So if WCC aren't a prerequisite, what would be ? or is it or should it be a requirement ? I am noticing my choices tend to be biased toward wcc's. I am actually interested in knowing what NM Reb has to say about non champs...
WHO IS THE GREATEST CHESS PLAYER OF ALL TIME? Defend your answer...
Sort:
Why don't you care what I have to say? I'm an NM too!
May 5, 2013
0
#424
Capa I left off because he missed a lot of complex tactics that are just winning for him. After reading the first of the 5 Predecessors books by Kasparov, I come to realize that people in the past were not as strong as today, and he decided to always go with the simple rather than the best. You couldn't slide anything past him, but it takes more than that if you ask me to be considered the best.
As for Fischer, I have a number of issues with putting Fischer on the list:
1. He talked a lot of trash about the opening he specifically had the most trouble beating - The French. You don't see me saying the Nimzo-Indian is unsound (for me, the hardest opening for me to beat, followed by the Slav a close second). Yet he makes these horiffic statement about the Winawer
2. One brilliant Queen Sac does not consititute the best player. He may have had the "Game" of the Century, but he surely wasn't the "Player" of the century. If Garry Kasparov was the New England Patriots, Fischer would be the Cleveland Browns. Sure he's better than David Bronstein (the UCLA Bruins), and he might have a brilliant game where he beats the Patriots, like Cleveland did a couple of years ago, but do you see Cleveland in the Superbowl? Uhm...No!
3. If you must have no spectators and specific settings of lighting, where 78 watts is too much and 76 watts is not enough, and otherwise scream bloody murder and refuse to defend your title and forfeit it to the next in line, you can't be that good!
4. He broke the law and went to Yugoslavia, at the time a forebidden country for Americans.
Bobby Fischer is the "Pete Rose" of chess. He may have been strong, but he was still an overrated good-for-nothing piece of sh*t that just wants to blame everything on everybody else and can't even stay in line with the law. Fischer was a scum bag!
May 5, 2013
0
#426
Reb wrote:
I guess its your Fischer hatred that makes you leave him off that list ? I mean considering what he did to Petrosian , and you include him on the list ...
I agree. Fischer deserves to be ~3rd-6th on the list of greatest chess players. He helped to make chess a professional sport, he dominated the game for a short period, and he inspired generations of chess players.
Fischer basically gave us the modern interpretation of how to play the Sozin, the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn variation, and the Spanish with d4. Ok, the Sozin and Najdorf Poisoned Pawn variations were pretty much defanged while Fischer was active, and the Spanish with d4 has, for now, been replaced by the Spanish with d3. Which means that his handling of the opening isn't what he will be remembered for.
Fischer showed us how to fight to the maximum for every point, to be completely objective in our chess analysis (even if it didn't carry over to any other part of his life), that Bishops really are worth more than Knights in most cases, and that the Soviet machine wasn't invincible.
He still ranks behind Kasparov, Karpov, Lasker (for his ability to remain near the top of the game for decades), perhaps Steinitz (for creating the tradition of world championship matches and being the first official world champion), and Kramnik, who defeated Kasparov in a match and unified the fractured title. I put Fischer slightly ahead of Capa, Botvinnik and Alekhine. And they are slightly ahead of Anand, Smyslov, Tal, and Petrosian.
The weakest world champion, relative to his competition was probably not Euwe, but Spassky. But every single match-play world champion deserve tremendous respect for having scaled Olympus and defeating some of the greatest players of all time to get there!
We'll soon see whether Carlsen will be able to join such legendary company.
ThrillerFan wrote:
Capa I left off because he missed a lot of complex tactics that are just winning for him.
lol
Congratulations, TF: you've managed to make an already legendarily stupid thread (and topic) even stupider.
AndyClifton wrote:
Why don't you care what I have to say? I'm an NM too!
I didn't realize it. So if you had that title, but slipped in rating, aren't you eligible to be recognized as a LifeMaster ?
