< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 30 ·
|Oct-13-11|| ||I play the Fred: <I remember in one of Chernev's books he wrote that Capablanca manhandled tacticians, and gave his heavy plus scores against a number of them. I thought it very disingenuous that he omitted mention of Spielmann.>|
Maybe the omission of Spielmann was through carelessness rather than a deliberate choice. Chernev's comment to this effect (maybe he made it in another book - I only own two Chernev books IIRC) came in the book <The Most Instructive Chess Games of All Time>; there was not a Spielmann game among them - again, IIRC.
But even if you include Spielmann's score in the tacticians group, Capablanca's score is still overwhelming. Chances are you could take a group of <positional players> who are in the same age group as Chernev's selected tacticians and Capablanca's score would have been about the same.
|Oct-13-11|| ||keypusher: <But even if you include Spielmann's score in the tacticians group, Capablanca's score is still overwhelming. Chances are you could take a group of <positional players> who are in the same age group as Chernev's selected tacticians and Capablanca's score would have been about the same.>|
I agree. Which suggests that the whole notion that great player X does particularly well against players of Class Y is not worth much (even assuming Class Y has any validity). Descending to specifics, Marshall was a terrific positional player, as anyone can see by looking at his games, and Capablanca was a tactical monster. Capablanca was simply better than Marshall at everything (except maybe openings).
|Oct-13-11|| ||AnalyzeThis: I agree with the Capa comments - before he got lazy, he could out calculate anyone.|
|Oct-13-11|| ||chancho: This game is a case in point:
Capablanca vs Marshall, 1918
|Oct-13-11|| ||nimh: Kasparov's score against Karpov and Kramnik is also a good example of tactical players generally performing below expectations against solid positional players.|
It seems to me that solid players tend to perform slightly below their true level against weaker universal players, but better against stronger universal players. In case of tactical players it's the other way around.
The reason might be that a positional player is unable to generate much pressure against weaker opponents. They undoubtedly achieve better postions in most games, but in chess, unfortunately, to get a full point one actually needs a substantial advantage, small one won't do much.
But against strong tacticians who pursuit dynamical complications and display strong preference for practicality over objectively "correct" play they fare well, as they usually have solid positions where a tactician must either be satisfied with a draw, or try to attack with the cost of weakening his position.
|Oct-13-11|| ||AnalyzeThis: Let's understand something - Kramnik and Karpov are very strong tacticians.|
|Oct-16-11|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: I don't even think it makes much sense to try and classify the three K's at all. It's not "a tactical player," it's just Kasparov. |
I also think there's a difference between preference and ability. Shirov and Polgar go for wild complications, but I don't think either is stronger tactically than Kramnik or Carlsen.
|Oct-16-11|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Syphilis brought his chess career and his life to a premature end in 1906.>|
Well, well, well, at least he lived life to the full :)
|Dec-05-11|| ||brankat: Happy Birthday Harry Nelson!|
|Dec-05-11|| ||King Death: Happy birthday to a genius! Who knows what might have been?|
Thank you for leaving us some beautiful games in your too short life. You may be long gone but you will never be forgotten.
|Dec-05-11|| ||FSR: Poor Pillsbury didn't even make it to 34. If only he'd stayed away from that hooker in St. Petersburg, he might have been the third World Champion. A great genius. Why do all the greatest Americans (Morphy, Pillsbury, Fischer) come to tragic ends?|
|Dec-05-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Pillsbury could be the 3rd strongest American-born chess master in history, after Fischer and Morphy.|
All three had a 'classical' style- control the center, build up positional advantages, exploit tactical inaccuracies by the opponent, and once the position calls for it conjure an efficient attack with little tempo wasted.
If Pillsbury had the opportunity to player Lasker three matches, IMO he would have lost two but would have won one. Lasker (a player who thrived on imbalanced, dynamic, and tactical positions) seemed to have had difficulties when meeting head to head with strong players that played a 'classical' style, such as Pillsbury, Schlecter, Rubinstein, and Capablanca, although he would outscore all of them against mutual opponents in round robin tournaments.
