< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 60 OF 84 ·
|Feb-10-11|| ||theagenbiteofinwit: Spassky's talent was without a doubt amazing, but to compare him to Capablanca is too much.|
Lazy or not, Spassky's talent was nursed by the Soviets. Capa didn't have the luxury of having Botvinnik analyze his games when he was 12.
|Feb-11-11|| ||drnooo: No, I would not compare Spassky's natural talent to Capas. Not the point, here. For me the ultimate in laziness was Capa, and talent. Though oddly Spassky even sort of learned chess like Capa by watching the game, and how the rook moved. All I was saying is that when the mentioned comparison to Capa by whomever it was, it just struck me as odd that I had never considered it before, they two being the greatest. By 72 when the match with Fischer came, Spassky just flat out didn't care that much, it was over, his laziness had engulfed him, but up to then he could beat anybody and did. All I am saying, for me, and that is all, me alone, I have always considered that in the forties, given a playing ground of equal footing, Keres was the best player in the world, in the fifties, a healthy Tal, the sixties practically a tossup between Petrosian and Spassky, and the seventies, the enigma of Fischer, despite how everybody jumps on his spurt, there was just too much missing there on too many counts to really measure. In a match, in their prime, I feel any of them, any, could have beaten Karpov or Kasparov in that pair's prime. Or not, depending on the breaks. But. In his prime, Capa would have beaten any of them. Including Spassky.|
|Feb-11-11|| ||fixingguru: <In his prime, Capa would have beaten any of them. Including Spassky.>|
I am sick and tired of these myths which are constantly spread on CG by Capa's fanboys. Let's be totally clear about one thing: with all probability the prime Capa would have not beaten any of those players. For God's sake the prime Capa even got toasted by Alekhine decisively.
|Feb-11-11|| ||plang: <For God's sake the prime Capa even got toasted by Alekhine decisively.>|
?! You make Alekhine sound like some slouch rather than one of the greatest players of all time.
|Feb-11-11|| ||fixingguru: <?! You make Alekhine sound like some slouch rather than one of the greatest players of all time.> Sure he was, but so were Spassky et comp.|
|Feb-13-11|| ||Everett: <ReneDescartes:> Yes, both Alekhine and Fischer were similar in this regard. Botvinnik and Kasparov, IMHO, were better at navigating intense chess study with life in general. |
Spassky, Capablanca and, to a degree, Karpov reside at the other end of the spectrum. They were players first and foremost, chess fighters, not analyzers.
|Feb-13-11|| ||Lil Swine: the end of soviet domination yet continued by Anatoly Karpov.|
|Feb-15-11|| ||Everett: <drnooo> Tal over Smyslov in the 50's... really? The former wasn't even a force until the decade was more than three-quarters done.|
IMHO Tal and Fischer are similar in this sense; outstanding runs to the championship, and then for various reasons shone less bright (or not at all in Fischer's case) than another top player during that time. For instance, from 1958-1963 Petrosian was really the top player, but this was not really seen as Tal's play was so amazing for two years.
Tal again was amazingly solid in the early 70's, but Karpov was on the rise and fantastically strong.
Botvinnik's best time was from '38-48. To me then comes Bronstein '49-51
Petrosian '58-'63 (with Tal '60-'61)
Kasparov '85-'05 (though '87-'89 it is practically a dead heat with Karpov)
... and now, despite what the ratings say, I think Anand is the top player from '05 to now. Yes there are other amazing players, but Anand shines brightest IMO.
|Feb-15-11|| ||babakova: I'd definitely take Tal over Petrosjan 58-59 fwiw. I'm basing this primarily on Tal winning the USSR championship 57 and 58 and then convincingly taking down the candidates tournament in yugoslavia 1959.|
|Feb-15-11|| ||kingfu: Karpov was Champion for 10 years after The Fischer Monster imploded. I guess he "proved" he was worthy, after all.|
What about Paul Keres? A Champion player, IMO.
I love Mikhail Tal! He played great games; always played for mate or brilliancy. Drank too much. Smoked too much. I miss him.
Did Tal want to be All Time Champion? Or did he live in that Singular Moment , like Fischer?
What do you do with Efim Geller? He was +2 with Fischer.
Petrosian was like The Pit Bull chewing on your ankle and NOT letting go. Dogged. Tough. Contrary. Being a French player, I love Petrosian, too!
I will visit The Moscow Central Chess Club some day.
It is The Valhalla of Chess.
|Feb-15-11|| ||percyblakeney: <I'd definitely take Tal over Petrosjan 58-59 fwiw>|
Me too. Even if I agree with most things in <Everett>'s list it's harsh on Tal to place Petrosian ahead of him in 1958-59. Tal won the Candidates in 1959 with +12 (Petrosian +3), and the Interzonal the year before with +7 (Petrosian +5). Then the mentioned Soviet Championships, ahead of among others Petrosian.
2005-today on the whole I'd give to Anand, but maybe rather split it into shorter periods, something like: Topalov -05, Kramnik -06, Anand -07-08, Carlsen -09-10.
|Feb-15-11|| ||Everett: Thanks for the feedback everyone!
