Thx, It's always interesting to read the opinions of someone genuinely qualified.
kramnik on world champions
you are welcome - wish more people would read it - surprising take on petrosian and syslov - also more negetive than expected about alekhine.
Lasker is also interesting because I've often seen him described as someone basing his play on psychology rather than objective ideas, almost some kind of trickster, which I've never really understood but Kramnik seems to value him very highly. Probably the contemporaries of Lasker created this explanation of his dominance because either they didn't understand his novel ideas or were jealous and then this errorneous image has been passed on without proprer re-evaluation.
I'm not sure why you find his take on Smyslov suprising and don't think Kramnik is negative about Alekhine at all - not just as positive as some others.
Thx, It's always interesting to read the opinions of someone genuinely qualified.
The same reason you come to chess.com forums no doubt? lol
Thx, It's always interesting to read the opinions of someone genuinely qualified.
The same reason you come to chess.com forums no doubt? lol
No, I come here to spread my own ignorance
there is a similar one where gary kasparov talks about Tal - that one is a must read too - http://www.chess.com/news/garry-kasparov-talks-about-mikhail-tal-and-soviet-chess-history-1340
a great read - when kramnik talks about all world champions - a must read for those who haven't - thought i'd share -
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/interviews/getinterview.aspx?id=61