12043 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Bishop vs. Knight: The stronger piece depends on the position, but there are slightly more positions where the bishop is stronger.
Keres: I have the feeling he didn't have much choice about the prearranged draws...
You are probably correct about this and Kasparov touches on this subject in his books of his great predecessors , which obviously many here havent read. Any player who didnt " follow orders " would soon be " punished " and they all knew it.
You got it, Reb.
Keres' famous quote says it all: "I was unlucky, like my country."
If Keres drew his games against Petrosian and Geller because he had been ordered to do so one could wonder why he wasn't ordered to draw against Tal or Korchnoi. Tal was the favourite before Curacao, the year before he had won Bled easily, ahead of Fischer, Keres, Geller and Petrosian. The games between Geller, Keres and Petrosian were short draws then too. But Tal and Fischer lost their first games in Curacao and were never really in contention, Tal least of the two after falling ill.
Keres himself stated in 1964 that he hadn't been involved in any collusion. He had previously said that his strategy was to avoid risks as much as possible because he had been taking too many in 1959, when he went 3-1 against the winning Tal and was leading at half time but lost too many games against other players. What Keres said obviously doesn't have to be the truth though.
You're talking to a wall fabelhaft
A great big stupid illogical anti-Russian wall
More of an anti-cheating wall I believe, at least in my case .
lol, how righteous.
Fabelhaft has been giving a lesson on chess history and polite discussion, by the way. Great thread.
To Arctor- if you don't know the post that's your problem. If you think I don't realize what a user name is your mistaken. As far as my 'spouting' , come against it 'thinking' and not mindless name calling and maybe you might have a point worth considering. Nothing I've said has been false. But there appear to be many people so busy tripping over themselves trying to genuflect in the church of Kasparov that they take offense at someone having the audacity to question whether or not Korchnoi really is the only grandmaster in chess history to actually be better after 45 then he was before it.
to fablehaft - Korchnoi is either playing better chess at age 47 than he ever did before or he is not. Using chessmetrics as a defense for him doing so is what I'm calling less than perfect. I'm not saying it's the reason 'you' believe it. It's clear to me that you believe the status quo. You are apparently satisfied that Korchnoi is the only player in chess history to be considered better after 45 than he was before it. I am far from convinced and believe it deserves questioning.
the first american chess genious..he made chess the sportof d world during the candidates matches & the championship...fisher is chess..ask anyone ..player or not...they know fisher...in the phillipines we love wesley so...after fisher!
Being someone who doesent have the greatest chess history knowledge. I would lilke to know some opinions on who was the better of the two well known grandmasters.
A German Expert once told Life Magazine" No other Master has such a terrific will to win. At the board he radiates danger and even the strongest opponents tend to freeze like rabbits when they smell a panther. Even his weaknesses are dangerous. As White his opening is predictable you can make plans against it but so strong that your plans never work. In the middle game his precision and invention are fabulous and in the end game you simply can't beat him" He ate and dreamed Chess Fischer worked harder than anyone at becoming World Champion hey I don't agree with his racist views but I respect what he did for the game and his achievements.
Is there no way to take all of any chess player's games, feed them into a supercomputer to figure out his/her "style" (move choice selection) in novel situations, and just have the computer simulate numerous games between him/her and others?*** That could answer Fischer v Kasparov and it could be revisited yearly as computers get stronger and more accurate to make these assessments.
***if this hasn't been done yet, then copyright 2011 dannyhume, all rights reserved to assume 25% profits for my creative initiation.
Fischer would have been had he not walked away...
Kramnik, of course!
Wow. Great debate. I’ve gone through about a dozen of the first pages of comments but I simply don’t have time to read all the rest. So forgive me if some of my points have already been mentioned or addressed.
I am not at all an expert on chess history though I do have a good general impression of the relative achievements of the great players. Here’s one thing that bothers me though: Quite a number of people have spoken as though Fischer was only great at matches but not tournaments. However, my understanding is that Fischer, at his peak in 1970-1972, reigned supreme in BOTH tournaments and matches. Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on this.
I think the whole debate basically boils down to this:
Bobby Fischer dominated his peers by an unbelievable margin (in terms of chess ability) never seen before up till today for a brief period of two years before he dropped out of chess.
On the other hand, Kasparov dominated his peers for an unbelievably long period of time (20 years) but by a relatively small margin in terms of chess ability/skill.
Therefore the question is: how do we define greatness? Is it in terms of the degree of one’s superiority over one’s peers or in terms of how long they maintain their superiority regardless of the degree? If it is the former, clearly Fischer was the greatest. If it’s the latter, then it was Kasparov.
