I always enjoy it when my opinions are described as "only an opinion", compared to the other poster's "facts".
What makes Lasker the most successful of all World Champions in your opinion?
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
Sort:
Well, he played stupid moves and was still able to beat people with them. That's got to count for something.
Jan 7, 2016
0
#1344
Discogambits wrote:
The fact remains that Lasker is the longest-lived and most successful of all World Champions, as well as one of the very strongest players of all time. Therefore, even your favorite Garry comes second to the Great Emanuel when it comes to most successful World Champion of all time and being the longest in number one.
So what you're saying is:
The fact is Lasker is the longest-lived and most successful world champion. Therefore he is the most successful world champion and spent the longest time as number one.
Your insight is staggering... but in a "you've had too much to drink" sort of way.
SmyslovFan, regarding the world championship matches played by Lasker, Karpov, Kasparov during their years of tenure, allow me to say you got it all wrong. Lasker played six matches. Karpov, four.(1978,1981,1984,1985.)Kasparov five.(1986,1987,1990,1995,2000.)Therefore, your statement that both Karpov and Kasparov played more world championship matches during their years of tenure than Lasker is inaccurate..In fact the opposite is true.
Jan 7, 2016
0
#1346
SmyslovFan wrote:
I always enjoy it when my opinions are described as "only an opinion", compared to the other poster's "facts".
What makes Lasker the most successful of all World Champions in your opinion?
He had the longest reign, but you've already dismissed that with good evidence.
My question: who calls him "the most successful"?
How about Botvinnik who lost and regained the title more than anyone else? Success is not how often you fall, but how quickly you rise again. Botvinnik wins on this count.
Ziryab wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
I always enjoy it when my opinions are described as "only an opinion", compared to the other poster's "facts".
What makes Lasker the most successful of all World Champions in your opinion?
He had the longest reign, but you've already dismissed that with good evidence.
My question: who calls him "the most successful"?
How about Botvinnik who lost and regained the title more than anyone else? Success is not how often you fall, but how quickly you rise again. Botvinnik wins on this count.
Botvinnik is an outstanding World Champion by any standard. But like Karpov, he was heavily supported by the Soviet state. (Botvinnik was a personal friend of Stalin's).Bronstein in particular had a very bad experience in his match against him. It is not too far fetched to say that if Botvinnik didn't like you you could be in trouble.In reading Tal's fantastic 1960 Tal- Botvinnik match book, one can sense the kind of enforced "respect" players like Tal were taught to have for Botvinnik.A great player,but a heavily privileged player too.Just like Karpov.Personally,I acknowledge that these two were extremely strong players but I do not admire them in the manner I admire Lasker,Capa,Fischer,Tal.
Jan 7, 2016
0
#1348
Neither Capa nor Fischer were able to defend the title even once. It's hard to call someone who couldn't defend the title a successful champion.
SmyslovFan,despite the fact that you may not especially like Capa and Fischer, please remember that these two are widely considered the best/greatest players of all time.And no need to distort the facts.Capa was simply denied a rematch whereas Fischer decided he didn't want to play chess any more.
Jan 7, 2016
0
#1350
Fischer was indeed one of the greatest players of all time. He was a terrible world champion.
Capablanca was seemingly invincible. He trounced Lasker and won several important tournaments as world champion. But he went six years without a title defense. When he finally accepted a challenge, he lost. Capablanca was of course one of the greatest players of all time. But he wasn't a good champion. Alekhine's treatment of Capa was actually similar to the way Capa had treated potential challengers.
Chess fans have been robbed of some amazing games because of the behavior of Capablanca and Fischer as world champions.
Again, I acknowledge they were two of the greatest players of all time. They were not great champions.
I think Magnus is a great champion. He plays world chess tour, and a lot of other games and defends actively both his World nr 1 spot and tiles, both longchess and rapid. Before Team EM in Reykjavik he hired , payed by himself, Boris Gelfand to teach the Norwegian team chess.
Jan 8, 2016
0
#1353
Agreed, Djonni. We've been living in the golden age of chess in recent years. Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand and Carlsen have all been active champions. Carlsen has been particularly active, to the point of being criticised for playing too many games!
As you understand, I do not know enough to tell if the ancient top-players was better or worse than current Gm´s,
but one thing I totally agree is that our age is a golden age. Look at the top 100 of today. I think they would outplay the top 100 in all previous ages. The number of fantastic players is huge these days, and there are more coming up, in China, India, Norway, Russia, Usa, Germany and a lot of other places.
Rumo75 wrote:
@ Phren: Pointless yes, irrational no. Of course this is a purely philosophical question which can never be accurately answered. But being someone who has spent quite some amount of lifetime studying chess, I find this curiosity quite reasonable, how the greats of the past would score against today's players. And I don't seem to be the only one, if I remember correctly it was Nunn who looked at past tournament games to estimate the players' ratings by today's standards.
@ MorphysRevenge: In a match I would lose. For several reasons, I am way past my prime, being 40 now and having had my best results 12 years ago. My Elo today is around 2250. Of course I understand chess much better than back then, but I spoil too many good positions due too stupid oversights. Another reason is that I am not a good defender. Morphy's style would not suit me very well.
