actually probably haven't played in 50 years, but one of the highlights of my life was Fischer-Spassky in 1972 with Shelby Lyman hosting on TV. Can this championship compare? If so, I'll give it a look
actually probably haven't played in 50 years, but one of the highlights of my life was Fischer-Spassky in 1972 with Shelby Lyman hosting on TV. Can this championship compare? If so, I'll give it a look
actually probably haven't played in 50 years, but one of the highlights of my life was Fischer-Spassky in 1972 with Shelby Lyman hosting on TV. Can this championship compare? If so, I'll give it a look
These guys are much better
errrrr.. not so fast. Magnus clearly be longs in the discussion for greatest of all time but he's not plainly better than Fischer, or Kasparov, and maybe even Karpov.
There is a reason Bobby Fischer is revered to this very day, and it's not just because he was a nut. He routed the entire chess world like none had ever done before, or since. And when he dominated Spassky, it wasn't just Spassky he defeated but the Soviet chess system, as Spassky was being advised by several of the greatest grandmasters of the time. Magnus never dominated his contemporaries as Fischer did. Fischer basically reinvented chess with his daring and creative play. Great as he is, nobody thinks Magnus is as creative as Fischer. Casually saying "these guys are much better" fails to give Bobby Fischer the historical credit that he deserves. And many of his games remain important classics that are studied by the best players of the day.
actually probably haven't played in 50 years, but one of the highlights of my life was Fischer-Spassky in 1972 with Shelby Lyman hosting on TV. Can this championship compare? If so, I'll give it a look
These guys are much better
errrrr.. not so fast. Magnus clearly be longs in the discussion for greatest of all time but he's not plainly better than Fischer, or Kasparov, and maybe even Karpov.
There is a reason Bobby Fischer is revered to this very day, and it's not just because he was a nut. He routed the entire chess world like none had ever done before, or since. And when he dominated Spassky, it wasn't just Spassky he defeated but the Soviet chess system, as Spassky was being advised by several of the greatest grandmasters of the time. Magnus never dominated his contemporaries as Fischer did. Fischer basically reinvented chess with his daring and creative play. Great as he is, nobody thinks Magnus is as creative as Fischer. Casually saying "these guys are much better" fails to give Bobby Fischer the historical credit that he deserves. And many of his games remain important classics that are studied by the best players of the day.
What about the argument that chess is much more popular than it was 50 years ago, and that the bench of great players is far deeper, and so to consistently win at the highest level requires a level of talent higher than Fischer's?
RE: RE: RE: RE: I've only ever been an occasional player
What about the argument that chess is much more popular than it was 50 years ago, and that the bench of great players is far deeper, and so to consistently win at the highest level requires a level of talent higher than Fischer's?
I don't think that argument holds water at all. It doesn't really matter how many "great" players there are. True geniuses come along very infrequently. The GOAT could be playing right now, or equally likely, he could have played 50 years ago. We don't necessarily have people today who surpass Mozart or Einstein or da Vinci just because we have more people doing what they did
actually probably haven't played in 50 years, but one of the highlights of my life was Fischer-Spassky in 1972 with Shelby Lyman hosting on TV. Can this championship compare? If so, I'll give it a look
These guys are much better
errrrr.. not so fast. Magnus clearly be longs in the discussion for greatest of all time but he's not plainly better than Fischer, or Kasparov, and maybe even Karpov.
There is a reason Bobby Fischer is revered to this very day, and it's not just because he was a nut. He routed the entire chess world like none had ever done before, or since. And when he dominated Spassky, it wasn't just Spassky he defeated but the Soviet chess system, as Spassky was being advised by several of the greatest grandmasters of the time. Magnus never dominated his contemporaries as Fischer did. Fischer basically reinvented chess with his daring and creative play. Great as he is, nobody thinks Magnus is as creative as Fischer. Casually saying "these guys are much better" fails to give Bobby Fischer the historical credit that he deserves. And many of his games remain important classics that are studied by the best players of the day.
What about the argument that chess is much more popular than it was 50 years ago, and that the bench of great players is far deeper, and so to consistently win at the highest level requires a level of talent higher than Fischer's?
