@nayf I like this answer, for what it's worth. It is far too easy to be distracted by Fischer's idiosyncrasies. I couldn't care less about his person as I cannot meet him and an opinion is just an opinion. However, what is definitely crazy, is how much better than his peers he was during his pomp. Morphy was clearly light years ahead of his contemporaries and comfortably takes the prize for being the most gifted amateur ever. Kasparov similarly dominated other world class players, but was troubled by Kramnik. Carlsen threatens to dominate the chess world for decades to come though Caruana and others are maybe not so far behind. Karpov was beaten by Nigel Short and Kasparov and never really dominated the chess his play would suggest it should. I cannot separate these players for the title best ever in the way I can't say that Usain Bolt is faster than Jesse Owens when we factor out the advantages of modernity enjoyed by Bolt.
no! just no. he was very strong in his prime but never faced people who adapted to his play like kasparov or carlsen. he is not even in the top 5 (behind guys like murphy for example)
If you think of late middlegame manouvering then yes, if it's opening and early middlegame then no. If it's endgames, very probably. And one extra feature that isn't directly related to the rating which is clarity of play in which he also was outstanding.
@VertSangBleu : There are questions that can never be answered. I judge only by how good you are compared to your peers. If Morphy of the 19th Century played even a national master today, there would be little of him left afterwards. It's only natural that standards rise with each successive generation in all human activities. This is clearly evidenced. To compare players from different times is pointless. We have no idea whether Karpov or Kasparov would have beaten the late great Fischer. But Fischer swept all before him with consumate ease until he disappeared. Even Carlsen admits he would have a hard time beating Fischer.
The real champions are the ones that never used a chess engine like stockfish.
Fischer failed to proove he is best ever by avoiding to play with Karpov. Whatever reasons he had it's simply unfair to claim to be best after winning world championship over Spassky and avoid to play any future player. Staunton never played Morphy for egoistic reason he didn't like Morphy to proove he is the best having in mind if he don't play him nobody could say Morphy is better, Fischer did the same thing therefore my vote is against Fischer being best of all time.
Fischer was incredibly strong in 1971-1972. He beat up Taimanov and Larsen 6-0 and former World Champion Petrossian 6.5-2.5 and reigning World Champion Spassky 12.5-8.5. Kasparov observed that Fischer dominated like no one before or after him. Karpov had a hard time against Korchnoi and Kasparov. Kasparov had a hard time against Karpov and Kramnik. Carlsen is the strongest one now, but needed tiebreaks to beat Karjakin.
Fabiano Caruana ;)
In his own time, Fischer was for sure unique in so many ways. He even taught himself basic "Chess Russian" to devour even more of the then prevailing Chess literature of all-conquering Soviet chess school that simply ruled chess back then. His openings, middle games, tactics and resources on the board were all just about unparalleled at that specific point in chess history. His matches vs Spassky made the front pages worldwide in the entire world in the epic cold-war battle for chess's ultimate crown in Reykjavik Iceland in 1972.
But ...the very young Karpov was already ready-and-waiting, arming himself for ultra-tactical battles to-perhaps-come-soon versus said Fischer. Anatoly was already fully preparing the all-out Keres attack versus the Sicilian, plus the ultra-sharp Zaitsev/Breyer responses to the Ruy Lopez. Anatoly was not part of the Reykjavik support team for Spassky (as far too young yet), but instead was analyzing the games in Moscow's Dubna forest retreat, alongside Tal, Keres and others. Spassky could have very easily won game 3 in this match-of-the-century and perhaps gained an already unassailable advantage in the match, as all of the Moscow-based Soviet teams had analyzed the entire game to death already (but Spassky just refused to be briefed about this closed-doors analysis, lazily stating that he'd do it behind the board on the day. Big mistake that, haha.) Then and thereafter the match swung big time, with Fischer emerging utterly triumphant afterwards.
Facing the younger Karpov would have been an enormous challenge for Fischer though. Vastly better than Spassky was Karpov and it might have been a match too close to call. First version anyway. Karpov and Fischer did meet in Tokyo city for one full day, then met again in Spain ...but the match never happened. One of history's great imponderables that. What might have happened? Who knows?
Karpov probably for sure one of the Top 3 all-time Chess greats, alongside Kasparov, who then usurped him to some great extent. Karpov's legacy is maybe slightly skewed by a series of ultra-narrow losses to Kasparov, but it shouldn't really be so. They were almost equals, across a decade or more, with just a coin-toss to separate them. Kasparov's greatest strength was his utterly amazing depth of opening preparation (via his stellar support team, all pre-computer era) and his utterly amazing energy behind the board, to fight positions that were too close to call. Both points are of no especial advantage in today's computer preparation age though. All of the world's current Top 50 probably prepare better and more thoroughly than Kasparov ever did and they all most probably intrinsically know more about Chess than he ever did.
