I haven't heard of Silman winning any more or less significant tournament. And what is his rating? 2300?
I think Silman was 2380-ish, but that was in the late 70's, over 30 years ago...it may be the equivalent of being a 2500-ish player today given inflation.
I dont understand why Fisher is considered number 1 on many lists. His career was pretty short.
My candle burns at both ends It will not last the night;
But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends -
It gives a lovely light
I dont understand why Fisher is considered number 1 on many lists. His career was pretty short.
I hear you. I've always wondered why people admire Einstein. Afterall, he only managed three inventions worth while.
I dont understand why Fisher is considered number 1 on many lists. His career was pretty short.
I hear you. I've always wondered why people admire Einstein. Afterall, he only managed three inventions worth while.
I will ignore the sarcasm in your post, but my question was genuine. I understand that Fisher changed the game by many of his unique ways. But his chess career was pretty short compared to other competitors for the number 1 spot on the best chess player ever to live, for example Kasparov.
I understand. I've never been a huge fan of Fischer (mainly because he was a twat), but it doesn't take away from what he accomplished over the board. Shortness of career shouldn't be a factor when considering the pros and cons of an individual.
Is Anand the second greatest player the world has seen?
No, he isn't. Maybe he is the strongest active human player today. But he cannot be compared with giants from the past like Chigorin, Tarrasch, Rubinstein or Lasker.
Lol, Anand would have Chigorin and Tarrasch as breakfast, eat Lasker for dinner and then Rubinstein for dessert.
I think Morphy and Alekhine are the greatest.they would have eaten Kaspie for breakfast had they lived in this era.
Alekhine was unbeatable in all the phases of the game:tactics,strategy,openings,preparation you name it
I think Morphy and Alekhine are the greatest.they would have eaten Kaspie for breakfast had they lived in this era.
Alekhine was unbeatable in all the phases of the game:tactics,strategy,openings,preparation you name it
Then why was he such a chicken$#!+ regarding a rematch with Capa? It's like "wow, I beat Capa...hmmm, don't want this to be considered a fluke. I know! I'll never play him again for the world championship and one day he'll die!! Sweet!! Now I can be considered as good as him one day."
I think Morphy and Alekhine are the greatest.they would have eaten Kaspie for breakfast had they lived in this era.
Alekhine was unbeatable in all the phases of the game:tactics,strategy,openings,preparation you name it
Then why was he such a chicken$#!+ regarding a rematch with Capa? It's like "wow, I beat Capa...hmmm, don't want this to be considered a fluke. I know! I'll never play him again for the world championship and one day he'll die!! Sweet!! Now I can be considered as good as him one day."
Reminds me of a certain american...
I think Morphy and Alekhine are the greatest.they would have eaten Kaspie for breakfast had they lived in this era.
Alekhine was unbeatable in all the phases of the game:tactics,strategy,openings,preparation you name it
Then why was he such a chicken$#!+ regarding a rematch with Capa? It's like "wow, I beat Capa...hmmm, don't want this to be considered a fluke. I know! I'll never play him again for the world championship and one day he'll die!! Sweet!! Now I can be considered as good as him one day."
Reminds me of a certain american...
Good one,man
.The American who made a myth of his absence.So now his fans can write he would beat this one,he would crush that one...but in fact...he rather ran away.
I think Morphy and Alekhine are the greatest.they would have eaten Kaspie for breakfast had they lived in this era.
Alekhine was unbeatable in all the phases of the game:tactics,strategy,openings,preparation you name it
Then why was he such a chicken$#!+ regarding a rematch with Capa? It's like "wow, I beat Capa...hmmm, don't want this to be considered a fluke. I know! I'll never play him again for the world championship and one day he'll die!! Sweet!! Now I can be considered as good as him one day."
he wasn't afraid of Capa.they merely couldn't agree on the terms of the rematch.Capa wanted fewer games to be played,and Alekhine wanted the rematch to be exactly like the first match (unlimited games).by the time Capa was ready for a rematch,Alekhine was already involved with a match with Bogolyubov.
Take any top 10 player today and they beat Capablanca hands down.
I measure champions based on how much they towered above their competition. By this measure, the top 3 should be Kasparov, Fischer, and Capablanca.
I wouldn't say Kasparov towered over Karpov I would say he was better by the tiniest of margins.
How did Capablanca tower over either Alekhine or Lasker?
Fischer recused himself, he was towering in the early 70's but a three year champion just can't be the greatest.
For me it has to be Botvinnik and Kasparov based on just being able to win time and time again against incredible competition, Botvinnik had more competition but he did lose some.
