....the player I keep returning too, whose game notes I find so clear
and honest and whose games have an iron logic to them is [b]Tarrasch. So again this month I've been going through T's 300 Chess games.
Some of his games are quite beautiful. His good one fit perfectly in a way
I just seem to understand. I often pull them around a bit looking for other
moves and perhaps stumble upon something he perhaps had up his sleeve.
[/b]
I ordered that book, which should arrive next week. Donaldson and Minev indicate that Rubinstein had studied it thoroughly by 1905, and Kasparov credits Rubinstein as the most brilliant proponent of the ideas articulated first by Steinitz, and then developed further by Tarrasch.
Even in our era, these classic texts seem to be essential reading if one is to advance beyond the level of club player.
Originally posted by Marinkatomb If pushed which one would you choose? Smyslov is a close first for me. I am also a great fan of Korchnoi (the first player i really studied in any detail, could easily be my fav). Kasparov/Tal/Fischer, great tacticians (amongst other things) but i struggle to understand them.
Smyslov comes first for me because he was so good at achieving a positions ...[text shortened]... ive, elegant chess. 😏
EDIT: I've never gotten around to Rubinstein, care to post a game? 🙂
The way to understanding Tal isn't trying to calculate out all the lines when he makes a sac... its to try and see how his pieces become more valuable than his opponents... which is why I don't think Tal is the best Tactician more like the best evaluator or positional player.
Don't take this to mean that I completely understand Tal but I think I come closer than a lot of folk who are looking in the wrong direction.... not much closer though lol 😛
I'd have to say Tal is my second favorite player with only Kasparov in front since Kaspy is like Tal 2.0.
Originally posted by tomtom232 The way to understanding Tal isn't trying to calculate out all the lines when he makes a sac... its to try and see how his pieces become more valuable than his opponents... which is why I don't think Tal is the best Tactician more like the best evaluator or positional player.
Don't take this to mean that I completely understand Tal but I think I come c ay Tal is my second favorite player with only Kasparov in front since Kaspy is like Tal 2.0.
I like Levon Aronian, I don't understand his play, but i like his attitude. Also i like
Greco, Philador, Ruy López de Segura,, Morphy, Reti, Capablanca, Fischer and Tony
Kosten.
Originally posted by tomtom232 The way to understanding Tal isn't trying to calculate out all the lines when he makes a sac... its to try and see how his pieces become more valuable than his opponents... which is why I don't think Tal is the best Tactician more like the best evaluator or positional player.
Don't take this to mean that I completely understand Tal but I think I come c ay Tal is my second favorite player with only Kasparov in front since Kaspy is like Tal 2.0.
I dig what you are saying, i think Tal is perhaps a little under rated positionally. I've read most of his 'My Life and Games' book and have to say, he's not a one trick pony. He went undefeated for over a year (possibly two, can't remember exactly). Korchnoi had his number, but that's about it. Had his health held out i think Fischer would have been playing him for the World championship, not Spassky (with no disrespect to Spassky, Fantastic player! But Tal was just on another planet).
All that said though, it's still Smyslov for me. Smyslovs record v Tal? 4 wins, 3 losses, 21(😲) draws.
You should enjoy it, he is often quite humeorus in some notes.
"Chess is a terrible game. If you have no center, your opponent has a freer position.
If you do have a center, then you really have something to worry about!"
(That was him sowing the seeds for the hyper- moderns who appeared in the 1920's.)
Some other favourite Tarrasch quotes:
"Up to this point White has been following well-known analysis.
But now he makes a fatal error: he begins to use his own head."
"When you don't know what to play, wait for an idea to come into your
opponent's mind. You may be sure that idea will be wrong."
"He who fears the isolated queen's pawn should give up chess."
"Before the endgame the gods have placed the middlegame."
(that one has left mark on me.)
"It is not enough to be a good player... you must also play well."
"What is the object of playing a gambit opening?...
To acquire a reputation of being a dashing player at the cost of losing a game."
"First-class players lose to second-class players because second-class players
sometimes play a first-class game."
"Every move creates a weakness."
and of course.
"Chess, like love, like music, has the power to make men happy."
If you can, get his best games by Fred Reinfeld, often quoted as Fred's best book.
He could not fail on this one. Superb games to note up a lot of them were played
after this 300 games.
You should enjoy it, he is often quite humeorus in some notes.
"Chess is a terrible game. If you have no center, your opponent has a freer position.
If you do have a center, then you really have something to worry about!"
(That was him sowing the seeds for the hyper- moderns who appeared in the 1920's.)
