|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-26-02 | | Samuel Maverick: François-André Philidor is the only choice for best player of all time. Most of the greatest players were five to ten years ahead of their time. Philidor was fifty years ahead of his. |
|
Nov-26-02
 | | Sneaky: I'd agree that he advanced the theory of chess more than any other player. He is the Euclid of chess, so to speak. I think if Philidor came back from the grave to play Morphy, for example, Morphy would have won. But that wouldn't be a fair fight--for Morphy was well educated in the principles of Philidor, while Philidor never saw a Morphy game in his life. |
|
| Nov-26-02 | | drukenknight: INteresting reasoning. So do you think that fischer had an advantage when he played Spassky because he had dropped out of international competition? |
|
| Nov-26-02 | | PVS: To drukenknight's question, I would say no, because Spassky had Fischer's games from two major tournaments in 1970 and his recent Candidates matches with Taimanov, Larsen and Petrosyan to study. They also had the research of several top Soviet GMs and trainers who had been studying Fischer for years. Concerning Sneaky's point, I remember Fischer said he rated Morphy number one because would that he were able to study modern theory, he would defeat all the 20th century greats. The list by Mr. Maverick might have that caveat, or it might be the Kasparov approach of judging players against only their own era and putting the one who was most dominant in his era number one without regard to hypothetical matches. |
|
| Nov-26-02 | | drukenknight: well I guess we should do PEtrosian/Fischer Sicilian game in '71 then next. |
|
| Mar-08-03 | | Rookpawn: In this database, there are no instances of Philidor playing the Philidor Defense: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6. |
|
Mar-29-03
 | | lostemperor: <Rookpawn>, it is so hidden that it is difficult to see but J Bruhl vs Philidor, 1783 is a true Philidor Defense (only without 2. Nf3 and with an in-between-move 2...c6). Looking at it from white it is a bishop opening but from black it is a Philidor defense opening. |
|
| May-12-03 | | fred lennox: I would of suspect Philidor's playing would be more akin to the quiet play of Flor or the great pawn march of Petrosian in the 7th '66 world champion game against Spassky. His games show rather an aggressive, fighting spirit liken to Anderson and Morphy. One differance is queening the pawn is a more frequent strategy. |
|
| May-12-03 | | mdorothy: If Morphy were to come back now, and have a chance to learn current theory, HE'D GO CRAZY! Technical defence?? What's that?? I don't want any of that. I want my unsound, premature attack to win romantically. Yea, he'd definately go crazy. Wait.. he did go crazy.. So I am 100% sure he'd go insane. |
|
| May-13-03 | | ughaibu: Maybe he went crazy because nobody could defend well enough, he should've waited for Steinitz to start all that. |
|
| Jun-18-03 | | electrobyte: How do I search for games with Philidor's Legacy or smothered mate? |
|
Jun-18-03
 | | chessgames.com: You can't search for smothered mates, electrobyte, and you're not the first person to ask. Perhaps somebody should put together a game collection on that theme. |
|
| Jun-18-03 | | ksadler: Here's a smothered mate: Morphy vs NN, 1859, here is another Grischuk vs Ponomariov, 2000 ... and those are just from memory of games that I have seen in the last month or so...other people must have more examples |
|
| Jun-19-03 | | electrobyte: Thanks guys. I agree that someone should make a collection on smothered mates. By the way, any idea why it's called Philidor's Legacy? I also have seen a game between Morphy and Jefferson (1859) but I don't have the link. |
|
| Jun-19-03 | | Sylvester: I did not find the 20th century top ten yet, but I did find this one by Samuel Maverick. 1. François-André Philidor- The only choice. Most of the greatest players were five
to ten years ahead of their time. Philidor was fifty years ahead of his. 2. Wilhelm Steinitz- The first official World Champion. He not only dominated his era, but his
contributions to chess theory are second to none. 3. Emmanuel Lasker- The other long time World Champion. A great fighter. 4. J. R. Capablanca- The chess machine. He could have been World Champion for another 20 years,
but for his disinclination to study and prepare. A great end game player, but also profound in the
opening and middle game too. Chess Fundamentals and My Chess Career are both brilliant. 5. Alexander Alekhine- As a human being, he was a monster. He married a woman and deserted her
just to get out of the Soviet Union. He collaborated with Stalin and Nazis when it suited him. As a
chess player he was a sensational attacker and an indefatigable fighter. His game annotations are
perhaps the best ever collected.
