SmyslovFan wrote:
If you read the rest of the interview, Carlsen goes on to say Kasparov's the best ever.
Ah! Thanks
Who was best, Kasparov or Fischer?
Sort:
Jun 22, 2017
0
#83
Excalibr4 wrote:
...
I respect Carlsen's opinion and the old saying "the candle that burns the brightest dies first". However, I also respect Fischer's opinion of himself and refusing to play Karpov was very telling. He knew he couldn't win.... In any case I still vote Kasparov for all around greatness.
I disagree with this. Fischer was terribly insecure. He almost certainly felt that he was the favorite, but that was never enough for Fischer. As long as there was a realistic chance of failure, he didnt' want any part of the match. Karpov was probably correct when he said that he had maybe a 45% chance in the first (1975) match. He was improving rapidly and had defeated Spassky and Korchnoi (perhaps Fischer's toughest opponent) convincingly.
Fischer was fantastic, but he robbed us of one of the great matches. We were lucky to have five Kasparov-Karpov matches. Karpov really showed what a great match fighter he was, even though he tended to tire towards the end of his matches.
It's wrong to say that Karpov would have been the favorite in the 1975 match. But I do think Karpov could have pulled off the upset. And I think Karpov would have been the favorite by 1978, if there was something resembling a fair match scheduled.
Jun 22, 2017
0
#84
Excalibr4 wrote:
StillNewAtThis wrote:
For what it's worth, Carlsen considers Fischer (at his peak) to be the strongest.
"Probably Bobby Fischer at his best. ... the precision and energy that he played with is just unmatched in the history of chess." — Magnus Carlsen, December, 2015
I respect Carlsen's opinion and the old saying "the candle that burns the brightest dies first". However, I also respect Fischer's opinion of himself and refusing to play Karpov was very telling. He knew he couldn't win. I think Magnus feels Bobby was a kindred spirit, them both being child prodigies. Magnus, however, is much more the gentleman and perhaps, on a subconscious level, he lets people win. In any case I still vote Kasparov for all around greatness.
I really doubt Fischer was avoiding Karpov. If you look at his history, he dedicated his life to winning the championship, and bringing down the Russian chess machine. Fischer won the title, and defeated the Russians at 32 years old. How do you live a life, and what does it do to you mentally, when at the gae of 32 you have nothing left to live for?
IMBacon escribió:
Excalibr4 wrote:
StillNewAtThis wrote:
For what it's worth, Carlsen considers Fischer (at his peak) to be the strongest.
"Probably Bobby Fischer at his best. ... the precision and energy that he played with is just unmatched in the history of chess." — Magnus Carlsen, December, 2015
I respect Carlsen's opinion and the old saying "the candle that burns the brightest dies first". However, I also respect Fischer's opinion of himself and refusing to play Karpov was very telling. He knew he couldn't win. I think Magnus feels Bobby was a kindred spirit, them both being child prodigies. Magnus, however, is much more the gentleman and perhaps, on a subconscious level, he lets people win. In any case I still vote Kasparov for all around greatness.
I really doubt Fischer was avoiding Karpov. If you look at his history, he dedicated his life to winning the championship, and bringing down the Russian chess machine. Fischer won the title, and defeated the Russians at 32 years old. How do you live a life, and what does it do to you mentally, when at the gae of 32 you have nothing left to live for?
There was still at least one regarding chess, to defend the title. To show the new generation who was in charge.
Jun 22, 2017
0
#86
Pulpofeira wrote:
IMBacon escribió:
Excalibr4 wrote:
StillNewAtThis wrote:
For what it's worth, Carlsen considers Fischer (at his peak) to be the strongest.
"Probably Bobby Fischer at his best. ... the precision and energy that he played with is just unmatched in the history of chess." — Magnus Carlsen, December, 2015
I respect Carlsen's opinion and the old saying "the candle that burns the brightest dies first". However, I also respect Fischer's opinion of himself and refusing to play Karpov was very telling. He knew he couldn't win. I think Magnus feels Bobby was a kindred spirit, them both being child prodigies. Magnus, however, is much more the gentleman and perhaps, on a subconscious level, he lets people win. In any case I still vote Kasparov for all around greatness.
I really doubt Fischer was avoiding Karpov. If you look at his history, he dedicated his life to winning the championship, and bringing down the Russian chess machine. Fischer won the title, and defeated the Russians at 32 years old. How do you live a life, and what does it do to you mentally, when at the gae of 32 you have nothing left to live for?