I don't think that is a bad contention at all. I actually prefer the logic that says, from a much larger pool of players, a better player is a more likely outcome. And I don't discount Magnus' greatness or that, depending on the circumstances, he might defeat Fischer, Karpov or Kasparov. I just don't think it is a slam dunk. I have seen Magnus talk about Fischer. He reveres him and what he accomplished, as does Kasparov. Fischer was a unicorn. Magnus benefits from studying Fischer. If the deck was swept clear and Fischer and Magnus started from the same place, who would be better? I think it is an interesting question that doesn't have an answer.
going undefeated in tournaments, which you probably will never see again. And he had all time brilliant games like Game of the Century, when he was a 13 year old.
Nowadays games are more technical and boring, which is what FIscher predicted and kind of retired because of. Speed chess is more fun.
Carlson is far from being the GOAT. Morphy, Fischer, Capablanca, Tal, and more, would've taken him to the cleaners if he had played in their day.
p.s.--Don't get me wrong, I have a ton of respect for Carlson. He is fierce competitor. But much more Botvinik or Karpov than Morphy, Tal, or Fischer.
Daniil Dubov and Alireza Firouzja are my current favorites to study...
But I don't see him as a unicorn. There were other world champions who were equally daring and creative. Ray in Arlington is much more knowledgeable than me on past champions, but I would put Morphy and Tal at the top of the list when it comes to "favoring activity" over all else. And, of course, everybody loves... Capablanca - ( New Window )
But I don't see him as a unicorn. There were other world champions who were equally daring and creative. Ray in Arlington is much more knowledgeable than me on past champions, but I would put Morphy and Tal at the top of the list when it comes to "favoring activity" over all else. And, of course, everybody loves... Capablanca - ( New Window )
Fischer had the most dominant streak in chess history. He had an unprecedented streak of ins against grandmasters that hasn't been equaled. He was also probably the most exceptional prodigy in the entire history of the game. There were many other greats who would have given him a good challenge, like Morphy and Tal, but Fischer's streak to the world championship is unparalleled. Someone said he was like Babe Ruth, I see him more like Jimi Hendrix. He burned with incredible intensity and then disappeared. He changed the game forever as Hendrix changed guitar. And many decades later he is still considered by many to be the greatest.
*unprecedented streak of wins against grandmasters
I agree with you about his dominance being unprecedented, but I don't know that his style was any more aggressive or creative than others who came before and after him. It's a shame Tal was set back by poor health. He and Fischer would've had some great battles. Both Tal and Fischer in peak form would've been something to watch.
"You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one."--Mikhail Tal
great quote.
I think Karpov is being underrated here because he was a foil to the slightly greater Kasparov and because he seemed like a stooge for the Soviet system. But he was world champion early and then later in life, which is kind of astounding and he played many legendary games.
I follow on Chess24, and I really enjoyed the "behind the scenes" banter about mindset, psychology, and preparation from Judit Polgar and Anish Giri during the first 3 games. They've now morphed into total nerd analysts of the position and possible lines of play – probably cool for top-level players but too advanced (and quick) for me. So I've switched over to the more general-interest approach of David Howell and Jovanka Houska, on a different tab of Chess24, and I've enjoyed the change of pace.
Afterwards, of course, I love watching Agadmator's YouTube replay and analysis. He's unbelievably good at what he does.
Me too, great to have on in the background while working
These guys are much better
Quote:
actually probably haven't played in 50 years, but one of the highlights of my life was Fischer-Spassky in 1972 with Shelby Lyman hosting on TV. Can this championship compare? If so, I'll give it a look
These guys are much better
errrrr.. not so fast. Magnus clearly be longs in the discussion for greatest of all time but he's not plainly better than Fischer, or Kasparov, and maybe even Karpov.
There is a reason Bobby Fischer is revered to this very day, and it's not just because he was a nut. He routed the entire chess world like none had ever done before, or since. And when he dominated Spassky, it wasn't just Spassky he defeated but the Soviet chess system, as Spassky was being advised by several of the greatest grandmasters of the time. Magnus never dominated his contemporaries as Fischer did. Fischer basically reinvented chess with his daring and creative play. Great as he is, nobody thinks Magnus is as creative as Fischer. Casually saying "these guys are much better" fails to give Bobby Fischer the historical credit that he deserves. And many of his games remain important classics that are studied by the best players of the day.
Quote:
In comment 15478486 Bill in UT said:
Quote:
actually probably haven't played in 50 years, but one of the highlights of my life was Fischer-Spassky in 1972 with Shelby Lyman hosting on TV. Can this championship compare? If so, I'll give it a look
These guys are much better
errrrr.. not so fast. Magnus clearly be longs in the discussion for greatest of all time but he's not plainly better than Fischer, or Kasparov, and maybe even Karpov.
