the400blows wrote:
chesshole wrote:
maybe alekhine
I don't think so. He worked to get good. See Silman's recent article on chess.com.
I think so
Which Elite Chess Player of All Time Has the Most Natural Talent?
Sort:
nameno1had wrote:
bigpoison wrote:
Come again? The Babe never even came close to challenging for the all time batting average record.
I wasn't saying that the Babe was one of the best pure hitters like Rogers Hornsby or Ted Williams. What I am saying is that Babe could take advantage of the pitches and situations, because he was a really good hitter. Sure he was a power hitter that pulled his fair share out of the shorter porch in right, but I wouldn't consider him a pull hitter.
After going over dozens and more of game recaps in the news archives, he had a fair share to RCF, center and a fair number to left.
A few teams did put a shift on Ruth but unlike most hitters today who fight the shift, Ruth would at times hit to the left side, the shifts had a short life.
Not only hit to left but at times lay down a bunt One time bunted safely twice in the same game. There are around 40 bunts he laid down, most safe hits.
There could be debates, why lay one down, the other team would rather give Babe a bunt single. Don't agree with that, yes you could take him away from the home run to RF but still, your almost giving him a gift hit, man on base.
Some interesting facts to back up what I am saying. Babe Ruth was a good pitcher :
Babe Ruth Career Pitching Stats – Part 1 of 3
W L ERA GP GS CG GF SVS SOS
1914 BOS Red Sox 2 1 3.91 4 3 1 0 0 0
1915 BOS Red Sox 18 8 2.44 32 28 16 3 1 0
1916 BOS Red Sox 23 12 1.75 44 41 23 3 9 1
1917 BOS Red Sox 24 13 2.01 41 38 35 3 6 2
1918 BOS Red Sox 13 7 2.22 20 19 18 0 1 0
Pretty darn good stats for any pitcher. He must have been a pretty good hitter in order for them to take a guy who had so stats that would make pitchers today drool.
BTW, Babe Ruth, career .342 hitter. Including seasons of .376, .378, .393, .378 again, .372, .356, .359, .373 ..... only 5 times in his 22 seasons did he fail to hit atleast .300 and was close on two of those occassions. Is my assertions still really unfounded in your eyes ?
While I wholly appreciate the lesson on Babe Ruth and baseball history in general--I don't know anything about the history of that particular game--I certainly don't rescind the exception I made to your cut and paste job.
I'm not really sure what your assertion is. If ya' swing for the fences you're going to strike out some? If that's it, yup, I agree.
yet again I ask - how much of anand do readers think is natural talent (great speed) and how much methodical preparation (probably the first to take to computers) and hard work ?
i believe the most naturally talented player was tal - simply because tal more than anyone else did things that cant be taught or learnt.
vishy anand
Ivanckuck and Boris Gelfand.
Ivanchuck because nobody plays like he does and he will play almost anything.
Boris Gelfand Because he is 45 or 46 and still playing amazingly
SubNY wrote:
i believe the most naturally talented player was tal - simply because tal more than anything else did things that cant be taught or learnt.
Things that couldn't be learnt would have to be innate. As far as I know, Tal wasn't playing at GM-level when he came out of the womb, and he probably wasn't capable of calculating complex positions out for 15 moves right after he learned the moves. He learned everything he was capable of that he couldn't do as an infant.
Borislav Ivanov.
sapientdust wrote:
SubNY wrote:
i believe the most naturally talented player was tal - simply because tal more than anything else did things that cant be taught or learnt.
Things that couldn't be learnt would have to be innate. As far as I know, Tal wasn't playing at GM-level when he came out of the womb, and he probably wasn't capable of calculating complex positions out for 15 moves right after he learned the moves. He learned everything he was capable of that he couldn't do as an infant.
So how do we measure talent, since in your opinion, it is apparently only displayed through what we can show, that we've learned ?
IMO, some obvious things that show talent in it's rawest form despite work ethic and education:
1) Higher level of skill compared to everyone else ( the younger it becomes manifest, the more talented normally )
a) In his prime, Tal was unmatched in terms of tactical ability, sacrifice, blitz play and learning his opponents limits, then taking advantage of them. Tal became the youngest WCC, at the time, when age 23.
b) Fischer showed perhaps the greatest disparity in skill compared to his contemporaries than any other player. Fischer displayed great ability as a teen. At 15, he became both the youngest GM and WCC candidate at that time.
c) Kasparov broke Tal's record for youngest WCC at 22. Other than Karpov, totally outmatched his contemporaries.
d) Karpov also was a young WCC at 24. Other than Kasparov, was better than all of his contemporaries.
e) The fact Petrosian rarely lost, said a mouthful about his skills compared to everyone else.
