Reb, Clearly, in their primes Fischer and Tal didn't play each other enough for us to be able to say. It's entirely possible that Tal would have been another difficult opponent for Fischer like Geller was.
i play chess like mikhail tal what are good openings for me?
Sort:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Tal himself broke 2700. There are players today who play in the style of Tal, including Alexei Shirov and Baadur Jobava. Tal would lose all his games to the best players in the world if he were in poor health, but when healthy he was one of the toughest players to beat. He had two of the longest undefeated streaks in GM play in history. Even though Botvinnik showed the world how to play against Tal, he still was ranked second in the world as late as 1980!
Tal, when healthy, was a stronger player than Spassky. And yes, I studied the games of their 1965 match.
When did Tal break 2700 ? I was not aware that he did .
I do need to point out that Reb and I have both studied Tal's games and we both love his chess. Tal is one of my favorite players of all time, and perhaps my favorite chess author too.
Wow , so Tal only peaked at age 44 ?! Maybe its that danged inflation bug again ? 
Reb написал:
aina0 wrote:
Reb wrote:
The great Tal would lose all games to today's players rated over 2700 ...
No that is certainly not true, That contradicts your own post if I remember correctly which I read few days ago about fischer playing against GMs of today, Tal had a decent record against Fischer in classical chess. So if Tal would struggle so would Fischer.
Anyways, Even if Tal may struggle in classical chess against 2700+ players, he would dominate rapids and blitz, because he did beat Kasparov and Karpov in rapids and blitz in 90s when they're in their prime. So you are clearly underrating Tal.
Actually I believe just the opposite ! I am merely showing how foolish some " rating worshipers " here are ....
I would like to point out though that Tals only wins against Fischer was when Bobby was 15 , and Tal never won another game from Bobby after that . Clearly , in their primes Fischer was the stronger player . I believe both of them , in their primes , could compete with any of todays overrated players .
I agree with you, Reb. I think that both of them in their peak could beat pretty much anybody alive today.
Reb wrote:
Wow , so Tal only peaked at age 44 ?! Maybe its that danged inflation bug again ?
As you probably know, Tal changed his style dramatically in the 1970s. He stopped playing so many unsound sacrifices and started playing more solidly. He was a tougher opponent in 1979 than he was in the 1960s, in part because he was actually healthy, but also in part because he had matured as a player. He was still capable of brilliant sacrifices, but he also was more solid.
Tal is #1 in my book when it comes to writing about chess , no other great chess player even comes close . His analysis of the games and his thoughts during the games ( and afterwards ) , are always very instructive as well as very entertaining . He had a nice sense of humor.
Reb написал:
Tal is #1 in my book when it comes to writing about chess , no other great chess player even comes close . His analysis of the games and his thoughts during the games ( and afterwards ) , are always very instructive as well as very entertaining . He had a nice sense of humor.
SmyslovFan and Reb, what books do you reccommend the most by him? I know Russian, so I can try and find him in the original.
I recommend 2 in particular : His Life and Games and the book on his WC match against Botvinnik that he won ... 1960 or 1961 ? I forget the year ...
Life and Games of Mikhail Tal is the classic.
I also love Tal-Botvinnik 1960.
I gave links to the first book on the previous page.
You play like mikhail tal? HAHAHAHA play a3
I believe both of them , in their primes , could compete with any of todays overrated players .
Do you believe there has been no significant overall development in chess in the last 50 years? If there has, Tal and Fischer must have been superhumans!
Reb and I generally agree, except when he goes into his Fischer worship and his denigration of today's great players. Today's players really have learned from chess history and have improved.
SmyslovFan написал:
Life and Games of Mikhail Tal is the classic.
I also love Tal-Botvinnik 1960.
I gave links to the first book on the previous page.
Thanks guys!
SmyslovFan wrote:
Reb and generally agree, except when he goes into his Fischer worship and his denigration of today's great players. Today's players really have learned from chess history and have improved.
This is why i dont believe in "rating inflation" I simply believe that each generation learns from the previous.
today's 2400 and 2500 players routinely lose to players above 2600, who are "today's overrated players".
Anybody who ever sat down to play or analyze with anybody rated 2400 to 25xx, would normally think twice before saying something like "overrated".
I was lucky enough to interact with quite a number of players in these rating ranges, in several countries.
SmyslovFan wrote:
Reb and generally agree, except when he goes into his Fischer worship and his denigration of today's great players. Today's players really have learned from chess history and have improved.
I don't think Reb has ever answered that (my) question (or been posed it). if there has (been development) It would be about impossible to logically think the oldies are still the objective best and there's been inflation.
When one of the all time greats such as Anand close to his prime (still playing title matches), hovers around Fischer's peak from 40 years ago; that's a pretty strong indication there's been no inflation...
When drawing parallels between other sports than can be objectively measured, Fischer's 2785 from the early 70s is probably one of the greatest achievements of all time in any competitive field (and in my opinion his true strength would have been about 2800, his rating couldn't catch up in time).
It's an insane achievement to still be theoretically amoungst the top players 40 years on. He and others shouldn't be made into supermen.
I am denigrating todays great players by saying they arent better than BF simply because their ratings are higher ? I think ratings inflation is real , since the 70s , lots of people do and lots of people don't . I would say today's ratings are inflated from 50-100 points and this is what I refer to when I speak of " bloated " and " overrated " . Also top players who only play the closed elite events and no Opens protect their ratings and contribute to its being " bloated " . What is Ivanchuk's highest rating ? He plays lots of Opens and always has ....
The great Tal would lose all games to today's players rated over 2700 ...
No that is certainly not true, That contradicts your own post if I remember correctly which I read few days ago about fischer playing against GMs of today, Tal had a decent record against Fischer in classical chess. So if Tal would struggle so would Fischer.
Anyways, Even if Tal may struggle in classical chess against 2700+ players, he would dominate rapids and blitz, because he did beat Kasparov and Karpov in rapids and blitz in 90s when they're in their prime. So you are clearly underrating Tal.
Actually I believe just the opposite ! I am merely showing how foolish some " rating worshipers " here are ....
I would like to point out though that Tals only wins against Fischer was when Bobby was 15 , and Tal never won another game from Bobby after that . Clearly , in their primes Fischer was the stronger player . I believe both of them , in their primes , could compete with any of todays overrated players .