23 Dec 05
Originally posted by powershakerWrong, fischer is world champion. Just because he hasnt played in years doesnt mean he sucks. He would beat deep blue tomorrow.
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.
23 Dec 05
Originally posted by powershakerChess 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.
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.
23 Dec 05
Originally posted by Sicilian Smaughttp://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=35332
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.
23 Dec 05
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugI'm willing to fight for the title "Lord of the Thundercats".
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.
24 Dec 05
Originally posted by powershakerKramnik 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.
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.
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.
24 Dec 05
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...?