< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 13 ·
|Nov-07-10|| ||Everett: Okay, don't count them, but then don't count Spassky's win against Karpov either, as it was shortened time to fit into TV scheduling. (and he was worse out of the opening)|
|Nov-08-10|| ||Spasskyfan22: How many players do we know of that's defeated 2 of the Top 5 Chess Players of All-Time (Fischer and Karpov) with the Kings Gambit, other than Boris Spassky? |
Eyal and Petrosianic, you're both thinking way too much in terms of "quantity," but who's defeated more "quality" opponents with the KG than Boris Spassky?
Surely, "quantity" is an important factor in determing the validity of someone else's greatness.. TO AN EXTENT.
But there must also be a method of balancing-out the "QUALITY" of their opponents.
It's also important to keep in mind how chess tactics and improvements in the KG have evolved since the days of Steinitz, Lasker, Morphy, Blackburne and maybe even Bronstein.
|Nov-09-10|| ||diceman: <Spasskyfan22: How many players do we know of that's defeated 2 of the Top 5 Chess Players of All-Time (Fischer and Karpov) with the Kings Gambit, other than Boris Spassky?>|
I dont think this was a good example.
(Spassky was worse)
Probably Karpov, Bronstein would be
better. (havent seen the Karpov game yet)
|Nov-09-10|| ||percyblakeney: <Okay, don't count them, but then don't count Spassky's win against Karpov either, as it was shortened time to fit into TV scheduling. (and he was worse out of the opening)>|
I don't know if only games where Spassky had the advantage out of the opening should count in the stats, but dismissing the Karpov game based on the fact that they had 45 minutes each is more reasonable even if it's far from the same thing as simul games. The game was played long after Spassky's peak, while Karpov was World Champion, but it was indeed a form of rapid chess.
|Nov-09-10|| ||Petrosianic: <Eyal and Petrosianic, you're both thinking way too much in terms of "quantity,">|
Yeah, because that's required to be really proficient in playing an opening.
Like, imagine Player A plays the King's Gambit year in and year out and wins many great games. Player B plays it just once, but wins a game better than any that Player A ever played. So is B a better King's Gambit player than A? Probably not, as he simply hasn't demonstrated that great a knowledge of the ins and outs of the gambit, even though this one game was better than any of A's.
<but who's defeated more "quality" opponents with the KG than Boris Spassky?>
See above. I'm willing to "count" the Karpov game, but as we already discussed, Spassky didn't really play the King's Gambit all that well in this game against Fischer. He got busted out of the opening, but hung in tough enough until a middlegame opportunity presented itself. So, it's hard to consider Spsasky the greatest King's Gambit player of all time on the basis of a game in which he played the King's Gambit badly.
But he might be the strongest player who ever won a famous game with the King's Gambit, which is something different. (Fischer's King's Gambit wins weren't really famous, only his loss was).
|Nov-09-10|| ||Everett: ... and yes, Fischer was great, but in '60 he was still only 17 and barely in the top 10 at that point.|
Here's a current player who has played it with some success.
|Dec-30-10|| ||tpstar: "A Bust to the King's Gambit" by Bobby Fischer, after 3 ... P-Q3!:|
"This is the key to a troublesome position, a high-class 'waiting move.' At Mar Del Plata, 1959, I played 3...P-KN4 against Spassky, but this is inexact because it gives White drawing chances in the ensuing ending: e.g., 4 P-KR4 P-N5 5 N-K5 N-KB3 6 P-Q4 P-Q3 7 N-Q3 NxP 8 BxP B-N2 and now 9 P-B3! (replacing Spassky’s 9 N-B3) 9...Q-K2 10 Q-K2 B-B4 11 N-Q2 leads to an ending where Black’s extra Pawn is neutralized by White’s stranglehold on the dark squares, especially KB4.
Another good try, but also inexact, is the Berlin Defense: 3...P-KR3 4 PQ4 P-KN4 5 P-KR4 B-N2 6 P-KN3 P-N5 (also playable is 6...P-Q3 7 PxBP P-N5) 7 N-R2 PxP 8 NxP (8 QxP loses to 8...PxN 9 QxB QxP+ 10 K-Q1 Q-B3) 8...P-Q4 9 P-K5 B-B4 10 B-KB4, where Black cannot demonstrate any advantage.
Of course 3...P-Q4 equalizes easily, but that’s all."
Note Fischer got the year of this game wrong.
The link from Page 1 is out - try here = http://www.chesscafe.com/text/bust....
