Bobby Fischer would beat them all blindfolded.
Who's Better?: Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov, or Magnus Carlsen
Sort:
I think a more suitable question might be
"Who do you consider to be the greatest chess player of these 3 legends: Magnus, Bobby or Garry?
My own personal favorite of the 3 is Bobby, but judging people who are unmeasurably above oneself in skill is quite...unrealistic perhaps. It is like apes trying to judge art. This picture has a lot of yellow, and I like bananas, so it is the best 
2 for Fischer, 3 for Kasparov and 2 for Carlsen. Pretty equal so far.
RedGirlZ님이 썼습니다:
ChessBoy513 wrote:
RedGirlZ님이 썼습니다:
ChessBoy513 wrote:
RedGirlZ님이 썼습니다:
ChessBoy513 wrote:
RedGirlZ님이 썼습니다:
ChessBoy513 wrote:
RedGirlZ님이 썼습니다:
ChessBoy513 wrote:
RedGirlZ님이 썼습니다:
These questions are always asked, can't you think of anything more unique to ask?
You're talking about 3 chess players in 3 completely different chess eras. Garry Kasparov started really rising up in the chess scene once Fischer was on his way out. Same with Magnus. You can't compare them because the resources they had, tools, influence, playstyles, and talent is all different. If you were to put kasparov or Bobby in their prime against magnus now they would lose most of the time, plain and simple. If you gave them the resources Magnus has had for his entire chess career and given it to Kasparov and Fischer to use for their entire chess career and then paired them off each other... well who knows, it's impossible to calculate that.
The first bold sentence is the reason why this forum was made. The 2nd bold sentence indicates that you probably voted for Carlsen.
Result so far: 0 for Fischer, 3 for Kasparov and 3 for Carlsen.
1. That reason is why it's ridiculous.
2. I never voted for Carlsen, im not partaking in your forums question. I'm giving you facts. It's like asking if Paul Morphy would ever beat Magnus, the question answers itself.
Yes I know those facts but that's not the point of this forum.
It is, cuz those facts are relevant.
Did you even read post #31 and 32?
Yes, and they're irrelevant to my original point.
What IS your original point anyway? You told me you were giving me facts.
go read my first comment.
I did. You said these questions were always asked(A:Well I didn't know that and was just curious!)
You also said that comparing the 3 were impossible(A: That's EXACTLY why my forum exists. If we could compare them, the answer would come out right away. NO, this forum is to make a debate sort of thing and listen to people's opinions. Looking at this too logicaly ruins the whole thing)
Whats the point of the debate if u can't reach a conclusion. That goes against what debating is meant for
The master with the most votes will be affirmed as the best of the best. You should've known that when I was counting votes.
RedGirlZ님이 썼습니다:
that's not logical
how come?
RedGirlZ님이 썼습니다:
ChessBoy513 wrote:
RedGirlZ님이 썼습니다:
that's not logical
how come?
After my explanations u still dont understand there's no point.
*ahem*
and after MY explanations you still don't understand what this forum is for! Can you please leave so I can finish the whole thing peacefully?
Whew! Now I can finish my poll peacefully!
RedGirlZ님이 썼습니다:
trust me i've seen forums like this all the time i know why u made it, u didn't bother responding to my argument which shows u don't know what ur talking about nor do u know what I'm talking about
SERIOUSLY? THIS ARGUEMENT IS TURNING INTO A WAR AND IT NEEDS TO STOP!! DID YOU READ POST #48?
RedGirlZ님이 썼습니다:
trust me i've seen forums like this all the time i know why u made it, u didn't bother responding to my argument which shows u don't know what ur talking about nor do u know what I'm talking about
common to you, NOT to me. Both of us don't understand each other, so please leave so that I can finish my poll peacefully.
RedGirlZ님이 썼습니다:
regardless of whether it's common to u or not it's still not logical.
You're looking at everything too logicaly. Sometimes you need to be creative.
Autopilot_Rook님이 썼습니다:
Well we will never know, since we can't Resurrect Fischer. Into the modern day of chess. With all the modern engine's and table bases, etc.
