Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 17 Jan '06 13:52
    There has been a lot of players who have proved them selves in the field of chess. Is it so that kasparov is the best of all times !!!!
  2. 17 Jan '06 14:01
    he is my all time favourate.... http://www.chesscorner.com/worldchamps/kasparov/kasparov.htm
  3. Standard member celticcountry
    Copyright ©2001-2006
    17 Jan '06 14:57
    i think he is also;
  4. 17 Jan '06 14:59
    Originally posted by rathish
    There has been a lot of players who have proved them selves in the field of chess. Is it so that kasparov is the best of all times !!!!
    I'm telling you, apparently there are some nutters who believe fischer is the best...
  5. 17 Jan '06 18:58 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by schakuhr
    I'm telling you, apparently there are some nutters who believe fischer is the best...
    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 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.
  6. 17 Jan '06 21:04
    Originally posted by powershaker
    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.
    I 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.
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    17 Jan '06 21:20
    Originally posted by rathish
    There has been a lot of players who have proved them selves in the field of chess. Is it so that kasparov is the best of all times !!!!
    No; not when he lost his title in a match he couldn't even win one game in against Kramnik.
  8. Subscriber BigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    17 Jan '06 22:43
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    No; not when he lost his title in a match he couldn't even win one game in against Kramnik.
    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.
  9. 17 Jan '06 23:45
    For sheer tenacity and "correct" chess - karpov
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    18 Jan '06 00:17 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    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.
    Kasparov 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".

    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.
  11. 18 Jan '06 00:19
    Kasparov may be the strongest chess player, but it is more like Team Kasparov. The team consist of a group of GMs, Fritz, and Kasparov. Kasparov did not make it too the top by his own effort as Fischer did.
  12. 18 Jan '06 00:30
    Fischer's good and all...but he hates the King's Gambit so I don't like him...
  13. 18 Jan '06 00:50
    Haha. You can't use that against him. There's so many better reasons you could use to not like him.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    18 Jan '06 01:08 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by xpoinsannin
    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=1044288
    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".
  15. 18 Jan '06 03:11
    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.