I think he still has his NM title (and NM account), he's just not using it.
May 5, 2013
0
#431
I should have read all this sooner... so basically we discard Capablanca because he sucked at chess and Fischer because he had a big mouth? Makes sense to me. I guess that just leaves James Mason and Abram Model.
@ ThrillerFan
You could have atleast picked a better team. Fischer steam rolled the field in winning the world chess championship. The Browns can't even get to the super bowl...bad analogy...
Bobby Fischer didn't bet on and throw chess games...horrible comparison
The laws you are discussing, while still the law, are subjective in their morality. It is clearly obvious, not every law is righteous and shouldn't be enacted. Do we need to have a lengthy review of human history to reiterate how many times this has occured and "every" culture...? horrible disqualification on that basis....
Fischer's opening preference, defensively is irrelevant, we all have our kryptonite, even superman...disqualifying someone for not being perfect is hypocrytical. I can say the same thing about Capablanca in your post.
As a trained electrician, it is certainly plausible that Fischer did have a possible sensitivity to lighting levels and considering that from an electrical theory stand point, 77 watts will only produce so many lumens of light. You say that as if you assume that you know better than I do that changing the wattage of the lamps in the fixtures, or the ballasts and bulb combinations could make a difference for the better or worse. If it had no possible relevance at all, I would know, but to quote another person here that understands the underlying issue here....
S T O P T H E H A T E
He did say some things that were derrogatory, I suppose you doing it too, somehow makes the situation right through your own wrongs ? Wow, you and Fischer appear to have that in common...
May 5, 2013
0
#433
plenty of Criteria... domination of peers, Length of WC held, Number of title defences, Analysis compared to top engine, # of blunders/game, Tournament record during WC Reign...
May 5, 2013
0
#434
Savage wrote:
Say what you like about him, Fischer single-handedly won the world championship against the full might of the Soviet chess machine. If you don't find that amazing, you're a dim bulb.
yeah hanging out with GM's and top players in NYC during his formative years had NOTHING to do with his strength. He did it 'all by himself'...
May 5, 2013
0
#435
Savage wrote:
Inconnux wrote:
Savage wrote:
Say what you like about him, Fischer single-handedly won the world championship against the full might of the Soviet chess machine. If you don't find that amazing, you're a dim bulb.
yeah hanging out with GM's and top players in NYC during his formative years had NOTHING to do with his strength. He did it 'all by himself'...
So you're comparing a massive decades-long government-subsidized chess program in the Soviet Union, not to mention Soviet control of FIDE... with "hanging out" in NYC. Right...
If you reread what I said... I was objecting to the 'did it all by himself' which is complete nonsense. He did more than just 'hang out' with the top GMS in NYC, and to say that he developed in a vacuum is more nonsense. I know he was up against the soviet chess machine, but this does not equate to developing all by himself.
Estragon wrote:
At least from his comeback in 1970 through the Spassky match, Fischer required lighting to be 1100 lumens of indirect (flourescent) lighting, without specifying wattage. 1100 lumens is roughly daylight at noon on the equinox with a clear sky - but without the glare.
"Indirect" means diffused, as flourescent lighting usually is, through the translucent covers commonly on fixtures in public buildings, preventing glare.
If you have ever had to play a tournament game in a poorly-lit room, you would appreciate what Fischer did with his demands for optimal lighting. For that, I thank him.
Without speaking from direct experience, but similar experience, I am sure most patzers can't relate to the effects of human eyes of having to stare at a chess board so often. After a time, it is only feasible in certain circumstances for optimal performance...
May 5, 2013
0
#437
Savage wrote:
Say what you like about him, Fischer single-handedly won the world championship against the full might of the Soviet chess machine. If you don't find that amazing, you're a dim bulb.
I never base judgment on where they are from. It's an assanine comparison. That's like saying you are amazed that a Montana kid can beat kids from New York City in the National Spelling Bee contest. Come on, man!
