Oh no, not another one.
Who is the Greatest Player Ever?
Sort:
The better question is why wouldn't they block you? :-p
Bobby Fischer's tournament record against Mikhail Tal was 2-2.
davidacrompton wrote:
Bobby Fischer's tournament record against Mikhail Tal was 2-2.
games with classic time control it favours tal 4-2.fischer lost all his 4 games in candidates tournament 1959 but defeated tal in bled 1961 and candidates tournament 1962.tal was lucky he never had to face fischer when he was at the peak of his career.
yes but you must not forget, bobby was really young and unexperienced when he lost to tal. And not to mention, when tal lost against Fischer, Fischer didnt only win, Fischer totally destroyed Tal, Tal didnt look like tal in the game. He looked like me playing the computer.
TetsuoShima wrote:
yes but you must not forget, bobby was really young and unexperienced when he lost to tal. And not to mention, when tal lost against Fischer, Fischer didnt only win, Fischer totally destroyed Tal, Tal didnt look like tal in the game. He looked like me playing the computer.
yeah that s true when tal won,fischer wasnot fischer yet but i believe your comment about destroying tal is an exaggeration.although you have no record and i dont know anything about your strength and how you play against a computer.
and you can remember the fact in 1962 fischer won against tal who didnt even manage to finish the tournament because he was seriously ill.tal was a shadow of himself and still gained two draws against him.in Bled despite loss against fischer he finished one full point ahead of him and won the tournament.but as i said tal was lucky he didnt face fischer when he was at the peak of his career.
i didnt know i thought tal was healthy, when lost against fischer without even having moved the bishop, or was the bishop trapped?? my mistake i didnt know that
well im a weak player,. you know people who never did sports also make millions knowing the odds in american football, so i guess my weak chess strength doesnt mean im necessarily incorrect in my assessment.
HurricaneMichael1 wrote:
Fulliautomatix wrote:
which is something players who have developed little chess skill are easily able to determine.
Your the one insulting people, acting foolish and so your the stupid one. And you must have a high rating by always going and checking what your engine says.
i wasn't even referring to you specifically and my car does not play chess.
TetsuoShima wrote:
i didnt know i thought tal was healthy, when lost against fischer without even having moved the bishop, or was the bishop trapped?? my mistake i didnt know that
i remember both games.in bled tal suffered a catastrophe in opening and in caracao lost from an equal endgame.but i need to add something.fischer also had a minus score against Geller.both geller and tal were tactical grandmasters and played excellently in sharp and tactical positions where there is no clear plan.he was vulnerable in sharp positions when everything depend on calculation and concrete play.
tesla1 wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
i didnt know i thought tal was healthy, when lost against fischer without even having moved the bishop, or was the bishop trapped?? my mistake i didnt know that
i remember both games.in bled tal suffered a catastrophe in opening and in caracao lost from an equal endgame.but i need to add something.fischer also had a minus score against Geller.both geller and tal were tactical grandmasters and played excellently in sharp and tactical positions where there is no clear plan.he was vulnerable in sharp positions when everything depend on calculation and concrete play.
well u cant say he was vulnerable because of a few games, maybe he was just careless because he was so strong he forgot to take into consideration that other could play chess as well.
First of all, at this time, it's impossible to bring a player from the past up to today. (no time-machine) If you could, you would need to be fair about it and give him all the materials on refuted variations, new ideas, etc. that the players have now.
For example, Bobby Fischer broke a lot of ground for the players that came after him, as did the ones that preceded him. If not, he would not have had most of the books he studied to get him to where he was.
How good would Carlsen's games be if all he had was what Steinitz had way back then? Steinitz renounced the necessity of attack, as had been the rule back then, breaking new ground with ideas of steady development of the pieces to eventually have a winning position instead of a "street fight" mentality.
All these great players have something in common. Some form of genius. Why do we have to make up fantasies about bringing human beings from 100 years ago (that don't possess the modern knowledge we have) up to our age and guess who would win?
Why not strip to-days great players of all they know and put them back there with the likes of Morphy, Steinitz, and others to see how they would fair? That makes more sense.
let's do it!
HurricaneMichael1 wrote:
ClavierCavalier wrote:
The better question is why wouldn't they block you? :-p
Can you just stop insulting me?
I'm sorry. I didn't expect you to be so sensitive.
I can honestly say I have no clue what you're on about. I don't feel like playing this game, though, so I'm done.
Reshevskys_Revenge wrote:
First of all, at this time, it's impossible to bring a player from the past up to today. (no time-machine) If you could, you would need to be fair about it and give him all the materials on refuted variations, new ideas, etc. that the players have now.
For example, Bobby Fischer broke a lot of ground for the players that came after him, as did the ones that preceded him. If not, he would not have had most of the books he studied to get him to where he was.
How good would Carlsen's games be if all he had was what Steinitz had way back then? Steinitz renounced the necessity of attack, as had been the rule back then, breaking new ground with ideas of steady development of the pieces to eventually have a winning position instead of a "street fight" mentality.
All these great players have something in common. Some form of genius. Why do we have to make up fantasies about bringing human beings from 100 years ago (that don't possess the modern knowledge we have) up to our age and guess who would win?
Why not strip to-days great players of all they know and put them back there with the likes of Morphy, Steinitz, and others to see how they would fair? That makes more sense.
Or we could make them play chess960, and make all the opening theory obsolete.
the arrogance on kasparov's writting and comments are pretty indigestible.on his full sense, his remark steintz or the 'second best mover' lasker's games as 'horrible' is nothing but hypocrisy because his overall game moves are much less closer than current strongest engine pick's.and on this count he would be ranked in much lower catagory below capablanca,fischer,kramnik etc.May there be a blind soviet love works for him which anand realised and commented on last WC event upon his comments.I dont know how the greatness measurement works but as perfect being wc-s like tal,capablanca,anand,kramnik will always stay ahead of him.
Who is Kasparov?
I can't wait to see what Carlson will become!
Carlsson, Carrolson, and eventually Carlsoy.