BronsteinPawn wrote:
Are you saying Kramnik is a patzer? Go away blindKaspfanboy.
Just remember Kramnik being mated on the board by Fritz in 1 (one) move.
Who is the greatest chess player of all time ?? Bobby Fischer ??
Sort:
Dec 31, 2016
0
#983
SmyslovFan wrote:
Some people seem to be confused about tournament performance ratings compared to established ratings. There have been quite a few +2900 tournament performance ratings in history. I could be wrong, but I think Caruana has the record for the best single tournament performance rating at Sinquefield in 2014.
After 7 games, Caruana had a 3592 performance rating! He finished the tournament with 8.5/10 and a TPR of 3103.
https://en.chessbase.com/post/sinquefield-07-he-s-not-making-a-mistake
https://www.chess.com/news/caruana-completes-unbeaten-sinquefield-carlsen-second-9605
The other site only says that " the average rating is 2802". The rating does not increase so fast (to over 3000) even if you achieve 7 victories in a row. The author of chess.com article didn't do the math of ELO.
"The rating does not increase so fast (to over 3000) even if you achieve 7 victories in a row"
Maybe you should read a bit about what a TPR is before trying to discuss the subject.
Dec 31, 2016
0
#985
fabelhaft wrote:
"The rating does not increase so fast (to over 3000) even if you achieve 7 victories in a row"
Maybe you should read a bit about what a TPR is before trying to discuss the subject.
For sure isn't ELO rating.
Dec 31, 2016
0
#986
Go away Romanian dude. You are just talking non-sense.
I remember Kasparov getting crushed by a piece of trash IBM computer with one of the worst hardware I have ever seen. Does that mean he is a patzer?
mcris wrote:
BronsteinPawn wrote:
Are you saying Kramnik is a patzer? Go away blindKaspfanboy.
Just remember Kramnik being mated on the board by Fritz in 1 (one) move.
Do you have, like the link to the game or something?
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?yearcomp=exactly&year=&playercomp=either&pid=15940&player=&pid2=12295&player2=&movescomp=exactly&moves=&opening=&eco=&result=
Jan 1, 2017
0
#988
BronsteinPawn wrote:
Go away Romanian dude. You are just talking non-sense.
I remember Kasparov getting crushed by a piece of trash IBM computer with one of the worst hardware I have ever seen. Does that mean he is a patzer?
Fischer didn't get defeated by any computer. Also he was never mated on the board. "Go away"? Really? "Non-sense"? See below.
@shcherbak Sure: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1440796
In the kibitzer's corner below the game word "blunder(ed)" appears 13 time, "blundernik" twice, and phenomenal "blunderful" once. I had stamina only for first page (out of 32). Do you catch my drift?
Gullk wrote:
fischer was afraid to face karpov i think he could have been defeated by the russian genius in his prime
Fischer,Robert James a.k.a Bobby Fischer is the strongest and the greatest of all players.
I think that Fischer did not want to have an opponent that is very positional because I think Karpov is boring. And Fischer wanted to attack weaker than other very very positional players that played against him.
Kasparov is going to have Fischer-style!His supersuper-idol is Bobby Fischer.
Fischer is stronger than the modern superGMs because Fischer is more positional than them
Karpov is very positional,but have less aggression.
Aggression-attacking with good-calculated risk and high strategy+tactical pressure.
Top ten most aggressive Players
1. Tal-80%
2.Fischer-70%
3.Kasparov-65%
4.Judit Polgar-62.5%
5.Bronstein-60%
6.Carlsen-50%
7.Alekhine-49.5%
8.Waitzkin-45%
9.Christiansen-44%
10.Nimzowitsch-43.89%
11.Other grandmasters-25-43.88999999999999999992346%
Fischer wanted to have a complicated game,not boring game.
Someone really did not read what Kasparov has written about Fisher. Putting "good-calculated" on the same page with Tal is yet another sin.
shcherbak wrote:
Someone really did not read what Kasparov has written about Fisher. Putting "good-calculated" on the same page with Tal is yet another sin.
Not good-calculated(sometimes only good-calculated) really risky risk
Kasparov's style is very near at Fischer's,so that's very obvious-aggressive is their style-Kasparov likes Fischer.
It's not much read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Tal#Playing_style
In his book Tal admits that calculating wasn't really necessary his thing 
Najdorf put it really neat: "When Spassky offers you a piece, you may just as well resign, but when Tal offers you a piece, go on playing, he may sacrifice another, and then ... who knows?"
I would agree that Kasparov had affection to rising, fighting Fisher, but it all getting colder, much colder after 75, he also went on showing flaws in few Bobby games in My Great Predecessors. Overall he is very decent and honest in dealing with topic.
Jan 1, 2017
0
#998
shcherbak wrote:
I would agree that Kasparov had affection to rising, fighting Fisher, but it all getting colder, much colder after 75, he also went on showing flaws in few Bobby games in My Great Predecessors. Overall he is very decent and honest in dealing with topic.
He didn't show flaws, computers did for him. But Fischer did not play those games against computers, he played against Tal, Spassky etc.
He got negative against Tal
Jan 1, 2017
0
#1000
Tal was a fantastic calculator! He knew that if he couldn't work out the complications in a game, the chances were great that his opponent couldn't either.
Tal relates the story of a game he played against Botvinnik. He spent ages calculating out all the lines while Botvinnik made moves more on general strategic principles and saved time. When Botvinnik did have to calculate, he got into time trouble.
Don't believe everything Tal wrote about himself. He often played down his own skills. He would sometimes not comment on his "!!" moves and focus instead on the moves that led up to them, giving himself ?! marks for normal moves.
Tal was one of the greatest annotators of all time. Part of what made him so great was his self-deprecating wit.
Wow. Then Kasparov must really suck