Who is better in chess?

Question

who was better, Paul Morphy, Boris Spassky, Robert James Fischer? and if you can say, why?

Answer 1

Morphy's main problem was he wasn't tested at top levels of competition. He also didn't have the advantage of looking at games and strategies from other greats - Capablanca, Alekhine, etc. that Fischer and Spassky did.

Morphy however was a truly brilliant player, especially the way be played non traditional games (eg. rook handicap) against weaker players. To a novice, his games are a lot more entertaining, and hence informative, than traditional top level games of today - say an Anand versus Kasparov from the last decade.

With Fischer and Spassky, we have the benefit of the result of their confrontation in Iceland, which Fischer won.

So I'd go with F, S, M in actual capability, but if I had to go over their games, I'd prefer M, F, and S. Fischer had an exceptional game at a young age against GM Byrne involving a queen sac which is quite informative.

Answer 2

Comparisons are difficult. there was 120 years of chess theory development be tween Morphy and the other two--it is very hard to directly compare. Fischer turned out to be the better than Spassky, based on the 1972 match.

Answer 3

Spassky.............and here's why.

1) Until their 1972 match he had a winning record vs Fischer
2) He beat the best competition time and time again. Tal,
Petrosian, Botvinnick, and I could go on. You could argue that for Fischer also, but Spassky played in the USSR, where
during that era (post WWII to 1972) ruled the chess world.
Morphy was brilliant player, but who did he play ? Paulsen ?

Remember how much pressure Spassky was under to win in 1972, not to mention the ridiculous demands that Fischer made. It certainly contributed to Spassky's defeat at the time.

Look at how many grandmasters still look up to Sapssky, he had (has) a brilliant, universal style.

Answer 4

robert fisher, cuz he was like the best

Answer 5

i don't know.