Alexander Grischuk commented a few months ago that any player who ends up in the world's elite once started out as a tactical monster; after all tactics is what you have in your tool box - strategy is what you design. Having said that, my impression is that both Kramnik and Carlsen are solid players with excellent technique, who are happy to gain a small positional advantage in the middlegame, relying like Fischer and Karpov on their exceptional endgame skills. One difference is their attitude to the openings, where Kramnik like his mentors Botvinnik and Kasparov is more of a researcher (Anand once claimed Kramnik's opening research was 'ridiculously deep'.....). Carlsen is more of a classical player, he plays the open games exceptionally well, and like Karpov before him he does not believe in following the latest fashion in opening theory. I'm sure anyone on here who is not a patzer could improve on my descriptions..........
Could Spassky have beaten Fischer?
It seems to me that Carlsen tries to get away from prepared analysis and make the struggle more about finding ideas over the board.
It seems to me that Carlsen tries to get away from prepared analysis and make the struggle more about finding ideas over the board.
Yes, and the strange thing is that it really works today, when opening preparation is more important than ever. Still a player can have a huge lead on the rating list in spite of everyone agreeing that his opening preparation is much worse than that of the other top players.
Grischuk is absolutely right. Similar things have been expressed by Petrosian, saying that after all (positional style, or tactical style etc.) Tactical skill makes the difference. When two superGMs meet, they try to reach a playable position where they 'can swim' ( one without, the other with deep opening preparation). If the middle game is complicated ('rich') enough, the conflict will mostly reach a (tactical) climax where the two concepts are tested in a labyrinth of variants (that contain sacrifice and countersacrifice). The one who finds the red thread in that labyrinth, wins.
i guess carlsen amateurishness in opening in comparison with players like kramnik and anand has helped him to find interesting ideas at the board and create unusual problems for his opponents.he hasnot crammed his head with opening preparations and doesent try hard to remember them while playing.he has a clear head and plays cunningly.he isnot a product of chess engines.he isnot dependent on them and has learned to think better than his opponents at the board and that s why he can outplay his opponents.
strange insult: the competitors of Carlsen products of engines ?
It is also a legend that carlsen does not study openings.
He actually does it very hard !
It is just that he chooses variants that are not the most principled ones. Important for him is that he reaches a 'long long' middle game, (with not worse chances for him, of course, but not necessarily with advantage).
To FIND such variants is NOT easy.
i just said he isnot a product of chess engines.i didnt talk about his competitors at all and if i want to talk about them i never generalize like that.but it is true that chess engines have played an important role for many young professional chessplayers and there are professional players who are very much dependent on them.old professional chessplayers have talked a lot about this subject.but carlsen didnt know at all what chessbase was when he was around 12.he didnt use computer for playing chess at all in first few years.
his opening preparation compared to elite players like kramnik and anand is weaker and there is no doubt about it.he has said many times he doesent like to study opening.players like kramnik,kasparov anand topalov have played novelties a lot in opening and have achieved a lot of wins based on excellent positions they got right after the opening.they have regularly outprepared their opponents in opening but carlsen usually only achieves playable positions after opening.do you think carlsen isnot willing to have an advantage after opening?he simply has difficulty getting an advantage after opening since his opening preparation isnot like players i just mentioned.
It is exactly what Carlsen does, and it ALSO needs a lot of time: to reach PLAYABLE positions.
If two SuperGMs (NOT US) play a timid opening variant, they mostly would end up in a boring position, with no chance to win. This is not depending on the players. The art of Carlsen is to find those variants where there IS play.
I'm going to guess yes because he could red his opponents like a book according to Kasparov. His contemporaries couldn't put up much resistance against him during his peak (especially Tal.)
ofc Spassky had no chance against Fischer. no way he could have won. Fischer was two classes above him.
Spassky couldnt even when when Fischer gave him the center in the alekhine.
ofc Spassky had no chance against Fischer. no way he could have won. Fischer was two classes above him.
Spassky couldnt even when when Fischer gave him the center in the alekhine.
Well, he according to Kasparov, he could read his opponents like book. He also had a +3 score against Fischer before the match, so I think that he could have won if he prepared properly.
ihateparadox wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
ofc Spassky had no chance against Fischer. no way he could have won. Fischer was two classes above him.
Spassky couldnt even when when Fischer gave him the center in the alekhine.
Well, he according to Kasparov, he could read his opponents like book. He also had a +3 score against Fischer before the match, so I think that he could have won if he prepared properly.
Ofc Fischer was kasparovs greatest competitor ofc he would say it and ofc Karpov would say the Same.
The plus score means nothing
Also geller had a plus score and no1 would argue he could beat Fischer
Also geller had a plus score and no1 would argue he could beat Fischer
How does the plus score mean nothing, it obviously means that Spassky was expected to beat Fischer. I'm sure he would have won if he prepared properly.
ihateparadox wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
Also geller had a plus score and no1 would argue he could beat Fischer
How does the plus score mean nothing, it obviously means that Spassky was expected to beat Fischer. I'm sure he would have won if he prepared properly.
No1 expected spassky to win, Fischer had the better tournament record than Spassky even 1960.
Spassky was way weaker than Fischer .
Yes he didnt prepare and benko rather dated girls. Everyone has an excuse why they suck against Fischer but the honest truth is they had no chance in hell.
No1 expected spassky to win, Fischer had the better tournament record than Spassky even 1960.
Spassky was way weaker than Fischer .
So how could he have +5 -0 =2 against Fischer after beating him in 1960, 1966, 1970, 1972 plus Fischer forfeiting the second game of the title match?
I could tell u more but i had to throw my Fischer book away after it got mold from reading in the bathtube. In chessgames i could only find the 1960 game in Mar del plata. I looked it up and saw Fischer finished before Spassky.
No1 doubted that Fischer would
Crush spassky
hilarious how do you descripe Kramniks and Carlsens style??