Are there any players like Mikhail Tal?

I'm selling Bobby Fischer signature from chess tournament in Portorož (Slovenia), then was Yugoslavia from 4.8 - 14.9. 1958 and also signatures from other chess masters (Mihail Talj, David Bronstein, Laszlo Szabo, Geza Fuster, Jurij Averbah, James Sherwin, Svetozar Gligorić and Aleksandar Matanović).

Is anybody interested in buying it... please write me: miha.torrents@gmail.com

I didn't say he was as successful as Tal, did I?  I said that his style was like Tal's.   Tal's results suffered against Korchnoi, didn't they?  Rashid took more chances and his results were uneven.

Does Tal-like play really work, especially in the world champion sector, anymore? In this day and age where strategy is pushed so strongly, can we really expect such tactical abandon to win? By the way Tal only held the world title for about a year and then Botnnivik won it back -- strategy won again!

Anyone Lativian is Tal like. I joke but truth of the matter is that Tal, Shirov and Shabalov along with a number of lativian players play such sacrificial chess that many believe that Latvia has their own school of chess (indvidual style) and it may very well be that way.

You bring up a good point, and I don't think it's a joke.

I was fortunate to have a knowledgeable, dare I say wise cultural anthropology professor back in the 1970s, before the discipline was turned into rubbish by the PC crowd, from whom I learned that cultural influences should never be discounted regarding style in any discipline.  I believe you are correct, G_kadas, about high profile Latvian players and have thought so before you broached the subject.

You can speak of each individual style, which is rather narrow or the Russian School of Chess and its dynamistic approach, which is too broad and filled with political overtones, but there is a middle ground where the symbolic processes of culture predominate.  For example, I find it interesting that though Bobby Fischer studied the Russians, particularly their opening theory, his style was eminently practical, direct and too the point, which is quite the way of Americans.

To the point, though there are individual variations within any culture, never dismiss general cultural trends.

Not if you're playing a computer, but we all remember the magnificent Tal, don't we, and the names of chess computer programs come and go.

It's unfortunate that for under $100 any patzer, any stocked fish in the pond of ordinary players, can buy a program and spout out analysis as if he's the cock of the walk.  It's not only annoying, but sad and pathetic.

Chess is not only a science, but it's an art and a sport too, so the exciting beauty of Tal's tactical play will always be appreciated as will the subtle beauty of Petrosian's strategic play.  There is room for both.  

I couldn't agree more that he was a special talent, my Italian friend.  I say Italian friend because my mother's maiden name was Desisto.  She has passed, rest her soul, but she left her recipes for a fine, simmering red sauce and a wonderful braciola.  Take care.

I am. Except I don't win so much.

Tal was one-of-a-kind! No one is really like him...

i think Tal answered this question  , here is who Tal respected as a tactically aggressive player

Preview:

To be honest many of his sacrifices were mistakes,but due to the complexity of the position his opponents wouldn't find the "right" move,leading Tal to be very victorious.

I take issue with the word "mistake," which implies there is an objectively best move in every position.  Because Tal had a creative streak, he took calculated risks that often paid off; after all, he was The Magician.  Of course, Tal did say with tongue in cheek "There are two types of sacrifices: correct ones and mine."

It's ok. Fischer was socially akward anyway.