Most Natural Talent in a Chess Player?
PAUL MORPHY
No Doubt.
Which Elite Chess Player of All Time Has the Most Natural Talent?
Sort:
tetuoshim, i just realized that you 8rightfully) deleted your last dirty comment about me saying that 'I would have made up everything' and 'no wonder that Pfren would not talk to me'.
1. Nothing was made up. To the contrary, you made things up.
2. Pfren attacke dme without any reason, saying i would know nothing.
In fact, he did not ever attack any of my chess standpoints about some opening or chess position. He was obviously jealous because I had made comments and analysis eralier and with more details than him, on the same chess problem.
Pfren is a vain person, besides, he is not a chess autority.
It was clear that chessplayer got compensated good in soviet union while in america they didnt get help from the government at all.
Saying they had no rights is a joke, just read about SPassky what they gave to him.
Nezhmetdinov was only IM and still he made many tours through soviet union, they were legendary. He was only IM, i say that because i read in soviet union IM werent respected by GMs, the way they respected GMs.
I read the GMs even laughed at Spassky for taking an IM as second. At least that what i read in a book about Fischer. Dont get me wrong thats not my personal opinion, any master is outclasses me by far, and IMs are international.
I have read Sosonko, sadly my memory is not so good but i dont think he wrote chessplayers were poor.
When you say Korchnoi sometimes was not allowed to travel because he talked, than you must be joking.
In soviet union people went to Gulag for all other reason way smaller, if Korchnoi really did that and got away, than it just shows what status chessplayers had in soviet union and that they were treated like gods.
just read any book from Solschenyzin and than compare it to any GM from soviet union and you see what it ment to be a chessplayer in russia.
but yes anyway i need to be more careful in my words.
TetsuoShima wrote:
It was clear that chessplayer got compensated good in soviet union while in america they didnt get help from the government at all.
Saying they had no rights is a joke, just read about SPassky what they gave to him.
Nezhmetdinov was only IM and still he made many tours through soviet union, they were legendary. He was only IM, i say that because i read in soviet union IM werent respected by GMs, the way they respected GMs.
I read the GMs even laughed at Spassky for taking an IM as second. At least that what i read in a book about Fischer. Dont get me wrong thats not my personal opinion, any master is outclasses me by far, and IMs are international.
I have read Sosonko, sadly my memory is not so good but i dont think he wrote chessplayers were poor.
I did NOT say that I also did NOT say they were without rights. Turning around words does not make you more believable. I was explicitly (and successively) arguing against your claim that Soviet players would have a better life (meterially) than Fischer.
When you say Korchnoi sometimes was not allowed to travel because he talked, than you must be joking.
Hehe, just read his book about his career.
In soviet union people went to Gulag for all other reason way smaller, if Korchnoi really did that and got away,
you went to Gulag for a political joke (or for an odd denunciation) until 1953 when Stalin was dead, not after. You went to Gulag after for a crime, and some for ACTIVE opposition to the Communist Party.
than it just shows what status chessplayers had in soviet union and that they were treated like gods.
I think you
1. need to read a lot more,
2. need to be polite a lot more,
before you participate in such a discussion.
right i got the Gulag thing wrong, i always forget that Stalin died so early.
Anyway Spassky definetly was better of than Fischer, Fischer lived in really small hotel rooms, you could even see it yourself in video footage.
Spassky lived in a private house, he had swimming pool, tennis place, best alcohol, the had everything.
2 i already said i need to be more careful in my wording, no need to kick me again for it. That not being sad that i believe you are intellectually absolutly honest, im just saying i really need to be more polite anyway.
I wish to defend Tal:
He had a severe kidney desease since young age. Some say, he lost his revanche match against Botvinnik because of this already.
The decline of his star (interrupted sometimes by some great successes, such as Montreal 1979 where he shared first place with Karpov) was because of the desease (not because of alcohol).
Doctors could not really help him, although it is not clear how much Tal was responsable himself for not being able to stop the progress of the disease. He was not a healthy-living person (smoking a lot, and drinking, the last one however only in nice company).
I know many people who met Tal (e.g. Russians, even Chileans). No one of them disliked him, nobody of them would call him a party animal. He was polite, friendly, and well-educated, shared his knowledge with anyone who wanted, no matter what his rating was. He also read a lot beyond chess.
