Originally posted by fierytormentAnd that's why I say Tal. Sure we've all since studied ways to refute his play, but back then they were'nt refuting. Maybe it's his personality, a love of sacrifices and flair. He was a rockstar among geeks, and for that I love his games.
What you are leaving out though is the fact chess has changed from period to period. Would Kaspy played well in the Fischer era? or would Fischer compete well in the database, computer era? It's comparing apples to oranges
Originally posted by fierytormentwell, you are nominating Fischer on the basis of chess he never played. maybe we did see his best chess. who knows? if we're going to have an answer to a question like this at all, we have to go on actual results. Kasparov may have had the benefit of computers and databases, so maybe had more assistance in preparation, but i would say this just served to make him a better player. would Fischer have benefited as much? who knows? the fact is, it wasn't available to him so he didn't benefit from it.
What you are leaving out though is the fact chess has changed from period to period. Would Kaspy played well in the Fischer era? or would Fischer compete well in the database, computer era? It's comparing apples to oranges
i think the question you are looking at is 'who had the most raw talent?' - and that's one that is probably impossible to answer, even if we knew how to measure 'raw talent'...
Originally posted by dfm65Well maybe, but Tal was dogged by illness.
yeah, but if you look at the peak average over a year ratings, it's:
#1 Fischer, #2 Kasparov, #7 Karpov and #17 Tal.
peak over five years, it's:
#1 Kasparov, #5 Fischer, #6 Karpov and #19 Tal.
over 20 years:
#1 Kasparov, #2 K ...[text shortened]... and Capablanca though did have many moments of extreme brilliance.
There's a story - in Mihai Suba's book Dynamic Chess Strategy - about them having dinner at a banquet during a tournament. Tal, described as downing one glass after another, said: "You don't drink very much, Misha" - "I have a tough game tomorrow, Misha" - "With whom, Misha?" - "With you, Misha" - So Tal said "Da sfidania pad stalom" = "I'll see you under the table"
I don't care about playing strength - he was more fun.
Tigran Petrosian. No one had a more unique style or was harder to beat. The man who finally dethroned Botvinnik, and the first in many years to win a WC match as the defending champion. Kasparov, in his series on his predessessors, gives tribute to Petrosian and says more effort should be given to serious study of his games.
Originally posted by Nyxiewhat about Capablanca? he was a bit of a 'rock star' too, wasn't he?
And that's why I say Tal. Sure we've all since studied ways to refute his play, but back then they were'nt refuting. Maybe it's his personality, a love of sacrifices and flair. He was a rockstar among geeks, and for that I love his games.
Originally posted by Nyxiewhat about Capablanca? he was a bit of a 'rock star' too, wasn't he?
And that's why I say Tal. Sure we've all since studied ways to refute his play, but back then they were'nt refuting. Maybe it's his personality, a love of sacrifices and flair. He was a rockstar among geeks, and for that I love his games.
A vote for Maroczy. His play might not be full of flair but you have to respect someone who gives no counterplay:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1002985
Playing through that game you get an idea about how demoralising it would have been to play him. He doesn't sacrifice speculatively, he doesn't play double-edged moves. He just kills all chance you have to play good moves.
Tal is also up there for exactly the opposite reason. His games are mindnumbing to analyse though.
This one is still regarded as one of the most complex games played:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1139481
Kasparov gets a vote for dominating the chess world for so long and played solid chess (plus he used to play the KID and the Dragon, the same as I do).
It's impossible to say who was better from different eras. So much changed, and the change has accelerated exponentially with the use of computers to study positions. That being said I favor the players of the past who had to study the old fashioned way, and who by genius alone came up with their novelties. I vote for Jose Raul Capablanca.
Fischer was the greatest match player in the history of chess. He never lost a match and actually swept some of his Candidates Matches without even a draw, an unheard of feat. I love Tal, but Botvinnik dethroned him in the return match when Botvinnik was 49 and Tal 24! Kasparov's match record is certainly not over impressive; he was trailing his first match with Karpov when it was halted (he may have wound up winning it but he was behind) and he lost to Kramnik besides falling apart against the computers.
The greatest tournament player was undoubtedly Capablanca; his record in the teens and twenties, a Golden Age for Chess, is unequalled.