06 May 04
Originally posted by marinakatombI guess that he was FIDE,but he never beat Kasparov. Kramnik did. With all the Russian cheating FIDE is their toy. Too be the man you have to beat the man. Kramnik is the man. When I said Kramnik I know I meant Kramnik is the champion. What did Kramnik do after he beat Kasparov. I know he played Fritz, but has he ever defended his title?
Ponomariov is the player who won the Fide (Federation International de echec)world championship. However, back in 93(i think this is right), Kasporov, and the then challenger Nigel Short, broke away from Fide to play their match, forming a new federation of professional players.
As Kaspa didn't defend his title under Fide rules he was stripped of hi ...[text shortened]... e consider the Championship Kasporov and Short spawned to be the true championship of the World.
06 May 04
Originally posted by Natural ScienceExcuse me,Steinitz was a kickarse tactical player.He just believed,unlike the rest of the chessworld in those days,that it is impossible to attack before you have establish some sort of advantage.Which is the way you,me and the majority of players still play these days.
Nah, Steinitz wasn't known as a tactical powerhouse. He introduced the chess world to many of the game's positional elements, such as the keys to playing with and against kngihts.
Later on he got a bit hung up on his own system.He lost flexibility.
But he build the fundaments of modern chess.
08 May 04
Originally posted by SirLoseALotWell, generally speaking, yes, okay, his tactical skills were terrific. But then he was a grandmaster, or at least he would have been had that title existed back then. All grandmasters are great tacticians, to some degree. But it wasn't his tactical skills that he was known for, and that wasn't where he made his contributions to chess. Quick word association: Anderssen? Tactical. Reti? Hypermodern. Capablanca? Lucid. Tal? Sacrifical.
Excuse me,Steinitz was a kickarse tactical player.He just believed,unlike the rest of the chessworld in those days,that it is impossible to attack before you have establish some sort of advantage.Which is the way you,me and the majority of players still play these days.
Later on he got a bit hung up on his own system.He lost flexibility.
But he build the fundaments of modern chess.
Steinitz? Strategic.
08 May 04
1 edit
It's not about how good I am, but how much time do I have to play the way I would like. Recently I have become very busy, to the point where I look at my games and realise I am just not being creative, looking for the quickest/best move.
When I do have the time I like to think this changes, the following recent game when I only had two matches on the go shows how adventurous I can be :-) Game 440479
08 May 04
Originally posted by Natural ScienceIt is true that he didn't go down in history as the great tactician.However,if you compare his games with Andersens games you will see that he was no lesser tactical player than him.Only difference is that Steinitz builds his attacks more carefull.But yes,his good strategical skills is what separated him from the others.
Well, generally speaking, yes, okay, his tactical skills were terrific. But then he was a grandmaster, or at least he would have been had that title existed back then. All grandmasters are great tacticians, to some degree. But it wasn't his tactical skills that he was known for, and that wasn't where he made his contributions to chess. Quick wo ...[text shortened]... ctical. Reti? Hypermodern. Capablanca? Lucid. Tal? Sacrifical.
Steinitz? Strategic.
Sir Lot.
08 May 04
According to chessgames.com, Steinitz played the Evans Gambit 19 times as white. Lost once. Drew once. Quality of oppositon not that high, but Bird and Zukertort were victims and they weren't patsies.
Bird gives up when he's about to get mated on the open board with the queens off:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1027953
Zukertort gets his queen trapped:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1132605
He had a pretty good grip on the tactical end of things.
09 May 04
Originally posted by SirLoseALotAlright, Wilhelm, I apologize. Didn't mean to dump on your tactical skills. By the way, my name is Alexander Alekhine. Let me buy you a beer. (hic)
It is true that he didn't go down in history as the great tactician.However,if you compare his games with Andersens games you will see that he was no lesser tactical player than him.Only difference is that Steinitz builds his attacks more carefull.But yes,his good strategical skills is what separated him from the others.
Sir Lot.
09 May 04
No problem,Alexander.I'll have a Hoegaarden,thank you.
You know,Alexander,btw,may I call you Alex?You know,I love to discuss these things.Now that we finally meet I just have to ask you about that defense you designed.You know,the one that bears your name.Were you drunk and thought your opponent had played 1.d4,as some folks think?
Wilhelm(for the time being)
09 May 04
1 edit
Originally posted by SirLoseALotSure, call me Alex. Anyway I'm getting a little tired of all the insinuations that I was oftentimes drunk during my games. That's not how the Alekhine Defense hapened at all. I played 1...Nf6 because I had forgotten about that dumb rule about my opponent always getting to move after EACH of my moves. Yeah, probably because I was a little drunk at the time.
No problem,Alexander.I'll have a Hoegaarden,thank you.
You know,Alexander,btw,may I call you Alex?You know,I love to discuss these things.Now that we finally meet I just have to ask you about that defense you designed.You know,the one ...[text shortened]... ad played 1.d4,as some folks think?
Wilhelm(for the time being)
Anyway, I went on to win that first game. To cover up my little drunken mental error, I wrote in my analysis that the White pawn center, though strong, was a "target" that I could attack at will. Of course, Reti and Nimzovich both applauded my analysis and actually wanted me to help them more fully analyze their own openings, not knowing that I actually considered their theories an abomination.
So now you know.
Regards,
Alex Alekhine
09 May 04
Originally posted by Natural ScienceWasn't it Steinitz who believed he could talk to God on the telephone?
Nah, Steinitz wasn't known as a tactical powerhouse. He introduced the chess world to many of the game's positional elements, such as the keys to playing with and against kngihts.
🙄
09 May 04
Originally posted by SirLoseALotActually it's true, he did believe he could communicate with God by telephone; in fact he said that he could beat him at chess while giving him pawn-odds.
Never heard about that,but he did try to move the pieces with 'brainwaves'.That was near his death though,when he had gone a lil cuckoo.