Originally posted by GambitzoidYou 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.
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 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 razor2007actually, 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.
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!
Originally posted by GambitzoidEXACTLY! 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.
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.
Originally posted by GambitzoidI don't agree. Fischer was classical. Kasparov modern.
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.