Originally posted by @nevare Automatic rematches? The vanquished King gets a rematch by rights you ignorant ass. Try to think what they go through. They are the best and then lose? I can't even begin to imagine what they go through.
Where does it say Carlsen gets an automatic rematch if he loses?
Originally posted by @buzz-meeks Where does it say Carlsen gets an automatic rematch if he loses?
I assumed that was the way. It feels right to me that is a world champion loses he should get a rematch. So basically you have to win two matches to prove you are the best.
Originally posted by @nevare I assumed that was the way. It feels right to me that is a world champion loses he should get a rematch. So basically you have to win two matches to prove you are the best.
Well then, thanks for clearing that up for my "ignorant ass".
Originally posted by @nevare I assumed that was the way. It feels right to me that is a world champion loses he should get a rematch. So basically you have to win two matches to prove you are the best.
I respect the opinion but disagree with it. To me, the idea of the loser getting a rematch is like getting a free pass for … losing. It's almost like a free touch move or a "take back".
If you want to stay as "the King", then don't lose the first match.
Originally posted by @nevare Hmm no booby Fischer fanatics yet...
I'll be the Fischer fan
seems that all world champions, except Fischer, had one or more rivals of equal strength
Fischer towered above all others of his day
he has my vote as the best ever
Originally posted by @lemondrop I'll be the Fischer fan
seems that all world champions, except Fischer, had one or more rivals of equal strength
Fischer towered above all others of his day
he has my vote as the best ever
If Fischer was the best ever he would have played Karpov in 1992 and not a weakened Spassky. As far as world champions go... Spassky is considered as one of the weakest so Fischer had it easy in 1972. Just ask greenpawn lol
Originally posted by @nevare If Fischer was the best ever he would have played Karpov in 1992 and not a weakened Spassky. As far as world champions go... Spassky is considered as one of the weakest so Fischer had it easy in 1972. Just ask greenpawn lol
you are talking about a match 20 years after he won the title
I'm saying that at the time of his prime he was unbeatable
no other champion was as dominate over a two year span save Morphy who may have been his equal as far as dominating the opposition
"If Fischer was the best ever he would have played Karpov in 1992 and not a weakened Spassky."
Karpov had other chess commitments in '92. One of which was his semi-final match v Short.
Although Spassky was no longer the great player he was in 1992 he was still
active.This was Fischer's first game for 20 years, at 48 he no longer in his prime.
Yes Fischer dominated 1970-72 but other Champions had their golden moments.
Alekhine at San Remo 1930 won it 3½ points clear of 2nd place.
and Bled 1931 where he finished 5½ points ahead of 2nd place.
Karpov after being awarded the title in 1975 went on an incredible run
of tournaments victories, eventually setting a tournament record
of 9 victories in a row and during this time twice defended his title.
Kasparov when he took over the title from Karpov then won practically every
tournament he entered including breaking Karpov's tournament record with 14
tournament wins in a row.. Kasparov successful defended his title on 5 occasions.
Originally posted by @greenpawn34 "If Fischer was the best ever he would have played Karpov in 1992 and not a weakened Spassky."
Karpov had other chess commitments in '92. One of which was his semi-final match v Short.
Although Spassky was no longer the great player he was in 1992 he was still
active.This was Fischer's first game for 20 years, at 48 he no longer in his prime.
...[text shortened]... cord with 14
tournament wins in a row.. Kasparov successful defended his title on 5 occasions.
Until Magnus came along, I'd always regarded Garry as the greatest Champion ever. My reason is undoubtedly simplistic: His success against an increased level of competition in this technologically aided, modern time.
However, if the question was: "Who is the greatest natural born chess prodigy in history?"
Capablanca...of course. 🙂
Fischer worked very hard to be the best.
Morphy didn't work hard enough.
01 Jul '18 21:47
King Botvinnik
Back to Top