- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
Originally posted by marinakatombI agree. Fischer was ahead of his comptempories back in the 70s, but modern chess play has evolved. Read the Watson books on modern chess strategy and you will see how many 'radical' ideas from a 70s perspective are now mainstream. Fischer's legacy can not be disputed, but I don't think Fischer can compete with the current #1 today.
Hello??? Take a guess at Topolovs IQ! He ain't stupid, that is frickin obvious. He is the best the world has to offer at the moment! Kasparov might beat him if they played a match right now, but NO ONE else, full stop! Anand is VERY close, but no cigar. Fischer simply can't come out of a 30 year lay off and beat this guy, there is absolutely no chance ...[text shortened]... s pushing the boundries. He is close to be the best ever, give him 5 years and he just might be!
Cheers,
You mean Fischer wasn't doing anything all this while? I thought in his comments that he said that he still watches the chess that the others play; it's just that he doesn't believe that World Championship matches are those that are played over the board (silicon+factory of GMs determine how the game goes move by move).
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
Originally posted by Papyn ChaseReminds me of the people who say bruce lee was the best marital arts fighter of all time (which is so far from reality). Can't argue with popular opinion and those who just know the legend through general media. Those more knowledgable will offer a more realistic opinion--read what GMs thought about Fischer-Spassky II.
You mean Fischer wasn't doing anything all this while? I thought in his comments that he said that he still watches the chess that the others play; it's just that he doesn't believe that World Championship matches are those that are played over the board (silicon+factory of GMs determine how the game goes move by move).
Originally posted by tonytiger41DId I say that he was the best? And I thought nobody understood Fischer's chess. Why do you think what GMs say about their match's anything important?
Reminds me of the people who say bruce lee was the best marital arts fighter of all time (which is so far from reality). Can't argue with popular opinion and those who just know the legend through general media. Those more knowledgable will offer a more realistic opinion--read what GMs thought about Fischer-Spassky II.
Regardless of most people's ideas, there are ways to win at Fischer random every time. Try playing as white against yourself some time. I'll wager youll never lose as white. Because there is no way to lose as white unless you're a complete idiot. And, if you hold out long enough, you can win as black too. It is almost like checkers. The more you play, the less you lose.
Originally posted by powershakerFischer today might get half a point, in either forms of the game, Chess is very much a young person's game. Some 60 year-old recluse who has't played competitively in more than 30 years is going to get creamed, no matter how good he was once. The Spassky match doesn't count - that was a has-been versus another has-been.
I very much doubt Fischer would lose a match against Topalov in random chess. Fischer's tactical mind and his 188 IQ to solve systems and numerical values is superhuman. He still can solve those 15 square number puzzles with his fingers in 10 seconds nearly. Tactics involves mental gymnastics, and Fischer is perfect at such a "random" chess fight. ...[text shortened]... ld only hope to win a few games from him in those circumstances if they had say a 10 game match.
Originally posted by tonytiger41I have read what the GMs thought, and in my opinion, I think it's hogwash! The GMs of the time were thinking it was a fluke, and all sorts of crap. But, if they had sat across the board from Bobby Fischer in 1972, they would go down in flames. Just like they went down in flames on most every U.S. Chess CHampionship he won. He cleaned up. That's all there is to it, and anyone who can lock themselves in a room to play an entire U.S. Championship via teletype, and not get hardly any rest, and play all the matches himself in a room... tired, and exhausted... Taking on the world so to speak, and boom, clean out the entire flock in 11 - 0!!!??? Nope, I think in 1972, there is no one in the world who could have took Fischer out in a set match of 10 games or better. Even Kasparov said Fischer was 60 years ahead of chess theory in 1972. And, Kasparov is not fond of Fischer as a person, but cannot deny his greatness. That shows you also how respectable a World Champion Kasparov is and was. Even if he doesn't like the person, he must admit the obvious.
Reminds me of the people who say bruce lee was the best marital arts fighter of all time (which is so far from reality). Can't argue with popular opinion and those who just know the legend through general media. Those more knowledgable will offer a more realistic opinion--read what GMs thought about Fischer-Spassky II.
Okay, my dream match: The 1993 Kasparov versus the 1972 Bobby Fischer. What a match that would be!
