anyone?
Tate was a greater tactician than Magnus Carlsen
Whichever name you are now using, you as still not worth answering.
good ole @superking500
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-good-is-emory-tate

Nothing new under the sun:
https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/4xuaix/is_it_possible_that_emory_tate_was_a_better/
how are you guys not answering seriously?
We wonder too
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-magnus-really-a-sub-par-tactician
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-is-is-that-emory-tate-never-became-gm
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/sorry-i-dont-believe-there-is-such-thing-as-better-chess-players
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/magnus-true-chess-strength

Emory Tate was an incredible tactician, he often defeated GM's rated quite higher than him
True, ever since the age of 18 Carlsen has never defeated a GM rated higher than himself.
But maybe you should think about that for a second before comparing Carlsen to IM Tate. lol

Now don't get me wrong
Magnus is obviously the overall stronger/greater player. Magnus is a positional genius, but a sub par tactician
Emory Tate was an incredible tactician, he often defeated GM's rated quite higher than him
In the example game, Tate - Braunlich 2001 he sacs a knight to open the e file in a Sicilian and then plays a rook sac on e6.
Sorry, but that's not impressive. Both of those are extremely common.
Sure it looks great to a 1200, but there's a reason this guy was 2400 at his peak. Not at all comparable to the great games of great players.
Emory Tate was an incredible tactician, he often defeated GM's rated quite higher than him
True, ever since the age of 18 Carlsen has never defeated a GM rated higher than himself.
But maybe you should think about that for a second before comparing Carlsen to IM Tate. lol
Yes but carlsen is the highest rated now, so he can't possibly beat higher rates GM. So Tate is better - he was only stopped by death. Don't mess with King's logic.
Now pull up Superking500s old threads and you'll see the exact same everything. Lack of logic. Reality and evidence mean nothing. Obsession over the same few players trying to convince everyone math and results don't matter, they're still better it's just something must be wrong with the system, thats why they can't prove it, etc.
Noooooo. King questions the norms. We need king.
Now pull up Superking500s old threads and you'll see the exact same everything. Lack of logic. Reality and evidence mean nothing. Obsession over the same few players trying to convince everyone math and results don't matter, that they're still better it's just something must be wrong with the system, thats why they can't prove it, etc.
He just kept running in a 50 IQ circle.
yes but he's my hero
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/kotf-forget-kotl

Tate was great to watch in the Washington DC area. His positions were consistently mind-numbingly complicated. Maybe that's why he collected so many scalps. Good to see that the USA Armed Forces can still produce excellence in some things, other than killing.
P.S. -- Tate doesn't rank with ANY of the Super GMs, either today or in the past. Sorry to Inform.
Now don't get me wrong
Magnus is obviously the overall stronger/greater player. Magnus is a positional genius, but a sub par tactician
Emory Tate was an incredible tactician, he often defeated GM's rated quite higher than him
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emory_Tate