I really don't have a good choice about who is the greatest but I think Carlson is making his way to being one of the best
WHO IS THE GREATEST CHESS PLAYER OF ALL TIME? Defend your answer...
Sort:
It must be Tal as it is only logical.
The most feared by his opponents.
Might even be the player that has won the most games by Resignation!
Feb 26, 2013
0
#144
Imagine a 12 game match between Capablanca and Fischer.
Capablanca as White starts with 1.e4 and Fischer trots out the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn. Capablanca has no clue what to do and loses quickly. (Don't believe that? See what happened in game one of the Capa-Alekhin match).
Game 2, Fischer starts out with the Spanish and grinds out a nice quiet win with impeccable technique.
Capa is now down 0-2. He switches to 1.d4, which he will play for the rest of the match. Fischer wins game 3 with a brilliant Modern Benoni, placing his N on h5 in the early middle game.
Capa, as Black in game 4 stops the bleeding. In a complex Spanish game, he survives to a draw.
Game 5, Capa is once again on the ropes, this time on the white side of a Grunfeld, but barely escapes a drawn endgame.
Game 6, Capa succumbs to Fischer's Spanish torture.
Half way through the match the score is 5-1 for Fischer.
Fischer now goes into a holding pattern. He plays a Queen's Gambit by transposition. Capablanca, relatively comfortable for the first time in the match, still only draws.
Capa as White now has to face a King's Indian. He plays a fianchetto variation and barely survives.
Fischer, as white, needs just half a point to win the match. He plays a Spanish Exchange variation. In a totally winning position, he offers a draw, which is accepted.
The final score: 6.5-2.5
Honestly, the Capablanca of the 1920s is no match for Fischer in the 1970s and Fischer of the 1970s would be no match for the best players today. Chess really has changed.
Wow, actually that's a really nice imaginary Fischer-Capa match.
Feb 26, 2013
0
#146
Pauljtx, thank you for that long, involved post. Is there any way you can put it in a pgn file so that we can follow the moves and variations more easily?
Feb 26, 2013
0
#147
waffllemaster wrote:
Wow, actually that's a really nice imaginary Fischer-Capa match.
Thanks Waffle.
I won't do a Fischer-Kasparov match because I don't want to offend people's religious beliefs about Fischer's immaculate play.
I noticed that Chess.com must have an open bar somewhere here. The things i am reading from some people here. They must be drinking.
"Nobody here is drinking anything stronger than water with lemon" Ok then explain comment 174 as his imagination is off the charts. Where they get the lemons .... from Mars?
Feb 26, 2013
0
#149
I am not going to post any games but i would have to say Gary Kasparov because he was clearly the best player in the world for many, many years. He did not only do well in matches, he did well in tournaments. His contributions to the game beyond just playing, especially his work with kids has to be noted.
I think Kasparov was in fact what all of us Americans wished Fischer had been.
Feb 26, 2013
0
#151
Interesting article, cubis. I've read that as computers have improved, their evaluations of the best players have also changed. The more complex games of today's players is better understood by engines now than in 2006. But even now, try to get an engine to understand the ideas behind the King's Indian and you will see a basic problem that any computer evaluation has.
The article you quote was dated 2006. I wonder what the best engines think of history's best players now.
Did i hear somebody ask for a Fish sandwich? He said something about Kasparov and then some fish sandwich. A simple fish sandwich.
cubis wrote:
how is that of any value, im not a computer expert but isnt crafty weaker then world champions?
Bobby Fischer :)
I second that Bobby Fischer
chessman1504 wrote:
I would say Kasparov. Kasparov was...
1. World champion for 15 years.
2. The first to break the 2800 barrier.
3. The youngest classical world champion ever.
4. Won 10 super-GM tournaments in a row(!)
5. Didn't lose an event from December 1981 to February 1991.
6. Had the world number 1 rating for 255 months, by far the longest of all time.
7. Did all of this with an aggressive slightly risky style, giving his games a satisfying artistic effect (well, for me anyway :]).
8. Was more than capable of producing positional masterpieces of the highest order (see:http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067175)
9. Was a deep analyst and researcher of the game; many opening lines bare his name, in particular.
10. Had perhaps the most interesting perspective on the world champions before him (well, he may share this distinction with Vladimir Kramnik :)).
Those are my ten reasons supporting Kasparov :)
Good answer. I also choose Kasparov
Magnus Carlsen
yeah ofc he had the most interesting perspectives, but that not hard considering that he totally made facts up (according to reviews of his books). Kasparov was still awesome but i would think Fischer was a better and deeper analysts. That being said i probably didnt honor Kasparov and his amazing work not enough.
Well Fischer was the very greatest but then i think comes Kasparov.
all in all i think Kasparov and Fischer had some similarites his pawn sack against Karpov were probably quite as suprising as Fischer pawn grab in the alekhine.
Also i like how Kasparov shows the development in the Najdorf, i just with he were just a tad more accurate. The great predecessors were an awesome idea, and probably the coolest idea ever in chess, i just wish he were more accurate then i probably buy the book and it would have been awesome.
He is very much like Fischer, Fischer didnt write what he should write and Kasparov just didnt write it good what he intended to write. I think they have many things in common.
Capaplanca is my Best at all