Yea as long as Kasparov still alive some people wont look seriously at current champion. No matter what he'll do - there's always Kasparov shadow.
Who was the all time best
Sort:
Of course Anand is undisputed world chess champion,to say otherwise may be an indication of mental illness.
Anand just needs to stop granting matches, take a few years off here and there, still claim to be a world champion, then play some patzers occasionally, then claim on his deathbed he was the undisputed champ for 40 years.
When people say "he didn't really play that much during that time", his supporters just say "yeah but he won the world championship, beat Kramnik who beat Kasparov, and then beat Topalov on Topalov's home court, so he is certainly one of the greatest and his 40 years is legit".
"...a table, chairs and a chess board"...
geez, these chess freaks will say just about anything.
"a table, chairs and a chess board"... Did you inquire about the prize money? Are you kidding! Bobby took care of that too--- 40 years ago.
Well, you're both wrong! If Vishy had played Spassky in 72' instead of Fischer---The championship would still be played for peanuts! five grand!
When Spassky won in 69' he bought one of those cheap Russian cars and said---Look Ma---I'm on top of the world!
I really don't understand why there is a query about Anand...he has proven himself more than once, and the only one to be WCC in as multiple formats...add to this that he is a real gentleman, and his greatness is even even more remarkable (being one of the top players ever has not gone to his head, like many have...), he also does not run and hide from his challengers...
Is there a hint of racisim and jealousy to these queries?
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 ?!
There is no query as to if Anand is "the best ever"...IMHO neither he nor the likes of Carlsen can as yet even be in the same conversation as Kasparov and Fischer, their careers are ongoing...at the end we can compare then.
The query is to whether Anand is the legitimate and undisputed WCC...given Anand's chess story so far I am at wits to understand the genesis as to such a query...
Apr 9, 2011
0
#211
I didn't know that Magnus beat Nakamura in a blitz match. One tournament doesn't prove who's Top Dog, though. Hikaru *owns* blitz on the ICC with a rating over 3300.
I still think we haven't seen either's best, and am eager to see what Magnus and Hikaru will do in the coming years.
Fezzik, you said---"I first became aware of professional chess in 1972." Just how old are you?
Fezzik wrote:
No, I don't think it's racism at all, jesterville. It's rare that people will acknowledge that the best player of today is better than their childhood hero. On top of that, he hasn't written or been the subject of best-selling books and he has little sense of personal drama.
I first became aware of professional chess in 1972. Karpov was the anti-hero, the Communist bad guy in Chess Life. So most Americans turned to the likes of Tal the Magician or Korchnoi for inspiration. Kasparov came at about the same time as Glasnost and Perestroika. He was a breath of fresh air, but most people of my generation still spoke of Fischer as their god.
There are still quite a few of those people around even now.
In order for Anand to be considered one of the all-time greats, he will need to dominate the scene for a decade the way Kasparov did. So far, he's shown himself to be the first among equals, with Kramnik, Topalov and now Carlsen and Aronian forever challenging him.
This is what made Fischer and Kasparov so very special. They absolutely dominated the scene even when there were many talented players around.
It has nothing to do with the race or ethnicity of Anand, anymore than Capablanca's race, Kasparov's race, or Karpov's race was an issue.
You seem to take offense at people that like Fischer. Ironic, considering he was one of the two players who introduced you to chess via the Fischer vs Spassky championship in 1972. In every thread you point out how the people who say Fischer have an American flag next to their name, as if everyone here is a blatant nationalist or something. Make a poll about who the best player is to not become World Champion, I bet you Reshevsky, Byrne, Evans, Nakamura etc are far down the list. Maybe in that thread you can oust all the communists living in America because they voted for Bronstein or Korchnoi.
Whatever makes you feel better.
Vishy is a excellent champion.
Estragon wrote:
Fischer did indeed bring the big money into chess, but that had less to do with his chess ability than his nationality and personality (or "star persona").
Anand gets less respect because he is not dominant. In their heydays as WC, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov won most of the tournaments they played. Karpov won 120 GM tournaments - only Kasparov, with 63, won more than half as many. Fischer won every tournament he completed from 1966 on.
But Anand isn't playing against the sort of fields his predecessors faced. There are rarely any competitors under 2700 in the events he contests, and if there are they are the couple of local players, nearly always over 2600. He plays only Super-GM events, and while he has consistently finished near the top of them, hasn't taken first prize enough to generate awe from his colleagues.
Anand then is treated more like Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, and Spassky who turned in similar tournament results as WC, although against weaker overall fields.
Estragon, you're getting fuzzy headed in your old age. Of Course Fischer's ability had everything to do with his bringing money into chess. It didnt hurt that he represented the West and Spassky the East. It had an old west setting ---didn't it. Wyatt Earp facing down the Clantons at OK Corral. If Fischer couldnt have backed up his mouth with deeds he would have just been blowing smoke up peoples ass and of course we know he was telling it like it was. The big game of the century had to be Russia vs America. It couldn't have been Russia vs Sweden. or Russia vs England, or Russia vs France---it had to be Russia vs America and thank God Fischer was there at that time. The Russians were corrupt, they were cheaters, and a little too cocky!
