I DONO
Who is the greatest chess player of all time ?? Bobby Fischer ??
Sort:
Nov 19, 2016
0
#883
It's interesting that most of the chess pros accept that today's players are better than players of the past.
Chess.com has discussion of who were the best players and greatest players among the 16 world champions. That eliminates Philidor and Morphy. Kasparov and Carlsen are just about tied for first, which is what I've been saying.
My only surprise was that the people making the lists didn't give much credit to Lasker or Steinitz in their list of "greats".
My list of the greatest world champions that I posted a few weeks ago was:
1.Kasparov
2.Lasker
3.Steinitz
4.Karpov
5.Fischer
I gave Fischer serious demerits for refusing to defend his title. He could have been the greatest ever.
Magnus Carlsen
Nov 19, 2016
0
#885
We should define "greatest chess player of all time" before giving and answer to the question.
Fischer because he understood never to play the French defense.
The French Defense chess opening is good for surprise value. The main reason why chess GMs do not use it regularly because black gets a passive middlegame.
Also i would not trust a chess opening having anything to do with France. Everyone knows that chess is a military game. Looking back at history, the French military was really passive
For example, in World war One, France was conquered by their neighbor Germany. Did they learn their lesson? Of course not. A couple years later France was conquered again in World War 2. Who took them over? Not other then the same country Germany. It was up to the Amencans to save their French croissants from the Germans.
Against 1. e4, I would suggest playing a more sophisticated chess opening that is American made. It won't let you down like the French. Maybe something like the Marshall Attack variation of the Ruy lopez. It has been shown to equalize easily. Magnus just played it against Karjackin.
There are a lot of things that France has "stolen" but claimed to be their own. Such as the Mona Lisa, the French bulldog, French toast, French horn, French letters, French Fries, French press, French dressing, French manicure, French braid, etc.
I would not be surprised if France "stole" this chess opening as well when in fact, it really had a "Made in Taiwan" label and some French dude ripped it off.
Here is an oxymoron: French Army
greenibex wrote:
Fischer because he understood never to play the French defense.
The French Defense chess opening is good for surprise value. The main reason why chess GMs do not use it regularly because black gets a passive middlegame.
Also i would not trust a chess opening having anything to do with France. Everyone knows that chess is a military game. Looking back at history, the French military was really passive
For example, in World war One, France was conquered by their neighbor Germany. Did they learn their lesson? Of course not. A couple years later France was conquered again in World War 2. Who took them over? Not other then the same country Germany. It was up to the Amencans to save their French croissants from the Germans.
Against 1. e4, I would suggest playing a more sophisticated chess opening that is American made. It won't let you down like the French. Maybe something like the Marshall Attack variation of the Ruy lopez. It has been shown to equalize easily. Magnus just played it against Karjackin.
There are a lot of things that France has "stolen" but claimed to be their own. Such as the Mona Lisa, the French bulldog, French toast, French horn, French letters, French Fries, French press, French dressing, French manicure, French braid, etc.
I would not be surprised if France "stole" this chess opening as well when in fact, it really had a "Made in Taiwan" label and some French dude ripped it off.
Here is an oxymoron: French Army
I like french toast, french fries, french horns and the French Defense, but I'm not French. 
The French Defense only leads to a boring middle game if you are a tactical player by nature. As a defensive, positional player, it's right in my wheel house. When I play a Sicilian, it's usually a Taimanov variation, which is similar to the French (but with the d5 break delayed). The only reason that I gave up the French is because I don't like playing Nf6 vs the 3. Nc3 and Nd2 variations (due to e5) and the Rubenstein variation (3. dxe4) is kind of boring and usually leads to a draw. However, I like the advance and exchange variations just fine. They are not boring, in my opinion. The Ruy Lopez was never my style, but I have played the Sicilian quite a bit. I'm also thinking about learning the Caro-Kahn one of these days.
