Nimzovich for sure.
AHEAD OF THIER TIME
Sort:
When he say's ahead of thier time going of his list he means by stretgh not nesscarially by understanding. as for getting back to the topic alekhined was said to be able to calculate farther than any human player could so a training of tacxtics and blindfold chess should do the trick.
May 25, 2011
0
#4
paulgottlieb wrote:
I don't think any of those great players you name could have given odds to their main rivals. They were the best in the world at their peak, but not by that much.
Maybe some were better by more significant margins than others, but as 'elite masters' really implies following the list top down, I'd say you are right. The times were a no 1 could have given pawn odds to the no 2 are probably rare indeed.
I think its incorrect to call someone an elite master if he's unable to touch the top 10 or so. Yeah he might stump players that are actually good, but 2100's wreck 1500's and 1500's are pretty hardcore to 1100's. Elite isn't about being good, its about being so good as to represent something very exclusive, the absolute top of a field.
If you'd ask me, morphy might have given the no 2 odds like the a-pawn, and maybe fischer could have drawn some games like that vs spassky.
just look for books from elite players that write well!
Philidor.
RC_Woods wrote:
paulgottlieb wrote:
I don't think any of those great players you name could have given odds to their main rivals. They were the best in the world at their peak, but not by that much.
Maybe some were better by more significant margins than others, but as 'elite masters' really implies following the list top down, I'd say you are right. The times were a no 1 could have given pawn odds to the no 2 are probably rare indeed.
I think its incorrect to call someone an elite master if he's unable to touch the top 10 or so. Yeah he might stump players that are actually good, but 2100's wreck 1500's and 1500's are pretty hardcore to 1100's. Elite isn't about being good, its about being so good as to represent something very exclusive, the absolute top of a field.
If you'd ask me, morphy might have given the no 2 odds like the a-pawn, and maybe fischer could have drawn some games like that vs spassky.
just look for books from elite players that write well!
This seems a little opinionated. by the way Willhelm Stienitz gave odds to Chigorin a nd drew a few and when I mean elite your right that should mean top 10 I meant it as like top 50 or somethin.
oinquarki wrote:
Philidor.
I debated on adding him to my list cause I couldn't come up with a clear answer on whether he was ahead of his time merely by understanding or by actual stregth but I agree with you Philidor should and is added to my list but not to get to far of topic can someone actually answer my question lol I hear what you guy's are saying but those are the people I picked from my own oppinion.
oinquarki wrote:
Philidor.
I debated on adding him to my list cause I couldn't come up with a clear answer on whether he was ahead of his time merely by understanding or by actual stregth but I agree with you Philidor should and is added to my list but not to get to far of topic can someone actually answer my question lol I hear what you guy's are saying but those are the people I picked from my own oppinion.
I want to learn from these select few of masters as much as I can so what are some important articles/documents etc... concerning them cause to me alll were ahead of the competition considereablly that I think to some they could have played odds games to elite master's.
Alexander Alekhine, Mikhail Bronstien, Willhelm Stienitz, Jose Raul Capablanca, Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov, Paul Morphy, Anatoli Karpov,