"Would Carlsen have beaten Capablanca?" by GM Gormally
Calling the Fischer the 9th best player is a joke, especially judged by someone way weaker. Nigel Short said how can we judge the moves of a 2800 player. If Nigel Short can´t do that, i dont think some GM Gormally with a peak rating of 2570 can compare the strength of FIscher to other top GMs.
I think its very presumptuous to do that, but its only my personal opinion.
Also Roman Dzindzihashvilli said for him Fischer was the strongest and i believe he knows a little more about chess than GM Gormally whos name i never ever heard before.
Also Roman Dzindzihashvilli said for him Fischer was the strongest and i believe he knows a little more about chess than GM Gormally whos name i never ever heard before.
No need to get your knickers in a twist. It's just a journeyman GM publishing an article of his opinion, not holy tablets brought down from a mountain-top.
"Would Carlsen have beaten Capablanca?" by GM Gormally
Calling the Fischer the 9th best player is a joke, especially judged by someone way weaker. ..
I think its very presumptuous to do that, but its only my personal opinion.
But it's ok for you to claim that Fischer was the best ever. Ok.
I am weaker than Gormally, and my judgement is Fischer is 5th best behind Kasparov, Carlsen, Kramnik, Karpov.
"Would Carlsen have beaten Capablanca?" by GM Gormally
Calling the Fischer the 9th best player is a joke, especially judged by someone way weaker. ..
I think its very presumptuous to do that, but its only my personal opinion.
But it's ok for you to claim that Fischer was the best ever. Ok.
because Fischer was the best, not to mention Roman is of the same opinion and many other more.
But Fischer thought Morphy would whip him.
This link makes interesting reading:
http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4007621
It doesn't include Carlsen unfortunately, but it suggests that Capa was stronger than the other players.
However, the study also says that they dont account for the complexity of positions (Capa often went into simple positrions, where it's easier to play the best moves), so the results may be mis-leading.
Maybe this is an insoluble question.
But I will say Carlsen because modern chess players have far more disciplined habits of preparation than they had in Capablanca's time.
Capablanca's personal chess habits were also poor. He did not prepare at all for his match against Alekhine whereas Alekhine studied all of Capablanca's games.
Physical health also matters. Capablanca did not look after himself, often indulging in late nights of wine, women and song.
So for me I say Carlsen. Chess playing strength I say =. Even take computer prep away from Carlsen. But it's personal habits and self-management that would tip it in Carlsen's favour.