Is Tal Better than Fischer?
Sort:
Mikhail Tal is the best player ever!
If we compare achievements I would say they're fairly close. Both only won the WCC once, both only won the candidates once. We can't directly compare them because they didn't reach their peaks at the same time but many people overrate Fischer's accomplishments. His score at the 1971 candidates is impressive but I think that there weren't that many great players participating. Petrosian was past his prime by this point and he came second and the rest of the field weren't nearly as strong as some of the previous candidates matches.
Fischer was much better than Tal, and miles ahead of his contemporaries according to retroactive computer analysis of his games.
In his prime, he went on a twenty game winstreak against some of the best in the world.
He won the U.S. Championship at age 14.
While Tal was great, Fischer was objectively a better player both in terms of accurate play and contemporary results.
RuthlessBeginner wrote:
Fischer was much better than Tal, and miles ahead of his contemporaries according to retroactive computer analysis of his games.
In his prime, he went on a twenty game winstreak against some of the best in the world.
He won the U.S. Championship at age 14.
While Tal was great, Fischer was objectively a better player both in terms of accurate play and contemporary results.
US chess was incredibly weak. Fischer's main competition was from a well past prime Sammy Reshevsky. US open is a prestigious tournament nowadays but it really wasn't so much at the time. Compared to the Soviet championship, it looks especially weak. Winning the USSR championship was a far greater accomplishment as it had so much more competition, great players, champion pedigree players that the US doesn't stand up to remotely. Bobby winning x US championships or winning it at x age is great, but I think that winning the USSR championship (as heaps of all-time greats were) is a much bigger achievement. Tal won the USSR championship outright 3 times and jointly won a further 3 times for a total of 6 wins. Way bigger achievement I think.
BlueHen86 wrote:
No.
Fischer > Tal.
I think both are pretty overrated in terms of their achievements but I would put Fischer above Tal (though it is quite close). I'm just saying the US championship wins isn't the massive achievement it's made out to be.
Herceg Novi 1970 Blitz tournament
Final standings:
Rk
Player
Rtg
Pts
1
 Bobby Fischer (USA)
2720
19
2
 Mikhail Tal (URS)
2590
14½
3
 Viktor Kortschnoj (URS)
2670
14
4
 Tigran Petrosian (URS)
2650
13½
5
 David Bronstein (URS)
2570
13
6
 Vlastimil Hort (CSR)
2610
12
7
 Milan Matulović (YUG)
2560
10½
8
 Vasily Smyslov (URS)
2620
9½
9
 Samuel Reshevsky (USA)
2590
8½
10
 Wolfgang Uhlmann (GDR)
2570
8
Tal was stronger that Fisher in 1959. In fact, Tal was stronger than everyone at that time. He won the World Championship the next year. But he never won another game from Fischer for the rest of his life
Laskersnephew wrote:
Tal was stronger that Fisher in 1959. In fact, Tal was stronger than everyone at that time. He won the World Championship the next year. But he never won another game from Fischer for the rest of his life
That's true for classical chess. But they only played a further 6 games following the 1959 candidates games including 3 draws and 3 losses for Tal. Lifetime score (excluding draws) is 4-3. It's not like they played heaps of games, or like Fischer dominated that pairing. They just didn't play much for the rest of Fischer's career where he played very few international strong tournaments and he basically would never play competitive chess again after 1972 (excluding the "return" match with Spassky).
Aug 10, 2023
0
#13
I love both players Tal is my favorite of the two his attacking game so Great people think Magnus would win against them I think Fischer would
Aug 10, 2023
0
#14
Tal is my one of my favorite chess players and role models, but I gotta admit Bobby was better than him, at least by a bit
Actually we can't say who was better
Comparing Tal and Fischer is tough because they have exceptional playing patterns and strengths. Tal was recognized for aggressive play, while Fischer excelled in positional chess. Both had been World Chess Champions, with Tal winning in 1960 and Fischer in 1972. Whether one is "better" than the other is subjective and depends on non-public preferences. They both made huge contributions to the game and remain legendary figures in chess history.
Botvinnik_the_6th wrote:
RuthlessBeginner wrote:
Fischer was much better than Tal, and miles ahead of his contemporaries according to retroactive computer analysis of his games.
In his prime, he went on a twenty game winstreak against some of the best in the world.
He won the U.S. Championship at age 14.
While Tal was great, Fischer was objectively a better player both in terms of accurate play and contemporary results.
US chess was incredibly weak. Fischer's main competition was from a well past prime Sammy Reshevsky. US open is a prestigious tournament nowadays but it really wasn't so much at the time. Compared to the Soviet championship, it looks especially weak. Winning the USSR championship was a far greater accomplishment as it had so much more competition, great players, champion pedigree players that the US doesn't stand up to remotely. Bobby winning x US championships or winning it at x age is great, but I think that winning the USSR championship (as heaps of all-time greats were) is a much bigger achievement. Tal won the USSR championship outright 3 times and jointly won a further 3 times for a total of 6 wins. Way bigger achievement I think.
Fischer couldn't win the championship because he wasn't Russian. If you have done any research you would find that Fischer is a legend among legends: he crushed the best of his day with ease. Tal was commonly inconsistent.
Recently, I have heard that Bobby Fischer is overrated in terms of rating. When I say this, I do not by any means say that Bobby Fischer isn't one of the greatest players of all time, because that is simply not true. People say that Bobby's rating is higher than it should have been. Mikhail Tal had a winning record against Fischer and beat him 4-0 in the 1959 Candidates Tournament. Tal is also considered one of the best attacking players to ever live, while Fischer is more of a positional player. However, these factors may be out of date, as the gap between the 1959 Candidates and his 1972 peak chess rating of "2785"is quite large.