However, what I think op meant was the potential. For example, fischer would have been much stronger with today's resources. Talent is the basis of this kind of questions
Who is the best player of all time?
Sort:
5 days ago
0
#23
infernal_annihilator wrote:
However, what I think op meant was the potential. For example, fischer would have been much stronger with today's resources. Talent is the basis of this kind of questions
Laszlo Polgar was able to demonstrate that Chess ability is almost entirely trained leaving little room for the role of innate talent.
If you want to be a great Chess player enough from an early age and have a suitably nurturing environment then it's achievable for the majority.
sadly computers haven’t quite caught up with Mikhail Tal’s creativity yet.
CraigIreland wrote:
infernal_annihilator wrote:
However, what I think op meant was the potential. For example, fischer would have been much stronger with today's resources. Talent is the basis of this kind of questions
Laszlo Polgar was able to demonstrate that Chess ability is almost entirely trained leaving little room for the role of innate talent.
If you want to be a great Chess player enough from an early age and have a suitably nurturing environment then it's achievable for the majority.
But then again, there's no certain way of knowing how well a player could develop considering their playing styles and personality to be constant, which is what makes this interesting.
For example, paul Morphy was able to destroy everyone during his time with a strategy that was kind of ahead of his time.(Most masters during that time believed in attacking with no other consideration)
Now consider the same morphy in the modern era. He was somehow ahead of everyone during his era. Will he be able to repeat it again, or would the constantly increasing resources and research in chess increase his competition?
he might have decided to play football, with all the money in it now.
Leftehnuhnt-Lmao wrote:
he might have decided to play football, with all the money in it now.
Lol, but he was american..so no I think.
4 days ago
0
#29
Morphy was not only a child prodigy but a gentleman from New Orleans, he was from a prominent family and did not play Chess for money. That is why Staunton who cared about the money seemed to dodge their match. Anderrsen agreed to play for just pride. Morphy would pay you to play him, but not take money for playing. He wanted to be a Lawyer and start a firm. He had obtained his educational requirements but there was an age restriction. While waiting to be old enough his Uncle convinced him to go play at the American Chess Congress in New York, where he destroyed everyone including the prominent German masters there. Later the Europeans got him to visit Europe where he defeated the European Champion Anderrsen and Staunton from England dodged the match he supposedly was trying to set up. Morphy was 21 at the time. He then went home and mostly quit chess to become a lawyer. He kept trying to open a law practise but they failed. Possibly due to his celebrity in chess. His family was quite wealthy and his father had been a Louisiana Supreme Court Justice so he did not NEED to work to live. He died at the age of 47 after entering a cold bath after a long walk in the heat causing a brain congestion.
4 days ago
0
#30
When Morphy was 9 years old, General Winfield Scott, who was on his way to the Mexican War, stopped in New Orleans. He was considered to be at least by himself a strong chess player and requested to be set up with a strong player to play against. They brought in 9 year old Paul Morphy causing General Scott to become indignant thinking they were mocking him. They assured him they were not mocking him but were giving him the strongest opponent they knew.
Morphy destroyed the General in 2 games, the second game he announced a forced checkmate after only six moves had been played.
strong chess player eh? gets mated in 6 moves!
4 days ago
0
#32
That is a testament to how strong Morphy was even at age 9.
And as to your comment... Alireza Firouzja lost in 9 moves to Fabiano Caruana in 9 moves during the champions chess tour.
4 days ago
0
#33
And he wasn't mated in 6 moves, Morphy announced a forced mate line after 6 moves.
4 days ago
0
#34
There's no real contest. Fischer learnt everything there was to know about Chess at the time. Carlsen has learnt all that and very much more. Carlsen is much better than Fischer was at his peak. A better question is, what rank would Fischer be if you were able to take him at his peak and put him in the modern game?
Fair point and an interesting question. I think he'll be somewhere in the top 20 or perhaps even 10 with current resources.