The (odd) habit to drink in company the heavy stuff (Wodka!) was (is) shared by many who come from the Soviet culture.
About Spasski and Fischer in Reykjavik:
Interesting detail about the hotels !
However, Spasski did never have a house with garden and swimming pool in Russia.
Only later, when he met a nice French girl, and moved to France, he became a 'bon-vivant', appreciating a good wine, and not working too much on chess anymore , although he played for many years in the French league, and showing his teethes.
The match of 1991 in Belgrad saw Fischer even more dominating than in 1973 . Although also Fischer was not anymore the old one (in my opinion, the match is generally underrated: some games were really interesting, if only because of great new ideas in the opening).
Spasski perhaps reached his last great creative peak during the Soviet Championship in 1973, ironically after his loss against Fischer: he wanted to show everybody - especially the Sport's Committee - that they still have to count on him. However, a year later he lost a match against Karpov (who was already 'selected' as the new star by the Sport's Committee).
i dont think we need to defend Tal everyone says he was great and still Fischer was the only one who visited him when he was hospitalized in cuba.
Really its ironic that people believe those 2 faced people more than Fischer.
schlechter55 wrote:
About Spasski and Fischer in Reykjavik:
Interesting detail about the hotels !
However, Spasski did never have a house with garden and swimming pool in Russia.
Only later, when he met a nice French girl, and moved to France, he became a 'bon-vivant', appreciating a good wine, and not working too much on chess anymore , although he played for many years in the French league, and showing his teethes.
The match of 1991 in Belgrad saw Fischer even more dominating than in 1973 . Although also Fischer was not anymore the old one (in my opinion, the match is generally underrated: some games were really interesting, if only because of great new ideas in the opening).
Spasski perhaps reached his last great creative peak during the Soviet Championship in 1973, ironically after his loss against Fischer: he wanted to show everybody - especially the Sport's Committee - that they still have to count on him. However, a year later he lost a match against Karpov (who was already 'selected' as the new star by the Sport's Committee).
ofc he got a house from the soviets, i never talk to you again. Its futile, you are well more educated than me and more able to write proper sentences, but you use your power for is twisting words and play games.
Its absolutly futile like preaching to stones or waiting for the answer of why life is like it is.
I believe Karpov, same with Ivanchuk and Gelfand were already in the Russian National team's radar as early as 9 years old! Please correct me if i'm wrong.
Paul Morphy
1. Never studied chess from anyone!
2. Was a lawyer by proffesion, hence wasnt able to spend much time in chess. Infact he is said to have memorised the entire law book of New Orleans.
3. Untill his trip to europe never even played any strong player of his time except Lowenthal when he was about 10 and had defeated Lowenthal. So technically he won against the very first "grandmasters" he played.
4. Morphy is Fischer's Idol, Kaparov's Hero.....and well everyones hero.
tootsie, I think you have a problem reading.
YOU were talking about Reykjavik. I did NOT challenge your claim at all that Fischer had a less comfortable Hotel there than Spasski. After all, it was important to the Soviet Sports Committee that Spasski felt comfortable (and would win: it was cold war).
Now you come up with a new information (which I did not react to before, contrary to what you claim) that Spasski had a house 'from the Soviets'. I can believe that he got from the Sports Committee indeed a house (or even a 'datcha'), after his win against Petrosian in 1969. WChampions got more priviligues than other GMs. The fact that chess players were indeed priviligeued COMPARED TO NORMAL Soviet citizens I also did never challenge.
When I said that 'life was not easy' 8so to chess players, even the very strong ones), I meant the generally timid economic situation: stands in super markets being empty, having a small apartment only, few could buy a car etc. All people in Soviet Union (except from the so-called 'Nomenclatura' ) shared those problems.
On the other hand, comforts as buying a car, renting an apartment of 60 m^2 and more (middle class even buying a house), being able to FIND and buy all things you need, was considered as normal in the West since , say, end of the 60th.
I should also mention that some other things were better in the countries beyond the iron curtain: education for free, kinder garden places for most kids...
ok i might have a problem reading, but why do you call me tootsie?
TetsuoShima wrote:
fabelhaft i totally disagree with you on the FIscher.
Fischer was probably the greatest natural talent ever.
I agree about Fischer being the most talented on the basis that he created the greatest disparity between himself and his competition as compared to any other players, after the advent of modern (not hypermodern) chess theory.
