For exciting, I'd have to say Alehkine (for his unusual bouts of drunken Chess >.>) andTal (for his humor and wild attacking style).
Dangerous Player...
Sort:
Nov 17, 2008
0
#23
Underestimating real Karpov's power is understandable, but out- dated!
FIDE made up Fisher and de-Trounce Karpov, after all...
Fisher got his way on Top, because, American GM and American Federation gave him his own spot to go!
And FIDE did everything to please Fisher on list to beat Russians!
As FIDE stopped Karpov's winning first Match VS. Kasparov...
As FIDE did a Title World Match, without an actual Chess Champion Karpov on it Match!
FIDE is a corrupt!
Sigmarsson wrote:
dashkee94 wrote:
. . . I don't include Kasparov since he, like Alekhine, did his serious work at home, not at the board with the clock ticking.
Cuz, you know, Fischer (whom I respect greatly) never had any home prep...
Of course, Fischer did his homework. With all due respect, that wasn't my point. You never saw a game from either Karpov or Kasparov like Botvinnik-Fischer, Varna 62, or Fischer-Geller, Stockholm 62, or Fischer-Petrosian, Buenos Aires 71. That is Fischer otb against the best in chess homework, and he refutes them. And these are the games I can recall off the top of my head. That's why I think Fischer was the best of the dangerous players--you could do your homework, play correctly, and Bobby would still pack a can of whupass. The best.
dashkee94 wrote:
There have been many ex-patriot Russians (Lev Alburt, for instance) who tell of masters being flown to Moscow during Karpov's reign to be "strenuously questioned" about some opening innovation they came up with. Karpov was an incredible technician, but for creativity he was "barren as an infertile woman." I give him kudos for winning all those tourneys and matches, except for the fact that Fischer wasn't playing. I do not think Karpov's record would have been anywheres near as good had Fischer played. Dangerous players, to me, mean those who can come up with incredible moves over the board. Lasker was one of the best here, as was Bronstein, Tal, and Fischer (maybe the best ever). I don't include Kasparov since he, like Alekhine, did his serious work at home, not at the board with the clock ticking.
Wow. Fischer was a very great player, let no one doubt it, but... "I do not think Karpov's record would have been anywheres near as good had Fischer played." That's nice that you think that, but Fischer ducked Karpov, not the other way around. How can you give such credit to the guy who turned tail and hid from the chess world in general, and Karpov in particular? If he was so much better than Karpov why not prove it in a World Championship match, the one Karpov earned the right to play!?
Karpov, barren as an infertile woman? Study his games! -- He's every bit as amazing as Tal, and if you don't see that, it's no discredit to Karpov. He's not barren, he's just harder to understand.
I don't include Kasparov since he, like Alekhine, did his serious work at home, not at the board with the clock ticking.
These statements diverge far enough from reality to be disqualifed as opinions -- they are just trolling for flames with absurdity as bait.
Fischer was a great player at times but even his most ardent supporters will have to admit that mostly he was a bit of an (_._)
I think the answer to the question you are asking is Mikhail Tal especially leading up to 1960, with many speculative sacrifices and interesting games.
I believe it was Bobby Fischer who said of him:
He is always on the lookout for some spectacular sacrifice. He is not so much interested in who has the better game, or in the essential soundness of his own game, but in finding that one shot, that dramatic breakthrough that will give him the win. Tal appears to have no respect for his opponents, and frightens almost every player he opposes.
Gonnosuke wrote:
Every great player is bound to have games that feature awesome attacking chess. Karpov is no exception but as a whole can you honestly say that Karpov is more exciting than Kasparov, Fischer, Tal or Alekhine? My answer is still -- hell no. Anyone who pretends otherwise is just extremely biased towards Karpov or has a completely different notion of what constitutes exciting chess. At the end of the day, it's subjective. There are chess players who enjoy Karpov's style of strangling the life out of his opponents positions -- I'm just not one of them. I can see his greatness but it doesn't mean that I'm excited by it. At least not in the same way that classic Tal, Fischer or Alekhine excites me.
At the end of the day, it's subjective.
There's no arguing taste, I agree with you there. And I don't disagree: Tal, Fischer, Alekhine, have created sensational chessgames (to say nothing of... Morhpy, Lasker, Spielman, Nezhmetidinov (spelling?) Kasparov etc.) But, please, it doesn't take a wholly alternate aesthetic, where boredom is beauty, to like Karpov's games. No, I do not fall to my knees weeping at the sight of a very very long ending featuring lots of inscrutable rook manuvering...
Karpov's best games, like Petrossian's, and Botvinnik's ARE just plain wonderful games.
