07 Jun 07
Originally posted by WulebgrDidnt Lasker "duck" Rubenstein when Akiba was tearing it up back in the 1909-1914 period?
Staunton was a great player, but ducked a match with Morphy. Such cowardice, as with Fischer's fear of Karpov, serves as automatic disqualification from the list of greatest ever.
Had Pillsbury lived longer, he would have shortened Lasker's reign at the top.
Hence:
1. Kasparov
2. Korchnoi
3. Lasker
4. Pillsbury
5. Lucena
08 Jun 07
Originally posted by mcreynoldsLasker avoided Rubenstein and Tarrasch. Tarrasch had insulted Lasker and Lasker wanted to bring more income to chess players. Rubenstein missed out on a title match because he could not get the funds for a title match. Rubenstein missing out was for the over all good of chess players. I am sure that Lasker was not trying to keep the title by not playing Rubenstein. It is a shame but it had to be done.
Didnt Lasker "duck" Rubenstein when Akiba was tearing it up back in the 1909-1914 period?
08 Jun 07
Originally posted by gambit3I'm not really up on my Rubinstein history, but didn't World War I interrupt the planned 1914 Lasker-Rubinstein match?
Lasker avoided Rubenstein and Tarrasch. Tarrasch had insulted Lasker and Lasker wanted to bring more income to chess players. Rubenstein missed out on a title match because he could not get the funds for a title match. Rubenstein missing out was for the over all good of chess players. I am sure that Lasker was not trying to keep the title by not playing Rubenstein. It is a shame but it had to be done.
08 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Mad RookMy understanding is that Rubenstein could not fund a World Chess Title Match. The World Wars messed up the lives of a lot of people and events. P.S. World War 2 messed up the strongest Saint Louis Cardinals Baseball team ever?
I'm not really up on my Rubinstein history, but didn't World War I interrupt the planned 1914 Lasker-Rubinstein match?
08 Jun 07
Originally posted by gambit3I just checked Wikipedia (yes, I know, anybody can contribute to Wikipedia). I still don't know the details, but according to Wikipedia, we're both right. 🙂
My understanding is that Rubenstein could not fund a World Chess Title Match. The World Wars messed up the lives of a lot of people and events. P.S. World War 2 messed up the strongest Saint Louis Cardinals Baseball team ever?
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194663
08 Jun 07
Originally posted by el gilI think Fischer was a little intimidated with Karpov. Karpov isn't easily bullied with psyche tactics, whereas Spaasky was easily flustered.
mm I'm not so sure Bobby was scared of Karpov:
maybe he only lost his head, after the "Reykyavik War" against Spasskij... since the childhood, Fischer used to behave like a primadonna, a kind of naughty boy, coz he suffered from Ashberger syndrome... so I've always considered his sudden disappearance from the pro-tournaments as an act of insanity, a kind ...[text shortened]... e, he wasn't such a great sportsman: on that side, at least, Boris was much better than him
08 Jun 07
Originally posted by jvanhineyou may be right...
i know the answer....chess i so complete and complicated youll never know..
I think I've posed the question in a stupid way, since you cannot compare a XIX-century player with a modern one, there're too many differences between their periods...But maybe we can pick the best player for each period, the best among his contemporaries...
Steinitz; Capablanca; Botvinnik; Fischer; Kasparov. (...Kramnik?)
10 Jun 07
Originally posted by el gilSure you can. You can compare anything and do so persuasively and intelligently. The problem is that most of us suffer from contemporary-itis. We assume that what is current is the best, and only concede that older players MIGHT have been stronger with "modern techniques" but that you really can't say. Well, lets eliminate contemporary bias and go the other direction in time. What if a late 20th century World Champion had no mentor and no books, how would he fare against, say Morphy? Well, Morphy played at a contemporary GM level chess with that "handicap" according to Keene's study. How in heck did Morphy learn to play that well competely on his own? I doubt that a single modern World Champion would have been able to defeat him under those "handicaps". Perhaps Steinitz (because he was able to develop positional rules from studying Morphy's games, Tal (if his tactical vision was natural like Morphy's and not learned from books) and Fischer (because he learned alone) would have stood a chance against Morphy.
you may be right...
I think I've posed the question in a stupid way, since you cannot compare a XIX-century player with a modern one, there're too many differences between their periods...But maybe we can pick the best player for each period, the best among his contemporaries...
Steinitz; Capablanca; Botvinnik; Fischer; Kasparov. (...Kramnik?)