Of course the big unknown in all this is: what would have happened if Fischer had continued playing after 1972? My personal feeling is that Fischer would have continued to dominate for about a decade or so (though probably not by the same degree as he did in 70-72) after which the effects of age would start to creep into his play. By that time he would be facing much younger, fresher and hungrier opponents.
In summary, if we use sheer dominance over one’s contemporaries as the determining factor, the answer to this question is Bobby Fischer, as Kasparov himself admitted. Nevertheless, it is understandable that fans of chess (or any other endeavor) tend to have a bias for the more recent talent. (Similar to how soccer fans tend to be biased towards Maradona as opposed to Pele). There is also a tendency to put a lot of emphasis on longetivity, and I suspect it has more to do with emotion rather than the actual value of it as a factor in determining superiority. Of course, it also depends on one’s definition of ‘greatness’ which is a rather ambiguous term.
Having said, I think Capablanca was the most naturally talented. (Either him or Morphy or Philidor )
Just to respond to someone who hand-wavingly commented much earlier that anyone who studies 10 hours a day for many years would also have been a top 10 grandmaster, if not the best. That is a bit like saying that anyone who worked their butt off, as Isaac Newton did, and put in all the hours he did, would have made the same accomplishments that Isaac Newton is known for. This is a ludicrous argument on many levels. Of course, immense hard work can make one achieve great skill in any field, but at some point, natural talent comes into play. If an ordinary person puts in 10 hrs a day and a natural genius also puts in 10 hrs a day, who would come out on top?
Another thing you’re forgetting is: where does such motivation and passion come from in the first place? It is actually the case that it is usually people/prodigies who are naturally gifted at something that have the motivation, passion and dedication to put enormous amounts of time and concentration into it. A mediocre person with average talent is unlikely to have that kind of passion, dedication and concentration at anything!
I agree completely. It takes great talent and very hard work to get a Fischer, Kasparov, or Alekhine. Hard work might be good enough to reach a reasonably high level like master, but not to reach world class grandmaster. The truth is some people have it, and some don't. How many hours of studying do prodigies like Reshevsky do before they are beating good players in simuls? Not many compared to some adults - its natural talent.
Comparing Morphy to Capablanca is just speculation, because their lives were half a century apart. Fischer and Kasparov lived at the same time, in overlapping eras of chess.
The reason they never played so we could have the question settled isn't Kasparov's fault. Fischer is the one who refused to play.
Even if you believe he was right to resign the FIDE title, he could have played in tournaments and faced Kasparov there. He chose not to. Kasparov and Karpov were out there, very active in tournaments all the time. Fischer avoided them for 20 years, and then played Spassky again at a time when Boris had been off the regular GM circuit and was long past his prime.
Fischer cannot benefit from not playing. The question of Fischer v Kasparov or even v Karpov was only unanswered because Fischer would not play.
Yes, one cannot really compare players of totally different eras. By mentioning Cap, Morphy, and Phili, I was sort of speculating on the greatest natural talents in each of the last 3 centuries.
Anyway, I agree that Fischer is to blame for not going on to prove himself further after he won the title. I don't know of anyone who believes he was right to resign. Pretty much everyone thinks the conditions he gave the FIDE were unfair and that he was crazy to resign his title.
Had Fischer being a normal person (personality-wise) and continued playing, we would not be having this debate today about who is greater. But, thanks to Fischer, we'll never really know.
You mean to say that anything is achieveable to a highh degree with hard work?
I do not concur.
Try painting or to be a surgeon using you criteria of working hard and see if you or anyone can attain a high degree of success.
We should all recognize that we all have specific talents and should develop them in the spheres that we excell and this is how we can become great.
I can play basketball or hockey or want to be an olympic swimmer etc and will never achieve, not now nor 45 years ago.
Oh yeah? Have you ever heard of Steve Kerr or The Roy Clark Big Note Songbook?
by discoweasel a few minutes ago
by EDB123 a few minutes ago
The Smaug Attack
by DrSpudnik 2 minutes ago
Things some chess players say when they blunder
by winerkleiner 6 minutes ago
Against 1. d4, do you play ... Nf6 or ... d5?
by DrSpudnik 8 minutes ago
12/12/2013 - Polugaevsky - Szilayi, Moscow 1960
by subham_behera 11 minutes ago
I am quitting chess.
by DrSpudnik 12 minutes ago
How do I go about studying the middlegame
by Goob63 13 minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by QueenTakesKnightOOPS 15 minutes ago
Cannot add utube videos no more!!
by stephen_33 17 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!