(Chess) Bobby Fischer Or Garry Kasparov?

Happy_Killbot

Ever since computers have started annihilating all human opponents at the game, the face of chess has been a totally different animal. Any more chess is more about building the most powerful engine you can.

As far as which human player is better, I'm not sure. Kasparov built on a lot of Fisher's work so it's easy to say that he was better, and by most metrics he is, however it's incredibly difficult to say who was better because maybe if they were born at the same time we could have seen the results for ourselves, but It's hard to say for sure.

MayCaesar

It is hard to objectively compare them, as, first, they were active in different time periods, and second, they have never played matches with each other. 

I can say that, from my perspective, Fischer is over-idealised in the US. He was the best at his time, but overall, compared to other chess champions, he was not all that special. Same goes to Kasparov to an extent, although Kasparov arguably is a more versatile player, possibly the most versatile of all chess players of all time up until the last 10-15 years. Fischer's play was quite one-dimensional: he was best at what he did, but his repertoire was limited.

It is also hard for us, rookies, to judge players this high up the ladder. Many of the elements of their play are just unaccessible to us. I am good, among the top 0.5% of all players on chess.com - but this is still a very low level, compared even to the weakest of the professional players. I absolutely cannot hold my ground against, say, a strong FIDE Master, and a strong FIDE Master versus the elite is like a member of a college boxing team compared to Mike Tyson in his prime.
I feel comfortable comparing players of my or below my level, but I have absolutely no business evaluating those who would eat me for breakfast at the board.

Let people like Magnus Carlsen or Hikaru Nakamura judge which player was superior. They are actually qualified to make such judgements, unlike us.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

It is hard to objectively compare them, as, first, they were active in different time periods, and second, they have never played matches with each other. 

I can say that, from my perspective, Fischer is over-idealised in the US. He was the best at his time, but overall, compared to other chess champions, he was not all that special. Same goes to Kasparov to an extent, although Kasparov arguably is a more versatile player, possibly the most versatile of all chess players of all time up until the last 10-15 years. Fischer's play was quite one-dimensional: he was best at what he did, but his repertoire was limited.

It is also hard for us, rookies, to judge players this high up the ladder. Many of the elements of their play are just unaccessible to us. I am good, among the top 0.5% of all players on chess.com - but this is still a very low level, compared even to the weakest of the professional players. I absolutely cannot hold my ground against, say, a strong FIDE Master, and a strong FIDE Master versus the elite is like a member of a college boxing team compared to Mike Tyson in his prime.
I feel comfortable comparing players of my or below my level, but I have absolutely no business evaluating those who would eat me for breakfast at the board.

Let people like Magnus Carlsen or Hikaru Nakamura judge which player was superior. They are actually qualified to make such judgements, unlike us.

@MayCaesar

Funnily enough, Magnus Carlsen has actually commented on this. He says that in terms of dominance and strength it would be Bobby Fischer but the only problem was that Fischer never really played professionally again, after he won with Spassky. Carlsen also said that Kasparov is the best in recent times as well because of all of his victories.

ZeusAres42

Happy_Killbot said:

Ever since computers have started annihilating all human opponents at the game, the face of chess has been a totally different animal. Any more chess is more about building the most powerful engine you can.

As far as which human player is better, I'm not sure. Kasparov built on a lot of Fisher's work so it's easy to say that he was better, and by most metrics he is, however it's incredibly difficult to say who was better because maybe if they were born at the same time we could have seen the results for ourselves, but It's hard to say for sure.

Are you saying it's easier to say Fischer was better or Kasparov? And yes, I agree it is hard to tell. I guess it's just down to personal preference. Another worthy opponent would have been Paul Morphy I think.

Also, funny you mentioned computer engines. Bobby didn't make a comment on that in later years as well as other stuff in relation to that.

Happy_Killbot

@ZeusAres42 I didn't word that very well.

What I meant is that because Kasparov built on Fisher's work, it is easy to say he is better, the same way modern scientists have built on the works of the past. This is however, a paradox because it doesn't tell you who is actually better, because if Kasparov couldn't have used Fishers work to develop, maybe he would not have achieved his success. Therefore we can't really say for sure who is better.

Dee

An interesting question , I often wonder how Kasparov would have fared against Fischer at his peak. I think it’s best put by this piece from this excellent book ......

 David Edmonds and John Eidinow (2004)

BBC award-winning journalists, from their book Bobby Fischer Goes to War: How the Soviets Lost the Most Extraordinary Chess Match of All Time  (HarperCollins, 2004):

Fischer, some will maintain, was the outstanding player in chess history, though there are powerful advocates too for Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, and Kasparov. Many chess players will dismiss such comparisons as meaningless, akin to the futile attempt to grade the supreme musicians of all time. But the manner in which Fischer stormed his way to Reykjavik, his breathtaking dominance at the Palma de Majorca Interzonal, the trouncings of Taimanov, Larsen, and Petrosian—all this was unprecedented. There never has been an era in modern chess during which one player has so overshadowed all others.

ZeusAres42

Dee said:

An interesting question , I often wonder how Kasparov would have fared against Fischer at his peak. I think it’s best put by this piece from this excellent book ......

 David Edmonds and John Eidinow (2004)

BBC award-winning journalists, from their book Bobby Fischer Goes to War: How the Soviets Lost the Most Extraordinary Chess Match of All Time  (HarperCollins, 2004):

Fischer, some will maintain, was the outstanding player in chess history, though there are powerful advocates too for Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, and Kasparov. Many chess players will dismiss such comparisons as meaningless, akin to the futile attempt to grade the supreme musicians of all time. But the manner in which Fischer stormed his way to Reykjavik, his breathtaking dominance at the Palma de Majorca Interzonal, the trouncings of Taimanov, Larsen, and Petrosian—all this was unprecedented. There never has been an era in modern chess during which one player has so overshadowed all others.

@Dee that is what I meant actually, Fischer in his peak. Another worthy comparable candidate I think would be Paul Morphy. I mean these guys did things that baffled current Grandmasters of their time! Also, I think Fischer might have had some kind of Aspergers Syndrome, meaning that he couldn't settle unless he mastered everything he got his teeth into. But of course, no human can actually master chess. These guys were also unfortunately mentally unstable, but I think that's understandable of someone of that level of genius.

Another thing I think is worth mentioning this was also during a Cold War-era where tensions were high between the US the Russians. And Bobby Fischer was pushed to his limit all because the USA wanted to prove to the Russians that the USA was intellectually superior. Also, that Movie does involve stuff like this. The movie trailer I posted wasn't just about two people sitting for hours in a room; it was actually rather entertaining. It also involved his mental health complications such as paranoia about the Russians and Jews all spying on him.

Dee

@ZeusAres42

I watched that movie a while back and enjoyed. Fischer was a genius but also insane as his online rants confirm a strange but fascinating character . Chess prodigies mostly seem to be also gifted at Math , and Music the young German sensation Vincent Keymers  mother and father are renowned international musicians and I heard he is likewise gifted .

The great Emmanuel Lasker was a philosopher , Mathematician and musician talk about having it alll.

Many years ago Gary Kasparov did a tour of Ireland and an Irish chess enthusiast told him he had played him when they were kids in the chess olympics Kasparov looked at him and said “ oh yes I remember your error in the middle game when you moved your knight to g5”.....remarkably gifted humans