The Joys of Chess (book) claims...

the most over-rated move in chess history is 23...Qg3 in Levitsky v. Marshall Breslau 1912 Frankly I don't entirely disagree. Thoughts?

Karpov - Spassky, Leningrad 1974, game 9. Karpov's 24.Nc3-b1.

Over-rated and the most often quoted move since 1974.
You will find it all books on strategy since '74. Often with the notes copied.
Usually has !! attached to it.

It's a good move but you do wish writers would try to use fresh examples.

Karpov played some great games and his brilliance is usually seen
when looking at the whole game.
Very few startling moves (and that 24 Nb1 does not count).

I liked his 11th move in this game. At first it looks like a typing error.
That is the effect a brilliant move should have.

Kamsky - Karpov, Dortmund 1993



Tim Krabbe lists Marshall's 23...Qg3 as the third best move of all time.
He gives his top 110 moves with complete games here:

http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess/fant100.htm

Karpov's 24.Nb1 does not make it into the top 110.

His top choice is a Spassky game. Look out for Spassky's move 16...Nc6.

Mark Taimanov said:

"I would rather resign the game than to make such a move as 16...Nc6"

Averbakh - Spassky, Leningrad 1956

Most over-rated move in history? 1. e4. Best by test my arse.

Originally posted by Diophantus
Most over-rated move in history? 1. e4. Best by test my arse.

Rec'd.

Originally posted by Diophantus
Most over-rated move in history? 1. e4. Best by test my arse.

I could tell from previous threads you two guys don't like the solid 1.e4. And admittedly you are not alone. The dynamic 1.e4 is often shunned by an in-crowd doting on 1.d4 or even worse some obscure fads 1.b3 or 1.g3. However, while 1.d4 Queens Gambit is here to stay, I respectfully contend that unlike fads which come and go, 1.e4 is a winner that is here to stay. 🙂

Originally posted by Diophantus
Most over-rated move in history? 1. e4. Best by test my arse.

That popped into my mind as well

agreed

Originally posted by moon1969
I could tell from previous threads you two guys don't like the solid 1.e4. And admittedly you are not alone. The dynamic 1.e4 is often shunned by an in-crowd doting on 1.d4 or even worse some obscure fads 1.b3 or 1.g3. However, while 1.d4 Queens Gambit is here to stay, I respectfully contend that unlike fads which come and go, 1.e4 is a winner that is here to stay. 🙂

At least I don't insist 1. g3 is the best possible move. It suits me, but that doesn't mean it will suit many others. It just annoys me that some think 1. e4 is almost a forced win for white.

Originally posted by Diophantus
At least I don't insist 1. g3 is the best possible move. It suits me, but that doesn't mean it will suit many others. It just annoys me that some think 1. e4 is almost a forced win for white.

It seems to me to be the duality in chess, that many king pawn games end up not attacking the king at all, but in going after the Queenside squares, as white does in some Ruy Lopez variations, and in some queen pawn openings the design is clearly on a Kingside attack, especially the Kings bishop as it sits on d3. 1.g3 is fine but once the bishop is fianchettoed, it leaves c4 weak 😛

"1.e4 Best by test."

Was a throw remark by Fischer. He used to win against it often enough. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It seems to me to be the duality in chess, that many king pawn games end up not attacking the king at all, but in going after the Queenside squares, as white does in some Ruy Lopez variations, and in some queen pawn openings the design is clearly on a Kingside attack, especially the Kings bishop as it sits on d3. 1.g3 is fine but once the bishop is fianchettoed, it leaves c4 weak 😛

Which is why I often plonk a pawn on c4 - I go for an English by transposition under the right circumstances. It's also a Reversed Sniper so I get to play silly stuff from both sides of the board.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
"1.e4 Best by test."

Was a throw remark by Fischer. He used to win against it often enough. 🙂

I didn't think Fischer was being really serious, especially when he then used d4 after Berliner had a word in his earhole. I also don't believe Berliner's conviction that 1. d4 is a forced win for white. I think any move can receive undue favour because someone famous plays it. This is especially true of openings which seem to lead to almost religious fervour on the part of some. This is true of Fischer's method for winning against 1. e4 - the Najdorf probably has more adherents than some minor religions!

I once played a young lad who opened 1. Nf3 because Kramnik, the world champion at the time, used that move. Lad was mightily distressed when I replied g6 and proceeded to thrash him soundly. This was simply impossible! The world champion opens with 1. Nf3 so no old fogey should be able to beat it with an obviously bad reply like g6. I gently pointed out that I hadn't beaten the move, I had beaten a person. If I had been playing Kramnik I'd have lost, fortunately for me Mr. Kramnik wasn't in the bar that night.

Originally posted by moon1969
I could tell from previous threads you two guys don't like the solid 1.e4. And admittedly you are not alone. The dynamic 1.e4 is often shunned by an in-crowd doting on 1.d4 or even worse some obscure fads 1.b3 or 1.g3. However, while 1.d4 Queens Gambit is here to stay, I respectfully contend that unlike fads which come and go, 1.e4 is a winner that is here to stay. 🙂

Obscure fads? Now that's just funny!