Try to image you had a time machine and could give Gazza a spin in it. Then you won't have to worry about rotting corpses.
who would win Garry Kasparov vs. Bobby Fischer
Sort:
Aug 3, 2015
0
#23
LOL that point may have been valid, had it come from anybody else, besides Fischer.
Kapsparov, has writting, teaching journalism, politics, and many other fields to fall back on.
Fischer without chess was a Fischer-out-of-water. Once he walked away from chess, he had nothing.
ChastityMoon wrote:
Here's how they themselves sized up the situation. (Fischer of course sounding like the a hole he was.)
If one may judge a player's strength by comparing him with his contemporaries, it seems to me that Fischer's achievement is unsurpassed. The gap between him and his closest rivals was the widest there ever was between a World Champion and the other top-ranking players of his time. He was some 10-15 years ahead of his time in his preparation and understanding. This could be attributed in part to his dedication to the game, which was unequaled by any other player before or since. -- Garry Kasparov
I object to being called a chess genius, because I consider myself to be an all around genius, who just happens to play chess, which is rather different. A piece of garbage like Kasparov might be called a chess genius, but he is like an idiot savant, outside of chess he knows nothing. -- Bobby Fischer
Well the inherent chess talent has to come from somewhere so there's no arguing with genius. The quote against Kasparov was uncalled for and certainly untrue. Kasparov has lots of geopolitical and economics understanding as well as chess. He is also very good with children and has a likeable personality.
Bobby off course.remember the domination of bobby’s against all russian gms before the world championship in 1972. Two factor should go in favour of bobby. One , he never lost against computer but kasparav lost.second no other player had so dominant clean sweep victory against strong russian gms and well ahead of fide rating as a challenger to spassky for world championship matches in 1972.bobby had cleanly demolished the russian domination and defeated 12 gms during his peak time.bobby is undoubtly the best ever chess player & the greatest of all time. His tournament domination,records and 72% winning streak speaks the volume for less no of game played.kasparav could not beat that percentage of 72% despite played much more games than bobby. No one in the world could come closer to bobby. His games are the music of sweet tunes of mozarts which is another positive points. I have no doubt that bobby would have win against kasparav if played ever. Time machine is exactly showing that. The great bobby is my all time chess hero and number one position. The next best is far away and should be at number five.no one is there in between two to four. That is the rating of bobby fischer.
Computers didn't exist then
This is a pointless discussion because we're essentially comparing someone who retired in 1972 to someone who was in their prime in the 80s and 90s. Chess changed significantly over that time so of course Kasparov would win, it's a pointless debate. Also Kasparov wouldn't have humoured Fischer or given into his regular demands so I don't see how they'd even get Fischer to agree to play.
14 days ago
0
#31
ChastityMoon wrote:
Here's how they themselves sized up the situation. (Fischer of course sounding like the a hole he was.)
If one may judge a player's strength by comparing him with his contemporaries, it seems to me that Fischer's achievement is unsurpassed. The gap between him and his closest rivals was the widest there ever was between a World Champion and the other top-ranking players of his time. He was some 10-15 years ahead of his time in his preparation and understanding. This could be attributed in part to his dedication to the game, which was unequaled by any other player before or since. -- Garry Kasparov
I object to being called a chess genius, because I consider myself to be an all around genius, who just happens to play chess, which is rather different. A piece of garbage like Kasparov might be called a chess genius, but he is like an idiot savant, outside of chess he knows nothing. -- Bobby Fischer
The gap between Paul Morphy and the rest was bigger than the gap between Bobby Fischer and the rest.
ArranVid1 wrote:
ChastityMoon wrote:
Here's how they themselves sized up the situation. (Fischer of course sounding like the a hole he was.)
If one may judge a player's strength by comparing him with his contemporaries, it seems to me that Fischer's achievement is unsurpassed. The gap between him and his closest rivals was the widest there ever was between a World Champion and the other top-ranking players of his time. He was some 10-15 years ahead of his time in his preparation and understanding. This could be attributed in part to his dedication to the game, which was unequaled by any other player before or since. -- Garry Kasparov
I object to being called a chess genius, because I consider myself to be an all around genius, who just happens to play chess, which is rather different. A piece of garbage like Kasparov might be called a chess genius, but he is like an idiot savant, outside of chess he knows nothing. -- Bobby Fischer
The gap between Paul Morphy and the rest was bigger than the gap between Bobby Fischer and the rest.
Certainly a big humility difference between Fischer and Kasparov. The big gap is the case for all old players. The biggest gap could be between Ruy Lopez and his contemporaries for example. Philidor or La Bourdonnais for example. I think gap really doesn't matter, because part of that metric is the strength of the field. The strength of the early 70s was unusually low, it was in between generations.
thats dead obvious cause Kasparov lives Fischer rots