Who is the greatest attacker in chess history?
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm simply informing you. It makes no difference if you disagree with me or not.
yes ok that was childisch my medication one game more or not.
yes waffle you are disinforming me thank you
TetsuoShima wrote:
lol i looked at chessgames.com and fischer had 3 wins agains tal with white
Their game at Curacao 1962 was a blitz game, and as you already know, Tal was ill and had to be hospitalized during the tournament.
but you see all games tal won were before 1960.. then fischer crushed tal
pfren wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
lol i looked at chessgames.com and fischer had 3 wins agains tal with white
Their game at Curacao 1962 was a blitz game, and as you already know, Tal was ill and had to be hospitalized during the tournament.
well i thought it was a full game but you are right he had to be hospitalized, still tal only beat fischer when he wasnt at his prime
Smoof_Bishop wrote:
chessgames.com could be wrong though. It's user-created-content, just like the big Wikipedia.
i didnt know thank you
but what about bled in 61? tal was healthy there, wasnt he?
TetsuoShima wrote:
pfren wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
lol i looked at chessgames.com and fischer had 3 wins agains tal with white
Their game at Curacao 1962 was a blitz game, and as you already know, Tal was ill and had to be hospitalized during the tournament.
well i thought it was a full game but you are right he had to be hospitalized, still tal only beat fischer when he wasnt at his prime
The same could be said of Fischer's victories over Tal.
TetsuoShima wrote:
but what about bled in 61? tal was healthy there, wasnt he?
Tal was pretty much never healthy. Something that makes his achievements all the most astounding.
Feb 22, 2013
0
#132
Here's Fischer sacing a bishop then knight to break through to Panno's king.
He plays an entirely positional game until move 30, and then finally decides to execute the final breakthrough. Nxh7 doesn't even need precise tactical calculations - 2 pawns and an attack for a piece with his position should easily be enough compensation.
Capablanca (I hope nobody claims he is not a positional player) also sacrificed material to breakthrough.
Riga - Thanks for posting the winning line on the Fischer-Byrne match. The double sac of the rook and then bishop - a breathtaking finish.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Bobby Fischer!
Albin Planinec.
Consider the following game:
-Izmet
Morphy, in my opinion.
Also, if you read through interviews, many of the players mentioned in this thread (Capablanca, Fischer, et cetera) have said Morphy was superior to themselves.
Morphy had a secret weapon that not every knows about, though: he had an eidetic (photographic) memory.
Rashid Nezhmetdinov he schooled Tal so many times he became his coach.
Averbakh said Nezhmetdinov could kill anybody.
With all due respect to everyone who has relevant knowledge on the subject, not only does my Chessmaster game catergorize Bobby Fischer as an aggressive attacker, but the majority of all of the breakdowns of his games I have remembered seem to express aggression and attacking. He was depicted as assertive and as one to impose his will on his opponents. I realize opinions can certainly vary and that from certain angles, things can look differently than they are. I don't ever recall any player other than Petrosian( in my mind one of the greatest attackers) or Karpov who was regarded in anyway dominant, who wasn't an aggressive attacker. In hindsight, Karpov always seemed to take a backseat to the dominance of the aggressive attacking Kasparov.
Well Fischer's legacy was never as a great attacking player. Of the three phases he's known for his endgames. On style he's known for a technical / logical / "clear" style, playing simple looking yet strong moves one after another. He certainly didn't go for unbalanced wild positions. It's been said he did less well when these wild positions appeared. He's closer to a Capablanca type than a Tal type.
-------------------------
As for players who gave Tal trouble, Korchnoi had a very good record against him.
well i thought he was known for his imagination and his harmony of his pieces.
fischer cared much for the harmony of the pieces and sacked a pawn to get his bishop into play. the technical endgame was just the means for his cause.
his openings choices speak a clear language, you can stop the troll now.