Bobby fischer was the greatest player/ and one of the greatest people of all time. see my comment on the fischer impact blog for the definitive reason.
I like Fischer as much as the next guy (so long as that next guy happens to like Fischer), and I think that what you've said is rational and true.
Greatest man to ever live.
Fischer is the most non-flawed perfect human being to ever live.
His teeth, those well formed, pearly mandibles, mark him as the product of absolute perfect genetic material.
Truly there will never be another rose so sweet, another fur so soft, another ocean so blue.
Accordign to chessmetrics . . .
One has to understand how subjective retro-ratings are (for many reasons). Chessmetrics is just one of several systems. Here, I tried to outline some discrepencies between different systems (using Morphy's years as my sample - and one might note that the EDO system has Morphy as the strongest player in the world from 1849-1862, about when he quit playing public chess). Here, Ron Edwards who developed EDO ratings, replied to my article with some insight.
BTW, Horwitz and Harrwitz are two distinctly different players.
Can I bud in Stupiddrip95 for a while? well if any of you are interested in asking me questions, I'd be obliged.
I'm showing all of you a few great books Seirawin made! First of all, this book is called Winning Chess Strategies! You can get the book on amazon for only $16.47! and for used is only $8.95!
And one of Seirawins greatest books, Winning Chess Tactics! On amazon is only $16.47! and used is only $9.99! Its more money than the other book is because It's Seirawins Favorite!
Give me some quenstions and i'll answer them.
The most modern dominant champion (Kasparov) will beat the priors, probably pretty easily, if you allow the prior champs only the knowledge of their time...it wouldn't be close and it wouldn't be fair because the more modern champ would have access to the old schooler's games.
But if the old schoolers had access to all current knowledge, computers, tournaments, etc, then I like Morphy just based on sheer dominance out of nowhere.
Morphy = pwned everyone without trying...in enemy territory, too.
Anderssen = Morphy quit.
Zuckertort = Morphy quit.
Steinitz = strategy formulation. Morphy quit.
Lasker = long reign. Imagine if Fischer's reign ended in 1999. Morphy dead.
Capablanca = greatest natural talent is what people say. Apparently, Alekhine prepared his openings while Capa didn't? Anyone else hear this? And the reason Alekhine duckled Capa was he knew he would be crushed if Capa put any effort intothe openings. If Morphy were Kortchnoi's age now, he would have played the Capa of 1915.
Alekhine = beat Capa and ducked him later to make it seem like he was a 20-year champ. Morphy would be 90 years old at the beginning and 109 years old at the end of Alekhine's reign, so it is conceivable Morphy could have been champ at this time, too.
Botvinnik = 15 years as champ with some interruptions. Morphy would be 126 by the end of Botvinnik's reign, so perhaps Botvinnik would win, only because Morphy lost the hunger and died during the match, with a +9 =4 -1 score, but tournament rules are rules.
Smyslov = absorbed in the Botvinnik reign despite a pretty even score. Would have lost to a 117-year old Morhpy (people have lived that long).
Petrosian = hard to beat. Botvinnik had to lose eventually (for good, that is). Can't really stretch Morphy's age to past 126 without sounding ridiculous to the point of absurdity.
Tal = Inaccurate, unsound, 1-time wonder...yet he still maintains quite the legacy...2+2 = 5, awesome.
Spassky = perhaps if he tried harder and didn't play so much tennis and poker.
Fischer = at his peak was so far ahead of #2 (Spassky) that he lost rating points when he crushed him. (was a chicken$#!+ against Karpov, though).
Karpov = has to be behind Kasparov, but if he had played Fischer in several epic battles, maybe would have dominated everyone forever.
Kasparov = not a bad player. I've seen worse.
Forgot Euwe. No further comment.
I agree on results, grading and stats you would go with Kasparov.
But he comes from the old Soviet school of chess he had all the trainers and coaching he needed, allied to a natural talent he was indeed a formidable champion.
Bobby did not come from that background he had to do it pretty much on his own and take on the Soviet Behemoth pretty much on his own.
That makes him a great player for me.
Which player would have one a standup, flat-out win over the others?
If you look for statistical outliers, which many people do, you'd have to go with Morphy, Capablanca, maybe Botvinnik, Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov. I think that's it. Unless you want to add Korchnoi because of his remarkable longevity, which is impressive. I bet that he beats Karpov in a match today.
The one top player who doesn't get enough credit is Tal, because he is known
more for his attacking style and his great personality.
However, the measure of a great champion is his record under the greatest
pressure against the best players in their prime, and so Tal's record in the
Chess Olympiads is probably vastly underrated.
It's amazing how he is hardly ever mentioned in most top five lists.
fhfghffg hey everyone!
I personally dock points from Tal for many of his crazy attacks being refutable. I give extra points to players who strive for perfection in their games.
Ozzie.. atleast he wasnt afraid to attack.. his games were fun to watch, i wouldav loved watching him if he was still alive and young.
Many gm games nowadays are boring.
I personally dock points from Tal for many of his crazy attacks being refutable. I give extra points to players who strive for perfection in their games.
I tend to disagree (with some trepidation). I never found Tal's attacks crazy. Some of his sacs are hard to follow, and even harder to envision, some maybe incalcuable to the end, and possibly even ultimately (after a ton of dedicated analysis) not completley winning, but they show imagination, fearlessness and combativeness, three of the most admirable qualities (in my opinion) in a competitive chess player. Let computers worry about so-called perfection; give me a chess player any day of the week!
Absolutely, someone who has the wherewithal to make those moves deserves a ton of respect. While not a unique characteristic of chess players, it is the vast minority. I just hold in a higher regard a player who knows that they are winning compared with a player who does not.
Who was the best player in the history of chess? would it be Paul Morphy? J.R. Capablanca? Mikail Tal? Garry Kasparov? Anatoly Karpov?
All of them are the best they beat the strongest players in the world of their era even when they stop being world champions they are ex-world champions and no one can ever take that away from them!
Bobby fischer was the greatest player/ and one of the greatest people of all time. see my comment on the fischer impact blog for the definitive reason.