x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

How is is that Emory Tate never became GM

  • #1

    it seems like he never crossed the 2500 barrier or became GM

     

    even though its reported that he beat over 80 GM's with his tactical abilities

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emory_Tate

  • #2
    Most IMs can beat lots of GMs because they play lots of GMs. Simple.
  • #3
    BeepBeepImA747 wrote:
    Most IMs can beat lots of GMs because they play lots of GMs. Simple.

    wasn't Tate essentially Fischer 2.0

  • #4
    He might have been as talented as Fischer, but did not work as hard as Fischer...
  • #5

    his way of playing prevented him from making GM. he was fun to watch play, and analyze.

  • #6

    Not only did he not cross the 2500 barrier it may be that he didn't have the norms either. I'm guessing FIDE removes norm information from their site after a player is inactive, since I'm not finding anything for him on their website to verify how many norms he may have had.

  • #7
    IMBacon wrote:

    his way of playing prevented him from making GM. he was fun to watch play, and analyze.

    Do you agree that he had the talent of Bobby Fischer

  • #8

    Emory Tate was a swashbuckling tactician who loved brilliancy at taking risks. He played the kind of chess he loved  But he was a somewhat one-sided player who lacked the strategic patience and feel of a real grandmaster, and certainly didn't have tremendous endgame technique. There is no reason to think that he had the talent of a Fischer, or a Kasparov. There is a reason why the true giants of the game are giants! I am in no way putting Emory Tate down. He played exciting attacking chess and created many beautiful wins--and some spectacular losses too! He enriched our game, what else do you want?

  • #9
    mickynj wrote:

    Emory Tate was a swashbuckling tactician who loved brilliancy at taking risks. He played the kind of chess he loved  But he was a somewhat one-sided player who lacked the strategic patience and feel of a real grandmaster, and certainly didn't have tremendous endgame technique. There is no reason to think that he had the talent of a Fischer, or a Kasparov. There is a reason why the true giants of the game are giants! I am in no way putting Emory Tate down. He played exciting attacking chess and created many beautiful wins--and some spectacular losses too! He enriched our game, what else do you want?

    that's a fair assessment

  • #10

    Tate was a Grandmaster!  A Grandmaster at being an a-hole away from the board that is!

  • #11

    Tate was a fantastic player!

    I have a completely different perspective of Tate than ThrillerFan has. He was very gracious to me. He did seem to come unhinged pretty easily. During one tournament, he quite literally believed that the spectators were sucking up his oxygen and he couldn't breathe. 

    But to answer the question, for every great, brilliant game that Tate played, there's an inexplicably bad loss to some fish. Tate could raise his game to beat GMs because he was so creative. But he didn't have any self-discipline, and it cost him in his games.

    The argument about how much talent a player has is meaningless to me. That's just a way of saying that a player coulda been better. 

    Sure. Tate coulda been better. But then he wouldn't have been the Tate we know. He did work hard on his game, in the manner that worked for him. One of the great things about Tate is that he enjoyed his reputation as a giant killer. He wasn't as interested in being one of the giants, but in having the respect of the great players he faced.

  • #12
    King343 wrote:
    IMBacon wrote:

    his way of playing prevented him from making GM. he was fun to watch play, and analyze.

    Do you agree that he had the talent of Bobby Fischer

    Not even close.

  • #13
    IMBacon wrote:
    King343 wrote:
    IMBacon wrote:

    his way of playing prevented him from making GM. he was fun to watch play, and analyze.

    Do you agree that he had the talent of Bobby Fischer

    Not even close.

    If you believe that talent is somehow divorced from the ability to study harder than anyone else, then it's almost impossible to guess who had more talent.

     

    The word begins to lose meaning because anyone can claim that any chess player had more or less talent than someone else. There's no way to prove or disprove such statements.

  • #14

    I bet a lot of IMs just don't want to play the way a GM has to.

  • #15

    I never understand what people are trying to say when they use the word "talent" as if it were disconnected with playing ability. If Player A is rated 300 points higher than Player B, how can you believe that Player B has as much or more talent than Player A?

  • #16

    Was Tate a talented player?  Yes.  

    Was he as talented as Fischer? Yes...No...Possibly...Take your pick.

    Am I as talented as Fischer? Possibly.

  • #17
    Vodka.

    The End.
  • #18
    ChrisWainscott wrote:
    Vodka.

    The End.

    Actually, I don't think he drank at all. I'm not 100% sure of that, but when I met him, he said he never drank.

  • #19

    Around 99% of all chess players never make master. Of the 1% who do, the overwhelming majority never become IMs. If the ones who do become IMs, a large majority never become GMs.  So why the mystery? There are a hell of a lot of really fine players who stay at IM. 

Top

Online Now