There was still at least one regarding chess, to defend the title. To show the new generation who was in charge.
Very possible, but this is just my opinion. I cannot imagine acheiving your lifes dream, and waking up with the feeling that there is nothing left.
Jun 22, 2017
0
#87
ResurrectedSon wrote:
Peak-Fischer versus peak-Kasparov where each had an equal opportunity to study their opponent's games and prepare as Fischer did in real life, well . . . I guess you could just say I am a Fischer fan and would go with him. But ... I have not closely studied Kasparov, his games, and his tournament results as I have done with Fischer. I may just be a bit prejudiced but I will say Fischer blew away his competition in tournaments at his peak unlike anything else I have ever seen. He hated draws with a passion. Can one say the same about Kasparov or any other great chess player?
In response to your question, I can say that yes, Fischer was an amazing fighter. But I think I can say Kasparov hated draws every bit as much as Fischer.
But if you asked me for a third name, I honestly couldn't give you one.
But back to your point. When Fischer was on fire, he was on FIRE. Beating Tiamanov and Larsen 6-0. Or winning the US Championship 11-0. Or taking 4 in a row from Petrosian, winning that match 4.5-1.5
On the other hand, one can argue Kasparov established, and held, a rating of 2851. At a time when there were 2 players rated >2700.
I say fischer as well
varelse1 wrote:
ResurrectedSon wrote:
Peak-Fischer versus peak-Kasparov where each had an equal opportunity to study their opponent's games and prepare as Fischer did in real life, well . . . I guess you could just say I am a Fischer fan and would go with him. But ... I have not closely studied Kasparov, his games, and his tournament results as I have done with Fischer. I may just be a bit prejudiced but I will say Fischer blew away his competition in tournaments at his peak unlike anything else I have ever seen. He hated draws with a passion. Can one say the same about Kasparov or any other great chess player?
In response to your question, I can say that yes, Fischer was an amazing fighter. But I think I can say Kasparov hated draws every bit as much as Fischer.
But if you asked me for a third name, I honestly couldn't give you one.
But back to your point. When Fischer was on fire, he was on FIRE. Beating Tiamanov and Larsen 6-0. Or winning the US Championship 11-0. Or taking 4 in a row from Petrosian, winning that match 4.5-1.5
On the other hand, one can argue Kasparov established, and held, a rating of 2851. At a time when there were 2 players rated >2700.
I might add that when he went 11-0 in the US championship, none of the other players (while the tenth game was being delayed) wanted him to go undefeated, so when the final game was delayed in the middle of endgame, they helped Fischer's opponent study the game mid-position. AND HE STILL WON!!!!!!
captain_Karpov wrote:
Lasker was the Emperor, Fischer the Hero. Kasparov was neither.
Indeed. Kasparov was the God!
Jun 22, 2017
0
#93
Fischer was better...... at being crazy, and in the end isn't that what really matters?
Jun 22, 2017
0
#95
macer75 wrote:
captain_Karpov wrote:
Lasker was the Emperor, Fischer the Hero. Kasparov was neither.
Indeed. Kasparov was the God!
Good one,lol
Jun 22, 2017
0
#96
Both players added great information to the opening books.
Both players advocated for better regulations and time standards to promote chess.
Both players played absolutely amazing attacking games.
I have not seen enough of Kasparov's games to compare the two. Fischer did beat the Russian player supported by a team of Russians behind him which is quite a feat.
Kasparov's computer program was extremely difficult to play even at 1600 making moves in split seconds!
Williamfwm wrote:
Fischer was better...... at being crazy, and in the end isn't that what really matters?
That's deep.
Kasparov was much better than Fischer.
For what it's worth, Carlsen considers Fischer (at his peak) to be the strongest.
"Probably Bobby Fischer at his best. ... the precision and energy that he played with is just unmatched in the history of chess." — Magnus Carlsen, December, 2015
I respect Carlsen's opinion and the old saying "the candle that burns the brightest dies first". However, I also respect Fischer's opinion of himself and refusing to play Karpov was very telling. He knew he couldn't win. I think Magnus feels Bobby was a kindred spirit, them both being child prodigies. Magnus, however, is much more the gentleman and perhaps, on a subconscious level, he lets people win. In any case I still vote Kasparov for all around greatness.