On the other hand I know FIDE-masters who I think would have good chances, there's one guy in particular that I would bet money on, although he is rated below 2350 atm. That's because he's tough as nails and hardly ever loses, even against 2600+ opposition. If they cannot breach his French, how would a person from the 19th century stand a chance?
In singular games I would surely have my chances, as I've scored full and half points against players who were certainly stronger than Morphy.
Rumo75, what is your exact current FIDE rating and what do you think the match score would be in a 10 game match vs Morphy?
pfren wrote:
Well... to answer your question:
Get a GOOD collection of Morphy games, where his opponents aren't total patzers (there are quite a few of them) and replay them. Valeri Beim's book "Morphy: A modern perspective" is an ideal source.
What do you see there?
A brilliant mind, with positional understanding way ahead of his era, who occasionally plays speculative moves, sub-par ones, bad ones, and a few blunders.
What chances would you give him in modern era chess?
I am sure that the right, and only answer, is "we don't know".
Pfren, what is your current FIDE rating and what do you think your score would be against Morphy in a 10 game match?
"despite the fact that you may not especially like Capa and Fischer, please remember that these two are widely considered the best/greatest players of all time"
Well, some prefer Kasparov or Lasker. Capa was obviously one of the greatest ever as well, but I think the case against him as greatest of the greatest is that he scored less impressive results as World Champion than some others. The four strongest events he played were: New York 1924 - 1.5 point behind Lasker, Moscow 1925 - 2 points behind Bogo, New York 1927 - clear first, title match against Alekhine - loss 3-6 in wins.
Those are not bad results, but to be counted as better than all others in the history of the game the results will have to be pretty exceptional. To me you can't get there without being the best player in the world for decades, winning several title matches, and score many tournament wins against the strongest possible opposition.
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
trysts wrote:
Morphy would have been rated 2512 and Steinitz would have been rated 2531.
Steinitz had some trouble against Chigorin, Lasker (the 19th century's undisputedly best player) toppled him yet would be blown off the board by today's top class calculators. Lasker sometimes played bad moves on purpose because of psychological reasons. Top players today play psychological moves but don't gamble on a move they know is bad but rather would pick something rated +.80 instead of +1.00 if they think the second best move gives the opponent far more room to err given their disposition and style.
Steinitz was overconfident in some bad and passive positions (Soviet Middlegame Technique mentions a cable match they had and Chigorin's concrete approach was correct) disregarding dynamics sometimes. No modern player over 2000 does such a thing.
Lasker would be blown off the board by today's best?
Hmmm, I wonder what a GM would say about that statement.
Magikstone wrote:
" You guys are incredible. Morphy? Morphy? You really believe in your heart, that Morphy could beat a present day 2400? Any chess.com with a blitz rating above 1600 would easily give Morphy a serious challenge. Morphy was the best player at a time everyone was an amatuer. It's very dishonest to say Morphy could beat me with knight odds. I bet Nakamura can't even beat me if he were to be a knight down. You guys... "
You were delusional in 2015. Are you any wiser now, 9 years later?
0110001101101000 wrote:
Discogambits wrote:
The fact remains that Lasker is the longest-lived and most successful of all World Champions, as well as one of the very strongest players of all time. Therefore, even your favorite Garry comes second to the Great Emanuel when it comes to most successful World Champion of all time and being the longest in number one.
So what you're saying is:
The fact is Lasker is the longest-lived and most successful world champion. Therefore he is the most successful world champion and spent the longest time as number one.
Your insight is staggering... but in a "you've had too much to drink" sort of way.
Lasker didn't really have a strong challenger for various reasons.
the rating today of a top player in the late 1800s would be the same as the ratings of top players today.
SmyslovFan wrote:
" Lasker avoided playing the best players for most of his tenure as World Champion. Rubinstein, Pillsbury and Nimzowitsch all would have had good chances against Lasker, and would have at least provided many memorable clashes.
Lasker played fewer world championship matches (seven) in 27 years than Kasparov or Karpov (eight each) did in their shorter tenures. And he hand-picked his opponents.
Lasker deserves to be remembered for his great chess, but his tenure as world champion was artificially extended by his reluctance to defend regularly and by his requirements for challengers.
It seems strange to say this, but the chess World Championship really did benefit from the creation of an independent organization that created a fairer way for candidates to qualify to play world championship matches. Yeah, FIDE has its problems. Yeah, sometimes a Gelfand qualifies. But the best candidate usually triumphs. "
I agree that Lasker' s 27 year long reign isn't as impressive as say, Kasparov's shorter reign. As you've said it was artificially extended and it was 11 years between his last successful title defence and the time he actually lost it.
Not sure Nimzowitsch belongs in the same group as Rubinstein as Pillsbury though. I believe that he reached his peak in the 1920s and that it was Capablanca and later Alekhine that he wanted to challenge.
SmyslovFan, interesting though I find your opinion on Lasker's tenure,it is still only an opinion.The fact remains that Lasker is the longest-lived and most successful of all World Champions, as well as one of the very strongest players of all time. Therefore, even your favorite Garry comes second to the Great Emanuel when it comes to most successful World Champion of all time and being the longest in number one.