Who was the most overrated or underrated chess player of all time?

Sort:
thelondonsystrn
OldPatzerMike wrote:
thelondonsystrn wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:

Fine also had a cumulative plus score against the world chess champions which he played against ...

Reuben Fine has never had a plus score against any world champion, you are completely wrong, dimwit.

Actually, @Justs99171 is correct. Fine had lifetime plus scores against Lasker, Alekhine and Botvinnik and had an even score against Capablanca and Euwe. 

I meant Bent Larson, when I saw Fine for some reason I saw Larsen.

Justs99171
thelondonsystrn wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
thelondonsystrn wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
thelondonsystrn wrote:
Deranged wrote:

Overrated: Nakamura

Underrated: Caruana

A lot of people forget that Fabiano Caruana would be literally the greatest chess player of all time if Magnus didn't exist.

As a classical player, Nakamura is seriously underated. Nakamura made huge contributions to the wayward queen attack and is also the best classical calculator in all of chess history, the two reasons why Nakamura isn't world champion is because his positional and tactical understanding isn't on the level of world champion players.

 

Best calculator? Hell no. He isn't even top 5. That is ridiculous.

Tal, Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov and Anand were all definitely better at calculating than Naka nobody.

Calling someone ridiculous because they have a different opinion means you simply suck at arguments.

Tal was only good at calculating as far as sacrifices were involved.

Morphy was playing during the 1800's, he wasn't anywhere near the level of a super GM.

Capablanca wasn't a particularly good calculator, he understood the tactical and positional elements required for simplification, as well as occasionally having a good tactical grasp as in his game against Frank Marshall.

Fischer wasn't a good calculator. he just had a very good grasp of pawn structures, positional harmony, as well as a great grasp on creating attacking chances as well as having a very deep grasp on all the tactical and positional elements within his narrow repertoire.

Karpov was mostly a positional player, although once he was in superior position to his opponents, he was fairly good at calculating the consequences once he set up an attack, although he wasn't as good a calculator as Nakamura.

Kasparov was a decent calculator, although he placed a greater emphasis on dynamism more than anything else.

Anand is only good at knowing how to mobilise and coordinate the knights, as well as knowing how to increase their activity, other than that his area of knowledge was in counter-play.

Carlsen is a good calculator too, but I think Nakamura is far better at calculation.

Being good at chess isn't just about calculation, Nakamura's style just happens to be the most calculation heavy.

 

I didn't call anyone ridiculous. What I said is "That is ridiculous."

Opinions are not opinions if they are factually wrong.

You're making a lot of assertions (all incorrect) for someone with a three digit rating.

You're an idiot, you can't come up with a retort so you show yourself to be an idiot.

 

I'm an idiot? I'll take that as a compliment, seeing how your rating is below 500 and my peak blitz rating is above 1900.

Steven-ODonoghue
thelondonsystrn wrote:
 

Anand is only good at knowing how to mobilise and coordinate the knights, as well as knowing how to increase their activity, 

Yes exactly, Anand had mastered the knights, but his expertise of the other pieces was lacking. Similarly, Bobby Fischer was master of using his bishops, but famously didn't know how the rooks moved.

Some day, there will be a champion who has mastered the use of all 6 pieces, who will help us human players rise up against the engines.

MisterWindUpBird

The most under-rated players in history are the 1800 blitz players you get on this site that suddenly decide to play a daily game for once in four years and pop up in your under 1500 team match. Lol. (Arrrrgggh!)

thelondonsystrn
Justs99171 wrote:
thelondonsystrn wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
thelondonsystrn wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
thelondonsystrn wrote:
Deranged wrote:

Overrated: Nakamura

Underrated: Caruana

A lot of people forget that Fabiano Caruana would be literally the greatest chess player of all time if Magnus didn't exist.

As a classical player, Nakamura is seriously underated. Nakamura made huge contributions to the wayward queen attack and is also the best classical calculator in all of chess history, the two reasons why Nakamura isn't world champion is because his positional and tactical understanding isn't on the level of world champion players.

 

Best calculator? Hell no. He isn't even top 5. That is ridiculous.

Tal, Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov and Anand were all definitely better at calculating than Naka nobody.

Calling someone ridiculous because they have a different opinion means you simply suck at arguments.

Tal was only good at calculating as far as sacrifices were involved.

Morphy was playing during the 1800's, he wasn't anywhere near the level of a super GM.

Capablanca wasn't a particularly good calculator, he understood the tactical and positional elements required for simplification, as well as occasionally having a good tactical grasp as in his game against Frank Marshall.

Fischer wasn't a good calculator. he just had a very good grasp of pawn structures, positional harmony, as well as a great grasp on creating attacking chances as well as having a very deep grasp on all the tactical and positional elements within his narrow repertoire.

Karpov was mostly a positional player, although once he was in superior position to his opponents, he was fairly good at calculating the consequences once he set up an attack, although he wasn't as good a calculator as Nakamura.

Kasparov was a decent calculator, although he placed a greater emphasis on dynamism more than anything else.

Anand is only good at knowing how to mobilise and coordinate the knights, as well as knowing how to increase their activity, other than that his area of knowledge was in counter-play.

Carlsen is a good calculator too, but I think Nakamura is far better at calculation.

Being good at chess isn't just about calculation, Nakamura's style just happens to be the most calculation heavy.

 

I didn't call anyone ridiculous. What I said is "That is ridiculous."

Opinions are not opinions if they are factually wrong.

You're making a lot of assertions (all incorrect) for someone with a three digit rating.

You're an idiot, you can't come up with a retort so you show yourself to be an idiot.

 

I'm an idiot? I'll take that as a compliment, seeing how your rating is below 500 and my peak blitz rating is above 1900.

We are both complete beginners so the fact that you are using your blitz rating as opposed to your daily rating speaks volumes.

Being good at blitz and rapid proves nothing, your daily rating is much lower than your blitz rating, hence why everybody here should take your opinion with a grain of salt, that is unless you are willing to actually teach me something instead of arrogantly throwing your puny weight around.

Your idiotic downplaying of Reuben Fine is equally idiotic.

thelondonsystrn
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:
thelondonsystrn wrote:
 

Anand is only good at knowing how to mobilise and coordinate the knights, as well as knowing how to increase their activity, 

Yes exactly, Anand had mastered the knights, but his expertise of the other pieces was lacking. Similarly, Bobby Fischer was master of using his bishops, but famously didn't know how the rooks moved.

Some day, there will be a champion who has mastered the use of all 6 pieces, who will help us human players rise up against the engines.

Compared to us bunch, Anand has mastered the pawns and queen etc.

Compared to your average super GM though, I highly doubt Anand has anything on any other Super GM when it comes to understanding pawns, queen's and rooks, etc.

Anands mastery was the Knights, while Fischer seems to have a knack for the bishops and square colour harmony, as well as kingside harmony and castling rights harmony.

thelondonsystrn
MisterWindUpBird wrote:

The most under-rated players in history are the 1800 blitz players you get on this site that suddenly decide to play a daily game for once in four years and pop up in your under 1500 team match. Lol. (Arrrrgggh!)

I bet that went right over the head of Justs99171.

Invinciblerowlett

sup