6. Paul Morphy- Like Tal and Fischer he dominated the world for a short period. He then went into
seclusion and degenerated into paranoia. Many of his games are crisp and brilliant. He played
quickly and never made a mistake. Like Capablanca he possessed astonishing sight of board. 7. Bobby Fischer- Many would put him higher. In addition to his dominance of his era he did more to
improve the conditions for chess players than anyone in history. The big money in the past
twenty-five years is all directly attributable to him. A very accurate player. Had been more stable, I
think he would have come out a lot higher on this list. His game collection is among the best. 8. Gary Kasparov- A great player in the mold of Alekhine. He would be higher, but his team and his
computers are a huge part of his success. Still an indisputably great and analyst. His unabashed
greed is a bit off-putting.
9. Anatoly Karpov- Forever linked with Kasparov with whom he contested five brutal matches,
Kasparov and he are the only World Champions since the Second World War to have put together
outstanding tournament records. Had more help from others than any other player in history. 10. Mikhail Tal- Like Morphy and Fischer, he shined very brightly for a short period and captured the
world title. His health gave out, but unlike the two Americans he continued to fight for twenty more
years and was in the top ten in the world for most of that time. |
|
| Jun-19-03 | | kutuzov: PVS, you are right but somewhat wrong. All of he data in the world on Fischer wouldn't have helped the Soviets for the fact that he was young. The young players tend to lean toward an attacking style. Spassky's game had grown a bit more placid, which is natural with age. Plus, Spassky's games were everywhere. You could see the evolution of his style simply through looking at his games at that time. The simple truth is that Spassky could not cope with the energy, vigour, and youthful tactical awarness of Fischer's play. |
|
Jul-03-03
 | | Benzol: It would be great if we had a time machine and could get all the great players together when they we all at their respective peaks. Alas this cannot be, so perhaps we should just enjoy what we have. I have a soft spot for all the players previously mentioned but what about Max Euwe who in the time he was World Champion was not shown to be inferior to anyone else. Or Mikhail Botvinnik who managed to remain prominent throughout the Stalinist era. He had a remarkable knack for objective self criticism that enabled him to overcome Smyslov and Tal after they had beaten him. Then there is the prophylactic Petrosian whose tactical skill seems quite underrated. By all accounts he was a demon at blitz. So I believe that the comparisons are purely subjective and unfortunately must remain so. Still, it is interesting to speculate |
|
| Sep-01-03 | | apple head: No Paul Morphy was stronger than Philidor! |
|
| Sep-01-03 | | kevin86: The problem was that Philidor had little competition;however,chess is a game where competition actually makes the player better-so the lack of it hurts Philidor as much as it benefits him. He is obviously the best of his era,but does his body of work stand on top in history? Better minds than mine have to decide-suffice to say,though,he does fit in the hall of fame. |
|
| Sep-01-03 | | dinxy: whatever said n done, vishy is the greatest of 'em all!! |
|
| Sep-02-03 | | mdorothy: Lack of consistant competition really does hurt a player's skill. I can tell you that from expirience. It seems like, anymore, whenever I force myself to play, I play against friends that I can destroy, for fun. The closest I've come to lately of good solid games is takin on some of you guys on gameknot. I almost have a disgust now for taking time to analyze a position, cuz I can beat my friends totally on intuition. |
|
| Sep-02-03 | | Sylvester: <dinxy: whatever said n done, vishy is the greatest of 'em all!!> For sure Anand is way cool. |
|
| Dec-08-03 | | blunder maker: Why Philidor never play "Philidor Defense"?Is the opening create by his name? |
|
| Dec-12-03 | | bouzi: Who is NN |
|
| Dec-12-03 | | Spitecheck: No Name |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
