|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 248 OF 284 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-24-12 | | Dr. Yes: ARubinstein - to someone who says it's a waste of time to argue the most talented chess player debate; it's odd that you waded right into the middle of it. Your comment that to some Morphy is God, and Fischer the prophet; could only be directed at me, since no one else has taken the position that Morphy was the most talented of all time,(at least not in these posts). That cheap shot shows that you haven't got a reasonable argument to contradict the fact that Morphy had one of the most incredible learning curves, along with only three or four other men in the history of our game, (the others being Capablanca, Reshevsky and possibly Deschapelles). Another person earlier took a cheap shot at Reshevsky, (and at Fischer and myself) saying that he wasn't even one of the best. Nothing could be further from the truth. Reshevsky was on top of the world in 1935, and he was a world's top ten player for a quarter of a century. Who but a World Champion has ever done that? Fischer said that except for Russian collusion, Reshevsky should have had the title in the 1940's, though I beleve that title should have gone to Euwe in 1934, Reshevsky in 1935, and Capablanca again in 1936. Flohr and Lilienthal should have had title shots earlier in the thirties, but I doubt that they could have beaten an inspired Alekhine. |
|
| Feb-24-12 | | Dr. Yes: Some say that Steinitz's ideas about strolling with your king is a bad idea and that no modern openings incorporate this idea. It might not be common, but I believe that there is still bona-fide up to date opening theory where the best moves are to let the king wander. These are almost always to be found exclusively in the open game, however, which most modern GMs are too chicken to play. |
|
| Feb-24-12 | | Dr. Yes: DrNooo - Too bad you're not Dr. No, the guy who asked me to post on chess games, and now that I do, I can't find him. As for another cheap shot at Fischer about his Geller nemesis, isn't this overplayed a bit? Geller (and Tal) dominated the teenage Fischer who hadn't matured to World Champion class yet. At Bled 1961, Fischer showed some true grit when he defeated, Tal (1960-61 champion), Petrosian (1963-69 champion) and Geller. Fischer kept maturing until by 1967, only Spassky was a real threat to him. |
|
| Feb-25-12 | | Dr. Yes: Some guy named Shams and I have been deleted for talking about the CIA. I mentioned that they shouldn't be above the law, and should be brought to account for the murder of President John F. Kennedy. Murdering a man for adultery should only be the prerogative of the cuckolded husband. |
|
| Feb-25-12 | | brankat: <AVRO38> <You failed to mention that his idea was a BAD idea, and that no master today would consider moving his king around in the opening as if it was a minor piece. > You failed to mention that the IDEA has had nothing to do with the OPENINGS. |
|
| Feb-25-12 | | brankat: <Reshevsky was on top of the world in 1935, and he was a world's top ten player for a quarter of a century. Who but a World Champion has ever done that? Fischer said that except for Russian collusion, Reshevsky should have had the title in the 1940's, though I beleve that title should have gone to Euwe in 1934, Reshevsky in 1935, and Capablanca again in 1936.> In 1935 Reshevsky was nowhere. Never mind "the top of the world". Unless You'd care to provide some "proof". Fischer said this, Fischer said that, what Fischer said means F.A. How exactly do you visualize Reshevsky having the Title in the 1940s? Alekhine died in 1946. Botvinnik was, by far, the strongest player in the '40s, even stronger than Alekhine. Btw, have You ever heard of the USA-USSR radio match in 1946? Check out the score. How do You suggest the title was to go to Dr.Euwe in 1934? Or to Capablanca in 1936. |
|
| Feb-25-12 | | King Death: Botvinnik gets my vote for the strongest player in the 1940s too based on what he did instead of what might have been. During 1935 to 1939 we can make a pretty good case that there was no one player that stood above the others but things changed after that. Reshevsky was a strong GM for a long time but anybody that says he "should have had the title in the 1940s" needs to brush up some on their history. |
|
| Feb-25-12 | | Lambda: <Reshevsky was on top of the world in 1935,> Eh? The first time he did anything significant on the global stage was finishing half a point behind the leaders at Nottingham 1936. <and he was a world's top ten player for a quarter of a century.> Closer to 20 years, actually.