The Tal-Petrosian debate is very interesting. Tal was really so brilliant during that time. I must admit to being ignorant of his play in '58, and would like to amend my makeshift list to Tal '58-60, Petrosian '61-'63.
Keres, Geller, Stein and Korchnoi of course deserve a mention, but the other players i listed were really on top of their respective games.
|Feb-15-11|| ||M.D. Wilson: Korchnoi used to whip Tal mercilessly for years.|
|Feb-16-11|| ||Everett: <MDWilson> I'm suggesting specific times of top play. Korchnoi may indeed have beaten Tal many times, but when he was doing so, Spassky, Fischer and Karpov were superior to both Tal and Korchnoi (depending on the years). IMO of course. The line between these players is always arbitrary and thin.|
|Feb-16-11|| ||M.D. Wilson: Spassky was better than Korchnoi in the 60s; Korchnoi was better than Spassky in the 70s. Their match results indicate this. Karpov was superior to Korchnoi in all of their matches. It's not possible to compare Karpov and Fischer, but certainly Fischer never found it easy to play Korchnoi, and vice versa. Both Spassky and Korchnoi were particularly difficult opponents for Tal.|
Although he never became WC, I rank Korchnoi slightly above Tal in regards to playing strength, on par with Spassky, but perhaps just below Fischer and Karpov. Spassky, in my opinion, is the most talented of them all, although in these sorts of debates, it's each to his own.
|Feb-16-11|| ||mojonera: korchnoi was better than karpov in 1974 , but brezhnev was better than korchnoi .|
|Feb-16-11|| ||M.D. Wilson: Trust someone to come along to muddy the waters.|
|Feb-17-11|| ||Everett: <MDWilson> I agree with everything you wrote. All told, Korchnoi is one of the all-time greats, in playing strength alone, much less longevity. Still, it remains true that at no time was he the single best player. There always seemed to be at least one player better than he. The same can likely be said for Keres, but earlier and for a shorter period of time (late 30's through the 40's)|
|Feb-17-11|| ||ewan14: Korchnoi seemed to be able to beat Tal at will|
|Feb-17-11|| ||M.D. Wilson: Tal's style wasn't really effective against Korchnoi for two main reason: 1)In muddy, double-edged positions Korchnoi would often outcalculate him; 2) When Tal would attack, Korchnoi would just gobble up pieces like he did against everyone, defend accurately, then develop an overpowering counter-attack or be left with an easily won endgame. Tal's infamous stare obviously didn't bother Korchnoi. In some of their early draws, apparently Korchnoi blundered near the time control and missed a win. |
Korchnoi really struggled against Keres, who he claimed was the real attacking monster of the era.
I think Korchnoi and Fischer had the strongest endgames in the 1960s, better than Petrosian's, in my opinion.
|Feb-17-11|| ||talisman: <ewan14> but not at the end. like 1974 and later.|
|Feb-24-11|| ||perfidious: Pity I missed all this when it was going full tilt, but I'll add a few thoughts.......|
In the 1950s, I believe Smyslov was the strongest player of the decade. His overall record was unequalled in a time when champions were, as Botvinnik later termed it, 'primus inter pares'. I'll not bore you with a recitation, as that has already been done by others, and I've nothing substantive to add. At the end of the '50s, Tal's peak was frightening.
The one constant here, regardless of who held the supreme title, was that as WC, that player's record was nothing special, from the time of Botvinnik until Karpov gained the crown by default. It was almost as though Karpov felt he had something to prove, as he then dominated tournament play until Kasparov established his greatness, in a manner not seen since Alekhine's zenith of 1928-34.
Korchnoi, though a favourite of mine, was never better than the second-best player in the world for a few years (roughly 1977-82), and had he won at Baguio 1978, it's possible one could make a case for him. Karpov's results in tournament play were staggering, however.
In the '60s, Petrosian was a prime candidate for top player for the decade after despatching Botvinnik, but my feeling is that there was no clear-cut number one. By the time Spassky took the crown, Fischer may well have been the strongest of all these titans, but with the time he spent away from the game, we'll never know, so I think it best to leave it at that.
In the early 1970s, there's little to debate, once Fischer resumed playing top-class chess, and Spassky's results were fair, but not calculated to make anyone forget what Alekhine had achieved whilst champion, though to be objective, this was no different than what any of his predecssors had achieved as holders of the supreme title.
|Feb-24-11|| ||ewan14: I will check the book, but from Korchnoi's games ( to 1977 ) Boris Spassky only came out on top of Korchnoi in 1968|
The rest of the 60's Korchnoi ruled
Of course Spassky had an incredible match record by that time ( even coming back to 2 - 2 against Petrosian in 1966 ) however Korchnoi in his autobiography alleges Petrosian arranged for him to lose the services of one of his seconds !
|Mar-22-11|| ||kingfu: How is Boris doing TODAY?
I have been all this Internet, the savior of mankind, and NOT been able to get current information.
Is he recovering?
I hope and pray that he is doing well or better.
Once upon a time my neighbors moved out and I inherited their cat. He was a yellow Tom named Morris after the stupid TV commercials.
I immediately renamed
|Mar-22-11|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @kingfu
Boris is , thankfully, well on the mend. I believe chessbase reported on Boris' health in a news item some months ago, if that helps.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 60 OF 84 ·