Bobby fischer and that
´s all
Who was the all time best
Sort:
His results were good in the 1960s but not as good as Spassky's. The latter won many candidates matches and a title match and that is more important than Fischer's wins against weaker opposition . . . So it's basically just over a year in 1971-72 that can make him comparable to the greatest players, but also without that year he would naturally have been one of the legends of the game, but never mentioned as one of the greatest.
Did you miss the part where I pulled his game records? He had a plus or even score against every relevant player in the world except Geller. He had plus scores against Tal, Petrosian, Larsen, Spassky . . . all of them. He was certainly the best player in the world by 1967 and was equal to the best by 1964.
Was he the best, certainly not - Kasparov was certainly better and Capa likely was as well, but Fischer was certainly not some flash in the pan hack as you assert. He held the title for just as long as Smyslov, Tal, or Spassky and he had a plus score against them all. You insiatance that he does not merit consideration is silly and you know it.
It could be some unknown chess club champ ,yrs ago we had a guy from Poland & he smoked everybody all the time & moved like lightning on the chess board.
Fezzik wrote:
Archaic71 wrote:
He [Fischer] had plus scores against Tal...
Errm, not true. His record against Tal was 2-5-4, with two blitz wins.
But if the argument is only about plus scores, then Botvinnik was clearly better than Fischer because of his equal or plus score against every world champion from Lasker through Karpov, excepting Petrosian.
Doesn't Capablanca have a plus or equal score against every champ and future champ he ever faced (equal with Botvinnik), including Lasker, Alekhine, Euwe and Botvinnik (doesn't sound like much but that 63 years continuous champions). Plus he was older when he lost to the one-generation-younger Botvinnik? And might I add...no exceptions. CAPABLANCA IS CUBAN!!! AAGH AGH AGH AGH AGH
Clearly this topic is a popular one...with only subjective conclusions possible...we should be honoured to be able to debate the accomplishments of these great masters...all of which have played a very important role in the history of chess...with the final chapter still unwritten...
Fezzik wrote:
Archaic71 wrote:
He [Fischer] had plus scores against Tal...
Errm, not true. His record against Tal was 2-5-4, with two blitz wins.
I'll give you that, but Tal never beat Fischer after 1960 (when Tal was in world championship form and Fischer was still a kid)
Who was the best never to win the crown,thats another good topic I might start.
soldierpiper wrote:
Who was the best never to win the crown,thats another good topic I might start.
Been done a dozen times or so.
Not sure which is preferred. Start a new one or bump an old one?
oh ,well thats a lunch bag let down.
Apr 6, 2011
0
#152
goldendog wrote:
soldierpiper wrote:
Who was the best never to win the crown,thats another good topic I might start.
Been done a dozen times or so.
Not sure which is preferred. Start a new one or bump an old one?
I am trying find an old one...can't find it at the moment....
Don,t worry I just started the new topic.
Its certainly NOT clear to me that Kasparov is the greatest ever. He never won 20 games, or more, in a row against all GM players. ( Fischer did ) He never won any major tournament with 100%. ( Fischer did ) He never won a candidates match with 100%. ( Fischer did it twice . ) He also failed to win the WC at his first attempt. ( Fischer didnt fail ) Kasparov also only has even score against both Spassky and Petrosian, two players Fischer crushed in his path to the WC title. Yes, I know Kasparov had not yet reached his peak when he played them but both of them were also well past their peaks. Fischer also had not shown any sign that he wasnt still improving and if he had played another 10 years he may very well have broken 2900 .
There were many great people for their time, some of which would have had so much more potential if they lived in this modern day and age with all of the tools that we possess.
But Kasparov was simply the greatest chess player of all times. It's not even close.
