Grandmasters

This statistic is a little misleading since Kasparov's 2 losses to Petrosian occurred in 1981 and his 2 losses to Spassky were in '81 and '83, which was well before his prime. On the other hand, Fischer's matches against Petrosian and Spassky took place during the peak of his powers.

Lots of people would agree with you about Fischer, but there's no need to misrepresent a few youthful losses by Gary.

While its true that Kasparov had not yet peaked this is offset by the fact that both Petrosian and Spassky were well past their peaks as well .

Food for thought.

I would tend to agree with Reb that Fischer was the best and would have evolved to outplay Kasparov or Karpov in the computer age of chess. However, as you pointed out, he never tried.

Natural talent is speculative. Kasparov said Fischer was the best, but Fischer said Morphy was the best. Just as Kasparov had access to databases and advances in theory, so too Fischer had access to nearly a century of theory and chess thought that Morphy never touched.

I think what can be agreed upon is that chess will continue to evolve, and so chess players will continue to evolve. Each consecutive generation will play better chess than the last, regardless of which produced the finest player objectively.

~TO 

batgirl wrote:

To be truly fair it must be added that, while 1981-1983 was ever so slightly before Kasparov's peak (after all, he played the first world champion match with Karpov n 1984 and won the candidate's match in 1983, and quailfied for it in 1982), Spassky and Petrosian were far past their primes (Petrosian was 52 in 1981 when he beat Kasparov and Spassky was 44) It should also be noted that Spassky's over-all record vs Kasparov seems to be +2-2=4, the two wins in 1981 and 1983; the two losses in 1988. Additionally, and curiously, in 1960, when Fisher was about Kasparov's age in 1981, he also lost his 2 games to Spassky.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very true and very true. Which proves that the 4 games in question aren't anywhere near the level of the Fischer-Petrosian and Fischer-Spassky clashes, and are far from being critical games in anyone's career.

It's like Tiger Woods at age 14 vs Jack Nicklaus at age 60. Would it really be fair to compare these two based on the results of this (hypothetical) match? (And yes, I do realize that the gulf between them would be much wider than that in the Kasparov-Petrosian and Kasparov-Spassky games, but the point still remains.)

i think that petrosian really was greatest in that case that only three grossmasters could defeated him very greatly. it was fischer,kasparov and spassky.no other players could won him so easy.maybe i am wrong.its only my oponion

Kasparov..except being a long time world chess champion he`s also a great personality and humanist.

Could i include Lasker or Morphy?. These guys to me were the most brilliant players. lasker because he latest so long as the champion and truly great defender and counter player. Morphy because he was well ahead of his time in a lot of aspects....

This is ridiculous. Why do you feel the need to debate this? Obviously you idolize Kasparov, which is fine, but why start a topic if all you are going to say is Kasparov is the best. I believe there is no way to prove this point in favor of Kasparov, Fischer, Karpov, Anand or any other great player of antiquity or present. It's all in good fun, but don't you think it is wasted time. Rather than talk about why Kasparov is the best or Fischer is the best or Anand, Karpov, Kramnik, Botvinnik or any other player is the best, why not review some of the great games these players played. I know you are just being silly, but there are better uses of time.

Kasparov

During the spark that was his prime, Fischer. Overall, Kasparov.

stickin with kasparov and fishcer

Kasparov is 10 times better than Fischer!

not 10, but I agree, fisher is second

Jose

Raul

Capablanca

Again Kasparov  , this  question has  been asked many times .