Is kasparov the best player ever?

Anybody knows who Ivanych is? I think he helped Kasparov with his analyses in the World CHampionship match against Karpov in the 80s.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/text/kaspeng.html

I think Vishwanathan anand is the best rapid chess player ever !!!

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1338709

what about donald bradman?

I think that kasparov should be the best as he has beaten the best super-comps available...............

http://www.academicchess.com/Games/chessviewer/kasparovdeepblue2.shtml

regards,
Rathish.K

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 !!!!

Uh-uh.....Ravello is.

Fischer is a phantom....he´s now playing random.....he´s a joke he couldnt stand for the world Championship.....
Kasparov is the best player nowadays...he has been for 30 years.....

Originally posted by Gambitzoid
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 al ...[text shortened]... ever and had he been born at the same time as kasparov he would have been much better than him.

You just said it, Gambit!!! That's exactly what I mean. Fischer was the greatest natural talent - next to Paul Morphy and Capablanca - that ever lived in the history of the game. I would say he was even better than Alekhine. Victor Korchnoi once said, "I have seen two geniuses in my lifetime. Fischer. Tal. And, possibly Kasparov." But, that was in HIS time. Consider the whole history? Why possibly Kasparov? For the reasons you just gave Gambit.

You know, I think I agree with the general consensus here.

First, I will never regard that match against Kramnik as genuine, he played most of his games as white just through the opening where he constantly proved he could get a favorable psoition against Kramnik and then ioffered a draw.

Fisher really was all about sheer skill. He won games where he was down by several pieces becasue he denied theory and sacced minor and major pieces to get the mate.

I think think that Kasparov and Fischer shouldn't be regarded as competing but rather a testimony to the multitude of ways this game can be played. Kasparov the master of finess and Fischer, the master of insanity!

Originally posted by razor2007
You know, I think I agree with the general consensus here.

First, I will never regard that match against Kramnik as genuine, he played most of his games as white just through the opening where he constantly proved he could get a favorable psoition against Kramnik and then ioffered a draw.

Fisher really was all about sheer skill. He won games where he ...[text shortened]... ays this game can be played. Kasparov the master of finess and Fischer, the master of insanity!

actually, kasparov and fischer played similar styles of chess. kasparov's favorite openings were based a lot on fischer's openings, especially on the black side, and kasparov enjoyed complicated sharp openings like fischer. if you wanna look at different ways of playing chess then look at karpov versus kasparov or fischer versus petrosian. but in fact the player who comes closest to imitating fischer is kasparov, although kasparov obviously played a more modern style of chess.

I think fischer is the best aggressive player ever !!!


http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008361

give fischer a book of all of kasparovs games and time to study. fischer would find a weakness

Chess during Kasparov's reign was much more advanced than ever before.

I think that in the future there will be playerrs that are better than Kasparov, but they will never dominate like he did.

Yes, he lost to Kramnik. So?

Originally posted by Gambitzoid
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 al ...[text shortened]... ever and had he been born at the same time as kasparov he would have been much better than him.

EXACTLY! I totally agree! There are no better chess minds than the naturals: Capablanca, Fischer, Alekhine and Morphy. Naturals! No Theory! Think if Morphy would have had what Kasparov had at his disposal? What if Fischer had? Alekhine? Capablanca??? They would have slaughtered Kasparov.

Originally posted by kmac27
give fischer a book of all of kasparovs games and time to study. fischer would find a weakness

RIGHT AGAIN! I agree! Totally agree! He would slaughter him if he wanted it like he wanted Spassky in '72!

Originally posted by Gambitzoid
actually, kasparov and fischer played similar styles of chess. kasparov's favorite openings were based a lot on fischer's openings, especially on the black side, and kasparov enjoyed complicated sharp openings like fischer. if you wanna look at different ways of playing chess then look at karpov versus kasparov or fischer versus petrosian. but in fact the ...[text shortened]... mitating fischer is kasparov, although kasparov obviously played a more modern style of chess.

I don't agree. Fischer was classical. Kasparov modern.