Ha ha. You are tempting me to start a thread on whether being hairy next to the swimming pool is more evidence of swimming ability than being photographed cross-legged under water in a swimming pool. I think it would be a draw, but I don't have a proof -- at least not a mathematical one.
Nono, it is not a draw, it is undetermined!
Darn, I think you've got me there. Godel's 2nd Incompleteness Theorem implies that we can't be, ummmmm, certain about determinism -- and stuff. I resign. Good night.
to exclude other opinions by saying oh he wasnt as long wc. That is the greates mindf.. ever.
really i mean that is the cheapest of all, why even start a discussion than.
Ofc Fischer had to prove to no1 he could have ruled for 30 years, but Kasparov felt inferior so he had a reason to keep on playing.
Not to mention FIscher didnt play because they didnt accept his terms
the best attacker was paul morphy from beating the masters from age of 10.
You should all know that presses like Warriors of the Mind don't just put people on their lists because they fancy them or their techinque of play. They have strict measurments they employ to make decisions, so please do not say Steinitz was underappreciated - he just wasn't upto the standards, so he didn't make on the top the list.
They tend to marginalize Stienitz, because of the way he eclipsed Fischer's 19 wins ina row.
Stienitz's crime was Outshining the Almighty Fischer. And North American historians punish such transgressions to the fullest extent possible.
There is no bias or conspiracy in between the people in the ratings! Please do not ramble.
You should all know that presses like Warriors of the Mind don't just put people on their lists because they fancy them or their techinque of play. They have strict measurments they employ to make decisions, so please do not say Steinitz was underappreciated - he just wasn't upto the standards, so he didn't make on the top the list.
So what should Steinitz have accomplished to be ranked as one of the 45 greatest players ever? Won all the matches he played for 64 years instead of just 32? Held the title until he was 87 instead of just 57? :-) Any such greatest ever ranking as the one above that places Steinitz dozens of places behind Sokolov, Boleslavsky, Kholmov and Furman is certainly underappreciating him to a ridiculous extent.
Go look up the stats and requirements they employed, fabelhaft - you'll discover its quite reasonable.
Magnus Carlsen
it has to be Aronian. I just looked at winning with the Najdorf, Amazon didnt list Aronian as author, but as Artist .
I think in 2013, you have to pick Kasparov and Karpov (and maybe a couple people like Botvinnik), due to the longevity of their extremely high rankings.
You can argue that Carlsen and Fischer are "just as good", but they don't pass the longevity test. If Fischer had defended against Karpov... well he didn't.
Some of the old world champions pass the longevity test, but chess back then was very different from post-WW2 chess, so it's hard to compare.
My guess is that in 20 years we will look back at Carlsen and count him with Karpov and Kasparov. But he has to survive and play 20 years of dominating chess to earn that.
@Agent_of_Darkness: just looking 5 minutes without bias for reviews of the book 'Warriors of the Mind' by Raymond Keene and Divinsky.
I found this link already quite revealing:
http://www.ajschess.com/lifemasteraj/bestplay_warriors.html
Kortschnoi in the top 10 is not reasonable. Kortschnoi above Alekhine and Steinitz a miracle. No doubt that Kortschnoi is a good player, but to have those other two giants of chess ranked below him is too much. Alekhine not in the top ten and behind Keres, Geller and Stein?! Even I, a total patzer, would not dare to say that.
Steinitz is not even in the top 40. Come on, between 1873 and 1893 there was none who could beat him. He has very, very good records. The man who invented positional chess, to which all other players are indebted, not in the top 40.
How much I like it that Euwe was a World Champion of Chess, I will never believe that Euwe is a better chess player than Steinitz yet much worse then Yusupov, Timman or Vaganian.
No, I can not take that book serious. Not for one moment. If there is any evidence of biased information in this thread, than is it the list in that book.
Ok lets be reasonable if we want to ask who was wc the longest it was KAsparov.
If you ask who was the greatest and best, you have to say it was Fischer.
Who was the best player is very subjective. One can argue this many ways.
Ok lets be reasonable if we want to ask who was wc the longest it was KAsparov.
If you ask who was the greatest and best, you have to say it was Fischer.
That's two wrong out of two :-)
fabelhaft wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
Ok lets be reasonable if we want to ask who was wc the longest it was KAsparov.
If you ask who was the greatest and best, you have to say it was Fischer.
That's two wrong out of two :-)
Well the second is definetly correct
Steinitz does not get the respect he deserves because, like Morphy, he played too early and while his technique was amazing compared to his peers, a class A player nowadays can look at some of his games today and go "that's a mistake". And it's just hard to call someone the greatest ever when you personally feel you could hang with them OTB and have a good shot at a draw ;). It's not a fair comparison, but there you go.
So, the earliest chess pioneers will never get full credit for their chess abilities.
In terms of greatest, I stick with Fischer. If you birthed every WC to date in complete isolation and gave them a chessboard, a database, food, water, and nothing but time and the rules of the game...then let them loose years later and had them play a tournament...Fischer would win that tournament.
He had the memory and insight, but more importantly he had the greatest will to win and work ethic. Kasparov has always had bigger aspirations than just chess, and anything that brings him acclaim and influence can be a pursuit for him. Carlsen dabbles in Poker, etc. Steinitz and Lasker played in times when there were no peers of real consequence (until Capa came along and showed Lasker what raw natural talent could do in a few years vs. decades of aggregate experience). Chess in the early days was a scholarly pursuit and sideline, not something people dedicated their lives to as they do today.
Fischer's whole life was consumed by chess even after walking away from the game. The only other things in his mind at all were his conspiracy theories and prejudices. The saying about the fine line between genius and madness very much applies to Fischer.
Ha ha. You are tempting me to start a thread on whether being hairy next to the swimming pool is more evidence of swimming ability than being photographed cross-legged under water in a swimming pool. I think it would be a draw, but I don't have a proof -- at least not a mathematical one.