The question was…at their Peak..who was the most dominant. Sorry…but nobody ever or has since slaughtered his way to the top like Fischer did. Including 20 straight wins. That’s unheard of. 4 straight wins against Petrosian and pretty much a rout against Spasky even giving him a 2 point advantage.
What happened during his decline is irrelevant to the question. Unquestionably…nobody ever stood so far apart from his contemporaries during his peak.
FISCHER HANDS DOWN! CANDIDATES MATCHES 6-0; 6-0; 6.5-2.5!!! IN KASPAROV’S DREAMS MAYBE! THEN HE THREW THE FIRST TWO GAMES OF THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP AND STILL DOMINATED SPASSKY! ONLY MORPHY IS ON THE SAME LEVEL AS FISCHER AND THAT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT. BUT MORPHY ORCHESTRATED CHESS, WHILE EVERYONE ELSE PLAYED CHESS!
Kasparov dominated his opposition (not just three or four candidates players) for 20years and was world no. 1 for same period. Unheard of in any other sport, art, hobby, or human endeavor.
Meanwhile Fischer had a long career but dominated only for a couple years. Even Ivanchuk, Anand, Topalov, have done that sometimes. Fischer then avoided the new ruthless Karpov. But Kasparov played all opposition, even machines. You decide.
Kasparov had fulltime seconds working for him.. Fisher did it almost standalone… that too against the cream of soviet players..Kasparov did not face ‘soviet cheating’ like Fisher faced
It is so obvious that Fischer was much better than Kasparov.If Fischer didn’t quit so early he could have dominated chess for 15 years more at least.Kasparov couldn’t even dominate Karpov and it was so close between them for many years.Kasparov’s best asset was his preparation and analysis sometimes while Fischer’s was his chess !! Today we have Fischer time control and Fischer chess thanks to Fischer who developed so many things in chess. Ahmed
Certainly Kasparov played the strongest chess of anyone who ever lived, but Fischer was certainly farther ahead of his contemporaries, and that’s truly the only way to compare players from different generations.
Fischer was the best player doing home preparation, Kasparov was the best player using computer and his team ideas while CAPABLANCA was the best real player over the board ever!!!!
Nakamura is better than both. He’s the best male player ever while Kosteniuk is the best female ever.
Bobby! Bobby! Bobby!
The question was…at their Peak..who was the most dominant.
Sorry…but nobody ever or has since slaughtered his way to the top like Fischer did. Including 20 straight wins. That’s unheard of. 4 straight wins against Petrosian and pretty much a rout against Spasky even giving him a 2 point advantage.
What happened during his decline is irrelevant to the question. Unquestionably…nobody ever stood so far apart from his contemporaries during his peak.
FISCHER HANDS DOWN! CANDIDATES MATCHES 6-0; 6-0; 6.5-2.5!!! IN KASPAROV’S DREAMS MAYBE! THEN HE THREW THE FIRST TWO GAMES OF THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP AND STILL DOMINATED SPASSKY! ONLY MORPHY IS ON THE SAME LEVEL AS FISCHER AND THAT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT. BUT MORPHY ORCHESTRATED CHESS, WHILE EVERYONE ELSE PLAYED CHESS!
Bobby Fischer > Kasparov
Kasparov dominated his opposition (not just three or four candidates players) for 20years and was world no. 1 for same period. Unheard of in any other sport, art, hobby, or human endeavor.
Meanwhile Fischer had a long career but dominated only for a couple years. Even Ivanchuk, Anand, Topalov, have done that sometimes. Fischer then avoided the new ruthless Karpov. But Kasparov played all opposition, even machines. You decide.
Naka better??? whatever little chess knowledge he owes to Sunil and Garry.Not even a US champion.. Naka aka wannabe..
Kasparov had fulltime seconds working for him.. Fisher did it almost standalone… that too against the cream of soviet players..Kasparov did not face ‘soviet cheating’ like Fisher faced
It is so obvious that Fischer was much better than Kasparov.If Fischer didn’t quit so early he could have dominated chess for 15 years more at least.Kasparov couldn’t even dominate Karpov and it was so close between them for many years.Kasparov’s best asset was his preparation and analysis sometimes while Fischer’s was his chess !! Today we have Fischer time control and Fischer chess thanks to Fischer who developed so many things in chess.
Ahmed
Certainly Kasparov played the strongest chess of anyone who ever lived, but Fischer was certainly farther ahead of his contemporaries, and that’s truly the only way to compare players from different generations.
rjfyjfjf
Fischer was…..simply the best!!
you only have to look at his playing. It was superb. Genius. Magnetism. Original. Unique!
Fischer was the best player doing home preparation, Kasparov was the best player using computer and his team ideas while CAPABLANCA was the best real player over the board ever!!!!