< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Mar-03-09|| ||khursh: The term <best> is very vague here. <best> in what? So such lists will always raise debates. I prefer giving different adjectives to players. For example Fischer is the most <surprising> champion for me. No one expected that any chessplayer can play and win like Fischer did.
Kasparov is the most <dominant> player, etc.|
However, I wish to see a list of bests based on <achievement> + <contribution to chess> + <dominance>.
|Mar-03-09|| ||ewan14: How did Petrosian trash Spassky ?|
|Apr-15-09|| ||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?|
|Dec-30-09|| ||Marmot PFL: The first champion in 32 years to win a match as champion.|
|Dec-30-09|| ||TheChessGuy: One of my favorite matches for the world crown.|
|Aug-10-10|| ||rapidcitychess: I'm not one for lists but if I have to:
1: Paul Morphy (Of course!)
2:Jose Capablanca (Another easy one.)
3/4/5:Mischa Tal ( Completly befuddles me.)
3/4/5: David Bronsteim ( Fun player that plays like me, but better.)
3/4/5:Bobby Fischer ( I felt bad about 5th for him.)
6/7: Vladimir Kramnik ( you guys saw it coming from me. Ha ha,)
6/7: Viswanathan Anand ( A good player, I've been a bit hard on him for beating Vlad.)
8: Garry Kasparov ( Close 8th)
9: Alexander Alekhine (Could be the best, if wasn't for that drink.)
10:Karpov ( Old man, still good.)
I left room so you guys can fight over it.
No, really I would like opinions.
|Aug-30-10|| ||goldenbear: 1.Lasker 2.Kasparov 3.Alekhine 4.Botvinnik 5.Karpov|
|Aug-30-10|| ||goldenbear: My five favorite players: 1.Spassky 2.Petrosian 3.Tal 4.Fischer 5.Smyslov|
|Oct-10-10|| ||chesschampion11: 1.garry kasparov 2.bobby fischer 3.viswanathan anand 4.tigran petrosian 5.mikhail tal|
|Oct-25-10|| ||abstract: 1.Fischer 2. Kasparov 3. Carlsen 4. Nimzovitch 5. Capablanca 6. Anand 7. Petrosian 8. Mrphy 9. Tal 10.Keres|
|Oct-25-10|| ||NM JRousselle: 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)
After the top 3, the order gets foggy, but here goes.
4 - Karpov
5 - Kasparov
6 - Lasker
7 - Alekhine
8 - Steinitz (way ahead of his time)
9 - Botvinnik
10 - Keres (won AVRO 1938)
The current batch of players has been deliberately left off this list.
|Nov-01-10|| ||Everett: Lasker-Alekhine-Kasparov-Karpov for their excellence over at least two decades each. Anand, for now, is the only other possible addition to this list, being roughly in the top 3 for 15 straight years and counting. Consistency and excellence over time...|
For their uniqueness of play, then Tal, Petrosian, Fischer and Karpov's styles are more recognizable then most others, to me at least.
|Dec-07-10|| ||SatelliteDan: According to the chessgames data base, Botvinnik's record in World Championship play he lost 65-72 in the opponents favor. Where he had a even score against Bronstein and the 1st Smyslov match.|
|Nov-26-11|| ||AnalyzeThis: I think the 1966 Petrosian vs. Spassky match was one of the greatest in world championship play.|
|Feb-06-12|| ||Penguincw: This match was best of 24 right? And Petrosian, champion, had an edge in that if it ended in a 12-12 tie, he would retain it. Well, after Round 22, he had 12 points. Even if Spassky won the last two games, it would be 12-12, and Petrosian would win. So why didn't it end after R.22?|
|Mar-23-12|| ||talisman: <So why didn't it end after R>22?>...Russia.|
|Mar-23-12|| ||Bishoprick: There should be a list of top players whose games are just fun to replay. On that list I would place Alekhine,Tal, Nezhmeditov (forgive the spelling), Morphy, Anderson,Bronstein, and Spassky. There may be many better players, but few have provided me with more fun.|
|Mar-23-12|| ||RookFile: It didn't end when Petrosian had 12 points because there was a possibility that Spassky could win two and make a tie. Yes, Petrosian keeps the title, but in that event the prize money would be distributed evenly. Petrosian made a couple of extra dollars by winning the match instead of tying it. |
True, we're not talking about a lot of money in this match.
|Dec-20-12|| ||Garech: What a match. Can anyone give me a pointer to the "...sophisticated holding maneuvers..." mentioned in the description?|
|Dec-21-12|| ||EdZelli: AnalyzeThis says.'I think the 1966 Petrosian vs. Spassky match was one of the greatest in world championship play.'|
I agree completely. I believe Spassky was at the peak of his strength in 1966 (even stronger than 1969) having defeated Geller, Keres etc. I don't know how Tigran pulled it off. I love game 7. A true classic. Nimzo's spirit must have been present in the hall when this game was played :-)
|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?
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·