echecs06 wrote:
What part of FISCHER don't people understand?
Ha! Exactly...
Who was the all time best
Sort:
in terms of sheer beauty of their games it has to be fischer
Apr 8, 2011
0
#187
everybody could have been more better after the game is over, mostly if you lost:)
any player could do that great moves that bobby did
ivoryknight71 wrote:
Fischer, Capablanca, and Kasparov.
Nakamura, when it comes to blitz.
Nakamura? Really? Is that why he and Carlsen played 40 blitz games after the latest blitz WCC, which Carlsen took home with 23.5 to Nakamuras 16.5?
Fezzik wrote:
Tricklev, let's see: This same person placed Fischer ahead of Kasparov and has an American flag by his name.
Of course Nakamura is better than Aronian or Carlsen. QED
When you ask a random American "Who is the most evil man on the planet", and they respond with "Charles Manson", you can't help but shrug it off. Media is a powerful thing. While Nakamura can't really be argued for, Fischer vs Kasparov is still legitimacy.
Estragon wrote:
fyy0r wrote:
Fezzik wrote:
Tricklev, let's see: This same person placed Fischer ahead of Kasparov and has an American flag by his name.
Of course Nakamura is better than Aronian or Carlsen. QED
When you ask a random American "Who is the most evil man on the planet", and they respond with "Charles Manson", you can't help but shrug it off. Media is a powerful thing. While Nakamura can't really be argued for, Fischer vs Kasparov is still legitimacy.
Nah, Simon Cowell passed Manson years ago . . .
I agree media is a powerful thing and for that reason I am sure there are some who would tell you that Fischer is the most evil person !
Simon Cowell ? I don't even know that name so how can they be more evil than C Manson ?! 
Apr 9, 2011
0
#192
Hands down,Lasker. He held the world title for 27 years,something that no one else will ever accomplish,especially in today's chess,where it seems the average reign of the World Champion is about 1 month!
Lasker was the one who showed that chess was a fight,and that the one with better fighting nerves would prevail over the better prepared player. Lasker took Steinitz' impractical theoretical approach,and made it a practical approach. He never concerned himself with theoretical hair-splitting,but was only concerned about reaching positions that were as uncomfortable for his opponent as possible.
He was the first true chess psychologist,knowing exactly how to work on his opponent's foibles during a game. His masterpiece against Capablanca at St.Petersburrg 1914 is a prime example. Needing a win,he deliberately played one of the most drawish lines in all chess,and Capablanca,wondering what kind of prepared line the old fox had conjured up,played poorly,and lost a fabulous game.
And Lasker,despite walking away from the game for years at a time,never lost his strength. At the New York tournament of 1924,he returned from a 10 year hiatus,and seeing the new hypermodern opening systems that were being evolved for the first time,he still had no trouble in coming in a strong second. Even at the age of 67,during the Moscow tournament,he showed all the hot-shot young Russians how the game was supposed to be played.
Barghast316 wrote:
Hands down,Lasker. He held the world title for 27 years,something that no one else will ever accomplish,especially in today's chess,where it seems the average reign of the World Champion is about 1 month!
Lasker was the one who showed that chess was a fight,and that the one with better fighting nerves would prevail over the better prepared player. Lasker took Steinitz' impractical theoretical approach,and made it a practical approach. He never concerned himself with theoretical hair-splitting,but was only concerned about reaching positions that were as uncomfortable for his opponent as possible.
He was the first true chess psychologist,knowing exactly how to work on his opponent's foibles during a game. His masterpiece against Capablanca at St.Petersburrg 1914 is a prime example. Needing a win,he deliberately played one of the most drawish lines in all chess,and Capablanca,wondering what kind of prepared line the old fox had conjured up,played poorly,and lost a fabulous game.
And Lasker,despite walking away from the game for years at a time,never lost his strength. At the New York tournament of 1924,he returned from a 10 year hiatus,and seeing the new hypermodern opening systems that were being evolved for the first time,he still had no trouble in coming in a strong second. Even at the age of 67,during the Moscow tournament,he showed all the hot-shot young Russians how the game was supposed to be played.
Which champion(s) does this refer to ? Anand has been reigning champ for years now and even won the WC in 3 different formats !
Lasker's 27 year reign isnt nearly so impressive when you realize that he didnt bother to play for 20 of those 27 years.....
Apr 9, 2011
0
#195
Personally,I don't think any one player nowadays can claim to be the undisputed world champ. Sure,Anand holds some version of the "title",but let's face-Title matches of 12 or 14 games are a joke. Someone gets one or two games ahead,that's a lead that is almost insurmountable in such a short contest. Make World title matches 24 (or,even better,30 games),as they used to be,and that is a much fairer indication of who is the better player.
Lasker was a practical man. He would play pushovers like Janowski when no one else was available,but he realized that many players could not afford the fees he demanded for a title match,which is a pity. Because of this the chess world was deprived of the dream matches Lasker-Rubenstein or Lasker-Pillsbury. Who would have won those? Lasker would have beaten Rubenstein,as the latter's nervous disposition would finally crack against Lasker's relentless approach. Lasker-Pillsbury-difficult to call,but I think that Pillsbury's illness would work against him,in the later stages of the match. He would tire easily,and not be able to concentrate to the best of his abilities.
...Lasker's 27 year reign isnt nearly so impressive when you realize that he didnt bother to play for 20 of those 27 years.....
Is this true Reb?
I need to do some research on this.
...assuming it to be accurate, it just shows how "wrong" statistics can be, how information can be used to inform as well as disinform...I also read somewhere that WCC of old actually chose their challengers, and avoiding strong competition was very easy to do...what all this points to, is that the statistics of by-gone eras may not necessarily reflect the true picture of the playing strengths of these "gentlemen"...as more management and control has been established, I believe the standards of today better reflect a truer picture of the chess landscape...another reason why it is impossible to truely compare "the greats" of old to their more present lumineries...
marcelom2 wrote:
bobby fischer
+1 , people how about listen to GM Roman Dzindzi
http://www.chess.com/video/player/greatest-chess-minds-bobby-fischer-part-3
We tend to present quotes from players as some sort of evidence to support our arguements...but I am not overly impressed with such "soft evidence"...they are just as human and biased as the rest of us...and moreso, because they are participants in the play...any proof must lie in the pudding...through the games and matches that have been played, and not postulated "ifs" and imaginary scenarios...as some tend to rely on...I think by now most of the chess world see "the truth" as either Kasparov or Fischer...maybe a coin should decide...
I dont know how anyone can question Anand as a legitimate and undisputed world champion. He won the WC RR tourney in Mexico City, then had to defeat Kramnik in a match to keep his title AND unify it again and he also beat Topalov in a match to add icing to his cake........ what else does he need to do ?!
Thx for this game - I love dragon but I think Larsen could play few moves better:
9. ... Nxd4 (I don't like this move I'd prefer Ne5)
16. ... Rc7 (Nd7, exchange of bishops and Nc5 I think is better)
17. ... Qb5 (i'd play h5 if 18.Bxf6, Bxf6 19.g4, Qe5 and black are good)
22. ... gxh5 (I think he should exchange bishops here Bxd4 23.Qxd4, gxh5 24.g6, Rc4)
23. ...e5 (he still could defend with Bxd4 24.gxf7 Kh7 25.Qxd4 Qe5)
after that it's all downhill :( - I didn't see this game before it's a good example how white can tore black apart if they don't play it correctly.