< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Feb-16-13|| ||Diademas: <<RookFile> True, we're not talking about a lot of money in this match.>I heard the winner got 2.500$. This leads me to a pet theory of mine:
That the Soviets actively tried to keep prize money in chess at a low level, as to not encouraging players from other (read western) countrys to take up chess on a professional level.|
|Nov-06-13|| ||jonie: Alekhine (fanatical zeal to win)
Botvinnik (iron logic)
Capablanca (endgame purity)
Tal (intuitive aggressive play)
Fischer (optimistic play)
Kasparov (hybrid pragmatic approach)
these are my 6 greatest players of all time.
|Nov-06-13|| ||parisattack: <Diademas: <<RookFile> ... I heard the winner got 2.500$. This leads me to a pet theory of mine: That the Soviets actively tried to keep prize money in chess at a low level, as to not encouraging players from other (read western) countrys to take up chess on a professional level.>|
Makes a lot of sense to me.
I hope all is well in beautiful Bergen!
|Nov-06-13|| ||Everett: Botvinnik had more of a chromoly logic. Took a long time to rust.|
|Jun-14-14|| ||offramp: <alshatranji: "if not to the manor born". Do you mean "not to the manner born"? Or you actually referring to the British sitocm? And what does the phrase actually mean in reference to Spassky?>|
LOL! Well spotted.
It is still there, 5 years later. I can imagine Spassky chuckling along to the antics of Peter Bowles and Penelope Keith. I found the program slightly less funny than a burning orphanage, but Spassky may have loved it owing to the Peter Bowles character having the real name of <Bedrich Polouvicka> - undoubtedly a Leningrader.
The correct phrase, one that I would never use myself, comes from Shakespeare's <Hamlet> (page 94) and is predictably incomprehensible:
<"Though I am a native here and to the manner born, it is a custom more honoured in the breach than the observance."> Who?
|Mar-19-15|| ||1d410: Spassky was beating on Iron Tigran so Petrosian threw tantrums, setting up a bunch of funny and outrageous defensive manouvers. A great match to watch for fun!|
|Mar-19-15|| ||perfidious: <1d410: Spassky was beating on Iron Tigran....>|
Believe you must be referring to the end phase of their second match for the title--the only time Spassky managed anything like 'beating on' his great adversary.
|Mar-19-15|| ||1d410: <perfidious> Then why didn't we see any of Petrosian's exchange sacrifices and such against botvinnik? Spassky was THE master of development and the initiative before Fischer.|
|Mar-20-15|| ||perfidious: Great players adjust their game to their opponents--evidently you do not grasp this simple fact. This match, moreover, has nothing to do with anything regarding what went in Botvinnik-Petrosian, so your injection of that match into this scenario is a red herring and non sequitur.|
|Mar-20-15|| ||Lambda: <When I build a top 10 list that covers many years, I consider how did any candidate for the list fare against his contemporaries. With that in mind:
1 - Morphy (clearly the #1 by my standards)
2 - Fischer (Remember his candidate run?)
3 - Capablanca (10 years without a loss)>
1 - Philidor dominated his contemporaries more than Morphy.
2 - Steinitz put together a better string of results against his contemporaries in the 1870s than Fischer's.
3 - Tal put together longer runs of undefeated <games>, (which are surely the important measure, remaining undefeated by not playing much isn't an impressive feat), than Capablanca - twice!
In any case, penalising Karpov for playing in the same era as Kasparov, or penalising Kasparov for playing in the same era as Karpov is clearly silly.
|Mar-20-15|| ||Howard: But please bear in mind that Steintz didn't face nearly the same caliber of competition that Fischer did.|
As for Philidor (!), just how much competition was there back in the late 1700's ?!?!
|Mar-20-15|| ||1d410: <perfidious: Great players adjust their game to their opponents> Especially when one opponent is more difficult than another one :). Botvinnik is my favorite champion, but he was an old man when he played Petrosian.|
|Mar-20-15|| ||1d410: Spassky really put the pressure on Petrosian's defensive capabilities...|
|Mar-20-15|| ||1d410: My 10 personal favorite historical players:
Best non-champion: Bronstein
|Mar-20-15|| ||offramp: Kibitzers seem unusually inhibited when it comes to "My Favourite Players". The lists seem to be identical to the list|
<"Players Who I Think Other People Think I Should Say Are The Best Players of All Time">.
Wake up, dudes! Have some originality.
|Mar-20-15|| ||1d410: I was never very creative.. sorry :P|
|Mar-20-15|| ||1d410: I'm more a math person|
|Mar-20-15|| ||offramp: <1d410:> I was not addressing you! I was talking to hoi polloi, not gentry.|
|Mar-20-15|| ||Mr 1100: <Have some originality.>|
The greatest of all time:
|Mar-20-15|| ||Lambda: <But please bear in mind that Steintz didn't face nearly the same caliber of competition that Fischer did.|
As for Philidor (!), just how much competition was there back in the late 1700's ?!?!>
Thus illustrating the problem of evaluating them by comparing them to their contemporaries.
|Mar-20-15|| ||1d410: <Mr 1100>
All time greatest Marshall the great swindler!
|Mar-20-15|| ||Everett: My favorites, for their games: Bronstein and Karpov
My favorites, for their writing: Suba and Rowson
For both writing and games (despite some sketchy analysis): Seirawan
But I like them all.
|Mar-20-15|| ||nok: <Philidor dominated his contemporaries more than Morphy.> Really? What good did he do, besides loving his pawns?|
|Mar-21-15|| ||greed and death: <Wake up, dudes! Have some originality.>|
5. Zuckertort (who wouldn't love a guy whos last name means "sugar cake" anyways?)
|Aug-01-15|| ||whiteshark: Some match-footage: http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/R...|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·