29 Sep 12
Originally posted by vivifyThis sort of question pops up from time to time. I think Kasparovs style was quite ground breaking during the 80' early 90's, the way he judged a position often flew in the face of conventional wisdom. It's difficult to judge how Fischer would have reacted. In this imaginary game, does Fischer have time pre game to analyse Kasparovs games/style to find weaknesses? Fischer was quite brilliant at de-constructing players styles..
Who would've won, if Kasparov could've played Fischer in '70's? In other words, what if Fischer's last match before playing Spassky was Kasparov? Would've Fischer's momentum have been too much, or would Bobby have fallen against the great one?
That aside, do you think the result between kasparov and Karpov would have been different had Karpov had a decade of matches against Fischer under his belt? The reason Kasparov reached the strength he did is his rivalry with Karpov. A quick glance at chessgames.com shows those two played 201 games against each other. If you take out the marathon 84 and 85 World championship matches, Kasparov might very well have continued being primarily a tactician, as it was he was forced to develop a more positional approach as Karpov was so damned hard to beat.
Had Fischer not gone AWOL, he would have spent the 70's playing Karpov. What would that have done to his game? (Not to mention Karpovs!)
In summary i think my conclusion has to be that Fischer and Kasparov where both extremely talented and more importantly adaptable players. The way Fischer took on Spassky in the Kings Gambit (Spasskys favourite opening with white), willingly double pawns only to undouble them some moves later shows he was prepared to look far deeper than any player of his era (imo). He shares this with Kasparov. If they were the same age, with the same facilities available, i don't think it's possible to predict a winner. It'd be a cracking match though!! 😀
29 Sep 12
Best chess players ever : Paul Charles Morphy and Robert James "Bobby" Fischer !!!
Why?
Well, they came, they saw, they conquered the chess world!
They did what they did alone without any support without any help from others!
Paul Morphy was just playing for fun and he crushed every good or great player.
Bobby Fischer, the guy from Brooklyn who defeated the soviet chess machine all by himself!
Two chess players, prodigies, masters of chess, champions of the world !
Kasparov for me was not as good as Fischer or Morphy, he dominated in the decline of chess and there was no great opposition, and of course he had coaches and computers and agents and help and everything. What a great player he was when he just played the already analyzed variations of his coaches!
29 Sep 12
Originally posted by MarinkatombYes, in this imaginary game, Fischer would be able to analyze Garry's game beforehand.
[b]This sort of question pops up from time to time. I think Kasparovs style was quite ground breaking during the 80' early 90's, the way he judged a position often flew in the face of conventional wisdom. It's difficult to judge how Fischer would have reacted. In this imaginary game, does Fischer have time pre game to analyse Kasparovs games/style to find weaknesses? Fischer was quite brilliant at de-constructing players styles..
As far would Fischer have become a better player; I don't know. I believe that, just like Spassky, Fischer would've eventually dominated Karpov, even if it took a few games. I think their matches would eventually become one-sided, rather than helping both, the way iron sharpons iron.
29 Sep 12
Originally posted by vivifyDid Kasparov ever dominate Karpov? I don't think so! And that was with the advantage of comparative youth. Fischer would have played Karpov while he was a young man, Karpov would have had the advantage Kasparov had over him. I might be going out on a limb here, but Karpov, somehow, has become very underrated for some reason. Ok he never defeated Fischer for the World championship but that was no fault of his own. Look at mens tennis at the moment, the top four players have set such a high standard amongst themselves over the last 10 years that no one else figures at all at major tournaments. Had Fischer not dropped off the face of the planet, chess would have had a Golden era in the late 70's early 80's, and i include Korchnoi in that equation. He very nearly did what Fischer did, taking on the soviet chess machine single handed. Had it not been for some insanely underhand tactics by the soviets (imprisoning his son during the match for example) then he could conceivably have beaten Karpov, both their WC matches were only separated by a point.
Yes, in this imaginary game, Fischer would be able to analyze Garry's game beforehand.
