Did Kasparov really call Shirov a "talented amateur"? The usual prick.
I prefer Botvinnik's description: "Shirov has an original talent, somehow he reminds me of Korchnoi. But, there's something wrong with his nervous system". 
If there's any inflation of ratings at all, it was in Fischer's match play results!
Like 4-0 5-0 6-0 leads happen all the time in chess matches, yeah.
No, Fischer's dominance is historic. But matches often have extended winning streaks because the player who is losing tries too hard to make up the difference.
See for example, Lasker-Marshall, 1907:http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=54097
Euwe-Alekhin, 1937: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=54136
Chigorin-Steinitz 1889: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=53815
And so on.
c
With a rating of 900 you don't play like Tal, he was number one.... you play like number two.
Bobby's 4 wins in a row against Petrosian may be even more impressive than his 2 6-0 shut out matches . Petrosian had never ( since becoming a GM ) lost 4 games in a row !
Agreed! The Taimanov and Larsen matches were as much due to those two players utterly collapsing as it was Fischer's brilliance. But Fischer-Petrosian was a different sort of battle.
Why denigrate the player for his rating? Is only someone rated +2500 capable of playing in the style of another GM?
While I agree that style doesn't matter much when discussing beginners, I also know that great players inspire people of all playing abilities.
I bet Tal himself would have encouraged him.
This is one of my favorite Tal games. Tal analyses it in Life and Games. I personally rate this more highly than some of his games that are publised in The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games.
I like what Najdorf once said concerning the sacrifices of Tal's and Spassky's ... He said if Tal sacs a piece against you you should continue playing as he may have made a mistake but if Spassky sacs a piece you may as well resign because it has all been worked out to the end .... 
I like what Najdorf once said concerning the sacrifices of Tal's and Spassky's ... He said if Tal sacs a piece against you you should continue playing as he may have made a mistake but if Spassky sacs a piece you may as well resign because it has all been worked out to the end ....
Very nice indeed! But I've read something sightly different, like "you should continue because he could sac another one soon, and then, who knows?"
I have seen that quote attributed to numerous players, including Bronstein and Botvinnik. Do you have a source for it being Najdorf?
Not at hand and I could be mistaken but its in one of my 300 books somewhere .... if only I could remember which book ... 
Leontxo García also attributes it to Najdorf in an article on Tal if I'm not wrong.
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!
I suppose you refer mainly to technology , data bases and chess playing engines and the use of the internet here ?
That and more. Greater professionalism, Standing on the shoulders of giants, earlier starts, larger population and playing population, advances in opening, middle and Endgame theory. The top players don't operate in a bubble that makes them immune from all this.
Yes , these have all had a huge impact on chess . I think there has been a significant development in the speed with which promising players now reach master level and even the elite level ... they are doing it younger and younger it seems . Does this mean the top 10 today are significantly stronger than say the top 10 from Fischer's time ? I dont think so and those who argue otherwise can only point to ratings to make their case .
Ratings, significant scientific evidence and logic.
Spassky never broke 2700 , his peak being 2680 I believe . Does that mean that all players today rated over 2700 ( over 40 of them I believe ! ) are better than Spassky was at his peak ? I don't believe that to be the case but many people do . Ratings are not infallible and were never meant to be .
You always state that's it's somehow self-evident that that amount of players are not as good as the greater Spassky. I say it would be a shock if there weren't a lot who are objectively better. It happens in every other field where performance can be objectively messured.
But I see the conversation has moved on. Carry on.
It was definitely Spassky in the version that I saw. I thought it had been attributed to Botvinnik in Chess Life's obituary to Tal, but I'll have to dig it up.
Tal had a great positional understanding that was probably overshadowed by his love for the spectaculor.
Some good examples are from a 1979 Interzonal where he went 11-0 at age 43. It's scary to think what his ELO could be in today's game when compared to, say Ding Liren near 2800. Liren, though a great player, doesn't yet appear to have nearly the positional understanding as Tal did.
From 1979:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1097227
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1140455
hi , build the fireworks from solid development , choose good lines and reach better development then pick up that knight and put it where it hurts your opponent the most
Bobby's 4 wins in a row against Petrosian may be even more impressive than his 2 6-0 shut out matches . Petrosian had never ( since becoming a GM ) lost 4 games in a row !