You starting to get racial here? Because I'm not Russian, it's a miracle if I win in chess. If I'm not Black, it's amazing I can jump, let alone dunk. If I'm not White, while I can technically enter the Masters in Augusta, I have a hate target across my head. If I'm not a woman, then I must be gay if I ever do anything like Ballet or Gymnastics.
As for lighting, I have been in a place that's too dim before, but outside of that, you can put a 1000 watt bulb in the room and I'm fine. Not picky!
The 8 I listed (which are not "ranked", but rather, listed in sequence of when they either held the title or would have held the title) I would take over Fischer easily.
It's not about Fischer being strong. It's about Fischer having weak opposition in the United States, and happened to hit his stride at the right time for 1 year in 1972. Ok, you don't want to use the Cleveland Browns? Fine! Florida Marlins! (Now known as the Miami Marlins) Happened to strike gold in both 1997 and 2003 and completely flopped in 1998 and 2004!
fischer is still the best, that's all.
Here's a real list top 10. # 10. LASKER: A great champ who managed 2 hold his tittle long enough though his greatness could not b proven when he encountered a living endgame human matchine ' u know whom am refering 2' # 9. PETROSIAN: a fantastic GM who could not only fantasize his own position and make strategic plans but his opponents positions aswel, in short this master was unpredictable. # 8. ALEKHINE: a great tactician that stood out ontop in complicated positions. # 7. PAUL MORPHY: this super GM played the most dangerous moves in open positions and deserves this spot. # 6. ANAND. This indian GM is unbelievable, he plays swift moves and unpredictable attacking moves. # 5. KRAMNIK. His spot here is not at all debatable. He proved it in 2000 and this guy can nurse his advantage throughout an entire game so a single mistake against this GM would prove fatal against this GM. # 4. CAPABLANCA. oh my! This guy played simple moves and played like an engine.. Some GMs have got 2 the point where they accuse him of using a computer lol.. Very funny. His endgames where simple yet fatal i mean i dont need to explain it all, u know it # 3. KARPOV: the best positional player the world has ever seen he could wear out his opponents position slowly and steady and the advantage would then be visible to our eyes after a long strategic plan, kasparov himself comfessd that its his games against this positional specialist that made him even stronger! # 2: MIKHAIL TAL. Many dont appreciate this guy " the drunken master '' playing chess while holding a bottle of strong jack daniels lol all of a sudden Qxb2!! What! Next Bxf2!! What! Lol. Master of sacrifises! # 1: is it KASPAROV... Is it FISCHER... is it CARLSEN... HAHAHAHA!! Only GOD KNOWS!!
i wonder who authored such rankings among these champions..if it were you,then i dont believe it..your thoughts are not credible towards the matter,hehehe..id rather believe these grandmasters than you.
I was the strongest from 1964 to 1970, but in 1971 Fischer was already stronger. - Boris Spassky
I mean, most of modern chess is his offering. Myself and the rest had those moves ready for us when we started out, but it had to take someone to discover them first. Bobby Fischer was that person. He was that person for entire generations of chess players. His was a singular life in that sense. He's made it easier for us today. - Viswanathan Anand
What I admired most about him was his ability to make what was in fact so difficult look easy to us. I try to emulate him. - Magnus Carlsen
Bobby Fischer is the greatest Chess genius of all time! - Alexander Kotov
I believe that Fischer surpassed all the former and currently living grandmasters in the ability to produce and process chess ideas. - Anatoly Karpov
If only I had had my duel with Fischer, my fighting level would be of a higher order. Once I had attained and mastered such a level - a level which for Kasparov is completely unattainable - I would have recalled it whenever necessary. - Anatoly Karpov
Fischer’s beautiful chess and his immortal games will stand forever as a central pillar in the history of our game. - Garry Kasparov
The thing is, some of those players grew up with different chess technology (strength of computers, what was currently known about which openings were superior or inferior, etc.) so I would propose that your stipulations also include that they start playing at the same age with the same training schedule, chess technology, and coaches. I would also include Fischer in that list.