Displaying of a comparable or a higher level of skill compared to one's contemporaries, especially while at some other sort of disadvantage, age, health, collusion, etc...
a) Tal falls into this catergory.
b) Fischer experienced Soviet collusion.
nameno1had wrote:
sapientdust wrote:
SubNY wrote:
i believe the most naturally talented player was tal - simply because tal more than anything else did things that cant be taught or learnt.
Things that couldn't be learnt would have to be innate. As far as I know, Tal wasn't playing at GM-level when he came out of the womb, and he probably wasn't capable of calculating complex positions out for 15 moves right after he learned the moves. He learned everything he was capable of that he couldn't do as an infant.
So how do we measure talent, since in your opinion, it is apparently only displayed through what we can show, that we've learned ?
IMO, some obvious things that show talent in it's rawest form despite work ethic and education:
1) Higher level of skill compared to everyone else ( the younger it becomes manifest, the more talented normally )
a) In his prime, Tal was unmatched in terms of tactical ability, sacrifice, blitz play and learning his opponents limits, then taking advantage of them. Tal became the youngest WCC, at the time, when age 23.
b) Fischer showed perhaps the greatest disparity in skill compared to his contemporaries than any other player. Fischer displayed great ability as a teen. At 15, he became both the youngest GM and WCC candidate at that time.
c) Kasparov broke Tal's record for youngest WCC at 22. Other than Karpov, totally outmatched his contemporaries.
d) Karpov also was a young WCC at 24. Other than Kasparov, was better than all of his contemporaries.
e) The fact Petrosian rarely lost, said a mouthful about his skills compared to everyone else.
Displaying of a comparable or a higher level of skill compared to one's contemporaries, especially while at some other sort of disadvantage, age, health, collusion, etc...
a) Tal falls into this catergory.
b) Fischer experienced Soviet collusion.
I didn't mention talent at all, and was only pointing out the logical flaw in assuming that Tal had chess abilities that cannot be learned.
The question of talent depends on definition. I am not a skeptic about whether "talent" exists, as many here are, but a skeptic might assert that every one of your points is actually a point about skills, not talent.
Chess skill is what win games, world championships, etc. Talent is a hypothesis for why some people acquire much greater skill with less effort and at earlier ages, and why some people go further than others and plateau at a much higher level. I think talent does exist, in part because my life experience has made it plainly obvious that some people just learn much faster than others, even when the others are better prepared in terms of their past experience and learning and how much effort they apply.
That's easy, obviously the great Jose Raul Capablanca y Graupera :)
An excellent way to phrase the question, it phrases it so that you avoid the old "chess has evolved so it's moot" argument which is true, so it has to said if it's "who's best"? This gets what those hundreds of threads have been asking for, because it avoids the opening theory, rating inflashion etc. answers.
In response to comment by hatepositionalchess: Morphy was indeed Fischer's idol and Kasparov surely respected Morphy, but he idolized Alekhine more than anyone else on his road to greatness. No disrespect intended, I know that I am not in your class as a player.
Aug 23, 2013
0
#196
MrDamonSmith wrote:
Borislav Ivanov.
Yeah, this guy is the best.
His mutation allows him to sometimes channel the power of the engine gods through his brain.
SubNY wrote:
yet again I ask - how much of anand do readers think is natural talent (great speed) and how much methodical preparation (probably the first to take to computers) and hard work ?
i believe the most naturally talented player was tal - simply because tal more than anything else did things that cant be taught or learnt.
If you read David Norwood's book on Anand or Patrick Wolfe's, you'll discover that Anand didn't study much at all even up to and including his winning of the World Junior Championship in 1987. His lightening speed is mostly due to his incredible board vision and natural talent not some great preparation. Even Kasparov was stunned at the rapidity of Vishy's calculative skill. Then there is the famous remark of Korchnoi who said 'Kasparov is stonger at home [alluding to his incredbile opening prep] but Anand is stonger OTB'. In any event, I really doubt it's due to prep more than prep is important for any player, no matter the talent at WC level.
Aug 23, 2013
0
#198
Absolutely undoubtedly José Raúl Capablanca, as mentioned before. Who thinks otherwise probably doesn't know his story well.
Capablanca, Morphy or Fischer.
After that, probably Tal and Carlsen.
Carlsen should not be put along Tal.
Tal dominated tournaments on a level Carlsen never did.