Who is better fisher or kasparov

While Carlsen is the product of hard work and natural talent, he has also been able to access computer training, world class chess coaches, etc. Bobby Fischer had none of that. Fischer grabbed a board, some books and played chess and that was his entire development plan. If you told somebody that a world champion, today, had followed this route to the top — they would laugh at you. It would be inconceivable that natural talent and self-motivation alone could carry you to the pinnacle of a sport.

In fact, no-one would believe that someone had even been allowed to try. If you showed the kind of talent that Fischer or Carlsen have for a sport, you will be picked out in your youth and resources will start to be showered upon you. If you live up to your early promise, then more and more help will be made available to you — until the point that you are guaranteed to reach your full potential. Did Bobby Fischer reach his full potential or was he somehow stunted as a chess player because of this handicap?

Who knows? Fischer fiery and uncontrolled with raw talent and ferocious creativity. Carlsen a more studied and well-rounded player with a calm reserve to draw on and the most adaptable of tactical and positional games. Who is the best?

Carlsen has the honor of the highest FIDE rating in history. Fischer of being the most legendary player. If we take the raw data, Magnus Carlsen is clearly the best player ever to have graced the board. In reality? So, while this cannot end conclusively, chess lovers should be delighted that the game has produced two such amazing talents in the last century. Where Fischer had his greatest crisis of confidence was always before getting to the board, before getting on the plane.

And in Karpov, I have no doubt, especially after a three-year layoff, Fischer saw a significant risk. One of the countless, and endless, debates around Fischer was whether his behavioral excesses were the product of an unbalanced, yet sincere, soul, or an extension of his all-consuming drive to conquer.

Fischer had his strong principles, but the predator in him was well aware of the effect his antics had on his opponents. Karpov, meanwhile, had beaten Spassky convincingly in without any gamesmanship. The shades of color in real life often baffled Fischer, but he always saw very clearly in black and white. All reports say that Fischer was scrupulously correct at the board. FIDE had accepted all of his conditions but one, that should the match reach a 9—9 tie Fischer would retain the title.

This meant the challenger had to win by at least a 10—8 score, a substantial advantage for the incumbent. Had FIDE agreed and had Fischer come up with yet more demands, the book could have been closed in good conscience. Instead we missed out on what would have been one of the greatest matches in history and must wonder for eternity what Fischer would have done.

In that light, 10—8 hardly seems like such a disadvantage. Ironically, after Fischer was off the scene FIDE implemented some of his suggestions, including the unlimited match. Karpov also received the protection of a rematch clause, which gave him at least as big an advantage as Fischer had demanded. The absurdity of an unlimited match was only conclusively proven when Karpov and I dueled for a record forty-eight games over days before the match was abandoned without a winner.

It defied belief that a lone American could beat the best that the Soviet chess machine could produce. But even Walt Disney would hesitate to conceive of the story of a poor single mother trying to finish her education while moving her family from place to place and her unfocused young son from school to school—all while being investigated by the FBI as a potential Communist agent.

Regina Fischer was a remarkable woman, and not only for producing a chess champion son. Despite her worries about Bobby spending too much time on a board game, she realized it was the only thing that made him happy and soon promoted his passion as her own.

As the only son of a determined mother-manager-promoter myself, I cannot help but wonder what Fischer would have been like had his family situation been different.

I lost my father at an early age but, unlike Fischer, was surrounded by family. His name was on the birth certificate issued in Chicago in , but he never entered the United States after Regina moved there from Russia, via Paris, with their daughter Joan. Another scientist, a Hungarian Jew teaching in the US named Paul Nemenyi, was close to Regina and later sent money to the family for years. His photos also look tantalizingly similar to the adult Bobby Fischer. Beyond a brief mention, however, Brady is clearly uninterested in the controversy.

The nature of genius may not be definable. The ability to put in those hours of work is in itself an innate gift. Hard work is a talent. Generations of artists, authors, mathematicians, philosophers, and psychologists have pondered what exactly it is that makes for a great chess player. More recently, scientists with advanced brain-scanning machines have joined the hunt, looking for hot spots of activity as a master contemplates a move. An obsessive-competitive streak is enough to create a good squash player or a good or bad investment banker.