Nov 20, 2016
0
#888
greenibex wrote:
Fischer because he understood never to play the French defense.
The French Defense chess opening is good for surprise value. The main reason why chess GMs do not use it regularly because black gets a passive middlegame.
Also i would not trust a chess opening having anything to do with France. Everyone knows that chess is a military game. Looking back at history, the French military was really passive
For example, in World war One, France was conquered by their neighbor Germany. Did they learn their lesson? Of course not. A couple years later France was conquered again in World War 2. Who took them over? Not other then the same country Germany. It was up to the Amencans to save their French croissants from the Germans.
Against 1. e4, I would suggest playing a more sophisticated chess opening that is American made. It won't let you down like the French. Maybe something like the Marshall Attack variation of the Ruy lopez. It has been shown to equalize easily. Magnus just played it against Karjackin.
There are a lot of things that France has "stolen" but claimed to be their own. Such as the Mona Lisa, the French bulldog, French toast, French horn, French letters, French Fries, French press, French dressing, French manicure, French braid, etc.
I would not be surprised if France "stole" this chess opening as well when in fact, it really had a "Made in Taiwan" label and some French dude ripped it off.
Here is an oxymoron: French Army
Has France ever done anything useful?
I don't know all the historical details but my feeling is that it wasn't that Fischer was afraid of Karpov but rather a case of having reached the top and achieved his ambition with an incalculable expenditure of nervous energy he was simply mentally and emotionally burnt out. I don't think he was ready to go through all of that again to face Karpov. A younger, pre-Reykjavik Fischer would have been very ready to play Karpov in my opinion. Fischer had established his persona, his preparation and his whole schtick with the mind set of a challenger, the kid who was going to take on the Soviet machine. I don't think he was really able to adjust to the fact that he was now World Champion.
Nov 20, 2016
0
#890
Wow, "kingofshedinjas", you REALLY are a French-hater!!! I can't believe you spewed such filth:
1. " For example, in World war One, France was conquered by their neighbor Germany. Did they learn their lesson? Of course not. A couple years later France was conquered again in World War 2. Who took them over? Not other then the same country Germany. It was up to the Amencans to save their French croissants from the Germans. "
- and -
2. " There are a lot of things that France has "stolen" but claimed to be their own. Such as the Mona Lisa, the French bulldog, French toast, French horn, French letters, French Fries, French press, French dressing, French manicure, French braid, etc. "
Here's some facts, "kingofshedinjas", to sober you up,
1. Pre-WWI Germany and Post-WWI Germany were not the same leadership and it could be argued not even the same country as Hitler annexed Austria.
2. Bonaparte conquered most of Europe, so your idea that winning or losing a war is an indicator for the shape of things to come is invalid.
3. I have never heard a French person speaking French refer to "French dressing", "French manicure", etc. These are terms in the English lanuage, which came about in different ways. To say that the French "stole" them is nonsense.
And don't try damage control by saying you were being sarcastic. What you wrote is rascist and it comes across as very rude. While I value freedom of speech, I'm not sure what you wrote would be in compliance with chess.com's TOS and forum rules.
Nov 20, 2016
0
#891
the_chess_zebra wrote:
Wow, "kingofshedinjas", you REALLY are a French-hater!!! I can't believe you spewed such filth:
1. " For example, in World war One, France was conquered by their neighbor Germany. Did they learn their lesson? Of course not. A couple years later France was conquered again in World War 2. Who took them over? Not other then the same country Germany. It was up to the Amencans to save their French croissants from the Germans. "
- and -
2. " There are a lot of things that France has "stolen" but claimed to be their own. Such as the Mona Lisa, the French bulldog, French toast, French horn, French letters, French Fries, French press, French dressing, French manicure, French braid, etc. "
Here's some facts, "kingofshedinjas", to sober you up,
1. Pre-WWI Germany and Post-WWI Germany were not the same leadership and it could be argued not even the same country as Hitler annexed Austria.
