Wilhelm Steinitz would have won the first one. the capa-kasparov game would be a thing to see; two very strong players in their prime + a chess set + a set amount of time = a great game. most likely capa though. carlsen would crunch fischer... I will get some angry members yelling at me, but fischer stinks now. Tal would win over botvinnik, and karpov would beat spassky.
Morphy vs. Steinitz
Sort:
I think it's obvious that Tal vs Botvinnik can go either way, and look at that, history seems to agree.
Other than that, chess has evolved alot during the last 100 years, alot, Capablanca was a genius, but so is Kasparov and Casablanca wouldn't be able to stand up against 100 years of advancement in the sport.
Same goes for Fischer vs Magnus Carlsen.
I don't know much about any one really good at chess. I say that steintz is my best character. -teresa Marcopolus
and id do anything to make a point
yippy
im not doing that anymore, by the way i'm awsome!
hey joe... Great questions... but here is the one little problem... NOT ENOUGH COMMENTS
Maybe you're just kind of unlucky...
-Ilikecheese97
P.S. Cheese is good, and I still dont know how that guy didn't know what a cow is...
Wait what?!?!?! WHY IS MY PICTURE STILL A GOPHER?
Fixed it...hehe gave you some more comments Joe ahehehehehehehehehehe
Steinitz was the first official world champion. This fact makes a lot of confusion.
People appraciate official titles. People like official letters but the true is that:
Steinitz just called discovery of Paul Morphy. The official title does not make him
a better player then Morphy. Steinitz like Philidor or Staunton was an outstanding
strategist and positional player. But Morphy was someone more. Morphy was a genius. I think Morphy was a better player then Steinitz.
If these two were to face off, who probably would have won? Paul Morphy vs Wilhelm Steinitz?
Capablanca or Kasparov?
Fischer or Carlsen?
Tal or Botvinnik?
Karpov or Spassky?