This is not meant to be a compliment, necessarily. Many strong chess players go on to successful careers as currency and stock traders, so I suppose there is considerable crossover in the pattern-matching and intuitive calculation skills required. But the aptitude for playing chess is nothing more than that. My argument has always been that what you learn from using the skills you have—analyzing your strengths and weaknesses—is far more important.

If you can program yourself to learn from your experiences by assiduously reviewing what worked and what did not, and why, success in chess can be very valuable indeed. In this way, the game has taught me a great deal about my own decision-making processes that is applicable in other areas, but that effort has little to do with natural gifts.

It was his relentless, even pathological dedication that transformed the sport. Fischer investigated constantly, studying every top-level game for new ideas and improvements. He was obsessed with tracking down books and periodicals, even learning enough Russian to expand his range of sources.

He studied each opponent, at least those he considered worthy of preparation. No one had ever prepared this deeply outside of world championship matches. Today, every game of chess ever played, going back centuries, is available at the click of a mouse to any beginner.

In his play, Fischer was amazingly objective, long before computers stripped away so many of the dogmas and assumptions humans have used to navigate the game for centuries. His concrete methods challenged basic precepts, such as the one that the stronger side should keep attacking the forces on the board. Fischer showed that simplification—the reduction of forces through exchanges—was often the strongest path as long as activity was maintained.

His fresh dynamism started a revolution; the period from to , when Fischer was already in self-exile as a player, was more fruitful in chess evolution than the entire preceding decade. It was simply that Fischer played every game to the death, as if it were his last. It was this fighting spirit that his contemporaries recall most about him as a chess player. If genius is hard to define, madness is even more so.

Nor does he attempt to diagnose Fischer, who was never properly examined by a professional but was instead declared guilty, innocent, or sick by millions of amateurs from afar. Brady also avoids the trap of arguing whether or not someone with a mental illness is responsible for his actions.

Starting in the late s, Bobby Fischer began giving sporadic radio interviews that exposed a deepening pit of hatred for the world—profane anti-Semitic diatribes, exultation after September Suddenly everything that had mostly been only rumors from the few people who had spent time with him since was out in the open on the Internet.

It was a shattering experience for the chess community, and many tried to respond in one way or another. Fischer was ill, some said, perhaps schizophrenic, and needed help, not censure. Others blamed his years of isolation, the personal setbacks, the persecutions both real and imagined at the hands of the US government, the chess community, and, of course, the Soviets, for inspiring his vengefulness.

After Fischer left chess the dark forces inside him no longer had purpose. Despite the ugliness of his decline, Fischer deserves to be remembered for his chess and for what he did for chess. Originally posted by greenpawn34 So the plan is to have this Kasparov, Botvinnik, Carlsen, Tal clone to appear in and play him. As the non-Russian be Don't underestimate Fischer's ability to believe that they are all out to get him, that would have to have some effect on his performance.

Shallow Blue. You're all wrong. It is chess dogma that Morphy would win, every time, because Morphy was the Best Attacker Evaaarrrrr!!!!!! Four of them out to get him all in the same body. Reckon you are that would upset him. But since Fishcer was Morphy and Capablanca with flashes of Alekhine, Tarrasch and Lasker all making an appearance at any give time.

Then I'll still go with Fischer. The clone would win a few. Originally posted by greenpawn34 Yup! Of course, Steinitz and Alekhine would have to commentate. Will would be drunk and Alex would be jumping on table. Nabakov to write the tournament book. So it's ageed that the Fischer of the '72 World Chess Championship, is the greatest player of all time.

Originally posted by vivify So it's ageed that the Fischer of the '72 World Chess Championship, is the greatest player of all time. Is the question really -- Who has the best Chess mind between Fischer and Kasparov? That would just be a guess. However, to know for sure and be fair they must be born at the same time.

So we are never going to know the answer. So then you believe Kasparov at his prime would've beaten Fischer in '72?