It looks incredible to us but before WW2, aside for sulfa drugs there did not seem to be very effective anti-biotics against most infectious diseases. Pillsbury might as well have been executed.
|Dec-05-11|| ||FSR: <visayanbraindoctor: Pillsbury could be the 3rd strongest American-born chess master in history, after Fischer and Morphy.>|
The only other contenders I can think of would be Fine and Kashdan. Reshevsky, Kamsky, Seirawan, Nakamura, Kavalek, and Browne were all born outside the United States. Players like Benjamin, Christiansen, and Evans are/were strong, but never quite world class. Marshall got destroyed in his World Championship match against Lasker, and also in matches against Capablanca and Tarrasch.
|Dec-05-11|| ||Phony Benoni: <FSR> I once figured out that just one US Olympiad team had only American born players (1933: Kashdan, Marshall, Fine, Dake, Simonson). It's rather sobering to think that in the near-century since Fine's birth in 1914, the United States has produced only one world-class player, albeit a big one.|
However, should a player like Nakamura be excluded when he came to the United States at the age of two before learning to play chess? A similar case could be made for Seirawan.
|Dec-05-11|| ||FSR: <Phony Benoni> Well, neither is literally American-born, but both learned to play chess in the U.S., so I suppose the U.S. can "take credit" for them - unlike someone like Kamsky, Gulko, etc., who learned to play chess in the USSR or elsewhere.|
|Dec-05-11|| ||Phony Benoni: <FSR> Outside of Fischer, was Robert Byrne the only other "Born American" to reach the "old" Candidates stage? He was quickly outclassed by Spassky, though.|
|Dec-05-11|| ||keypusher: <Pillsbury for the most part seemed to have battled Lasker to a standstill. Given Lasker's tendency to totally dominate his more tactical contemporaries, I would say that Pillsbury was a difficult opponent for him.>|
Lasker dominated pretty much everyone. Chigorin and Steinitz are supposed to be antitheses. Lasker dominated both.
He didn't dominate Pillsbury head-to-head, but I'm not sure any conclusions can be drawn from that. Kasparov didn't dominate Gulko. So what?
|Dec-05-11|| ||Penguincw: I never knew it was his birthday today. Well, happy 139th birthday then.|
|Dec-05-11|| ||King Death: <Phony Benoni> He was.|
<keypusher> This is why I don't think much of the argument on another page that Maroczy was top of the heap because Chessmetrics ranked him there for over 2 years. Lasker was the nuts for 20.
|Dec-05-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <Phony Benoni: I once figured out that just one US Olympiad team had only American born players (1933: Kashdan, Marshall, Fine, Dake, Simonson)>|
That's a surprisingly strong team! Kashdan and Dake would probably be super-GMs, Simonson would probably be a GM, and Marshall and Fine were definitely of Candidates caliber, by today's standards. If that team were to hypothetically play today's US team, I would even bet that it would win. In the first two boards, I think Fine and Marshall in their prime were stronger players than Kamsky and Naka. Kashdan and Dake have all been but forgotten, but if one goes through some of their games, IMO they were of world class caliber.
|Dec-06-11|| ||King Death: <visayan> Kashdan was known in Europe as "Der Kleine Capablanca" because of his technical skills and mentioned as a possible challenger for the world championship. For reasons I don't know about, he faded a little, Reshevsky and Fine came along and after being one of the top players in the world for a little while in the early 1930s, by 1936 he was the third best player in the U.S. and nobody talked about his chances as a top player any more.|
|Dec-07-11|| ||IoftheHungarianTiger: @Keypusher: I agree with your posts. It's true that Lasker had some trouble with Pillsbury (although I still believe the official score of their encounters should be recorded at +5,-4,=5 in Lasker's favor), but if you look at them in the context of the entire chess world, there's no real debate about who merited the WC title, and who didn't.|
|Dec-07-11|| ||AnalyzeThis: The moral of the story is that if you select your challengers and avoid playing the tough guys, you're a great champion.|
|Dec-07-11|| ||IoftheHungarianTiger: Haha. Worked for Fischer, Lasker, and Alekhine! Maybe you're correct! Good thing we've got FIDE, however messed up it may be at times :)|
|Dec-07-11|| ||Lambda: <Pillsbury could be the 3rd strongest American-born chess master in history, after Fischer and Morphy.>|
It's a funny coincidence how those three all dropped away prematurely after appearing and reaching a very high standard, but all for very different reasons.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 30 ·