There is a reason Bobby Fischer is revered to this very day, and it's not just because he was a nut. He routed the entire chess world like none had ever done before, or since. And when he dominated Spassky, it wasn't just Spassky he defeated but the Soviet chess system, as Spassky was being advised by several of the greatest grandmasters of the time. Magnus never dominated his contemporaries as Fischer did. Fischer basically reinvented chess with his daring and creative play. Great as he is, nobody thinks Magnus is as creative as Fischer. Casually saying "these guys are much better" fails to give Bobby Fischer the historical credit that he deserves. And many of his games remain important classics that are studied by the best players of the day.
What about the argument that chess is much more popular than it was 50 years ago, and that the bench of great players is far deeper, and so to consistently win at the highest level requires a level of talent higher than Fischer's?
What about the argument that chess is much more popular than it was 50 years ago, and that the bench of great players is far deeper, and so to consistently win at the highest level requires a level of talent higher than Fischer's?
I don't think that argument holds water at all. It doesn't really matter how many "great" players there are. True geniuses come along very infrequently. The GOAT could be playing right now, or equally likely, he could have played 50 years ago. We don't necessarily have people today who surpass Mozart or Einstein or da Vinci just because we have more people doing what they did
So Magnus up 4-3 with 7 games to go.
Quote:
In comment 15478533 armstead98 said:
Quote:
In comment 15478486 Bill in UT said:
Quote:
actually probably haven't played in 50 years, but one of the highlights of my life was Fischer-Spassky in 1972 with Shelby Lyman hosting on TV. Can this championship compare? If so, I'll give it a look
These guys are much better
errrrr.. not so fast. Magnus clearly be longs in the discussion for greatest of all time but he's not plainly better than Fischer, or Kasparov, and maybe even Karpov.
There is a reason Bobby Fischer is revered to this very day, and it's not just because he was a nut. He routed the entire chess world like none had ever done before, or since. And when he dominated Spassky, it wasn't just Spassky he defeated but the Soviet chess system, as Spassky was being advised by several of the greatest grandmasters of the time. Magnus never dominated his contemporaries as Fischer did. Fischer basically reinvented chess with his daring and creative play. Great as he is, nobody thinks Magnus is as creative as Fischer. Casually saying "these guys are much better" fails to give Bobby Fischer the historical credit that he deserves. And many of his games remain important classics that are studied by the best players of the day.
What about the argument that chess is much more popular than it was 50 years ago, and that the bench of great players is far deeper, and so to consistently win at the highest level requires a level of talent higher than Fischer's?
I don't think that is a bad contention at all. I actually prefer the logic that says, from a much larger pool of players, a better player is a more likely outcome. And I don't discount Magnus' greatness or that, depending on the circumstances, he might defeat Fischer, Karpov or Kasparov. I just don't think it is a slam dunk. I have seen Magnus talk about Fischer. He reveres him and what he accomplished, as does Kasparov. Fischer was a unicorn. Magnus benefits from studying Fischer. If the deck was swept clear and Fischer and Magnus started from the same place, who would be better? I think it is an interesting question that doesn't have an answer.
Nowadays games are more technical and boring, which is what FIscher predicted and kind of retired because of. Speed chess is more fun.
p.s.--Don't get me wrong, I have a ton of respect for Carlson. He is fierce competitor. But much more Botvinik or Karpov than Morphy, Tal, or Fischer.
I've seen a number of interesting Dubov games with wild openings.
Capablanca - ( New Window )
Fischer had the most dominant streak in chess history. He had an unprecedented streak of ins against grandmasters that hasn't been equaled. He was also probably the most exceptional prodigy in the entire history of the game. There were many other greats who would have given him a good challenge, like Morphy and Tal, but Fischer's streak to the world championship is unparalleled. Someone said he was like Babe Ruth, I see him more like Jimi Hendrix. He burned with incredible intensity and then disappeared. He changed the game forever as Hendrix changed guitar. And many decades later he is still considered by many to be the greatest.
great quote.
I think Karpov is being underrated here because he was a foil to the slightly greater Kasparov and because he seemed like a stooge for the Soviet system. But he was world champion early and then later in life, which is kind of astounding and he played many legendary games.
Afterwards, of course, I love watching Agadmator's YouTube replay and analysis. He's unbelievably good at what he does.
Also Anand and Anna Muzychuk on the fide world chess site.
Chess.com must have something too.