Originally posted by leestaticTell that to Carl Schlechter.
Lasker gets my vote
In 1894 he became the second World Chess Champion by defeating Steinitz with 10 wins, 4 draws and 5 losses. He maintained this title for 27 years, the longest unbroken tenure of any officially recognised World Champion of chess.
Originally posted by gambit3you got his email address?
Tell that to Carl Schlechter.
Edit: The public after the match decided to call it a "world championship match". However there is little evidence to believe that Lasker would want to risk his world title on a short 10 game match. Thirty games were originally proposed, but this was reduced to 10 because of a lack of funds.
Originally posted by seraphimvultureThough its only a work of fiction, in the book Forrest Gump, Gump makes it to the final match of becoming chess champion. He would have won, but was disqualified for cutting a loud fart. I don't if something like this could/would ever happen, but its an interesting part of that story.
Which brings upon the question... could there be such a thing as a illiterate, mentally-handicapped GM? Rain Man anyone?
Originally posted by leestaticLasker also ducked his main rivals. Capablanca’s recorded for going undefeated is more impressive in my opinion.
Lasker gets my vote
In 1894 he became the second World Chess Champion by defeating Steinitz with 10 wins, 4 draws and 5 losses. He maintained this title for 27 years, the longest unbroken tenure of any officially recognised World Champion of chess.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI believe I just read somewhere that Morphy was also undefeated. Beyond that aside, I heard someone opine recently that Fischer had the most natural talent, and Kasparov was in actual practice the best player.
Lasker also ducked his main rivals. Capablanca’s recorded for going undefeated is more impressive in my opinion.
Originally posted by seraphimvultureIt depends although in rain man it was simply maths + memory but chess is far more complex then that. I guess you could have but has anyone ever got really good at chess from playing it and nothing else? no reading about it, no studying past games.
Which brings upon the question... could there be such a thing as a illiterate, mentally-handicapped GM? Rain Man anyone?
It also depends on your definition of mentally handicapped as you could see someone who has very poor social skills but good in most other aspects for example maths sciences maybe even painting or other creative skills. Not knowing them you may well think they are mentally handicapped.
" Gotta get my boxer shorts at K-Mart."
Originally posted by seraphimvultureLook at Rubenstein. He was a crazed lunatic and he played the best endgame by even today's standards. Some of his rook endings still look like witchcraft, said Lev Alburt.
Which brings upon the question... could there be such a thing as a illiterate, mentally-handicapped GM? Rain Man anyone?
Seraphimvulture has a good question: Any Rainmen chessplayers out there? There is such a thing as an idiot savant, people who can play the piano or do complicated math problems, who are otherwise retarded. Since chess is close to music and math, why not? There is a story about the great 1800's player Paulsen who, while playing a tournament, wasn't satisfied with his hotel accommodations. After searching around the town for some time, he finally found one to his satisfaction. When he tried to check in, the concierge asked him, "Why would you want to rent two rooms next to each other, Herr Paulsen?"
Originally posted by powershakeryou didnt mention Harry Nelson Pillsbury.ðŸ˜
There's no doubt that Bobby Fischer is the greatest match player of all time. The greatest grandmaster? I'd have to say these are the ONLY ten who could claim that status throughout the entire history of the game: Alekhine, Capablanca, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Morphy, Lasker, Steinitz, Philidor, Tal, Botvinnik, Euwe and Smyslov. I'd have to say ...[text shortened]... I like the good old days when they didn't get paid crap but played for the love of the game. 🙂