To say that other top level players from the Soviet Union weren't hard working is nonsense. The competition between them and the work ethic required to be the best among them, is often grossly underestimated. The reason the Soviet/Russian chess machine has crushed some many others for so long is due more to the fact that they put forth the effort, more than any others.
Fischer certainly worked just as hard as the hardest working of them, but the reason he towered over them all was because he was far more talented than all of them. It is also the same reason he crushed everyone in his own country and the rest of the world. Do you think Fischer revolutionized the work ethic for US chess players ? I am sure Larsen was just as hard working as Fischer was. It was Fischer's far greater talent that propelled him to the heights he reached. The work ethic is a given among top GM's. You don't become one without it. It is great talent that separates them from the rest.
Without adding to the argumentative nature of this thread, I would like to add some notes on the difference (as I perceive it) between Fischer's success and the reign of the Soviet school of chess:
1. Between the late '40s and the end of the '60s, the Soviet players improved the quality of chess and our understanding of the game in a remarkable way. Success in chess was seen as a sign of the ideological triumph of the communist system over alternative forms of government, but getting to the top was incredibly difficult. Nobody had an easy ride to the top, not even Spasski, whose childhood was incredibly poor, often starving himself to get a chance to play chess, and still beating Botvinnik in a simul at the age of 10!
2. Every champion had to overcome massive hurdles to get to the pinnacle: Tal was incredibly sick already from his childhood with various inner organs missing and a disfigured claw hand, and despite what people today imagine, he didn't get sick from his lifestyle: he only began to drink and smoke so heavily in order to dull the constant pain. Despite this he got a place at university as a 15 year old (youngest student ever at the time) and passed his degree in languages with flying colours. Botvinnik trained as an engineer and had a professional life which left him much less time for chess than we imagine (people often forget that in real life he was an amateur chess player, not a full-time professional!). Petrosian, despite his obvious talent, worked as a street cleaner in his youth, and considered giving up chess, as nobody seriously believed you could play chess in the way he did. Despite this he ascended to the throne, defended his title and followed it up by getting a PhD.
3. The main advantages the Soviets had over Fischer was a highly developed chess culture, intense competition from your peers and a more advanced system for nurturing talent. The main advantage Fischer had over the Soviets was that with less social demands (nobody forced him to finish college, get a degree and a job outside of chess) he could often spend 7 hours a day on chess, going straight from school at 5pm to the Marshall Chess Club, where his exasperated mum would fetch him round midnight......
I don't think historical background tells us enough to decide something as nebulous as natural talent. Anand probably had a background less poor than Fischer's, otherwise their disadvantages (I mean in not having an opportunity to train in the Soviet school) were exactly the same.
Hilarious3 wrote:
Without adding to the argumentative nature of this thread, I would like to add some notes on the difference (as I perceive it) between Fischer's success and the reign of the Soviet school of chess:
1. Between the late '40s and the end of the '60s, the Soviet players improved the quality of chess and our understanding of the game in a remarkable way. Success in chess was seen as a sign of the ideological triumph of the communist system over alternative forms of government, but getting to the top was incredibly difficult. Nobody had an easy ride to the top, not even Spasski, whose childhood was incredibly poor, often starving himself to get a chance to play chess, and still beating Botvinnik in a simul at the age of 10!
2. Every champion had to overcome massive hurdles to get to the pinnacle: Tal was incredibly sick already from his childhood with various inner organs missing and a disfigured claw hand, and despite what people today imagine, he didn't get sick from his lifestyle: he only began to drink and smoke so heavily in order to dull the constant pain. Despite this he got a place at university as a 15 year old (youngest student ever at the time) and passed his degree in languages with flying colours. Botvinnik trained as an engineer and had a professional life which left him much less time for chess than we imagine (people often forget that in real life he was an amateur chess player, not a full-time professional!). Petrosian, despite his obvious talent, worked as a street cleaner in his youth, and considered giving up chess, as nobody seriously believed you could play chess in the way he did. Despite this he ascended to the throne, defended his title and followed it up by getting a PhD.
3. The main advantages the Soviets had over Fischer was a highly developed chess culture, intense competition from your peers and a more advanced system for nurturing talent. The main advantage Fischer had over the Soviets was that with less social demands (nobody forced him to finish college, get a degree and a job outside of chess) he could often spend 7 hours a day on chess, going straight from school at 5pm to the Marshall Chess Club, where his exasperated mum would fetch him round midnight......
