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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 23 Dec '05 21:43 / 1 edit
    The Fischer of 1972 would clearly have torn the Kasparov of his prime apart by Fischer's 72% winning percentage versus Kasparov's 69% winning percentage lifetime. Maybe this will get some things stirred up. :0 Oh, oh, oh, and Topalov is World Champion, not Kramnik.
  2. Standard member Santa Drummer
    I AM INNOCENT
    23 Dec '05 21:46
    Originally posted by powershaker
    The Fischer of 1972 would clearly have torn the Kasparov of his prime apart by Fischer's 72% winning percentage versus Kasparov's 69% winning percentage lifetime. Maybe this will get some things stirred up. :0 Oh, oh, oh, and Topalov is World Champion, not Kramnik.
    Wrong, fischer is world champion. Just because he hasnt played in years doesnt mean he sucks. He would beat deep blue tomorrow.
  3. 23 Dec '05 21:47
    Originally posted by powershaker
    The Fischer of 1972 would clearly have torn the Kasparov of his prime apart by Fischer's 72% winning percentage versus Kasparov's 69% winning percentage lifetime. Maybe this will get some things stirred up. :0 Oh, oh, oh, and Topalov is World Champion, not Kramnik.
    Chess was easier in the 70s than it is now, with computer chess analysis and the fact that players are generally much stronger. They have learned from the past and are generally are more learned in the game. As with most things, humankind has improved its performance as time has passed.
  4. Standard member Santa Drummer
    I AM INNOCENT
    23 Dec '05 21:50
    Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
    How exactly is Fischer 'world champion'? Get your facts right!
    Strengh > titles. Thats why topalov aint WC, fischer would eat him for breakfast, and still need some coco pops.
  5. Standard member Santa Drummer
    I AM INNOCENT
    23 Dec '05 21:53
    Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
    If Fischer wanted to be today's world champion, lets see him try. I'd like to see him against todays best. Otherwise sorry but no! You cant lay claim to a title you're not prepared to battle for.
    http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=35332
  6. 23 Dec '05 22:30
    Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
    If Fischer wanted to be today's world champion, lets see him try. I'd like to see him against todays best. Otherwise sorry but no! You cant lay claim to a title you're not prepared to battle for.
    I'm willing to fight for the title "Lord of the Thundercats".
  7. Standard member Bowmann
    Non-Subscriber
    23 Dec '05 23:58
    Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
    How exactly is Fischer 'world champion'? Get your facts right!
    Well, he never lost his title in any match he played.
  8. Standard member Bowmann
    Non-Subscriber
    24 Dec '05 00:21
    Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
    Im not going to dispute that but he's not current world champion.
  9. Standard member Yuga
    Renaissance
    24 Dec '05 00:34
    Originally posted by powershaker
    The Fischer of 1972 would clearly have torn the Kasparov of his prime apart by Fischer's 72% winning percentage versus Kasparov's 69% winning percentage lifetime. Maybe this will get some things stirred up. :0 Oh, oh, oh, and Topalov is World Champion, not Kramnik.
    Kramnik is the Classical World Chess Champion. He retained his title by tying Leko 7 pts to 7 pts. Topalov is the FIDE champion. There is a significant difference.

    Topalov has been playing like the best player in the world, and is currently rated 1st; Kramnik has not been playing like a world champion lately. I thought Kramnik's loss to Topalov at the Corus Chess Tournament (2005), pretty ugly.

    http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1327775

    I highly doubt the Fischer of 72 would have 'torn Kasparov apart'. Especially the Kasparov in his prime; he was relatively unchallenged (Karpov, Kramnik, and computers the only exceptions for periods of time). Remember that Fischer and Kasparov played in different eras; Kasparov's knowledge of chess theory would exceed Fischer's, although they would match up equally tactically and in endgame theory.

    Slight advantage to Kasparov. But you could argue either way...both were the best in their time.
  10. 24 Dec '05 13:34
    It seems strange to me that apart from Fischer, a lot of previous world champions get to set their own rules. When Kasparov decided not to defend his title against Shirov (could've made life hard for Gary), a lot of people backed him up, set up PCA and was still considered World Champion. When Fischer did that, uh,... he went bonkers and (allegedly) robbed the bank. You can understand why Fischer said chess was fixed by these certain people...

    Oh, how many years 'ahead of his time' did Kaparov said about Fischer's chess...?
  11. 24 Dec '05 14:46
    Originally posted by Bowmann
    Well, he never lost his title in any match he played.
    Then he never had the title because it still belongs to Alekhine.
  12. 24 Dec '05 16:28
    Originally posted by Santa Drummer
    Strengh > titles. Thats why topalov aint WC, fischer would eat him for breakfast, and still need some coco pops.
    World champion what? Chess player? You can't be a world champion chess player if you don't play.

    How about world champion chicken?
  13. 24 Dec '05 16:30
    Originally posted by Skorj
    Then he never had the title because it still belongs to Alekhine.
    I'm the real world champion. I've never lost a world championship match OR GAME.
  14. 25 Dec '05 16:38
    Capablanca is still world champion. He was cool, man!