The game has become increasingly more difficult. I am not sure Steinetz would become a grand master in todays chess world
world champions of chess
Sort:
there is the same feeling of nostalgia in many sports. where are today's legends? i see no babe ruths or lou gehrigs playing now. albert puhols? perhaps, but he must stand the test of time, which is the measure of the true legend. aloha,...ppeets
Apr 23, 2010
0
#4
Delta-Devil wrote:
Let me be blunt. How would you know if they aren't playing as spectacularly as past champions? You're 1300. Yes yes I know i'm not even rated here yet but seriously.
I won't deny that the matches are a bit less epic then the cold war by proxy fischer vs spassky, or the long standing karpov vs kasparov rivalry. Pretty much the only exciting thing I can remember is toiletgate. But I do like the chess of the recent champions. Anand in bonn was absolutely brilliant chess!
I think this opinion mostly stems from nostalgia though. People are bias towards the past being better. We are in an age of prodigies, the age of computers, an age where grandmasters can play eachother every day instead of every month and beginners can get grandmaster level analysis for free. There is lots to be excited about!
In 1970 the match USSR v World took place. Among the 24 players were Spassky, Petrosian, Korchnoi, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Geller, Keres, Stein, Bronstein, Fischer, Larsen and Reshevsky. That's 1/2 of the field that IMHO were strong enough to be world champion. In the 40 years since then we've gotten Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand & Topalov. 5 new names in 40 years. What does that say to you?
FIDE should go to a playoff knockout format...March Madness? They should have a regular season during the year also, more games = more OTB innovations. Enough of this raising enough money crap by the challenger and preparing for one specific opponent for months...may the best player win it all.
Sorry, I was listing from memory. A serious oversight, forgetting Tal. Have I overlooked anyone else?
Apr 23, 2010
0
#9
In answer to the comment about my having only rating of 1300. First i have just started on this sight.I play now just for the pleasure of it.But many years ago i played chess very seriously indeed. I won the city schools chess congress at 14 or 15. I then beat a candidate master Littlewood at the city chess club.In the seventies or early 80s i drew with grandmaster Portisch at asim exhibition of 25 boards.i have a vast chess libary of books, and study a lot of master games past and present. As i said i dont play over the board chess hardly ever.So do not judge my 1300. Anyway thanks for your comments. I can see you have been checking!!!!!!! that was just a pun.
I remember an article in Chess Life back in the c. mid 80s by a Russian GM lamenting the lack of current players with the stature of the golden oldies. He cited just Karpov and Kasparov.
I guess it ebbs and flows.
We could add Carlsen and Ivanchuk to today's list.
Here's my theory on the lack of great players: I believe the main reason was the change to sudden death time limits. Now there is no time for great endgame play. This shifts the goal to getting an edge with some opening novelity and winning in the middle-game. We're in the age of the machines, data-bases and memory. At our level chess is still fun. At the championship level i'n not so sure.
A lot more "older players" played to win...unlike now...where their strategy is "not to loose"...thus there are even far more drawn games in the current chess era. So, the style of play had to change to suit the new strategy.
What the chess world needs now is a very strong charismatic player, who is very vocal, and media friendly (just like Kasparov)...to turn-up the excitement of these chess games.
Indeed, we need more old players like Carl Schlecter, Smyslov, karpov, Ulf Andersson or Capablanca. Back in those days the players never drawed the games.
You have Nakamura :)
Apr 23, 2010
0
#15
i dont necessarily think that its correct to say that recent players such as anand or topalov are not as strong as some of the others. i believe that teh problem is that players like kasparov or of course fischer really did promote the chess game on a large scale. of couse chess has evolved significatnly, and this makes it hard for recent players to contribute anything more to the world of chess. however i really do belive that Carselen will grow up to become a major contributor in chess if he is already the highest ranked player in the world today at just 19. when he reaches an age like 30 or 40, i believe his chess will become sensational, and that he will really bring new ideas to the chess world.
Ravi
malibumike wrote:
Here's my theory on the lack of great players: I believe the main reason was the change to sudden death time limits. Now there is no time for great endgame play. This shifts the goal to getting an edge with some opening novelity and winning in the middle-game. We're in the age of the machines, data-bases and memory. At our level chess is still fun. At the championship level i'n not so sure.
That may be true, I remeber a few years ago Svidler commented that it killed "deep chess", or words to that effect...
And yes, it is nostalgia, and for me the modern players lack charisma, Fischer was the last "personality" at the top level....
You also have to look at the times, chess changes in popularity. Right now it's huge but you aren't going to turn on the news and hear about the latest results (at least not where I am). Players today just don't have the celebrity status previous legends had.
Apr 23, 2010
0
#18
Satch_boogie wrote:
paulsen1946 wrote:
You say i dont know what i am talking about! Well we all have different views.I have met[not over the board] botvinnik.smyslov.portisch{who i played and drew] in a sim,gligoric,ulhmann, keres etc etc. Some of these players i talked to and i have to say i was in awe.They had charisma with their great historys behind them especially Smyslov who was a real gentleman and Keres also.These players have many brillancy prizes behind them. Todays top players win many games but not with the the fabulous combinations and sacrifices that could fill many books of the past masters.It is my opion for what it worth. Thanks for your views. This is what its about.Good luck to anand.
In my honest opion i think todays chess champions ,world and others besides are not as spectacular in their games or profiles as in the past .Kramnik,Anand, to name just two are a shadow of the past greats in the game.Alekhine,Capablanca,Botvinnik,Smyslov,Keres,Tal, Spassky,and Fischer and of course Karasporov..They have left a lasting legacy in their games and personal history.I know this will maybe cause many arguments for and against but i am open to your views fore and against Lets hear any comments you have got to make.Go on shoot me,but do not call me old fashioned.It is true because its all there in the booke etc ectra.Who will remember todays so called greats in 20 years time. I dont think so!!!!!
u are wrong. in the past it was possible to remember all the games played since the history of chess. today with well developed theory, super computers and infinite number of games to memorise. Chess has become more advanced than ever. U clearly dont knw wt ur talking about.
It's all about relativity.
Sometimes a player comes along, and he so perfectly and bluntly defeats his relative peers so many times, that he gets into legend status. People like Paul Morphy, Alekhine, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Bobby Fischer, Spassky, Mikhail Tal, Garry Kasparov, etc.
It's the same in any sports, such as Michael Jordan, Bird, Magic, Tiger Woods (probably one of the only legends that's still actively practicing in a sport).
Soon there will be a new era. Example, in Basketball, people talk about Lebron James who they believe soon will become legend.
A lot of the top rated Super GMs today, are incredibly young. Many still in their 20s, some younger. I'm certain soon there will be a new clear legend in sometime.
All it takes is one person to start a streak of wins.
In my honest opion i think todays chess champions ,world and others besides are not as spectacular in their games or profiles as in the past .Kramnik,Anand, to name just two are a shadow of the past greats in the game.Alekhine,Capablanca,Botvinnik,Smyslov,Keres,Tal, Spassky,and Fischer and of course Karasporov..They have left a lasting legacy in their games and personal history.I know this will maybe cause many arguments for and against but i am open to your views fore and against Lets hear any comments you have got to make.Go on shoot me,but do not call me old fashioned.It is true because its all there in the booke etc ectra.Who will remember todays so called greats in 20 years time. I dont think so!!!!!