Players who changed the game

I read an article talking about players who really changed chess.  If I remember they were:  Morphy, Steinitz, Nimzovich, Alekhine, Botvinnik and finally...the computer.  What do you think?

What about Fischer?

Fischer was great....maybe the greatest, but he did not change anything.  Morphy taught us the open game.  Steinitz how to build on small advantages and plan.  Nimzovich introduced us to the hyper-modern strategy.  Alekhine gave us the dynamic approach.  Botvinnik showed us how to study the game.  The computer showed if can crunch numbers fast enough, strategy wasn't important.  Fischer just played the classical style to perfection,but nothing new.  IMHO!

If you want to go far back enough, I think Phillidor qualifies.

In the World Championship era, I would add Lasker and Tal to the list as well.

As for Fischer, I think he qualifies as well.  Stylistically, it may be debateable how much he brought the game forward strictly in terms of theory and styles of play (though even then, I suspect he had a significant effect on the game), but if you look beyond that from a larger social perspective (professional opportunities and conditions, even demographics), his affect becomes almost unparallelled.

So Fischer was such a successful player without adding something new to the game? I mean, he had no theoritical advantage over anyone (in terms of being ahead in theory) and still separated himself so much from his contemporaries? That's amazing!

Fischers opening preparation was what every player aspired to. Everybody knew what opening Bobby would play and they still lost. Is that not what players called "la creme de la creme." 

Bobby changed the game fundamentally in other ways as well---for instance, he made players millionaires. Karpov is a billionaire because of Fischer. He made many Russian players millionaires. Being a millionaire in Russia is kinda like going to heaven and actually having 77 virgens waiting for you! I kid you not.

Estragon: Disagree strongly about Lasker.  He introduced into the game elements of pragmatism and psychology that you didn't see before.  In this sense, he's absolutely essential in the school that sees chess as sport or struggle rather than art.

raul72: I agree about Fischer.

Estragon, if I read that Karpov is a billionaire and you come on line and say he is not a billionaire---what do you think I'm going to believe? Pull you head out pal and take a deep breath of fresh air!  You are the last guy on this site I would believe. You write more tripe than  any other guy here.

Because Fischer brought big money into chess Karpov became a millionaire. He invested wisely and became a billionaire. In one of his books he credits Fischer for making it possible---I believe it was Karpov on Karpov.

Fischer only made himself a millionaire? That is so stupid ---you're pathetic!

In Karpov's first defence of his title in 78' bothhe and Korchnoi made at least a million each. Fischer made that possible and they both acknowledge that fact.

Everytime Kasparov and Karpov played title matches they made millions and they both acknowledged that fact and that they owed a tremendous debt to Fischer.

I'm going to get a donation going for you Estragon---I'm going to encourage everyone to send you a chess book. I've never seen anyone so desparately in need of some good old chess knowledge.

He helped make Spassky some money too!

Computer? lol that is artificial chess. no fun

The one that changed the game the most was the guy who watched the masters play and figured out how to write down their moves so others could study and learn from them.

 Estragon, you dont really believe I'm going to accept any thing you say. I think your figures are wrong and I want you to cite your sources! Book and page numbers.

I'll cite a source for you---this was posted just a few weeks ago right here on chess.com.

by Estragon
United States

Estragon: as far as Lasker goes, he didn't create any "school" per say, but he did introduce an entire approach to chess which goes beyond his "psychological play."  If you look at Morphy, Anderssen, and the Romantic era, you see a drive to create art.  With Steinitz, Tarrasch, Capablanca, etc. it becomes a search for objective truth.  In Lasker, you see a third approach: chess as a struggle.  It wasn't just about playing the board anymore, it was about playing the opponent across the board.

As for the question of who shares in that approach: Korchnoi and Tal would be two obvious followers.  At a much deeper level, however, I think it's become a part of modern chess psychology: in the last world championship match, you have two moments which show this.  In game 2, when Anand blundered his opening preparation, there were quite a few commentators who called the queen trade brilliant, as it forced Topalov into more positional channels, where he eventually faltered.  (The fact that this was a breakdown in Anand's preparation is secondary to the reaction the move received from its audience).  Later, in the final game, Anand would play into the drawish Lasker variation and Topalov, not wanting so much to go into rapids, overpressed.  As a second example, you have Kasparov, who would occassionally catch opponents by surprise with "outdated" openings like the Evans Gambit or Scotch Game.  It's not just about what is best or aesthetically pleasing anymore, it's about what gives you the best chances against a specific opponent, and this approach largely stems from Lasker.

 There's Fischer's Defence in King's Gambit as far as I know.

 Estragon, you say---

"The question wasn't who did something new and unique, but rather who "changed the game."  No one after Lasker was able to use psychology in any way approaching the extent he did, or with his results."

Fischer's  psychology was devastating! Estragon you really should brush up on your Fischer. Fischer's psychology was applied before he sat down at the chess board. Spassky said the removal of the front row chairs, the candy wrappers, The game removed to a small back room---a hundred such incidents destroyed his concentration. Fischer always did this---the size of the pieces, the chessboard, the lighting, women's high heels.

You know estragon, if you would keep your mouth shut, people would just think you're a dummy---but you have to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Nobody, remotely, compared with Fischer when it came to psychology. 

Actually, Fischer was very unpredictable. For example, everyone thought he was an attacking player and that he would play e4 as his opening, and some grandmasters even published a book on how to play against that. Then, in an important match, Fischer used the english opening as white 1. c4 and the alekhine defence as black 1... Nf6.

Doing the same thing 99 times out of 100 does not make one "very unpredictable". 
That book you allude...let's say it was specifically written for playing against Fischer. I bet it would still have been useful even after one of his script flips...

Philidor is by far the one who changed chess the most. Before him, one just sacrificed for getting the others pieces to a little bader position.