<Who but a World Champion has ever done that?> I'm finding Blackburne, Chigorin, Tarrasch, Rubinstein, Nimzowitsch, Keres, Korchnoi. <Fischer said that except for Russian collusion, Reshevsky should have had the title in the 1940's,> Fischer talks a lot of nonsense. Botvinnik was easily the strongest player throughout the 1940s. WWII prevented title matches through most of that decade, Reshevsky got his chance in 1948, and he just wasn't good enough. <though I beleve that title should have gone to Euwe in 1934, Reshevsky in 1935, and Capablanca again in 1936.> This seems quite bizarre to me. |
|
| Feb-25-12 | | King Death: <Dr. Yes: Another person earlier took a cheap shot at Reshevsky, (and at Fischer and myself) saying that he wasn't even one of the best. Nothing could be further from the truth...> Your paranoia's working overtime today I think. Somehow you've managed to take an opinion put out there in this forum as a "cheap shot" at yourself. Or are you trying to equate your name with these titans in some twisted way? <...though I beleve that title should have gone to Euwe in 1934, Reshevsky in 1935, and Capablanca again in 1936...> Let's see, the only justification I can find for this nonsensical statement is that Euwe managed to beat Alekhine in Zurich 1934, even though AA won the tournament anyhow. Reshevsky in 1935, based on what? That he beat Capablanca in a game that year? Then there's Capa in 36....I get it now, old Jose Raul beat Alekhine in Nottingham while sharing 1st in that event. <...Flohr and Lilienthal should have had title shots earlier in the thirties, but I doubt that they could have beaten an inspired Alekhine...> Flohr had some nice early successes and there was talk about him being challenger but who knows what might have been? Why would Lilienthal even come into this? Because he beat Capablanca in a beautiful game? If this is what passes for logic I wanna get off this planet. |
|
| Feb-26-12 | | Dr. Yes: King Death - Now your condescension is showing, which might mean that you aren't gay, but you sure are queer. When I have more time, I'll reply to some more specifics, but Wiki-pedia is making it harder to find records and stats now. |
|
| Feb-26-12 | | Dr. Yes: Brankat - Funny how it is you say that Reshevsky was weaker than Botvinnik in the forties, when you and some of the posters on Reshevsky's site quite agree that Reshevsky was outnumbered by the Soviets without a one to one match format that Fischer demanded and got on his road to the chess crown. It's common knowledge, admitted by so many Soviet GMs that collusion by Soviets was a regular feature of chess contests. On the Reshevsky site, someone even pointed out that Reshevsky's style would be suited to match play, not to a tournament. Even the great Ruben Fine refused to play in the WCC of 1948, because of what he perceived would be a rigged tournament, although I can't remember what his exact words were. |
|
| Feb-26-12 | | King Death: < Dr. Yes: ...When I have more time, I'll reply to some more specifics, but Wiki-pedia is making it harder to find records and stats now.> Good luck, you'll need it now that your whole "argument"'s been exposed as a fraud (and anybody that knows much could've done that). It was you that came up with the "specifics" that are nothing but a bunch of half baked nonsense in the first place. |
|
| Feb-26-12 | | SBC: . I'm sorry. I thought I was on the Paul Morphy page. Carry on. |
|
| Feb-27-12 | | RookFile: <Reshevsky was on top of the world in 1935> I love Reshevsky as much as anybody, but would never say anything like that. Don't think Reshevsky himself would say that. |
|
| Feb-27-12 | | Pawn Ambush: <SBC> I had the same thought the Morphy page has changed alot. |
|
| Mar-01-12 | | Dr. Yes: SBC and Pawn Ambush - You guys are right. Some people are so busy attacking me by attacking my comments on 'natural' chess players, versus today's zombie chess players who rehearse games with their computers before actually playing them OTB. I've got them so riled, they started by attacking Morphy insisting he wasn't even as good as Steinitz, to attacking Alekhine and now attacking Reshevsky, while calling me names. Since they'll follow me anywhere, I'll continue this discussion on Reshevsky's page where it belongs. |
|
| Mar-19-12 | | ismet: "If chess was a religion, Morphy would be God by chopin(user)" better he would be Prophet ! |
|
| Apr-16-12 | | DrKurtPhart: Mophry said Give pawns a chance. (to help themselves) |
|
| Jun-12-12 | | Llawdogg: "All we are saying, is give pawns a chance." John Lennon |
|
Jun-22-12
 | | LoveThatJoker: WC Paul Morphy, thank you for being a tremendous Chess instructor well into the 21st Century! Today you are remembered with the utmost respect and fondness! LTJ |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | brankat: Many great players of generations after Paul Morphy stood on the shoulders of this giant. R.I.P. master Morphy. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | morfishine: One thing about a Morphy game or a 'Morphy gem' is its ability to cause one to smile both inside and out, or to even burst out laughing with joy. This has happened to me on many occasions. I can't say this about any other great player. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | Alien Math: Paul Morphy day, much influence for the chess world, still able to learn from |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | wordfunph: "I'd play 1...e5, and he'd go for the King's Gambit. I'd probably lose." - GM Alexander Onischuk (when asked if he could play any champion from history, he would play Paul Morphy) special day of Paul, happy birthday! |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | talisman: happy birthday R.I.P...got kin folk on the wife's side buried in the same cemetary. gonna have to look Paul up one day. use to be a visitor to his grave once a year who would leave a present on the same day each year. that stopped a few years back. someone might know the story. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 248 OF 284 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
