Originally posted by RahimKok.
Kasp. was the best player and still is the best during recent times.
However, you can't say he is the best player all time. He learnt so much from all the players before him and he had access to chess stuff other players before him didn't have.
There is so much chess knowledge availabe now compared to say 100, 200 years ago. Thus you can't compare peo ...[text shortened]... both had the same access to chess knowledge. Who would be better? That's a fair comparsion.
I agree with you,
Kasparov has learnt from the best players before him,so it would be unfair to claim that Kasparov is the best player of chess history.
Then my new question is,
is Kasparov the best current chess player ?
I guess so ,since he is the only one to have reached 2800 elo for years (exept maybe Anand and Topalov who have just reached this level,but we'll see if they'll keep this level)
It's like arguing who was better, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, or Ted Williams.
There is no answer.
Fischer, Morphy, Capablanca are favorites of mine.
Nimzovitch contributed the most to Chess Theory.
Make a list of contenders and they all come from three countries. (Presuming that you count the former USSR as one Country.)
I apoloqize to Anand in advance, but he never won a world championship.
9 edits
Originally posted by gambit3Once you've held the World Chess Championship title for 20 years, what's left to prove on a chess board? I wouldn't even wish to be as good as Kasparov. I feel sorry for him. He's played so many games with so many greats and obliterated them all, and his love of chess surely must be at a low point now. It's like you smoke so much crack cocaine, and you don't have to worry about buying it, because you have a whole room full of crack cocaine, and chess is much the same way. You just keep smoking and smoking, and then you finally realize there's no pleasure, because you have so much of it that its novelty has worn away.
Is Kasparov the best player today? No. Kasparov lost to Kramnik. Kasparov has retired and has not played for some time now. Surely Kasparov is a bit rusty and will not be playing as well as he once was.
But, anyway... just my thoughts... Fischer was the greatest player ever of any time in any point in history. Put Fischer in any era, and show him the moves, and he would be World Champion. Any era. Fischer fear was an aura unlike any other. He was truly the Fischer KING in '72! And, he will always be CHESS ITSELF! Kasparov was only World Champion. Fischer was CHESS ITSELF - in all its art, in all its beauty, and in all its infinite grandeur. Fischer was the epitome of a World Champion: egotistical, arrogant, fearless, viscious, calculating, cold, a lone ranger... with an unlimited WILL TO WIN. No other man - ever - have I known or heard of before has ever had more of a WILL TO WIN on a chess board than Bobby Fischer. If anyone ever says other wise, they're an idiot. And, if they ever argue the point that Fischer was the greatest match player of all time, they're idiots also! And, if you take Fischer's BLITZ, STANDARD and QUICK CHESS ratings, and match them with Kasparov's best, Kasparov won't hold up! Fischer was ALL OF CHESS - not just some of it, and HE WAS GREAT AT ALL OF IT.
1 edit
Originally posted by powershakerOf course, you can only really make this claim because Fischer refused to defend his world championship. How FEARLESS! What an incredible WILL TO WIN! If his arrogance and paranoia are indeed the epitome of chess, then you can keep it.
Fischer was the epitome of a World Champion: egotistical, arrogant, fearless, viscious, calculating, cold, a lone ranger... with an unlimited WILL TO WIN. No other man - ever - have I known or heard of before has ever had more of a WILL TO WIN on a chess board than Bobby Fischer. If anyone ever says other wise, they're an idiot.
(Incidentally, to say no one ever had more of a will to win than Fischer at the chessboard is almost certainly wrong.)
2 edits
Originally posted by dottewellNo, dotte honey, you see Fischer went like a warrior to the title. Once he got it, he did not wish to lose it. He had nothing left to prove in his mind. Why defend it if they wouldn't give him his requested number of games? He wanted to do it in a classical 10 game format - draws not counting I believe. But, they would never allow it, because they knew Fischer would kill Karpov in that format. If they would have given Fischer all his demands, he would have played Karpov in a title defense for sure. Dotte, Fischer will always be the KING OF THE GAME OF KINGS! He'd walk into a room - even now - and scare the living h*** out of every chess player there. He was like a computer, said one former World Chess Champion. No way! Fischer was the best in '72! Benko said! Bisguier has said it! Larry Evans has said it! Tal has said it! All of them said it! They know better than you do dottewell! The Fischer of '72 could be World Champion at any era in chess history. I have no doubt.
Of course, you can only really make this claim because Fischer refused to defend his world championship. How FEARLESS! What an incredible WILL TO WIN! If his arrogance and paranoia are indeed the epitome of chess, then you can keep it.
(Incidentally, to say no one ever had more of a will to win than Fischer at the chessboard is almost certainly wrong.)
1 edit
Originally posted by powershaker"Why defend it if they wouldn't give him his requested number of games?"
No, dotte honey, you see Fischer went like a warrior to the title. Once he got it, he did not wish to lose it. He had nothing left to prove in his mind. Why defend it if they wouldn't give him his requested number of games? He wanted to do it in a classical 10 game format - draws not counting I believe. But, they would never allow it, because they k ! The Fischer of '72 could be World Champion at any era in chess history. I have no doubt.
Because it is not for the champion to set the rules as he sees fit?
From wikipedia:
Fischer drew up a list of ten demands, chief among them the provisions that draws wouldn't count, the first to ten victories wins, and if the score was tied 9–9 the champion would retain the crown. This means that candidate needed two wins more than the reigning champion because narrowest possible win for him is 10–8. The International Chess Federation (FIDE) flatly refused at first, but eventually conceded the first two. However, Fischer demanded all or nothing, and when FIDE refused to give into the third demand, Fischer resigned his crown, to the huge disappointment of the chess world.
His rules would have been grossly unfair & were the demands of a paranoid, not someone who had "proved everything he needed to prove". You can see the seeds of his later mental collapse in his behaviour of this time.
You can defend the way he played but the fact is Kasparov proved to everyone else over a much greater length of time that he was the best player in the world. That is courage and dignity. Kasparov was an ambassador for chess; Fischer was a vain egomaniac who cared much more about himself than the game.
I believe Kasparov said that Fischer was playing like a 2600 in his return match with Spassky.
Originally posted by dottewellI'm saying the Fischer of '72 could be World Champion in any era of Chess History. He smashed many of the greats including Samuel Reshevsky, the prodigy. How can you say this is not true? Are you saying he was never great at all?
"Why defend it if they wouldn't give him his requested number of games?"
Because it is not for the champion to set the rules as he sees fit?
From wikipedia:
[i]Fischer drew up a list of ten demands, chief among them the provisions that draws wouldn't count, the first to ten victories wins, and if the score was tied 9–9 the champion would retain th ...[text shortened]... lieve Kasparov said that Fischer was playing like a 2600 in his return match with Spassky.