SHAKER
Originally posted by buffalobillSpassky at the age of 51 drew both his games against Kasparov in 1988; so he must have become a total "has been" very quickly. Fischer makes his own rules; can we be sure that even at 62 he couldn't beat Topalov? Those people here who smugly assert otherwise are talking out of their a**. Topalov would be a heavy favorite, but Bobby was the greatest match player of all time and all the pressure would be on Topalov. It would certainly be interesting.
Fischer today might get half a point, in either forms of the game, Chess is very much a young person's game. Some 60 year-old recluse who has't played competitively in more than 30 years is going to get creamed, no matter how good he was once. The Spassky match doesn't count - that was a has-been versus another has-been.
EDIT: Botvinnik was still a champion at 52 in the 1960's. So who's to say for sure?
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, maybe you're right! I can definitely see your point. I - myself -am totally against putting down a player's strength because of age! Look at Smyslov and Botvinnik like you said? Smyslov gave the younger generation of players a run for their move (to use a play on words), often dominating them! And, I use to have a friend named Billy and Billy said that after 30 no one can improve their chess. He quoted sources and all this crap. Well, it's funny, ever since studying Lev Alburt's chess course, I've strengthed my game completely. I can beat opponents I could not beat before. I solve chess puzzles more readily. Age has nothing to do with it! I am 34 right now, and I know for a fact my 34 self would crush my 24 self! No doubt! And, I will tell you another thing for sure... I am a FISCHER FAN! And, even if he was crazy as a bed bug, I'd take him out for ice cream and chess any day! So, shoot me!
Spassky at the age of 51 drew both his games against Kasparov in 1988; so he must have become a total "has been" very quickly. Fischer makes his own rules; can we be sure that even at 62 he couldn't beat Topalov? Those people here who smugly assert otherwise are talking out of their a**. Topalov would be a heavy favorite, but Bobby was the greatest ma ...[text shortened]... esting.
EDIT: Botvinnik was still a champion at 52 in the 1960's. So who's to say for sure?
SHAKER
I have no problem believing Fischer is still as good as we remember him to be. The problem lies in this. Throughout history in all facets of life, there are "greats" in every generation. And with each passing generation, those "greats" raise the bar for the next. Take Michael Jordan for example. Great in his day, some still say "the best ever". MJ set the standard for the players of today. If they were going to be great, they had to be as good as him or better. And they have. I have no doubt that if MJ were still in his prime, he couldn't compete with the modern day greats. How about the Olympics? The world record for the 100M has gotten smaller as the decades have passed. The weight lifting records have gotten bigger. And how about Evil Knievel? His son Robbie has broken all but 4 of his records. Take imperialism for example. Long ago, the Egyptians held(at the time was thought to be) a vast empire. The Babylonians topped them. Who were topped by the Greeks who in turn were shown up by the Romans.
There seems to be a trend here. Somebody(s) comes along and sets the standard, giving society as we know it something to chip away at. Now I'm not saying this is true in every case througout history. Some people(s) will never be topped.
Robert J. Fischer came along and rose to the top of the chess world. I'd say he set the standard for his time on how great you had to be. The pattern of history would suggest that Fischer has long since been surpassed. However, and i say this without any idea as to Fischer's current skill level, he could very well be one of those few who have remained at the top of their game. Only Fischer really knows what he's been doing behind closed doors all these years. He says that he doesn't play "regular" chess anymore. He also could very well just be saying that. Nobody knows but him. Should he and Topalov play, I agree that Topalov would be the heavy favorite. But if you take into account how great Fischer was, it is possible to believe that he's every bit of Topalov and then some. Time will tell if we ever find out.
Well, the match isn't happening. In any case, a match wouldn't happen if it wasn't on Fischer's terms. Given Fischer's views on the U. S. and his opinions of Jews (which, incidentally, both of his parents, or at least one had a Jewish heritage), i am sure that no one of Topalov's stature would want to play Fischer; it would bring negative publicity. (not to mention, Topalov would very likely crush him now in a regular game of chess)
Fischer was a great player. Intelligent; but his common sense never extended beyond the chessboard. There is an excellent Fischer database on academicchess.com and an excellent book called "Bobby Fischer Goes to War", which details on the lives of Fischer and Spassky.