above 2800? Carlsen is making even that discussion moot by maintaining his +2800 rating for a decade now. If he defends his title against Caruana, he will have defended it against Anand, Karjakin and Caruana. Kasparov defended his title against Karpov (3 times), Short, and Anand.
The discussion of who is the best of all time comes down to Kasparov vs Carlsen. Fischer's best rating ranks as 19th best of all time. That's an incredible feat for someone playing chess in 1972! Could he have played better? We'll never know. We only have what he actually accomplished to go by. He dropped out of chess entirely until 1992, when he played at about 2650 strength.
It is true that Fischer dropped out of chess entirely until 1992. When he did play again it was against his former opponent who had dropped down to about 100 on the rating list. Fischer won but only with a performance rating under 2700.
Fischer was great in his day but knew when his time was up and dropped out. Kasparov was clearly the stronger player. Kasparov had all the advantages which Fischer never had.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history
What a joke!
Wiki is indeed a joke. For lazy people who can't think for themselves Wiki is a great source for the common man's prejudices, and little else.
Wiki is also in bed with Google, to keep your eyeballs glued to their ecosystem.
Get over it, if you can. You'll be a better man for it.