We should go more by the opinions of GM's, and Nigel Short said:
"Anybody who has seen Garry Kasparov by the swimming pool will know he is extremely hairy"
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-09-03/news/1993246095_1_garry-kasparov-chess-championship-times-chess
This can only be taken as an admission that seeing him by the swimming pool was something quite common, so he should have been swimming a lot.
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.
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.
I think it should be decided on the basis of who was the best swimmer. Fischer has gotta take it. I don't remember seeing any photos of other chess players under water. Tetsuo, do you have my back?
I'm not convinced that photo says anything about Fischer's swimming capacity, and anyway he was just under water 1970-72.