If we agree - albeit /nice word, I had to look at a dictionary/ we don't have to agree on that matter - that Steinitz had Fischer as a succesor, that Karpov was Capablanca's heir, and that Kasparov is new Alekhine, and that Kortchnoi and Stein are Lasker's incarnations, that Smyslov is Rubinstein's heir ets., well if we agree n that,
what would you say today is imitating Fischer both in style and opening repertoire?
(By the way John Nunn is a new Paul Morphy.)
I stopped follow chess (Chess Informant, etc. in 1993, after World Championship match between Karpov and Timman.
Anyone that follows those new players in the last 20 years??
I too kind of dropped out after 1993 (not completely but nowhere near as
fanatical as I used to be.)
Fischer is claimed to be a very heavily tuned up Capablanca.
Capablanca's flaws were his opening prep and sometimes just agreeing
to a draw if it suited him.
Fischer tightend up the opening and always (usually) played to win.
Don't think none of them have the Fischer in them.
There are fighters Like the Nak and Topalov but they seem to falter
in positions Fischer would mop up.
Carlsen? He is still evolving, he may well turn out to be one the
greatest chess players ever and I'm not talking about stupid gradings.
If we must label him - Carlsen is himself but for the sake of theme of this thread.
Currently a Lasker/Fischer at their peak type of combination - deadly.
I too kind of dropped out after 1993 (not completely but nowhere near as
fanatical as I used to be.)
Fischer is claimed to be a very heavily tuned up Capablanca.
Capablanca's flaws were his opening prep and sometimes just agreeing
to a draw if it suited him.
Fischer tightend up the opening and always (usually) played to win.
D ...[text shortened]... theme of this thread.
Currently a Lasker/Fischer at their peak type of combination - deadly.
I was going to reply in this thread, but GP's answer is better than mine would have been!
I must be out of touch. This is the first time ever that I hear someone compares Capablanca and Fischer.
I saw hundreeds of Steinitz's games, and my impressions was - ok, Fischer's first book was one of Steinitz, so that's the style... Fischer had a little crisis in 1962-64, when he was trying to emulate Tal in combinations, only to perform rather poorly on Olympiad in Varna. He returned to Morphy in 1963 - which year he studied chess in solitide - and returned with 11 from 11 in USA ch.
It's something new for me . this comparison with Capablanca.
But it doesn't matter.
So I will have to look it myself.
As for Topalov's games and style, he always looked to me imperonal, like he follows an engine. No personal touch what so ever.
Robert Byrne was a Fischer copy cat in the second hallf of 1970's, when he turend professional in his forthy-five (!) and gave up professorship.
I will have to look Carlsen's games. It sounds cute what I read about him, that he isn't tough in the openings, but only in the midd-game.
Too much changes in the game of chess itself for comparisons of a 1920s champion (Capa) to Fischer (1972). That's 50 years of opening development.
In Capa's games you'll see tons of Queen's Gambit Declined. In Fischer's, he doesn't even start playing other moves than 1.e4 until the 70's. And when he has black against 1.d4, it's going to be a KID or Gruenfeld.
In Capa's day, they hardly ever played the Sicilian in response to 1.e4.
In Fischer's day, they hardly played anything BUT the sicilian in response to 1.e4.
In Capa's day, he was known as an endgame virtuoso. In Fischer's, one could not compete at the highest level without being an endgame virtuoso. The Russians saw to that.
My Fischer = a beefed Capabalnca comparison is really because
there is no one previous to compare him with.
Fischer never went for wild opening gambits, Neither did Capa.
Both player never spec-sacced but relied on concrete lines.
Both made very few mistakes in their games and in some cases played flawless games.
Fischer took the Capa exact style up a notch by also playing to win
as Black (Hence Sicilians, Grunfelds and KIDS.)
Fischer liked to create an imbalnce in the pawn structure as Black.
With White he was happiest with symetrical pawn structure (the Ruy Lopez)
as was Capa.
Capa played the Sicilian a few times and his comment: "It's full holes."
when he was shown the lines where Black plays an early e5 still stands.
It is full of holes, exploiting them....?
The big difference is Capa never worked on his gift for the game.
Fischer worked and worked and worked. He lived for the game.
Originally posted by greenpawn34 My Fischer = a beefed Capabalnca comparison is really because
there is no one previous to compare him with.
Fischer never went for wild opening gambits, Neither did Capa.
Both player never spec-sacced but relied on concrete lines.
Both made very few mistakes in their games and in some cases played flawless games.
Fischer took the Capa exact styl ...[text shortened]... r worked on his gift for the game.
Fischer worked and worked and worked. He lived for the game.
Is there an analog of Capa today, that is to say, one with immense gifts in chess but doesn't study openings but still wins against top players?
Originally posted by greenpawn34 My Fischer = a beefed Capabalnca comparison is really because
there is no one previous to compare him with.
Fischer never went for wild opening gambits, Neither did Capa.
Both player never spec-sacced but relied on concrete lines.
Both made very few mistakes in their games and in some cases played flawless games.
Fischer took the Capa exact styl ...[text shortened]... r worked on his gift for the game.
Fischer worked and worked and worked. He lived for the game.
Your statement is true GP, both Capa and Fishy liked rational positions. The difference between Fishy and Morphy, and let us not forget how much Fishy loved Morphy was Fishys adoption of the Fianchetto early in his career, Fishy was not afraid to play in a hypermodern style and some of his most amazing games are hypermodern.
Originally posted by sonhouse Is there an analog of Capa today, that is to say, one with immense gifts in chess but doesn't study openings but still wins against top players?
Yes Magnus Carlsen doesn't do openings, just check out the last world championship match. He got rid of Kasparov because Kasparov was busting his head with openings. Kasparov maintained that the opening was the only place left where one can be truly creative.
Fischer's successors, imitators, copy cats - today??
20 Apr '14 16:581 edit
Back to Top