As far would Fischer have become a better player; I don't know. I believe that, just like Spassky, Fischer would've eventually dominated Karpov, even if it took a few games. I think their matches would eventually become one-sided, rather than helping both, the way iron sharpons iron.
Don't forget, Korchnoi and Fischer had a totally level match play tie, +3 =4 -3 a piece in head to head. Fischer i'm sure would have pulled ahead at some point as he was younger and on balance probably a better player, but Korchnoi raised his level long into old age. He beat Caruana only a couple of years ago and look what he's achieving atm...
29 Sep 12
Originally posted by MarinkatombWell said. I think Karpov with Geller as his second would have been a power force to contend with, and I think Fischer knew that, too.
Did Kasparov ever dominate Karpov? I don't think so! And that was with the advantage of comparative youth. Fischer would have played Karpov while he was a young man, Karpov would have had the advantage Kasparov had over him. I might be going out on a limb here, but Karpov, somehow, has become very underrated for some reason. Ok he never defeated Fischer ...[text shortened]... to old age. He beat Caruana only a couple of years ago and look what he's achieving atm...
29 Sep 12
Originally posted by Paul LeggettI think Karpov and Carlsen are very similar. Neither of them aim for wizz bang stuff (though they're perfectly capable of it). Rather they rely on superior technique as a primary route to victory. Kasparov and Fischer both had the ability to create electric positions that grab the headlines, but a wins a win. Fischer and Kasparov would take more risks and i think that appeals to the viewing public (myself included) but this shouldn't be taken as a mark of greatness per se. Winning with a spectacular sacrificial attack looks great and deserves credit, but grinding out a win in an objectively drawn end game often requires a far greater level of skill. Karpov was an absolute master at this! As is Carlsen..
Well said. I think Karpov with Geller as his second would have been a power force to contend with, and I think Fischer knew that, too.
29 Sep 12
Originally posted by MarinkatombKasparov isn't Fischer; he wouldn't have dominated Spassky either. Garry can't get into an opponent's head like Fischer. No one can.
[b]Did Kasparov ever dominate Karpov? I don't think so!
Fischer dominated the number player in the world. There's no reason why he wouldn't have dominated Karpov as well. Yes, I know Karpov beat Spassky; but by then, Spassky wasn't the same, having let down his nation at the height of the cold war, and pretty much exiled from his own homeland.
With that in mind, just like he dominated Spassky, the number one, he would've dominated Karpov as well. That's why I don't think they would've been rivals for very long.
29 Sep 12
Originally posted by vivifyI don't think any one player would dominate, Kasparov/Fischer/Karpov, they're all different players but exceptional in their own right. Fischer would win some games, sure, but he wouldn't dominate, not a chance.
Kasparov isn't Fischer; he wouldn't have dominated Spassky either. Garry can't get into an opponent's head like Fischer. No one can.
Fischer dominated the number player in the world. There's no reason why he wouldn't have dominated Karpov as well. Yes, I know Karpov beat Spassky; but by then, Spassky wasn't the same, having let down his nation at the ...[text shortened]... ed Karpov as well. That's why I don't think they would've been rivals for very long.
Originally posted by greenpawn34This is interesting. Do you think that, if more than one GM were to consult each other on their moves, ignoring time issues, the standard of play would rise or fall? I suspect that bad blunders would be reduced, with more eyes on the position. However, I am not sure the overall standard of play would increase.
So the plan is to have this Kasparov, Botvinnik, Carlsen, Tal clone to appear
in 1971 and play him.
Reckon Fisher would win easily. The clone would get all confused.
Tal would be wanting to sac something on every move.
Botvinnik would be saying no.
Kasparov would agree with both players at the same time.
And...Carlsen?
As the non-Russian be ...[text shortened]... uld be 6-0 no matter who you merged.)
But in this case the loser would be very smartly dressed.
I ask this as I spend an inordinate amount of my life on Committtees and I find the standard of decision making is inversely proportional to the number on the Committtee. The ability to take calculated risks, in particular, is reduced a lot.