Here's another game from that uncreative, 'technician' Karpov -- now you can say about this game, aww this isn't typical Karpov... and that's true, but it's not typical anybody -- it's straight up genius and deserves to be appreciated:
Nov 17, 2008
0
#29
The Title Topic was been: "Dangerous Player..."
I just remind it! It is not about a beauty, aesthetic, pleasure of Chess!
Dangerous! Red Flag!
Karpov was been most dangerous Player for a 20 Century in Chess Game! Universal, well educated super-mind, a machine-alike-player, who stopped re-ambitions of Spassky, Polugaevsky, Korchnoy, Kamsky, Anand, Short, Timman, as well as a whole generation of a great players, since 1973...
Nov 17, 2008
0
#30
Of course, Fisher did his Homework study a lot!
As well, as Kasparov can not only win by his own Homework, but he played great on any real time!
But Karpov, who work actually less at Home, override them in statistic, as a real Champion!
And he still playing on sunset of the life, where everything in the Chess board became a froggy, dangerous, unclear...
Fisher quit!
Kasparov quit!
Karpov is still on the Game! Because, he likes the Game more, than they are!
'The Chess is my life, but my life is not only the Chess!" - A. E. Karpov.
Helipacter wrote:
Hello Folks,
Who, in your opinion, was (or is) the GM that excites chess fans the most, and why?
If you factor in this statement, Karpov never really had the reputation of having exciting games. Tal, on the other hand, did. I won't argue about who was better.
JG27Pyth wrote:
dashkee94 wrote:
There have been many ex-patriot Russians (Lev Alburt, for instance) who tell of masters being flown to Moscow during Karpov's reign to be "strenuously questioned" about some opening innovation they came up with. Karpov was an incredible technician, but for creativity he was "barren as an infertile woman." I give him kudos for winning all those tourneys and matches, except for the fact that Fischer wasn't playing. I do not think Karpov's record would have been anywheres near as good had Fischer played. Dangerous players, to me, mean those who can come up with incredible moves over the board. Lasker was one of the best here, as was Bronstein, Tal, and Fischer (maybe the best ever). I don't include Kasparov since he, like Alekhine, did his serious work at home, not at the board with the clock ticking.
Wow. Fischer was a very great player, let no one doubt it, but... "I do not think Karpov's record would have been anywheres near as good had Fischer played." That's nice that you think that, but Fischer ducked Karpov, not the other way around. How can you give such credit to the guy who turned tail and hid from the chess world in general, and Karpov in particular? If he was so much better than Karpov why not prove it in a World Championship match, the one Karpov earned the right to play!?
Karpov, barren as an infertile woman? Study his games! -- He's every bit as amazing as Tal, and if you don't see that, it's no discredit to Karpov. He's not barren, he's just harder to understand.
I don't include Kasparov since he, like Alekhine, did his serious work at home, not at the board with the clock ticking.
These statements diverge far enough from reality to be disqualifed as opinions -- they are just trolling for flames with absurdity as bait.
First of all, Fischer did not duck Karpov--FIDE would not give in to his demands as World Champion. That is not the same as ducking someone--like, say, Alekhine did to Capa. And as far as Karpov earning the right to play Fischer in 1975--Korchnoi has a LOT to say about how Moscow decided that the match was going to Karpov, regardless of the play. It was the USSR, and they wanted Karpov.
Second, I did not say Karpov was "barren as an infertile woman"--that was Lev Alburt. If you have a problem with that statement, take it up with him.
Third, Kasparov DID most of his work at home--he admits this--and you haven't shown me ONE game like the three games I've mentioned of Fischer.
Sorry, but you've only shown me personal opinions and hurt feelings.
Now, do you really believe that Karpov would win every tounament that Fischer played in? Every one? I am no fan of Fischer the person, but Fischer the player was feared by the world for good reason. Fischer would stomp you in the opening, middle game, or ending; positionally or tactically, position against Petrosian, tactics against Tal--and you're telling me that Karpov was better? Sorry, no dice--the only thing impressive about Karpov was the results, not the play. You can keep on defending him, but you'll never find a convert here. This forum was about dangerous players--if it was about correct players, you'd have a point.
In my opinion, the most dangerous players to meet would be Fischer and Capablanca, both can find solutions even the prepared ones over the board.
In reading "The Immortal Games of Capablanca" there was one game against the Great Frank Marshall which was won by the cuban in 1918, that was stated as having Marshall preparing his Marshall Attack to the Lopez for ten years then when he finally unloaded it on Capa, the willy cuban found a refutation. And if Capa does not own a chess set as stated in his "Capablanca's last lectures" then there is no way he could have prepared against it, he just found the solution at the board.