In any world wide poll of who was the greatest player of the last 1000 yrs---Fischer will win---regardless of the fact that he was the biggest prick of all time
Fischer played very strong defense, he liked to grab a pawn and hold on to it. He was also very good in the endgame. Karpov had good endgame technique and could defend an endgame, but his weakness was that he wouldn't take the chances necessary to play for a win when he had a slight advantage. The Kramnik match showcased Kasparov's endgame weaknesses.
Fezzik wrote:
I have found that most of the comments about Fischer completely misrepresent his contributions to chess. Many here claim he was some great attacking monster, that his chess was full of brutal and brilliant sacrifices and so on. Yes, he was good at attacking, yes, he had an unquenchable desire to win (when he finally made it to the board), but his greatest strength was the apparent simplicity of his game. You just won't find him making speculative sacrifices. He was far more like Capablanca than Alekhin.
Here's the move that I think typifies his play as well as any he ever made.
Graham Burgess wrote of this position,
This is one of the most talked-about moves in chess history. It looks extremely unnatural to exchange off the strong, beautifully-placed kngiht for Black's bad, awkward bishop. Yet it wins the game quickly and efficiently. Is there something wrong with the principles that would lead many players not even to consider such a move? Not really. Nine times out of ten (if not more frequently) it would be wrong to excange a good knight for a bad bishop. ...Speelman explains the logic as follows: "...although it was 'bad', the bishop was holding together the black position. After its exchange, the white rooks can show their paces in a way which was not possible before." To put it another way, Fischer transformed the advantage of the superior minor piece into the advantage of greater rook activity. Given that the rooks have plenty of targets, this is a good trade. Nevertheless, the move came as a complete surprise to the assembled grandmasters in the press room, with the impulsive Najdorf immediately criticizing it as a mistake.
I don't know how many different ways I can say that Fischer was great. Fischer was great.
He wasn't the greatest ever.
"He wasn't the greatest ever." Fezzik do you really think anyone cares much what you think. You say you're a 2000 elo---you may be even exaggerating that. Do you know how low on the totem pole that is? Do you really think you're qualified to judge the all time greats. Get over yourself pal---I dont think anyone is paying attention to your grandiose statements.
Better stick to giving beginners tips---you really shine in that department!
Looks like Fezzik has an admirer lol
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
@raul72, disagreeing with someone's opinion isn't a cause for an ad hominem attack. Personally, I think that Fezzik is correct. Fischer was an incredible player and an enormous talent, but I wouldn't label him as the GOAT. Really though, it depends on what you mean by the greatest player ever, as it's open to interpretation. Here's my list of greatest players, based on achievements:
Most dominant player of their time period: Morphy
Most naturally talented player: Capablanca
Player who contributed the most to the game: Nimzovitch (revolutionized chess with his book My System)
Strongest player: Kasparov (if there were a tournament of all the world champions from all time periods, he would win, although this is hardly relevant in my opinion)
Player who revived chess: Tal
Chess was slowly dying before Tal arrived. After Botvinnik and Smyslov, chess was turning into a technical grind every game. I give Tal credit for bringing chess away from a slow, methodical, exact science and back into art in explosive fashion. Without Tal, chess would now be a rough equivalent of indoor golf. (some would say it already is, but that's another story.)
My greatest player of all time, with all things taken into consideration, is Capablanca. The deciding factor for me is the simplicity and ease displayed in all of his games; a 1000 player could understand them, yet his opponents could not stop him from executing his plans in them. No other player reached that level in my opinion, where every game was little more than a demonstration of cool and clear superiority.
Reasonabledoubt, The man didn't say it was his opinion---he said it like it was written in cement. If you agree with Fezzik then you're a loser too! I can tell by your post that you read too many comic books. Look at Tal---you got to be kidding! Tal revived chess? Tal was a one hit wonder. He held the championship shorter than any other champion in history---less than a year. He was throughly crushed in his defence of the title.
answer me this, Did Tal put chess on the front pages of newspapers throughout the world? Did Tal have people talking chess around the water coolers, at the office, all over the country? Did Tal convince mothers all over the world to bring their kids in to the local chess clubs? Do you know who I'm talking about or do you need a hint. Look at Capablanca---the man went down the first time he defended the title. In fact the man had a up and down career the rest of his life.
What you say about Nimzovitch is controversial. Many Gms and experts say its not a system at all and that he plagiarized much of his material. You say ---"Strongest player: Kasparov (if there were a tournament of all the world champions from all time periods, he would win, although this is hardly relevant in my opinion)"
Down right dopey! Why not tell us something we dont know! I'm sure Kasparov would cleanup on Morphy, Steinitz etc. Does that make you feel brilliant?
raul72 wrote:
He wasn't the greatest ever.
"He wasn't the greatest ever." Fezzik do you really think anyone cares much what you think. You say you're a 2000 elo---you may be even exaggerating that. Do you know how low on the totem pole that is? Do you really think you're qualified to judge the all time greats. Get over yourself pal---I dont think anyone is paying attention to your grandiose statements.
Better stick to giving beginners tips---you really shine in that department!
An active 2000 is right in the middle of the world of chess, unlike unrated inactive wannabe internet trollers like us ;-)
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 ?!
Beat Kasparov+Fischer
This is silly, Fischer is dead, and wouldnt play even if he were still living, and Kasparov is retired.