This thread is a riot.
|Dec-31-10|| ||AnalyzeThis: <CHECKMATE (Don't forget to breathe sweetheart) >|
|May-27-11|| ||dotsamoht: The greatest King's Gambit player of the modern era is clearly David Bronstein. He brought the opening back to life by including it in his everyday repertoire. That he continued to play it even when forbade to do so by his team Captain, Botvinnik, in a team competition marks him as the greatest modern advocate for the opening.|
Go get a copy of 100 Open Games to see how many lovely King's Gambits David played and you will see.
|May-27-11|| ||AVRO38: <The greatest King's Gambit player of the modern era is clearly David Bronstein.>|
Apparently you missed this game:
Spassky vs Bronstein, 1960
Has Bronstein ever beaten players of the caliber of Fischer and Karpov with the King's Gambit like Spassky did?
|Jun-03-11|| ||Mysteriod: Well, I have something to say:
There is no doubt that Spassky,Bronstein,Morphy, and Andersson were the best King's Gambit players. And I love them for their crazy romantic style.
|Jun-03-11|| ||TheFocus: Don't forget Spielmann as one of the best King's Gambit players.|
|Jun-14-11|| ||wals: Rybka 4 x 64
29.Rf4, +3.98, and Black resigns.
28...Qh4, +3.98. Best, Qg6, +3.05.
26...Rf8, +2.91. Best, b6, -0.26.
25...Qg5, -0.26. Best, Qd7, -0.77.
2.f4, -0.39. Best, Nc3, =0.15.
6.d4, -0.78. Best, Bc4, =-0.22.
Net Black 3.51. Rybka rating move 28...+3.98.
|Jun-15-11|| ||wals: CORRECTION
d4, f4, are integral moves of the Kings Gambit and should not have been included.
Amended Shortfall : Black 4.61.
Rybka move 28...rating 3.98.
|Jun-28-11|| ||DrMAL: <tpstar: "A Bust to the King's Gambit" by Bobby Fischer, after 3 ... P-Q3!:>
Cracks me up, actually black is still ahead all the way up to blunder 26...Rf8 perhaps Fischer should have looked at that! Still a favorite game because of its tremendous accuracy on both sides...and Spassky's beautiful finish!|
|Jun-28-11|| ||fab4: < Everett: ... and yes, Fischer was great, but in '60 he was still only 17 and barely in the top 10 at that point.>|
Nonsense. Fischer was comfortably ensconced in the top ten in the world by 1960. And he was fast pushing at the top one..
|Jul-02-11|| ||DrMAL: <fab4:> Agreed. Personally, I believe Fischer was already the world's best player in 1960 but he was very young, quite inexperienced and, above all he was essentially ALONE. Had players like Tal (easily second best in my mind during 1960) and others such as Spassky and Botvinnik mentored or collaborated with Fischer, he would have been crowned world champion much sooner...and very possibly stayed playing! It was a completely different era back then, one cannot compare others who were chosen and mentored from early age, including Spassky, Karpov and Kasparov, as part of the Soviet chess machine. I still believe to this day Fischer's innate genius is unmatched and that the chess world greatly suffered because he was not given the chance at special treatment and mentoring he deserved.|
|Jul-02-11|| ||fab4: <DrMAL>
Well Fischer had no political help or world class GM help re adjournments or 'seconds'..or indeed cultural help..
He was a loner.
|Jul-02-11|| ||Shams: <Personally, I believe Fischer was already the world's best player in 1960>|
What nonsense. Why not call him the best player in 1943 when he was born?
|Jul-02-11|| ||fab4: <Shams: <Personally, I believe Fischer was already the world's best player in 1960>
What nonsense. Why not call him the best player in 1943 when he was born?>|
It's not nonsense. What you write is nonsense. Yeah ?
Fischer was easily in the top ten in in world in 1960.. that was the original argument.
|Jul-02-11|| ||plang: There is no evidence from his results, tournaments, actual play etc. to support Fischer as the stongest player in 1960 (top 10 yes).|
|Jul-02-11|| ||shach matov: <plang>
you're trying to reason with fischer fanboys by using evidence and logic? good luck with that...
|Jul-02-11|| ||fab4: Nobody is saying Fischer was the 'strongest' player .. jeez.. this is getting boring ! |
In 1960 tho, Fischer was absolutely in the top ten chess players in the world.
|Jul-02-11|| ||DrMAL: <shach matov: <plang>
you're trying to reason with fischer fanboys by using evidence and logic? good luck with that...> I'm not a fanboy LOL. I wrote "Personally, I believe..." I am aware of all the evidence. Perhaps most compelling is that Fischer never beat Tal prior to 1960 (they tied in 1960) then Tal never beat Fischer from 1961 onwards. It is difficult to say exactly when Fischer became #1 by proof because of Tal's health, he even lost his WC back to Botvinnik.|
|Jul-02-11|| ||keypusher: <fab4: Nobody is saying Fischer was the 'strongest' player .. jeez.. this is getting boring !>|
Glad you bore yourself as well as others. Anyway, DrMAL said just that.
It actually isn't clear that Fischer was top ten in 1960 -- consider his wretched performance at Buenos Aires 1960. But he was certainly top ten by 1961, so who cares.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 13 ·