Reb wrote:
Its certainly NOT clear to me that Kasparov is the greatest ever. He never won 20 games, or more, in a row against all GM players. ( Fischer did ) He never won any major tournament with 100%. ( Fischer did ) He never won a candidates match with 100%. ( Fischer did it twice . ) He also failed to win the WC at his first attempt. ( Fischer didnt fail ) Kasparov also only has even score against both Spassky and Petrosian, two players Fischer crushed in his path to the WC title. Yes, I know Kasparov had not yet reached his peak when he played them but both of them were also well past their peaks. Fischer also had not shown any sign that he wasnt still improving and if he had played another 10 years he may very well have broken 2900 .
Based on this logic, you could say that Paul Morphy was the greatest chess player of all time, not because he actually was, but because there was no-one which he couldn't beat on a 100% ratio.
Archaic71 wrote:
His results were good in the 1960s but not as good as Spassky's. The latter won many candidates matches and a title match and that is more important than Fischer's wins against weaker opposition . . . So it's basically just over a year in 1971-72 that can make him comparable to the greatest players, but also without that year he would naturally have been one of the legends of the game, but never mentioned as one of the greatest.
Did you miss the part where I pulled his game records? He had a plus or even score against every relevant player in the world except Geller. He had plus scores against Tal, Petrosian, Larsen, Spassky . . . all of them. He was certainly the best player in the world by 1967 and was equal to the best by 1964.
Was he the best, certainly not - Kasparov was certainly better and Capa likely was as well, but Fischer was certainly not some flash in the pan hack as you assert. He held the title for just as long as Smyslov, Tal, or Spassky and he had a plus score against them all. You insiatance that he does not merit consideration is silly and you know it.
To begin with you draw the conclusion that Fischer was better than Spassky in 1967 because he got a plus score against him many years later. You also claim that Fischer had a plus score against Tal when he in fact was -2 against him.
If Fischer "certainly was the best player in the world in 1967" he proved it by 1. Having a minus against Spassky 2. Finishing behind him in tournaments 3. Having worse results in the World Championship cycle. And a couple of year later Spassky won the World Championship as well. So what could Spassky have done not to be "certainly" worse than Fischer apart from what he did?
Seeing Spassky's achievements as far better than Fischer's up until 1972 doesn't mean that Fischer was a flash in the pan hack, to me his results aren't close to merit consideration as the greatest player ever though.
Deranged wrote:
There were many great people for their time, some of which would have had so much more potential if they lived in this modern day and age with all of the tools that we possess.
But Kasparov was simply the greatest chess player of all times. It's not even close.
If this were true then he would have no trouble doing the things Fischer did, in fact it would be easy for him to do even better than Fischer did. The fact is he didnt.
The major tournaments Kasparov won were of course far from as weak as the American Championship. It's another thing if you look at the strongest tournaments Fischer played in, he didn't win any of those, but then the opposition was tougher.
I truly wonder about some of the argumentation on behalf of Fischer. Reb means that Fischer won the title on his first try while Kasparov failed. The truth is that Fischer failed in the candidates 1959, in the candidates 1962, didin't want to participate in the next cycle and withdrew from the one that followed. Then he finally succeeded in 1972, after being given Benko's spot.
Kasparov won at his first try (Interzonal with a big margin undefeated, three candidates matches 12-2 in wins, and then Karpov) unless one would see Campomanes' having the title match stopped and restarted as Kasparov failing to win. But it was his first cycle and of course Kasparov won, becoming the youngest World Champion ever. To twist this into Fischer's achievement being better than Kasparov's is fascinating, I suppose not wanting to play Karpov also was more impressive than beating him time and again.
I wonder if one of the reasons Fischer couldn't play after 1972 was his uncompromising style. Kasparov was uncompromising enough, but when he had a clear plus in matches he was content to just hold on to the win. Against old Smyslov he didn't bother more than was necessary, and saved strength for the next event, as in many tournaments when he already had won them. That way he could last for more than 20 years as the best.
To Fischer winning wasn't enough, as he said he liked the feeling of crushing the opponent's ego. He invested all his strength all the time, also when it wasn't needed. With a more economical style he might have lasted longer, but then I guess he wouldn't have been Fischer.