1 edit
Originally posted by schakuhrYou can count me as one of those nutters. Kasparov never won 6-0 against a Mark Taimanov. I think Fischer was better than Kasparov ever was during 1972. As for the best player of all time, Kasparov wins overall. But, Fischer is the greatest match player of all time! Mathematically, Kasparov is clearly the greatest player of all time. But, if Fischer had played professional chess for as many years as Kasparov, I believe Fischer would have no doubt conquered chess eternally. But, Fischer - like Morphy - is the sorrow of chess.
I'm telling you, apparently there are some nutters who believe fischer is the best...
Originally posted by powershakerI have read that Fischer was the greatest natural talent, but that Kasparov was the greatest player. Talent is one thing; whatcha gonna do with it is another.
You can count me as one of those nutters. Kasparov never won 6-0 against a Mark Taimanov. I think Fischer was better than Kasparov ever was during 1972. As for the best player of all time, Kasparov wins overall. But, Fischer is the greatest match player of all time! Mathematically, Kasparov is clearly the greatest player of all time. But, if Fische ...[text shortened]... d have no doubt conquered chess eternally. But, Fischer - like Morphy - is the sorrow of chess.
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemKasparov was born in 1963, so he was 37 years old when he lost to Kramnik. Other champions have won matches against difficult competition at a more advanced age: Alekhine won his rematch with Euwe when he was 45 and Botvinnik defeated Tal when he was 50! Capablanca lost his title at age 39 and others have experienced a decline in their late 30's, so Kasparov's defeat is typical, but still it does not strengthen his claim to being the greatest player (Lasker was older when he lost to Capablanca without being able to win a game and certainly no one can reasonably claim that Kramnik's record is comparable to the "Chess Machine"😉.
Sure wish we could have seen Fischer play world title matches until he was 40. I would have settled for seeing one match against Karpov around 1975.
I agree about the Fish; we'll never know if he would have had the ability to continue the brilliance he showed in the late 60's and early 70's in match play. Damn shame he had to be nuts.
1 edit
Originally posted by xpoinsanninhttp://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044288
Fischer's good and all...but he hates the King's Gambit so I don't like him...
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044179
Those are the two times he used it at Grandmaster tournaments; he also played it at his simul exhibitions. This despite writing the article, "A Bust to the King's Gambit".
i think when it is said that fischer is the greatest talent means that he was the best chess player independent of theory. that is to say that kasparov obviously played better chess, but a lot of the reason for that is because of advances that fischer made. Fischer single handedly is responsible for the najdorf becoming the main reply to 1.e4. kasparov also produced better chess because he had 20 or 30 years of more developed theory and because of computers like fritz. fischer i think is the greatest mind of chess ever and had he been born at the same time as kasparov he would have been much better than him.