Also Chess has ever more evolved to become more a younger man's game, with ditto energy levels. Even Magnus has very recently claimed that he probably cannot ever recapture his energy levels of age say 21. Now he is an established veteran of 27 y.o. Think football/soccer here and the new-on-the-scene player and then 6 years later already a seasoned veteran. Even a mere 5 years already makes you a veritable veteran in very many sports. Magnus even states that he probably needs use all of his prior experience in WC matches to clearly establish an early advantage versus Fabiano this next week, or else maybe face some risk. I would agree with this template.
Any Top 5 debates in Chess ...and I would just automatically include Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov. Carlsen a probable maybe, but not 100% clear yet. His legacy is as-of-yet ongoing and the next challenge awaits on Nov 9th. Yes, utterly brilliant but time will tell here. Carlsen probably exploiting the internet chess era to the max, as first to do so. Playing very often almost equal positions with both colours and then just wait-and-see. Allow the opponent to either over-extend and then hit them very hard or else just wait for the Opponent to proceed too passively and the very same recipe here - of then hitting them. Each new approach to Chess play though ...and it eventually gets studied and replicated and just becomes known. Caruana also utterly superb this past year, so who knows here? Carlsen perhaps does not anymore enjoy the exclusive advantage of fully conforming to and adopting the computer chess age. Many other super elite players also devouring the very same material nowadays, learning from their past mistakes, improving their own level of play. Magnus is not anymore a level-above, I would feel. Now he is competing as more first-amongst-equals. No massive superiority anymore, still holding an advantage - but an ever-shrinking one. This upcoming and quite short WC 12-game match is going to be super interesting in that regard.
My own personal favourite Chess player would have to be Karpov, Fischer would also be held in very high esteem, despite some less than nice stated political viewpoints, that I cannot ever agree with, on any level. Kasparov slightly less-so, as although wonderful behind-the-board, much less-so in person. If you ever had the pleasure (cough, cough - not) to ever meet Kasparov in the flesh, then you will know what I mean here. So very not nice to ever meet him in person. Still an utter genius at Chess of course. You do not need to be nice to play good chess though. The others ...well there were so many in Chess history - Morphy, Lasker, Botwinnik, Chigorin, Anand, Kramnik etc., very many others too.
Karpov was just this year asked to state the greatest tactical Chess players in Chess history. He then said of course Morphy (Fischer too), also Kasparov and of course Riga's Mikhail Tal ...but he also stated himself as well. Not for self-boasting purposes, just how it was. Which was quite true as well, as his own tactics were very often of the very highest level, if ever needed. Karpov also name-dropped the utterly brilliant and insanely tactical super-genius Nezhmatdinov here (never a GM, only ever a Soviet IM level player). The very unheralded Nezh actually did once coach the very young Karpov in Soviet Russia for just one year alone. You can look up Nezh on the Tube, if you want to or care to. He was very, very special in some ultra high-end tactics. Not so good in regular positional Chess though.
I do regard Fischer very, very highly. But no more so than Karpov. Approximately similar level, I would feel. More reluctantly do I acknowledge Kasparov (but also one of the all-time greats for sure), just that he was nice-at-all in the flesh. Fischer is the eternal debate angle in Chess. Greatest-ever, I dunno. For sure one of the greatest ever players to ever play the game. Much depends on the era though and the time we live in angle. I would suspect that Fischer could very well have adapted to computer era Chess well, but we will sadly never know. Just different eras. Perhaps Caruana-Carlsen 2018 can rival and even match-up to the ferocious Karpov-Kasparov battles of yesteryear. Let's hope so. Chess needs new heroes, new super-hero style struggles at the very top of the game. Chess needs new impulses. Won't be gotten by looking back fondly at Fischer or else Karpov or else Kasparov. Needs to be in the here-and-now. Hopefully the upcoming C-C contest even half replicates the age-old and legendary K-K battles of the more distant past
But ...the very young Karpov was already ready-and-waiting, arming himself for ultra-tactical battles to-perhaps-come-soon versus said Fischer. Anatoly was already fully preparing the all-out Keres attack versus the Sicilian, plus the ultra-sharp Zaitsev/Breyer responses to the Ruy Lopez. Anatoly was not part of the Reykjavik support team for Spassky (as far too young yet), but instead was analyzing the games in Moscow's Dubna forest retreat, alongside Tal, Keres and others. Spassky could have very easily won game 3 in this match-of-the-century and perhaps gained an already unassailable advantage in the match, as all of the Moscow-based Soviet teams had analyzed the entire game to death already (but Spassky just refused to be briefed about this closed-doors analysis, lazily stating that he'd do it behind the board on the day. Big mistake that, haha.) Then and thereafter the match swung big time, with Fischer emerging utterly triumphant afterwards.