Yeah we'll never know the "real" truth.
bearsoftheice님이 썼습니다:
RedGirlZ wrote:
ChessBoy513 wrote:
RedGirlZ님이 썼습니다:
ChessBoy513 wrote:
RedGirlZ님이 썼습니다:
ChessBoy513 wrote:
RedGirlZ님이 썼습니다:
ChessBoy513 wrote:
RedGirlZ님이 썼습니다:
ChessBoy513 wrote:
RedGirlZ님이 썼습니다:
These questions are always asked, can't you think of anything more unique to ask?
You're talking about 3 chess players in 3 completely different chess eras. Garry Kasparov started really rising up in the chess scene once Fischer was on his way out. Same with Magnus. You can't compare them because the resources they had, tools, influence, playstyles, and talent is all different. If you were to put kasparov or Bobby in their prime against magnus now they would lose most of the time, plain and simple. If you gave them the resources Magnus has had for his entire chess career and given it to Kasparov and Fischer to use for their entire chess career and then paired them off each other... well who knows, it's impossible to calculate that.
The first bold sentence is the reason why this forum was made. The 2nd bold sentence indicates that you probably voted for Carlsen.
Result so far: 0 for Fischer, 3 for Kasparov and 3 for Carlsen.
1. That reason is why it's ridiculous.
2. I never voted for Carlsen, im not partaking in your forums question. I'm giving you facts. It's like asking if Paul Morphy would ever beat Magnus, the question answers itself.
Yes I know those facts but that's not the point of this forum.
It is, cuz those facts are relevant.
Did you even read post #31 and 32?
Yes, and they're irrelevant to my original point.
What IS your original point anyway? You told me you were giving me facts.
go read my first comment.
I did. You said these questions were always asked(A:Well I didn't know that and was just curious!)
You also said that comparing the 3 were impossible(A: That's EXACTLY why my forum exists. If we could compare them, the answer would come out right away. NO, this forum is to make a debate sort of thing and listen to people's opinions. Looking at this too logicaly ruins the whole thing)
Whats the point of the debate if u can't reach a conclusion. That goes against what debating is meant for
?
RedGirlZ님이 썼습니다:
ChessBoy513 wrote:
RedGirlZ님이 썼습니다:
regardless of whether it's common to u or not it's still not logical.
You're looking at everything too logicaly. Sometimes you need to be creative.
You think common sense is not mutually exclusive?
This is not one of those times you use common sense. And for the last time, please leave.
Aug 8, 2019
0
#35
Simply Kasparov from a game count point of view. Lasker from a longest lasting WC point of view. Fischer from an eccentric point of view and Carlsen from a current WC point of view.
endomorphic님이 썼습니다:
Simply Kasparov from a game count point of view. Lasker from a longest lasting WC point of view. Fischer from an eccentric point of view and Carlsen from a current WC point of view.
It's now 3 for Fischer, 4 for Kasparrov and 3 for Carlsen.
Whew!
Oh. Then 3 for Fischer, 3 for Kasparov and 2 for Carlsen.
These questions are always asked, can't you think of anything more unique to ask?
You're talking about 3 chess players in 3 completely different chess eras. Garry Kasparov started really rising up in the chess scene once Fischer was on his way out. Same with Magnus. You can't compare them because the resources they had, tools, influence, playstyles, and talent is all different. If you were to put kasparov or Bobby in their prime against magnus now they would lose most of the time, plain and simple. If you gave them the resources Magnus has had for his entire chess career and given it to Kasparov and Fischer to use for their entire chess career and then paired them off each other... well who knows, it's impossible to calculate that.
The first bold sentence is the reason why this forum was made. The 2nd bold sentence indicates that you probably voted for Carlsen.
Result so far: 0 for Fischer, 3 for Kasparov and 3 for Carlsen.
1. That reason is why it's ridiculous.
2. I never voted for Carlsen, im not partaking in your forums question. I'm giving you facts. It's like asking if Paul Morphy would ever beat Magnus, the question answers itself.
Yes I know those facts but that's not the point of this forum.
It is, cuz those facts are relevant.
Did you even read post #31 and 32?
Yes, and they're irrelevant to my original point.
What IS your original point anyway? You told me you were giving me facts.
go read my first comment.
I did. You said these questions were always asked(A:Well I didn't know that and was just curious!)
You also said that comparing the 3 were impossible(A: That's EXACTLY why my forum exists. If we could compare them, the answer would come out right away. NO, this forum is to make a debate sort of thing and listen to people's opinions. Looking at this too logicaly ruins the whole thing)