Originally posted by no1marauderI stated before personality had some leverage in my descision.
What's your point? No one was more disappointed than I was that Fischer didn't defend his title, but what some people are asserting is that Fischer was afraid to play Karpov or that Karpov was a better player. Fischer's undefeated match play record + the convincing way he won his matches against the toughest competition (he dusted Petrosian, a ...[text shortened]... s (and is) a nutjob is undisputed, but I'm discussing his chess, not his personal peccadilloes.
Tal, Capablanca, and Alekhine are my fovorite players.
Look at capablance, said to have never read a chess book, played his whole life and died anaylizing a game. This is a man that just loved the game.
Tal loved to talk about chess. He would talk about chess while he was out smoking in the hall while he was waiting for his next move. The way he tore the defending champ apart in 26 moves is just wow.
I don't find Fischer as being a great lover of the game after his fall. It most likely is his mental instability, but many other of our treasured chessmasters have suffered from mental or physical instability and still played the game. They did it because they loved it. Something about that attracts me. Plus I see the board in different ways then you do, and of course others. The players that I like do moves I'm attracted too. So I study their games more. While I love correspondence and it has helped my game greatly, playing otb and playing quickly is my passion. Meeting a friend of a friend and hearing them say, yeah I'm pretty good at chess, and seeing everyone in the room smile when I go to the car and come back with a board. The looks on my opponents face when I play a good sacrifice, or do a combination that just does'nt make any sense is priceless to me. When people hunt down people just to play against me, and they tip that king over and leave the room after just one game. Yeah, that's why I love chess. And I like the payers that I think also shared this passion.
If you understand why I love chess, and why I'm attracted to it, you will understand my choices.
It has to be Fischer. He won the US Championship eight times in eight attempts, including, at the age of 20, setting a record with a perfect 11-0 score. In 1971 he set another record, when he won the quarter-final and semi-final matches for the world championship by identical scores of 6-0. Then, when he won against Tigran Petrosian in the first game of the final candidate match, he had thus set a record of 20 consecutive wins (without draws) at the highest level of competition.
Ever heard of a gentleman called Mikhail Botvinik? He is the Muhamed Ali of chess haven won the title 3 times in an era when it was difficult to defend the title. This was the era of hypermodern chess when you had the likes of Smyslov, Keres, Bronstein, Petrosian, Spassky, Fisher, Tal, Geller, Larsen, Taimanov, Reshevsky, Stohl, Benko, Evans, Byrne etc
For his style and brilliance, Botvinik was nicknamed 'Iron Logician' and to me deserves the title of best player ever.
Originally posted by jamjamjoeisn't innovation a true sign of a great player... innovation in the form of a new opening such as the Alekhine defence, as great as these other players were did they break any theoreticaal ground, for example Fisher has no opening or variation within an opening named after him
Ever heard of a gentleman called Mikhail Botvinik? He is the Muhamed Ali of chess haven won the title 3 times in an era when it was difficult to defend the title. This was the era of hypermodern chess when you had the likes of Smyslov, Keres, Bronstein, Petrosian, Spassky, Fisher, Tal, Geller, Larsen, Taimanov, Reshevsky, Stohl, Benko, Evans, Byrne etc
Fo ...[text shortened]... ance, Botvinik was nicknamed 'Iron Logician' and to me deserves the title of best player ever.
Originally posted by SerendipityI might have the wrong guy, but isn't there a variation of the King's Gambit Accepted called the Fisher Defense?
isn't innovation a true sign of a great player... innovation in the form of a new opening such as the Alekhine defence, as great as these other players were did they break any theoreticaal ground, for example Fisher has no opening or variation within an opening named after him
My favorites GMs are Fisher, Morphy, Tal, Kasparov, Adams, Anand and Shirov, flashy and aggressive players all, greatly concerned with "beauty", maybe more so than efficiency. I don't like Kramnik because I think he's a boring dude. He's the kind of guy that would take a girl to a popcorn museum, and keep his mouth shut the whole time to boot.
I feel it is very difficult to define the greatest player of all time. Each player has their own strengths and style, and it may well be impossible to decipher who has the best.
Comparing the merits of a players like Kasparov, Lasker and Fischer; then attempting to make a reasoned choice on who the best is not really a viable method - indeed, it is similar to comparing Elvis to Beethoven, or The Seventh Seal to The Godfather trilogy.
This discussion is more of a popularity contest, with the most eccentric characters off the board the most mentioned. In any case, it is reasonable to accept that every champion has held their postion for a reason - extraordinary ability, and a good dose of pluck.
Originally posted by Bobson 94like the way they can Pluck your queen off the board so quick?🙂
I feel it is very difficult to define the greatest player of all time. Each player has their own strengths and style, and it may well be impossible to decipher who has the best.
Comparing the merits of a players like Kasparov, Lasker and Fischer; then attempting to make a reasoned choice on who the best is not really a viable method - indeed, it is ...[text shortened]... champion has held their postion for a reason - extraordinary ability, and a good dose of pluck.
Originally posted by jamjamjoeThere again, apples and tomatoes. Botvinnik was kind of like the
Ever heard of a gentleman called Mikhail Botvinik? He is the Muhamed Ali of chess haven won the title 3 times in an era when it was difficult to defend the title. This was the era of hypermodern chess when you had the likes of Smyslov, Keres, Bronstein, Petrosian, Spassky, Fisher, Tal, Geller, Larsen, Taimanov, Reshevsky, Stohl, Benko, Evans, Byrne etc
Fo ...[text shortened]... ance, Botvinik was nicknamed 'Iron Logician' and to me deserves the title of best player ever.
russian general of chess, he had armies of GM's at his beck and call,
so he was closer to todays players who have the help of GM analysis
on their laptops and access to almost every game ever played.
That was a bit of what Bot had. So a lot of his innovations was the
result of having roomfuls of GM's working out secret lines months at
a time. What about Korchnoi? He is still whacking the 2600 crowd as
we speak, he is in a tourny, he is still at it and he is 72! That has to
set some kind of longevity record. There have been players who
play in their 90's but not at the 2600+ level. They say about Korchnoi
don't let him get into a rook endgame, he will grind you down.