2. Bonaparte conquered most of Europe, so your idea that winning or losing a war is an indicator for the shape of things to come is invalid.
3. I have never heard a French person speaking French refer to "French dressing", "French manicure", etc. These are terms in the English lanuage, which came about in different ways. To say that the French "stole" them is nonsense.
And don't try damage control by saying you were being sarcastic. What you wrote is rascist and it comes across as very rude. While I value freedom of speech, I'm not sure what you wrote would be in compliance with chess.com's TOS and forum rules.
Erm...sorry but I didn't post that. I just quoted another user (greenibex)
It would be really difficult for a Spanish user to forget about French's invassion between 1808 and 1814, don't you think?
Nov 20, 2016
0
#893
Just found this today: https://youtu.be/pKgrhIs_Mtk
Really interesting footage that I had never been able to find.
lorcanoconnor wrote:
Just found this today: https://youtu.be/pKgrhIs_Mtk
Really interesting footage that I had never been able to find.
I just watched that footage a couple of months ago. It sounds like was already nuts at that point.
Nov 20, 2016
0
#895
Fischer claimed in 1992 that had he never stopped playing chess...I totally believe him. I was 23, and more less playing chess on and off for 15 years.
Of course, I was alittle disappointed during his match (following it with great expectations) with Spassky. Like many who grew up studying his games and exploits. Rehashing it now 24 yrs later, I'm over it. They way he played, going over his games now he played the same way he has always done. Pragmatically.
Nov 20, 2016
0
#896
Heh. What stands out in these discussions is that most people forget that he was a chess theorist. A connoisseur. A great chess mind. Always searching for the truth on the chessboard. An artist. Can anyone say that about any other player after him?
Unrealistically, he strove to make better player conditions and demanded it. The World in 1972 could not see how chess would evolve into the sport it is today. But I would argue Bobby always believed this. Which is why I will always deem him the Greatest. The Muhummad Ali of chess. Cool
"a chess theorist. A connoisseur. A great chess mind. Always searching for the truth on the chessboard. An artist. Can anyone say that about any other player after him?"
Yes :-)
Nov 20, 2016
0
#898
fabelhaft wrote:
"a chess theorist. A connoisseur. A great chess mind. Always searching for the truth on the chessboard. An artist. Can anyone say that about any other player after him?"
Yes :-)
And that, in a nutshell, is one of my biggest pet peeves with the Fischer worshippers. They can't see how great the players that came after him are.
Nov 20, 2016
0
#899
Heh. Name them in a nutshell, then.
After reading pages upon pages go ahead.
I think we need to agree on one issue: the fact that we can't even agree on what makes a player the greatest of all time.
Some point to longevity, others to pure strength (not easy to evaluate objectively), dominance over peers, legacy, popularity, contribution to chess theory, etc.
The article is indeed interesting and I'm looking forward to learn more about CAPS. But one statement made me smile: "Carlsen's Elo is substantially understated due to the lack of near-rival opponents"
Your honor, I'd like to point out the following.
Top 5 as of Nov 2016
1. Carlsen - 2853
2. Caruana - 2823
3. Vachier-Lagrave - 2811
4. Kramnik - 2810
5. Aronian - 2795
Top 5 in 1999
1. Kasparov - 2851
2. Anand - 2795
3. Kramnik - 2760
4. Morozevich - 2758
5. Shirov - 2734
Top 5 in 1972
1. Fischer - 2785
2. Korchnoi - 2670
3&4. Spassky/Larsen - 2660
5. Petrosian - 2645
The gap between 1st and 2nd best in 1999 was nearly as much as the gap between no 1 and no 5 today. By the same token, the rating difference between Kasparov at his peak and Shirov about the same as that between Fischer and Spassky.
If the author thinks Magnus can't attain his true rating because of lack of worthy opponents, I'm curious what he has to say about Kasparov or Fischer...