It's Beck Ancall.
Rebecca Ancall was a hardworking, yet underappreciated 19th century English courtesan who coined such phrases as "I'm ready when you are" and "whatever you like". A mediocre chess player at best, to this day there is still disagreement on which opening she preferred. Never one to shy away from a challenge, she and a number of very enthusiastic volunteers established what later became known in some social circles as "the London System".
wait there all equal but some r better cause of their reasorces
Fischer is the greatest because the gap between him and his contemparary chess players is the greatest gap ever. Never there was a difference as greater between the number 1 and the rest.
And his reign was not so short as you think, because since 1962 until 1972 HE WON ALL the competitions but two tournaments where he got two seconds places, and in one of them was winning but he retired without playing the final games.
Bobby Fischer refused almost sistematically in playing in the candidates competitions, so he was a king without crown almost a decade. So the number one in the world during almost 13 years.
Adjusted for differences in computer access between generations, 1.) Bobby 2.) Kasparov 3.) Magnus. With no adjustment for computer access, the list is inverted
Yep, everyone is special. And when everyone is special, nobody is special.
To say that everyone trained at different times and had different resources is not to admit that they were all equal. If, despite all the resources at Magnus' beck and call, he is only equal to someone from 50 years ago, that would mean he's pretty weak.
Just the opposite has happened. Magnus is clearly the best player in history, and we know that in part by analyzing the games and in part by looking at the ratings, which have been *deflated* over time.
The reasons for Magnus' domination can be discussed, but to say that Fischer or anyone else from the 1970s is equal to Magnus is to denigrate his amazing accomplishments. What Fischer did in his own time may never be duplicated, but the same is also true for Karpov, Kasparov, and Carlsen.
We can still compare the relative quality of their play though.
Beckon call*
…
If you’re going to correct somebody’s word usage, check first to see if you’re right.
Yep, everyone is special. And when everyone is special, nobody is special.
To say that everyone trained at different times and had different resources is not to admit that they were all equal. If, despite all the resources at Magnus' beck and call, he is only equal to someone from 50 years ago, that would mean he's pretty weak.
Just the opposite has happened. Magnus is clearly the best player in history, and we know that in part by analyzing the games and in part by looking at the ratings, which have been *deflated* over time.
The reasons for Magnus' domination can be discussed, but to say that Fischer or anyone else from the 1970s is equal to Magnus is to denigrate his amazing accomplishments. What Fischer did in his own time may never be duplicated, but the same is also true for Karpov, Kasparov, and Carlsen.
We can still compare the relative quality of their play though.
Beckon call*
…
If you’re going to correct somebody’s word usage, check first to see if you’re right.
I am right lol
Yep, everyone is special. And when everyone is special, nobody is special.
To say that everyone trained at different times and had different resources is not to admit that they were all equal. If, despite all the resources at Magnus' beck and call, he is only equal to someone from 50 years ago, that would mean he's pretty weak.
Just the opposite has happened. Magnus is clearly the best player in history, and we know that in part by analyzing the games and in part by looking at the ratings, which have been *deflated* over time.
The reasons for Magnus' domination can be discussed, but to say that Fischer or anyone else from the 1970s is equal to Magnus is to denigrate his amazing accomplishments. What Fischer did in his own time may never be duplicated, but the same is also true for Karpov, Kasparov, and Carlsen.
We can still compare the relative quality of their play though.
Beckon call*
…
If you’re going to correct somebody’s word usage, check first to see if you’re right.
I am right lol
I was curious about this (I never use this phrase, so I had no clue), so I looked it up, and pretty much every website actually says beck and call.
Two of the articles I looked at:
"Beck and Call" or "Beckon Call"—Which Is Right? | Grammarly
Beck and Call or Beckon Call – Which is Correct? - Writing Explained
i vote for carlsen. he drew kasparov as a teen, and wasnt defeated in a world championship. he just got bored.
If Kasparov wanted he could have retired early. Quitting the World Championship is a personal choice and not indicative of an accomplishment. Kasparov only lost his title to an opponent much, much younger than him. He kept playing until he exhausted his prime, Carlsen didn't. It's not an achievement. Drawing Kasparov also proves nothing. Neither player was in their prime (Carlsen was 13, Kasparov was over 40).
actually kasparov was in his prime. he was world number one, and all experts say he was in his prime.
Kasparov was most definitely not in his prime in 2003-2004. still a strong player no doubt, but nowhere near peak strength. his prime was really in the mid to late 90s. in 2004, the top players on the FIDE ratings list were Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, and Leko (in no particular order). the only reason Kasparov was able to maintain his super high rating into the 2000s is that he didn't play a lot of tournaments.
Also, Kramnik was not "much" younger than Kasparov. Kramnik is born in 1975 and Kasparov in 1963 (so 12 years age gap). by contrast, Karpov is born in 1951 so the age difference between him and Kasparov was exactly the same between Kasparov and Kramnik. if anything, Karpov was at his peak and Kasparov was a relative newcomer when they had their marathon matches in the 80s.
compare that to Anand (born in 1969) losing his title to Carlsen (born in 1990). now that's an example of the champion losing his title to a much younger challenger.
Bobby Fischer. The man is an absouloute legend! Through out his whole career he only had 3 losses. Although in this generation Magnus is the best player, but Bobby is the best to ever live! (In my opinion). Absoloute beast!
Bobby Fischer. The man is an absouloute legend! Through out his whole career he only had 3 losses. Although in this generation Magnus is the best player, but Bobby is the best to ever live! (In my opinion). Absoloute beast!
The three losses thing is only about his US championships
I've always been a fanatic of Carlsen, but unfortunately he retires. The second place for me goes on equal terms to Kasparov and Fischer. It would have been interesting to see a match between them. I personally would put all three in the same place. As seconds there is certainly Karpov and Caruana and as thirds Nakamura and Morphy.
I've always been a fanatic of Carlsen, but unfortunately he retires. The second place for me goes on equal terms to Kasparov and Fischer. It would have been interesting to see a match between them. I personally would put all three in the same place. As seconds there is certainly Karpov and Caruana and as thirds Nakamura and Morphy.
Carlsen hasn't retired. Why does Caruana/Nakamura deserve to be in the goat discussion?
For just sure chess Naka would be in the convo, but overall, he shouldn't be in the top ten, let alone top five
“in 2004, the top players on the FIDE ratings list were Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, and Leko”
Are you sure about that? Kasparov at best #5 on the rating list? He didn’t play much but I’d say he was still the best player in the world, as his rating suggests. In his last two events he gained in all 13 Elo:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=43917
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=45125
Yep, everyone is special. And when everyone is special, nobody is special.
To say that everyone trained at different times and had different resources is not to admit that they were all equal. If, despite all the resources at Magnus' beck and call, he is only equal to someone from 50 years ago, that would mean he's pretty weak.
Just the opposite has happened. Magnus is clearly the best player in history, and we know that in part by analyzing the games and in part by looking at the ratings, which have been *deflated* over time.
The reasons for Magnus' domination can be discussed, but to say that Fischer or anyone else from the 1970s is equal to Magnus is to denigrate his amazing accomplishments. What Fischer did in his own time may never be duplicated, but the same is also true for Karpov, Kasparov, and Carlsen.
We can still compare the relative quality of their play though.
Beckon call*
I agree that saying that the players are equally strong would be to imply that later players are weaker than they are; it's fairly clear that each in their peaks Magnus would beat Kasparov who would beat Fischer, and this is due to their access to differing resources. The question still remains, given their differences in resources, if we account for that who is the best, and how do we go about that