It's what I call 'Italian Restaurant Syndrome'. Ask a group of co-workers where they would like to go for a celebrational meal at the company's expense, and some people will argue strongly for Chinese, Indian etc. No-one will mention Italian. However, there is always one food faddist person who 'can't eat Indian' or 'hates Chinese' etc. They don't particularly like Italian either, but at least they don't object to some pasta in tomato sauce or a pizza.
So, rather than leave one colleague out, everyone ends up going to a restaurant that no one wanted to go to.
Compromise - the art of keeping everyone equally unhappy.
I wonder if the same would happen in chess?
29 Sep 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderCompromise takes the middle ground. In chess that would be a draw. So perhaps you will not see a brilliant win or a blunder, but a draw is better than a loss.
This is interesting. Do you think that, if more than one GM were to consult each other on their moves, ignoring time issues, the standard of play would rise or fall? I suspect that bad blunders would be reduced, with more eyes on the position. However, I am not sure the overall standard of play would increase.
I ask this as I spend an inordinate ...[text shortened]... t of keeping everyone equally unhappy.
I wonder if the same would happen in chess?
29 Sep 12
Originally posted by MarinkatombThat's the same thing people thought about Spassky.
I don't think any one player would dominate, Kasparov/Fischer/Karpov, they're all different players but exceptional in their own right. Fischer would win some games, sure, but he wouldn't dominate, not a chance.
29 Sep 12
Originally posted by MarinkatombMentioning Carlsen in these conversations is ridiculous. He is unquestionably good at grinding down random 2650 to 2750 but for me he is totally unproven at gaining at edge against the very best: no match history etc. He can dress it all he likes but he bottled it from the recent world champ cycle to maintain he no. 1 in the ranking and his aura of being the "best" player in the world in some peoples' superficial eyes, for marketing reasons!
I think Karpov and Carlsen are very similar. Neither of them aim for wizz bang stuff (though they're perfectly capable of it). Rather they rely on superior technique as a primary route to victory. Kasparov and Fischer both had the ability to create electric positions that grab the headlines, but a wins a win. Fischer and Kasparov would take more risks an ...[text shortened]... requires a far greater level of skill. Karpov was an absolute master at this! As is Carlsen..
29 Sep 12
And looking at the Karpov v Fischer question:
By 1972 Fischer had shown to have the edge over Spassky head to head
His career record as quoted earlier was level with Korchnoy
Spassky had a slight edge over Korchnoy head to head.
In 1978 Karpov just defeated Korchnoy 6-5 but dominated Spassky head to head.
Working with these facts Fischer would have defeated Karpov in 1975 but by around 1982 Karpov's level of play had surpassed anything shown by Fischer in my opinion
29 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by queenabberI agree with most of your post. However, I think you overlooked a true titan in terms of what he offered to the chess community realtive to his peers/time period. Steinitz (the father of modern chess) was a genious in his own right, and belongs in that particular discussion (along with other brilliant players like Karpov, Fischer, Kasparov, Morphy).
The only ways to judge who is the greatest player of all time is to see how superior he was over his contempories and by how much chess understanding advanced during his time at the top. To judge solely on playing strength is ridiculous as chess understanding evolves so quickly, eg I very much doubt Capablanca could win a single game against any of the cu ...[text shortened]... s, Karpov during the early 1980s or Kasparov during the mid 1990s. Nobody else is in the running
29 Sep 12
Hi Rank Outsider.
"This is interesting. Do you think that, if more than one GM were to consult each
other on their moves, ignoring time issues, the standard of play would rise or fall?"
I have had the priviage of sitting in on a group of GM's analysing.
If the position is double-edge then it can be Chaos.
The different styles clash as each lad tries to push his move on the others.
Hands are everywhere. (including mine when a trap pops up).
You need a leader, someone to say this is the path we go and the others
have to play against it. If they do then try again.
With all the ego's mention so far who is going allow who to be a leader.
What did impress me about the these sessions was suddenly all would stop
and though the position was just a position to me.
They would all agree to a man one side was lost. (how,where?)
Within seconds the critical position would be set up again and they would start
all over again.