31 Jan 08
Originally posted by pawnhandlerif you took the Fischer of 1972, and gave him transcripts of the games he needed to catch up on the more important theory since then, i suspect he would beat just about anyone except Kasparov (not quite a current player). Maybe he would even beat Kaspy, maybe not. I'm pretty sure he would beat anyone at this site.
I don't doubt that he was the greatest or among the greatest in his day, but that was a long time ago. How would he stack up against today's players, including some on this site who are legitimately ranked highly?
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
31 Jan 08
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyHe would not beat bjork!
if you took the Fischer of 1972, and gave him transcripts of the games he needed to catch up on the more important theory since then, i suspect he would beat just about anyone except Kasparov (not quite a current player). Maybe he would even beat Kaspy, maybe not. I'm pretty sure he would beat anyone at this site.
31 Jan 08
the beauty of Fischer, is the originality of his play, yes he absorbed many ideas from others as can be seen in his later games with Spassky, however its this element of utter honesty about his play that is so appealing. in his book'60 memorable games',he quotes Emmanuel Lasker,'on the chess board lies and hypocrisy do not survive long. The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciless fact, culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite'. this my friends is what makes Fisher the greatest, his honesty, can the same be said of Kasparov, Karpov or anyone else with perhaps the exception of Micheal Adams who have teams of Grandmasters supporting their efforts?