How do you categorize every world champion in Strategist and Technician?
Sort:
A world champion is good at everything.
Jimmy, that is bullshit. No one is good at everything and world champions are no exception. If so Kasparov won't lose the game against Deepblue. Tal beat Botvinik because Botvinik's strategy didn't bring him leading of development whereas Tal always find combinations. Fischer beat Spassky because Fischer had better both strategy and tactic ability. Great Kasparov was better technician comparing with Karpov, but Karpov was doing better on positional play.
Botvinnik also beat Tal in the rematch because he studied up on how to blunt Tals tactical play. You need to be a well rounded player.
btl1230 wrote:
Jimmy, that is bullshit. No one is good at everything and world champions are no exception. If so Kasparov won't lose the game against Deepblue. Tal beat Botvinik because Botvinik's strategy didn't bring him leading of development whereas Tal always find combinations. Fischer beat Spassky because Fischer had better both strategy and tactic ability. Great Kasparov was better technician comparing with Karpov, but Karpov was doing better on positional play.
I didn't say that World Champions were perfect in every way. I just said that they had no glaring weaknesses in any key area of chess. Tal could play well-rounded positional games, if he needed to, but Karpov is much superior in that respect.
For me, Strategists are Lasker, Botvinik, Karpov, Anand, Magnus
Technicians are Tal, Fischer, Kasparov.