Yereslov wrote:
It's a fair assessment that neither Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov, nor Tal could hold a candle to either Rubinstein, Botvinnik, Alekhine, or Capablanca.
Possibly the silliest comment ever written on the site.
I thought this was the silliest ?
There is "chess intelligence", and then there is "general" intelligence.
In the opening no intelligence is required. Books have been written on almost every variation. All one has to do is memorize a few lines.
"In the opening no intelligence is required."
that made my day just now.
Yereslov wrote:
It's a fair assessment that neither Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov, nor Tal could hold a candle to either Rubinstein, Botvinnik, Alekhine, or Capablanca.
Possibly the silliest comment ever written on the site.
No, perhaps the truest. Rubinstein and Capablanca had something the newer generation didn't: raw talent.
as demonstrated by the alekhine-capablanca match, Capablanca could not continue to compete at his former level as chess got more complicated. This is the case for many other old champions. Chess theory has changed significantly over the years. Objectively speaking, any modern grandmaster could destroy any of the ancient masters. New opening lines and computer analysis have advanced opening preparation tremendously (except Carlsen, he just knows enough to survive the opening and then win in the middlegame. that is a discussion for another thread.).
Tal the Magnificent.
Remember first of all that Tal had health problems from very early on, and so never really lived up to his potential. But Tal was the one to defeat the "unbeatable" Botvinnik, and he did so with a wild attacking game that most thought was long dead since the romantic era of swashbuckling early chess. To succeed with such a style against a player as solid as Botvinnik is the modern equivalent of outthinking Fritz tactically.
Also, Tal is the only player to have finished his life career with a positive record versus Fischer.
I think that, in the end, Tal often goes under the radar in all-time great lists for the reason that he wasn't desperate to win from a psychological perspective the way players like Fischer and Botvinnik were. Tal had fun and just liked to play, which sometimes meant he lost games he should have won.
Judit Polgar plays similarly and is one of my favorites among modern players. She is fearless and highly creative in her games and was the first player to break Fischer's record for youngest GM. Bravo, Judit!
Tal the Magnificent.
Remember first of all that Tal had health problems from very early on, and so never really lived up to his potential. But Tal was the one to defeat the "unbeatable" Botvinnik, and he did so with a wild attacking game that most thought was long dead since the romantic era of swashbuckling early chess. To succeed with such a style against a player as solid as Botvinnik is the modern equivalent of outthinking Fritz tactically.
Also, Tal is the only player to have finished his life career with a positive record versus Fischer.
I think that, in the end, Tal often goes under the radar in all-time great lists for the reason that he wasn't desperate to win from a psychological perspective the way players like Fischer and Botvinnik were. Tal had fun and just liked to play, which sometimes meant he lost games he should have won.
Judit Polgar plays similarly and is one of my favorites among modern players. She is fearless and highly creative in her games and was the first player to break Fischer's record for youngest GM. Bravo, Judit!
all true. also, a month before he died, and very ill (he was currently hospitalized), Tal played in the Moscow blitz tournament and beat KASPAROV to win.
Morphy.
He stomped over the world's best players of his time. Dethroned the unanimous world champion at the time with ease. Also Staunton watched him play and avoided playing him at all costs. ELO rated 2690 based on a five year average, though his playing strength in my opinion was higher.
Some people don't know that Morphy adjusted his moves based on who was watching his matches.. sometimes playing "weaker" moves in order to bait opponents into playing him later. This undoubtedly skewed the estimates of his playing strength.
If I had to name three it would be Morphy, Fischer, Kasparov
It a wonder you are still here. Let's see how long you could last as the El Rat (Ratatouille )
Ratatouille was (or still is) a member here but got muzzled for speaking just like you.
... As for rating inflation I believe it does exist and apparently you do not . You obviously put more faith/importance in ratings than I do so IF Karpov was so much better than Fischer why didnt he even manage to beat Fischer's peak rating ?! The answer is simple , either Karpov wasnt as good as you believe OR ratings are not so important as you , and others , seem to think . I also don't believe Fischer was afraid of Karpov , he may indeed have been afraid of what the " soviets " would stoop to to insure a Karpov victory though . Ofcourse this fear may simply be paranoia which Fischer is famous for . Fischer also expected , I believe , FIDE to succumb to his every wish after he became WC and when they wouldn't he just decided to quit . If what Korchnoi said of Karpov is true then your support of Karpov is questionable , given your condemnation of Fischer . Ofcourse we don't know if what Korchnoi said of Karpov is true or not ... do we ?
Stating that the ratings are accurate and there has not been rating inflation is not the same thing as saying that ratings can perfectly predict future matches. Ratings reflect past performances, and from those performances we can state with some confidence the probable result of a future match between two players. Statistically, a 5 point rating difference is insignificant.
This seems to be the mistake that you have made: you see that others disagree with you about rating inflation and therefore presume that rating is all that matters to people who disagree with you.
If anyone said, Mr. Houdini or Chuck Norris is the best player, I'll give it a +1
For quality of play Anand was best.
(i.e. Houdini at 20 plies).
vishwa nathan anand my super hero !!!
hooz dis now ?
which is this language ?
Chuck Norris once tried to beat Gary Kasparov in a game of chess. When he realized he had been mated, he immediately won the game with a roundhouse kick to Gary's face. No one else has ever won a game by being checkmated. Therefore, Chuck Norris is the best player in history. And since Chuck Norris will never die, he will always be the best.
P.S. Anyone who disagrees with this post will have their name and address sent to Chuck Norris.
Anand is the Excellent player!
But u can't say he is the best in the world and even compare to BoBBy Fischer!!
Petrosian is considered one of the hardest to beat. However, some games, after he was happy with his position, he would sac spectacularly, like Tal but sound. He also pioneered the positional exchange sac. Not to shortchange Tal, who has the most entertaining games of any chess player.