uh....how is Marshall MORE violent than Tal. I know a couple famous Marshall examples (and, of course, his own "attack" in the Ruy Lopez), but up against Tal for "Who's more violent?"
I put my money on Tal. I mean....to quote Bronstein: "Tal develops his pieces and then simply starts sacrificing them!" "Tal doesn't use his hand to move his pieces, he uses a magic wand"
open for refutation.... 😀
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree!!!!!!!!!!
What a laugh! Fischer was the best match player ever! Fischer NEVER lost a match and as far as I know he was the only person to sweep matches in the Candidates' elimination matches. Kasparov arrogant about his superiority? Ridiculous, he fell apart against a machine! No contest in a match in their prime.
Capablanca might squeeze ...[text shortened]... us he was the absolute greatest in end game play. He's in no lower than the top 3 of all time!
Originally posted by marinakatombThats true too!!!
Hey look man, how many openings did people play in Capablanca's time, hmmm? Not a lot! He was playing when 1.d4 was a novelty for crying out loud. Yes, he's one of the greats, yes he beat all comers, bla bla bla, but stick Kasparov in Capablanca's shoes and he'd have kicked everyones butt all over town.
As for Fischer, i think he's the most exc ...[text shortened]... fference is between them. I think Kasparov takes it. Im also willing to accept that im wrong. 😛
Originally posted by Siskinand the russian chess machine never helped him a little bit?....
Kasparov. There are more strong players today than ever before, yet Kasparov is still the number 1 by a significant margin. Morphy, Steinitz, Anderssen, and other 19th century greats produced plenty of brilliant wins, but most of their opponents were amateurs, and very weak by modern gm standards. Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine are denied the top spot in my ...[text shortened]... ntion, and for his dymanism, creativity, fighting spirit and will to win, it has to be Kasparov.
and anyways, today the greatest player is Anand, hand down, although certainly five years ago kaspy ruled the chess world... Fischer is the man who exemplifies complete and utter mastery of the game of chess. And fischer totally had balls of steel, he would have never crumbled to a computer, which Kasparov did twice, deep blue and deep junior!
Originally posted by marinakatombThey didn't play a lot of different openings in Capablanca's day? That's just plain ignorant.
Hey look man, how many openings did people play in Capablanca's time, hmmm? Not a lot! He was playing when 1.d4 was a novelty for crying out loud. Yes, he's one of the greats, yes he beat all comers, bla bla bla, but stick Kasparov in Capablanca's shoes and he'd have kicked everyones butt all over town.
As for Fischer, i think he's the most exc ...[text shortened]... fference is between them. I think Kasparov takes it. Im also willing to accept that im wrong. 😛
Um, what about Karpov.Karpov in his prime was so good that Fischer refused to play against him.Remember that immortal world championship in which Karpov was leading against Kasprov when finally it was called off.Karpov was very good at peice placement.You give him a tiny initiative and see how he converts into overwhelming advantage.You get the picture of a vice slowly with the full consciousness of his opponent tightening aroun his neck.Maybe Kasprov is slightly better than him,but he should certainly deserve a place in top 3.
Originally posted by marinakatombFischer did not train by a super program nor did a team of GMs aid him. Kasparov is a product of such aids. The old champions did their own work. The Russian champions are a product of a system that cheated. It started after Alekhine died. FIDE is set up to keep the title in Russia. The Tournament to claim a champion after Alekhine died was a fraud. Botvinnik was given the title. Kasparov is a great chess talent, but he had help. Fischer did his own work, as did Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, Stientz, ect. .
Oh please, find me a GM these days who isn't helped by fritz or taught by any other GM's. Kasparov is the best, if Kramnik gets the balls to play a unification he'll loose, unless he succeeds in borring Kaspa to death!
Originally posted by gambit3amen to that!
Fischer did not train by a super program nor did a team of GMs aid him. Kasparov is a product of such aids. The old champions did their own work. The Russian champions are a product of a system that cheated. It started after Alekhine died. FIDE is set up to keep the title in Russia. The Tournament to claim a champion after Alekhine died was a fraud. Botvinni ...[text shortened]... t, but he had help. Fischer did his own work, as did Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, Stientz, ect. .
Originally posted by druidraviI remember the Karpov-Kasparov slugfest from 20 years ago, Karpov was ahead 5-0, with 6 wins required. Then the match got put on hold. I think they continued some time later, and KASPAROV came back to win 6-5!
Um, what about Karpov.Karpov in his prime was so good that Fischer refused to play against him.Remember that immortal world championship in which Karpov was leading against Kasprov when finally it was called off.Karpov was very good at peice placement.You give him a tiny initiative and see how he converts into overwhelming advantage.You get the picture of ...[text shortened]... neck.Maybe Kasprov is slightly better than him,but he should certainly deserve a place in top 3.
It's been a long time and memory is a tricky thing....is that what happened?
Originally posted by druidraviFischer was certainly not afraid of Karpov and would have easily dusted him, as he did to a great player of somewhat similar stye: Petrosian. Fischer was and is kinda nuts and that and money were the reasons he didn't play Karpov. I personally put him, Capablanca and Alekhine (in his prime and sober) as the three best of all time; Kasparov has just lost too much to rate in their league and I personally don't see anybody else who has accomplishments to match up to these three (Botvinnik probably comes closest, but he kept losing his championship and then regaining it in mandatory rematches).
Um, what about Karpov.Karpov in his prime was so good that Fischer refused to play against him.Remember that immortal world championship in which Karpov was leading against Kasprov when finally it was called off.Karpov was very good at peice placement.You give him a tiny initiative and see how he converts into overwhelming advantage.You get the picture of ...[text shortened]... neck.Maybe Kasprov is slightly better than him,but he should certainly deserve a place in top 3.