Tal didn't face weaker players. He played the way he did against the best players of his time. Not fair to bring up modern players. Don't think Carslen has the same tactical vision. Wesley so is more aggressive.
Michael Tal: Actually the best attacking player?
Sort:
Apr 20, 2017
0
#23
Define "best attacking player"
-Is he the one who finds crazy ways (often unsound) to complicate the position and try to get an attack?
-Is he the one who attacks only when the position calls for it and after the attack is launched there is no hope?
kingofshedinjas wrote:
Define "best attacking player"
-Is he the one who finds crazy ways (often unsound) to complicate the position and try to get an attack?
-Is he the one who attacks only when the position calls for it and after the attack is launched there is no hope?
I'm not sure which one Tal fits into. But I am wondering whether Tal's attacking/tactical style is suppressed by players who have great positional understanding. For example, Karpov never lost to Tal in the 20 games they played.
It takes two to tango. And I believe that Tal's great attacking games are a product of bad defence rather than extraordinary attacking ability.
As I said before, would Tal ever be able to even get into a position to pull of an extraordinary attack against a suppressive positional player like Carlsen or Karpov?
Apr 20, 2017
0
#25
Tal couldn't get anywhere against Carlsen or Karpov or Korchnoi or Seirawan. But the things he did over the board are still pretty mindboggling.
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
kingofshedinjas wrote:
Define "best attacking player"
-Is he the one who finds crazy ways (often unsound) to complicate the position and try to get an attack?
-Is he the one who attacks only when the position calls for it and after the attack is launched there is no hope?
I'm not sure which one Tal fits into. But I am wondering whether Tal's attacking/tactical style is suppressed by players who have great positional understanding. For example, Karpov never lost to Tal in the 20 games they played.
It takes two to tango. And I believe that Tal's great attacking games are a product of bad defence rather than extraordinary attacking ability.
As I said before, would Tal ever be able to even get into a position to pull of an extraordinary attack against a suppressive positional player like Carlsen or Karpov?
I guess this is the consensus on this.
It might be interesting to run some of his games through a computer analysis.
PawnosaurusRex wrote:
It might be interesting to run some of his games through a computer analysis.
I'm surprised that it has never been done.
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
I just don't understand why Carlsen wouldn't be able to do what Tal did. I think he's just more risk-averse. It should be noted that Tal also played against weaker players. I doubt that his attacks would have been successful against modern players, or better, modern players would never allow him to get into position where he is tactically able to devise such attacks.
When Carlsen has the longest unbeaten streak in top level Grandmaster chess...and the second longest unbeaten streak in top level Grandmaster Chess, we can compare him to the great man who was Tal.
Sometimes when a player creates a mystique, a story so pervasive that it is known to all chessplayers, it doesn't really matter if we run their games through a computer. If you run Carlsen's games through Stockfish on a high level computer, sure, I'm sure his moves would be more "accurate" and "perfect." And no one gives a shit. When everyone thinks of Defence, of the great rock of chessplaying, they think of Petrosian. When they think of attack, vicious, violent, crazy, horrifying Attack, they think of Tal, and Morphy. These players moved people. They created a legend with their play. When programmers create crazy, aggressive styles for their engines, they don't call the engine "Carlsen style" or "X GM who attacks" style. They call them TAL, because everyone knows what that means. When I hear some journalist say "GM Bobbidy Bob Nodody from Bum Fu**ed Egypt is known to be a great, vicious attacking player, ohhhh they better look out." I think, "Dude, shut up. He's not an attacking player. TAL was an attacking player. "
i prefer to force and threaten.
About great attackers. Tal is the classic one. Kasparov was great. In our times Carlsen and Nakamura is the first that pops up in my mind. The modern super-GMs plays with less risk than Tal, and therefore the attacking chances doesn't come very often. You must be a super-terrific attacker to get a winning attack against players like Anish Giri. The most fun attacks comes when both players attacks hard and fearless.
Tal Once beat Karpov with sacrifice. I believe Tal still famous as the Most Fierce Attacking Player of All Time.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067017
No, It was
Josh Capablanca.
I've recently come around some great videos on a man called Alexei Shirov. A very exciting attacking player.
I would assume that not many have heard of this individual before, but like Paul Morphy, a lack of renown does not need to translate to a lack of Chessing brilliance.
Shirov has come up with some truly memorable games. I encourage you all to study them.
Nov 29, 2017
0
#37
Nezhmetdinov was an exceptional attacking player. You can see his biography here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Io7jbHsYs&t=3s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fod6_K8ofY&t=164s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo8hTNeJ3rw
He was once one of Tal's trainer.
FaceCrusher wrote:
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
I just don't understand why Carlsen wouldn't be able to do what Tal did. I think he's just more risk-averse. It should be noted that Tal also played against weaker players. I doubt that his attacks would have been successful against modern players, or better, modern players would never allow him to get into position where he is tactically able to devise such attacks.
When Carlsen has the longest unbeaten streak in top level Grandmaster chess...and the second longest unbeaten streak in top level Grandmaster Chess, we can compare him to the great man who was Tal.
That's funny
Mikhail Botvinnik called Mikhail Tal a genius, a positional genius. Tal's combinations weren't always 100 per cent sound, but very often they were just that. Perfectly sound. The point that Botvinnik made was simply that to be a really great attacking player you also have to have an excellent positional understanding. Twice in his career, Tal went through undefeated streaks of between 80 and a 100 games. Let that sink in for a bit, the 'world's greatest attacking player' twice went five, six tournaments in a row without even one defeat.
The reason Carlsen isn't playing like Tal, is not because chess has changed and developed - there are players who are as fearless as Tal around today, Shirov has already been mentioned, Mamedyarov is another, Topalov at his peak wasn't far off either - but a matter of personal style and psyche. Carlsen has an extremely strong will to win, but his mentality would probably not sit well with a Tal-like playing style. Simply put, he hasn't got the equanamity to lead his opponent onto a path not wide enough for both players, a place where 2 + 2 = 5.
I just don't understand why Carlsen wouldn't be able to do what Tal did. I think he's just more risk-averse. It should be noted that Tal also played against weaker players. I doubt that his attacks would have been successful against modern players, or better, modern players would never allow him to get into position where he is tactically able to devise such attacks.