i liked about tal, even though he probably just said it because they were friends. but i still really liked how tal said after the game against nezhmetdinov, even though i lost it was a great day because i was lucky to see such a pretty game.
Who is the greatest attacker in chess history?
Sort:
yes i know kasparov said that morphy would be around 2700 player if i remember correctly and yes he was mighty strong but to a weak player like me it could make the impression he wasnt that strong. Ofc Kasparov and other know more about chess than me so they obviously must be correct.
I couldn't help but notice the "classical" Fischer haters enjoy trying to strip him of all of chess accomplishments as much as possible....
Fischer!!!!
A "classical" player just means that player uses classical openings. It has no reference to the playing style, as there is no such thing as a "classical" playing style.
Fischer played classical openings, (he's well-known for his comment that 1.e4 is "best by test!") so that makes him a "classical" player (as opposed to modern or hypermodern), but his playing STYLE was aggressive.
thank you very much
Anybody mentioned Mike Tyson yet? or Death in "The Knight's Tale"
ClavierCavalier wrote:
These dudes are classical players:
you forgot taimanov ;)
makikihustle wrote:
A "classical" player just means that player uses classical openings. It has no reference to the playing style, as there is no such thing as a "classical" playing style.
Fischer played classical openings, (he's well-known for his comment that 1.e4 is "best by test!") so that makes him a "classical" player (as opposed to modern or hypermodern), but his playing STYLE was aggressive.
Fisher played the KID - hardly a classical line.
Kingpatzer wrote:
makikihustle wrote:
A "classical" player just means that player uses classical openings. It has no reference to the playing style, as there is no such thing as a "classical" playing style.
Fischer played classical openings, (he's well-known for his comment that 1.e4 is "best by test!") so that makes him a "classical" player (as opposed to modern or hypermodern), but his playing STYLE was aggressive.
Fisher played the KID - hardly a classical line.
also not the gruenfeld, but i thought they probably ment because as white he mostly played classical... anyway what does classical then mean?
or was the term for fischer just incorrect?
Fischer as white played classically, as Black, he mixed things up.
"Classical" is a style of chess. And just as with classical architecture and classical music, it suggests an adherence to well-established principles and clean, clear lines. Fischer's style was very classical, in fact it was almost hyper-classical in his strong preference for Bishops over Knights.
Every great player is capable of stirring attacks, but Fischer never sacrificed a pawn for an attack that he couldn't see through to the end. He only sacrificed when he was certain of the outcome. He was far more likely to grab a pawn and defend than to sacrifice.
Perhaps I could show all the great sacrifices that Carl Schlechter, Tigran Petrosian, or Peter Leko made and suggest they are great attackers too. A few sacrificial attacks in a career dominated by positional wins doesn't make someone one of the great attacking players of all time. Fischer's greatest weakness was in unclear positions. This is why both Tal and Geller, two great attacking players, had positive scores against him.
well i ment attacker in Sense of aggressive. Ofc he Sacked pawns for pieceplay And Played poison Pawn.
SmyslovFan wrote:
Fischer as white played classically, as Black, he mixed things up.
"Classical" is a style of chess. And just as with classical architecture and classical music, it suggests an adherence to well-established principles and clean, clear lines. Fischer's style was very classical, in fact it was almost hyper-classical in his strong preference for Bishops over Knights.
Every great player is capable of stirring attacks, but Fischer never sacrificed a pawn for an attack that he couldn't see through to the end. He only sacrificed when he was certain of the outcome. He was far more likely to grab a pawn and defend than to sacrifice.
Perhaps I could show all the great sacrifices that Carl Schlechter, Tigran Petrosian, or Peter Leko made and suggest they are great attackers too. A few sacrificial attacks in a career dominated by positional wins doesn't make someone one of the great attacking players of all time. Fischer's greatest weakness was in unclear positions. This is why both Tal and Geller, two great attacking players, had positive scores against him.
How can this be true for the man who invented chess 960(Fischer Random)? Just asking...
TetsuoShima wrote:
well i ment attacker in Sense of aggressive. Ofc he Sacked pawns for pieceplay And Played poison Pawn.
The Poisoned Pawn variation of the Najdorf is a classic example of why Fischer was one of the founding members of PawnSnatchers Anonymous. He'd grab the pawn and defend it with all his might.
Regarding the idea that he sacrificed pawns for piece play, there just are not very many examples of him doing this in his games. I'm sure someone will be able to find an example somewhere, but that wasn't his style, and it was not what he was known for.
Tal and Geller, yes. Fischer, no.
Fischer used to play the King's Gambit in tournament games now and then.
I think I will look up some of the great attacking games of Schlechter, Petrosian, and Leko.
It is certainly said by the great olayers that IF morphy would have acces to modern chessengines, books, and profound theory then he would be riht up there, but we can never now... On the other hand many say that Tal was THE ATTACKER meaning he always attacked with great success even from worse positions but I recall some GM saying that when it came to attacking Nezhtmetdinov was allaround the go-to-guy even stronger than Tal If given chance to attack and seeing some of Nezhtmetdinov´s and Tal´s games i´m saying the two are the best attackers in the long run because
1: They always attacked never seen their game without an attack.
2: Characterized by many of the best chessplayers in the world as best when it came to attacking.
3: Amazing accomplishments.
4: Some of the most unforgettable attacking games I´ve ever seen.
5: They were both very loyal to their style as mentioned even when forced to in defence they would rather take chances and go for an unsound attack and propably lose rather than win by wearing the opponent down in a defensive game.