Facing the younger Karpov would have been an enormous challenge for Fischer though. Vastly better than Spassky was Karpov and it might have been a match too close to call. First version anyway. Karpov and Fischer did meet in Tokyo city for one full day, then met again in Spain ...but the match never happened. One of history's great imponderables that. What might have happened? Who knows?
Karpov probably for sure one of the Top 3 all-time Chess greats, alongside Kasparov, who then usurped him to some great extent. Karpov's legacy is maybe slightly skewed by a series of ultra-narrow losses to Kasparov, but it shouldn't really be so. They were almost equals, across a decade or more, with just a coin-toss to separate them. Kasparov's greatest strength was his utterly amazing depth of opening preparation (via his stellar support team, all pre-computer era) and his utterly amazing energy behind the board, to fight positions that were too close to call. Both points are of no especial advantage in today's computer preparation age though. All of the world's current Top 50 probably prepare better and more thoroughly than Kasparov ever did and they all most probably intrinsically know more about Chess than he ever did.
Also Chess has ever more evolved to become more a younger man's game, with ditto energy levels. Even Magnus has very recently claimed that he probably cannot ever recapture his energy levels of age say 21. Now he is an established veteran of 27 y.o. Think football/soccer here and the new-on-the-scene player and then 6 years later already a seasoned veteran. Even a mere 5 years already makes you a veritable veteran in very many sports. Magnus even states that he probably needs use all of his prior experience in WC matches to clearly establish an early advantage versus Fabiano this next week, or else maybe face some risk. I would agree with this template.
Any Top 5 debates in Chess ...and I would just automatically include Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov. Carlsen a probable maybe, but not 100% clear yet. His legacy is as-of-yet ongoing and the next challenge awaits on Nov 9th. Yes, utterly brilliant but time will tell here. Carlsen probably exploiting the internet chess era to the max, as first to do so. Playing very often almost equal positions with both colours and then just wait-and-see. Allow the opponent to either over-extend and then hit them very hard or else just wait for the Opponent to proceed too passively and the very same recipe here - of then hitting them. Each new approach to Chess play though ...and it eventually gets studied and replicated and just becomes known. Caruana also utterly superb this past year, so who knows here? Carlsen perhaps does not anymore enjoy the exclusive advantage of fully conforming to and adopting the computer chess age. Many other super elite players also devouring the very same material nowadays, learning from their past mistakes, improving their own level of play. Magnus is not anymore a level-above, I would feel. Now he is competing as more first-amongst-equals. No massive superiority anymore, still holding an advantage - but an ever-shrinking one. This upcoming and quite short WC 12-game match is going to be super interesting in that regard.
My own personal favourite Chess player would have to be Karpov, Fischer would also be held in very high esteem, despite some less than nice stated political viewpoints, that I cannot ever agree with, on any level. Kasparov slightly less-so, as although wonderful behind-the-board, much less-so in person. If you ever had the pleasure (cough, cough - not) to ever meet Kasparov in the flesh, then you will know what I mean here. So very not nice to ever meet him in person. Still an utter genius at Chess of course. You do not need to be nice to play good chess though. The others ...well there were so many in Chess history - Morphy, Lasker, Botwinnik, Chigorin, Anand, Kramnik etc., very many others too.
Karpov was just this year asked to state the greatest tactical Chess players in Chess history. He then said of course Morphy (Fischer too), also Kasparov and of course Riga's Mikhail Tal ...but he also stated himself as well. Not for self-boasting purposes, just how it was. Which was quite true as well, as his own tactics were very often of the very highest level, if ever needed. Karpov also name-dropped the utterly brilliant and insanely tactical super-genius Nezhmatdinov here (never a GM, only ever a Soviet IM level player). The very unheralded Nezh actually did once coach the very young Karpov in Soviet Russia for just one year alone. You can look up Nezh on the Tube, if you want to or care to. He was very, very special in some ultra high-end tactics. Not so good in regular positional Chess though.
I do regard Fischer very, very highly. But no more so than Karpov. Approximately similar level, I would feel. More reluctantly do I acknowledge Kasparov (but also one of the all-time greats for sure), just that he was nice-at-all in the flesh. Fischer is the eternal debate angle in Chess. Greatest-ever, I dunno. For sure one of the greatest ever players to ever play the game. Much depends on the era though and the time we live in angle. I would suspect that Fischer could very well have adapted to computer era Chess well, but we will sadly never know. Just different eras. Perhaps Caruana-Carlsen 2018 can rival and even match-up to the ferocious Karpov-Kasparov battles of yesteryear. Let's hope so. Chess needs new heroes, new super-hero style struggles at the very top of the game. Chess needs new impulses. Won't be gotten by looking back fondly at Fischer or else Karpov or else Kasparov. Needs to be in the here-and-now. Hopefully the upcoming C-C contest even half replicates the age-old and legendary K-K battles of the more distant past
fabi will be next champion
and then he will be pretty cool
and then he will be pretty cool
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.