Alekhine and Lasker were Capa's only competition right? Same with Kasparov! The only opponent he ever played was Karpov, and he barely beat the putz! What a terrible champion Kasparov was.
I guess this response are for those that have some doubt about how Capablanca as not even worthy of top 10...there was a response on here somewhere that says he would only be in the top 50 at best. I found an article online that was done by somebody studying the greatest players of the game, here's the link; http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455
I found it very interesting (and maybe you may as well) and maybe can shed some light on why I think that Capa was the best and like I stated before, he's #1 in my book. I think it makes for good reading even if you do not agree with me about Capa or the article.
Here's a short paragraph from the article: "Generally, our computer analysis seems to have produced sensible results that can be nicely interpreted by a chess expert. Anyway, many will find some of the results quite surprising. The winner according to the main criterion, where we measured average deviations between evaluations of played moves and best evaluated moves according to the computer, is Jose Raul Capablanca, the 3rd World Champion."
Even using Chessmetrics, Capablanca was in the top 5 for a 15 year span...I know that most people do not view using these type of comparison a good way to determine the best and isn't considered a good way to "argue" who is best.
Agreed
That means Capablanca would learn the most using Deep Rybka 4 since he thinks like a computer. That means he would get the most out of using a computer for analysis as a child in the modern age. That means he'd destroy everyone like it was 1919.
Didn't Botvinnik (whose career and life spanned every champ through Kasparov except Steinitz) say Capablanca was the best? Losing to Alekhine isn't too bad when you don't prepare.
Anand IS the second greatest player of all time if you are measuring only playing strength at their peak performances. Older players had far less knowledge about the game than modern players. In fact, I'd wager that the world's current top 20 or so could easily smash players such as alekhine, morphy, et all had they played each other in their peak. Naturally, the next criteria would be their performance vs their peers. However, this is also ridiculously inaccurate as it was much harder back then to become better, the geographic region of the chess playing world was miniscule compared to today, which all essentially points to playing vs a relatively weak set of opponents. Meaning that it is impossible to claim someone like Morphy was a better player than Anand simply because he managed to dominate his consequentely weaker peers.
Sure, but that's not a fair comparison at all. Were Bohr, Maxwell or Einstein smarter than Newton just because they got to stand on Newton's shoulders?
Let's not forget Da Vinci lived over 500 years ago and there aren't too
many people as smart or talented as him walking around today.
Anand IS the second greatest player of all time if you are measuring only playing strength at their peak performances. Older players had far less knowledge about the game than modern players. In fact, I'd wager that the world's current top 20 or so could easily smash players such as alekhine, morphy, et all had they played each other in their peak. Naturally, the next criteria would be their performance vs their peers. However, this is also ridiculously inaccurate as it was much harder back then to become better, the geographic region of the chess playing world was miniscule compared to today, which all essentially points to playing vs a relatively weak set of opponents. Meaning that it is impossible to claim someone like Morphy was a better player than Anand simply because he managed to dominate his consequentely weaker peers.
Morphy lived and grew up in a chess-deprived region of the world and still managed to crush everyone easily on the other side. His opponents were only weaker in the sense that he dominated them so thoroughly and that future champions had those games to study and advance general chess theory.
In 150 years, 1900-level players will be claiming to play better than Anand is today because he beat "weaker peers", but nobody dominated their competition in the manner that Morphy did.
Certainly, Morphy, Alekhine and other old champs would get crushed by modern players because of the advantage of having modern knowledge, but that is like saying a top 10% student in a quantum physics class is a superior physicist compared to Einstein because s/he would beat Einstein on a Harvard modern physics exam, but to me it is quite irrelevant to the discussion of who is "better" at physics or chess because comparisons need to be made relative to the players' era and general knowledge of the time. If Anand were in Morphy's shoes, do you think he would dominate the competition so easily? How about if Morphy were in Anand's shoes?
Americans are rarely world chess champions, but those that have been (Morphy, Capablanca, and Fischer) have crushed their competition very thoroughly.
Fischer was a much stronger player than Marshall. Longevity doesn't equate to strength.
Lol-typical American. Thinks Fischer was the best there ever was. He was good don't get me wrong but Kasparov and Capablanca are simply in another league altogether. So fischer beat Spassky big deal- he didin't have the stones to duke it out with Karpov or Kasparov because he knew he would have lost. And that's the end of it.
I believe your anti-American sentiments comes from the recent memory of the USA crushing Spain 2-0 in the 2009 Confederations Cup. I'm right aren't I? (=
Sorry to break it to you but Im not really from Spain and in any case it wouldn't matter if I was. Fischer is still second to Kasparov and possibly Capablanca. End of story.