07 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderlol I'll have to admit that at least your funny.
So a**hole (since you want to start calling names), Kramnik is the current world champion (of how many?) so therefore he's one of the greatest players ever? Did you ever hear of Tigran Petrosian and Boris Spassky? They were world champions who apparently "sucked" according to your moronic statement.
Anand "considered the strongest player nev ...[text shortened]... assky drew against him in 1988 when Spassky was on the wrong side of 50. Yeah, Boris "sucked".
Rubenstein and Nimzovitch beating Anand???
Have you even played though any of their games.
If you have them play a fischer random game, Anand would crush them tactical and possitional.
Next your going to suggest that Greco would beat Kaspy blindfolded.
The simple reason why the matches today have so much more draws and are decided by only one game is because the level of play has become so much higher than in fischers days, a lot of these games feature perfect play by both sides resulting in a draw.
I have nothing agains the icelandic world champion, aside from his madness. But he's like a beginner compared to Kasparov.
07 Sep 05
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardI won't waste further time with you; anybody simple minded enough to say the draws that we have today is because of "perfect play" as obviously never studied the recent games. You never answered why the "greatest ever" couldn't acheive a plus record against Spassky (who the "beginner" crushed in his prime) when Spassky was an old man in chess terms. Your points of view regarding Rubinstein, Nimzovith and Anand are utterly laughable. If Anand can't become one of the "World Champions" of this rabble, I wouldn't rate him in the top 500, never mind among the "greatest of all time".
lol I'll have to admit that at least your funny.
Rubenstein and Nimzovitch beating Anand???
Have you even played though any of their games.
If you have them play a fischer random game, Anand would crush them tactical and possitional.
Next your going to suggest that Greco would beat Kaspy blindfolded.
The simple reason why the matches toda ...[text shortened]... celandic world champion, aside from his madness. But he's like a beginner compared to Kasparov.
07 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderAlright, I'll have to admit that in reality I dont think its possible to determine who was the strongest player ever was.
I won't waste further time with you; anybody simple minded enough to say the draws that we have today is because of "perfect play" as obviously never studied the recent games. You never answered why the "greatest ever" couldn't acheive a plus record against Spassky (who the "beginner" crushed in his prime) when Spassky was an old man in chess ter ...[text shortened]... this rabble, I wouldn't rate him in the top 500, never mind among the "greatest of all time".
I was only opposing the fischer fans because im under the impression that they seem to pick him because he was their fellow countyman.
Anyway, if you are convinced that it is possible to determine who is the best chess player ever. How are you goin to do this?
Is the best chessplayer:
- The player with the strongest match performance ever?
- The player with the highest rating ever?
- The player with the best tournament results ever?
- The player who played the best game ever?
- The player who's reign as world champ lasted the longest?
And are you going to meassure the strength of his opponents in the same way?