Some othr favourite Tarra ...[text shortened]... uperb games to note up a lot of them were played
after this 300 games.
"Up to this point White has been following well-known analysis.
But now he makes a fatal error: he begins to use his own head."
Who's been analysing my games?? WHO GOD DAMN IT!!??
You should enjoy it, he is often quite humeorus in some notes.
"Chess is a terrible game. If you have no center, your opponent has a freer position.
If you do have a center, then you really have something to worry about!"
(That was him sowing the seeds for the hyper- moderns who appeared in the 1920's.)
Some other favourite Tarr ...[text shortened]... uperb games to note up a lot of them were played
after this 300 games.
I have Tarrasch's The Game of Chess, and have thus seen some of his wit. I remember reading a comment a few days ago concerning the IQP that time will tell whether he is correct, or the rest of the world.
Sometimes an IQP is OK, sometimes it's bad and sometimes it does not matter.
I think he's saying look at it, don't dimiss it just because it's an IQP.
This was in answer to those who slagged his Tarrasch Defence for the sole
reason Black gets an IQP.
v A Rubinstein is was a proven weakness but the chances of meeting another
Akiba at our level are zilch.
And even after Rubinstein had long since passed away the Tarrasch was still
a weapon on the GM boards.
Spassky used it five times against Petrosian in the 1969 WC match.
winning one and drawing five.
Kasparov tried it against Karpov a couple of times in 1984 but lost.
Before then Kasparov had been winning with his Tarrasch so it looks
like Karpov did his homework.
Originally posted by Marinkatomb Mine is Vasily Smyslov. Master strategist, he always seemed to have a handle on the position, no matter how complex things became. This is a game from his World championship match with Bottvinik in 1954. I find this game to be somewhat reminiscent of Bobby Fischers 'game of the century', but Smyslov played his in a match for the World championship, again ...[text shortened]... Be5
29.Qe7 Rc8 30.a5 Rc2 31.Kg2 Nd4 32.Kf1 Bf3 33.Rb1 Nc6 0-1[/pgn]
It's a draw for me. Fischer and Kasparov. Both retired from chess for political reasons. Fischer for personal politics, and Kasparov for professional politics. Both were larger than life characters in their chess careers, and created enormous publicity, good or bad, for the game we love. Also, either man could win against any player, at any time!
Fischer is the Mike Tyson of chess. Unbeatable in his prime, but a waste of a career. Still, he's my favorite chess player, just like Mike (who also pretty much went insane...if he wasn't always) is my favorite boxer of all time.
Both made you afraid to get into a match with them. No chess player got into a player's head like Fischer.
Originally posted by vivify Fischer is the Mike Tyson of chess. Unbeatable in his prime, but a waste of a career. Still, he's my favorite chess player, just like Mike (who also pretty much went insane...if he wasn't always) is my favorite boxer of all time.
Both made you afraid to get into a match with them. No chess player got into a player's head like Fischer.
except Efim Geller who roasted Bobby on more than one occasion and is one of the few
masters to have a positive score against him. How he came to do this is very
interesting indeed. When one plays through Fischers game they always seem so
beautifully logical, afterwards.
Originally posted by greenpawn34 Sometimes an IQP is OK, sometimes it's bad and sometimes it does not matter.
I think he's saying look at it, don't dimiss it just because it's an IQP.
This was in answer to those who slagged his Tarrasch Defence for the sole
reason Black gets an IQP.
v A Rubinstein is was a proven weakness but the chances of meeting another
Akiba at our level are ...[text shortened]... then Kasparov had been winning with his Tarrasch so it looks
like Karpov did his homework.
I suspect it was a faulty strategy to attempt to play Karpov in a technical position like an IPQ.
I like Carlsen best right now. I haven't really looked much at old master games so
much... I can't really comment on those guys. Anyway, I like how Carlsen's been
playing the openings lately. He never really goes for main lines anymore, he just goes
for (roughly equal) complicated positions with a lot of pieces still on the board... then he just outplays his opponent. With white and black. Such confidence is inspiring.
Originally posted by Hiyah I like Carlsen best right now. I haven't really looked much at old master games so
much... I can't really comment on those guys. Anyway, I like how Carlsen's been
playing the openings lately. He never really goes for main lines anymore, he just goes
for (roughly equal) complicated positions with a lot of pieces still on the board... then he just outplays his opponent. With white and black. Such confidence is inspiring.
yes i noticed against the French defence recently he simply played d3 to avoid mainlines and prepared theory simply to play a game of chess. There is indeed some wisdom in this me thinks.
Who is your favourite player and why?
19 Oct '12 15:48
Back to Top