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.
Who is the greatest attacker in chess history?
Sort:
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
Feb 24, 2013
0
#147
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?
Feb 24, 2013
0
#153
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...
Feb 24, 2013
0
#156
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.
Feb 24, 2013
0
#157
Fischer used to play the King's Gambit in tournament games now and then.
Feb 24, 2013
0
#158
I think I will look up some of the great attacking games of Schlechter, Petrosian, and Leko.
Feb 24, 2013
0
#160
One difference between Fischer and Petrosian was that Petrosian often seemed quite happy to draw against strong rivals, while Fischer was more likely to fight tooth and nail in every game regardless of who he was facing over the board. Leko also seems quite happy with a draw as a result.
In general, I think the players who fight for every half point tend to be attackers, eg. Judit Polgar, Alexander Morozevich, Nigel Short, etc. I'm not sure where Korchnoi fits in though. He was a bit materialistic too, but quite the fighter. Maybe we could class him as a counter-attacker.
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.