15 Jan 12
Originally posted by tharkeshhttp://www.tatasteelchess.com/tournament/commentaryschedule
somebody knows, how to access the online live commentary? i thought last year there was some commentary and not only box analysis... has that changed or can i just not find the link?
quite how we access it I'm not sure!
15 Jan 12
Originally posted by greenpawn34For me it is Paul Keres:
The top 7 in this debate are usually:
Tarrasch, Rubinstein, Tartakower, Nimzovitch, Bronstien, Keres and Korchnoi.
world no. 2 for 25 years
then Korchnoy and Rubinstein
other players from the past nowhere near these 3.
Carlsen has barely ever won a match so not in the running for me. Ivanchuk has longevity though (and the misfortune to overlap with Kasparov!)
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
15 Jan 12
Originally posted by greenpawn34There's something to be said for Schlechter. After all, Lasker only drew his match against him by... well... either it was pure luck or it was the psychological factor. In any case, Schlechter could and should have won that match, in which case Lasker would have had a job on his plate proving that he was, as he was, the greatest champion of all time.
The top 7 in this debate are usually:
Tarrasch, Rubinstein, Tartakower, Nimzovitch, Bronstien, Keres and Korchnoi.
That said, I personally would put Rubinstein top, but perhaps for sentimental reasons. Poor bastard.
Richard
15 Jan 12
I too am a Keres man. (though a slight nod towards Tarrasch, Rubinstein and Bronstein)
Bronstein had his chance and I guess we will never know what really happened
off the board in that 1951 match.
WWI saw off Rubinstein's chance (AS WWII possibly did the same to Keres.)
Tarrasch had the great misfortune to be born in the same era as Lasker.
Carlsen may appear in future lists if he gives up the game without returning
to the FIDE fold regarding WC qualification.
PS: Keres is the only player to appear on a national currency. The Estonian 5K note.
He also has an Estonian ship named after him. I believe that too is unique.
15 Jan 12
Originally posted by Shallow Bluementioning Schlecter, you should then mention his modern day equivalent Leko. Similar for many reasons!
There's something to be said for Schlechter. After all, Lasker only drew his match against him by... well... either it was pure luck or it was the psychological factor. In any case, Schlechter could and should have won that match, in which case Lasker would have had a job on his plate proving that he was, as he was, the greatest champion of all time.
...[text shortened]... sonally would put Rubinstein top, but perhaps for sentimental reasons. Poor bastard.
Richard
But neither are the Stirling Moss of chess, that's for certain