I don't think historical background tells us enough to decide something as nebulous as natural talent. Anand probably had a background less poor than Fischer's, otherwise their disadvantages (I mean in not having an opportunity to train in the Soviet school) were exactly the same.
Once players reach GM level in chess, they generally are recognized as players whose talents should be nurtured. In the Soviet regime, these players were given everything they needed to succeed. Fischer adversely wasn't, until the US realized our hopes rested entirely upon him for a chance to defeat their ideology, if even in a symbolic way. Every GM has to work hard to improve and keep up with his contemporaries. It is their talent that separates them. It isn't a difficult debate. It is simply common sense...
nameno especially even when Fischer was already preparing for the world championship match. You really had to see the video footage, he was living in a hotel room it was so small not even 4 stars room.
It was such a shame, that a man fighting for the richest country on earth, representing the USa in the fight for the chess crown had to live in such a small appartment.
Schlechter did you even read anything about chess history?? It was the other way around. Chess players were treated like stars in soviet union and got paid, Fischer got no money from the us government. He even had to waste his time to play simuls to have enough money.
You are just arrogant and igmorant.
From my many therads you know that I lived in Soviet Union. You must also know that I know more than you about chess which includes its history.
Have you ever been in Russia or any of the parts of former Soviet Union, at least after 1991 ? Then you would know that life in Soviet Union was not easy. Many players (including most GMs) lived in a small apartment, did not have a car, not few in the big cities had to share a kitchen with other families.
Travel even to other socialist countries was rare, even the SuperGMs who got invitations to tournaments in the West, depended on a decision of the Sport Committee in Moscow (many requests for such travels were declined , even for players like Bronstein, Boleslavski, Spasski etc...). The salary for a GM was not great, too. The only thing of what you say that is true is, that strong players (IMs or high-rated players) could work as a trainer in a Chess club, or as a chess teacher in one of the the 'Pioneer's Palaces'. Again, only this gave them a financially safe situation, but in the overwhelming number of cases it did not make them a rich person (rich from the point of view of western lifestyle).
So the advantage that soviet chess players had compared to the westerners was two-fold:
1. Receiving attention and respect by a big part of the people - chess players were considered as artists and scientists at the same time.
2. Being part of a large and vibrant chess community where one would have lots of creative impulses.
Coming back to Fischer: he played countless tournaments within the US and abroad before he reached his strongest shape in the seventieth.
A freedom that no Soviet player ever enjoyed.
I dont know what 1991 has to do with anything, but as i read travel was ok and allowed, even Kasparov mentioned it in an interview.
Total lack of knowledge of history. In 1991 the Soviet Union ended its existence. If you would have read any article of Sosonke (probably you even dont know Sosonke, sorry) , of bronstein, Korchnoi, you would know that I am right. Travel regulations eased during the 'Perestroika' and 'grasnost' slowly, it which started in 1985.
Even many russians at Botvinnik time said travel was allowed, only not for those who Botvinnik disliked (according to some statements).
The Soviet GMs got travel allowances to selected events like Zonals, Intzerzonals, usually the decision WHO could travel to a normal tournament like Hastings, Wijk aan Zee (one or two GMs) was up to the Sport's Committee. Many times GMs like Bronstein, Korchnoi could not travel much because they have burned their mouth' (criticizing the situation and policy within Soviet Union), others because of poor performances in some events (Taimanov and Spasski because of their losses to Fischer). Sometimes non-obedience (or not pleasing the officials) could cause a decrease in the salary , like in the case of Taimanov (the latter being lucky, because he was not only a chess player but also a famous pianist)
Botwinnik was one of the very few who could travel often. That's why he did not feel the restrictions.
Many travelled inside soviet union, because they probably all had to travel to the all soviet championship.
The soviet union had more strong players than the rest of the world until the early 80th, so the travel restrictions did not cause a lack of chess education for the players. The Soviet championship was an event that was stronger than any Interzonal at that time, so that many GMs could not qualify for it.
Bronstein even in his book mentioned how many things he always brought home from frequent trips to foreign countries, especially his frequent visits to holland.
Korchnoi and others (i believe it was Korchnoi) even gave Bronstein advise on what he should buy when he is outside of soviet union.
Apparently for soviet standard chessplayers were rich.
I do not comment to your last remarks because they show total lack of knowledge.