In Vasiliev's book " Tigran Petrosian: His life and games", Petrosian was quoted to have stated that a certain master (not from the then USSR) gave him an analysis on beating Fischer's favourite weapon on the Sicilian. And when he used it in game 1 of their candidates final, the genius found a refutation over the board. And according to Petrosian the lights went out after he made the surprise move on Fischer (there is probably politics in here sorry for that)
Karpov, like Fischer had a tendency to play the g4 push if it leads to advantage. In"Bobby Fischer and his approach to chess", Fischer made such moves too. But their style are far different. I am amazed by how Karpov beats the sicilian defense in the 70"s to early 80's by his quiet Be2 lines, fluid piece play and unrisky most of the time. No wonder they call him a "Boa Constrictor" he squeezes his opponents counter play, very well versed in creating passed pawns.I just wonder how he lost to Miles in an opening very rarely seen in top flight tournaments.Fischer on the other hand Bc4 which he pattentedwas a variation long forgotten, in short, Fischer had the skill of resurrecting previously doubted lines or lines that has yet to be proven. Who would know that his Nh5 in the 3rd game of the 1972 match with Spassky was a doubtful move but he played it and challenge the then champion to refute it. I have seen Karpov refute the line in a CHESS Dvd video with GM Ron Henely (or was it spelled that way sir ?) but this was done just recently. Meaning, it took masters a long time to find a refutation for it, the line stood its ground for almost 60 years. Fischer's style for me is different, he is like a fierce gladiator. If you give him a pawn, he'll take it and if you want to simplyfy he'll take risks. And if you have a prepared line against him.. he'll go for it and let you prove yourself if your line is correct. Mark Taimanov in one of his interviews has stated that it took him ten years to find the solution to his lost game against Fischer in their candidates match.
Both Fischer and Capablanca in my opinion have no equal. Fischer the strong opening and middle game chess player, Capablanca the middle and endgame vertouso. Both players can find refutations over the board. Fischer's style of playing barren positions to the bone is a gem. capablanca's simplicity a beauty.
Well almost every player did a lot of work at home. For instance the Karpov-Korchnoi match:
"He had arranged for top soviet grandmasters to help with his preparation. We must all provide him with information about our openings and variations, all our professional secrets. It was made clear that this was our patriotic duty to the Motherland, for the traitor must be destroyed. Many grandmasters duly obliged and submitted to this official harassment." – Garry Kasparov (on having to assist Karpov in his World Championship match against Korchnoi)
dashkee94: I'm not sure what you mean by tactics against Tal, because they had an even record overall.
As for love of the game, unless I am mistaken, Tal left a hospital to play in a blitz tournament just a few weeks before he died. (In which he beat Kasparov)
Nov 17, 2008
0
#35
Karpov and Tal were a big friends and partners for a long-long time!
Tal helped Karpov a lot!
And Karpov helped Tal , too!..
Twice Tal beat all records for not to loose almost two years! About 85 games, without any loss! Karpov's school on action!
They supplement and respect each other!
It is a rear gift for a Chess Genious!
Check out Blackburne, a rare player most of the time "legless", use to play well over 2000 games per year for a shilling a game, a couple of shillings more and he'ld play blind fold, a rare genius sworn by the bottle, hence the term (trap) The Blackburne Shilling!
Nov 17, 2008
0
#37
Karpov came to visit Tal into the Hospital and they played Blitz Chess Match for fun!
24 short fast 5 minutes games!
12:12!
Great Drug for Tal!
Great training for Karpov, before next big Match...
To gsn
If you look at the last four games between Tal and Fischer, they are full of tactical shots. The games are two tactical genius' trying to dominate the other. At the time, the only player who was capable of playing to that level with Tal was Botvinnik, and that was only during the return match. The earlier games between Tal and Fischer was a complete domination by Tal. And BTW, Tal was +2 in their lifetime series.
Oh, I kind of see what you mean. I used chessgames.com for refrence and it says the record was 4 to 4 with 5 draws and two of Fischer's wins were in blitz games.
I don't think there was anyone who disliked Tal, so while I was unaware of Karpov visiting him (although I know Fischer did visit him), I don't doubt it. Even Fischer (who disliked most other players) liked him and if I recall correctly there is an amusing anecdote in which Tal tricked Fischer into playing an inferior move in one of their games that shows his admiration.
I don't really know if you can accurately compare Karpov, Tal and Fischer because their peaks were at different times (and Karpov never played Fischer) and they all had amazing acomplishments.
There is no doubt that Karpov is one of the all-time greats but I wouldn't call his chess exciting by any stretch of the imagination. Successful? yes, but exciting or entertaining -- hell no!