|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 22 OF 285 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-27-06 | | danielpi: Karpov is only 7th on your list? Kramnik's looking good, but he's not quite Karpov yet. If he manages to win this match, I would consider putting him second on my list, but I reserve top spot for Karpov- back in the day, he was Kramnik minus the draws. As for Philidor and Morphy... well, I dunno. Chess was a different game back then (I mean the play, not the rules). Thanks for remembering to tally my prediction of 6-6 with tiebreaks for Kramnik. Looks like I may have underestimated. Then again, 9 games to go, and Topalov's looking decent. |
|
| Sep-27-06 | | slomarko: the list is a joke. come on how can Leko be in front of Lasker?? Euwe before Botwinnik? Sultan Kahn is in front of Korchnoi, who the hell is Sultan Kahn anyway? and where is Pillsbury? |
|
Sep-27-06
 | | lostemperor: <danielpi> one of the resons I put Kramnik before Kasparov is Kasparov comment <"The most talented of all players I have ever seen is Vladimir Kramnik. As far as talent is concerned he is definitely the number one."> I quote it here. That is just one of the reasons I mentioned (two comments on September 15 and one in September 21) in my forum. <slomarko> I changed this list this morning when I have Lasker still almost 10 places higher than Leko (Lasker 13 and Leko 23 orso). I also had Botvinnik significant ahead of Euwe. Perhaps I should change it back (to avoid debates)! I changed the list because this is not to determine who is the greatest champion. Definitely Lasker and Botvinnik are two of the greatest champions ever. Botvinnik worked extremely hard on his chess however while Euwe was just an goodwilling amateur genius. He didn't work really hard on his chess. That's why I decided to change the list. Have you read the comment I wrote below the list? <If it were the greatest champions list however, Steinitz, Lasker and Botwinnik would have scored significant higher."> Lasker is a great champion. More than Leko ever will be I agree. But as far as talent and genius is concerned I think Leko is equal. Things like this are always be debatable I knew. Most experts put Lasker in their top 10 of greatest champions where he belongs. Fischer however said Lasker was a coffeehouse player. Leko is indeed known as a drawmaster (but a genius). But so was Carl Schlechter who almost beat Lasker. Pillsbury won one big tournament (to my knowledge) but so many has won tournaments Naiditsch, Fine, Aronian, Keres. Timman won a lot of tournaments. I can't possibly put them all in the list! |
|
Sep-27-06
| | lostemperor: Who is Sultan Kahn??? Perhaps you should read some books. Capablanca himself, who was beaten by Kahn, called him a true genius. Kahn was a natural who only learned the form of chess as we play it during his short visits to Europe. He became British champion in his first attempt hardly knowing any opening's theory and severely handicapped by his poor knowledge of western chess. |
|
Sep-27-06
 | | chancho: Sultan Khan. <Not Kahn> Just trying to help. :) |
|
| Sep-27-06 | | hitman84: <lostemperor>Mir Sultan Khan was an Indian who later migrated to England. He had a very original and boring style but was a tough nut to crack. I'll follow this up with an article on Mir Sultan Khan(I need to type it and its pretty long) or maybe I'll post it on his page. |
|
| Sep-27-06 | | slomarko: <lostemperor> Euwe worked extremally hard on chess, at the time he was known as the guy with biggest theoretical knowledge on openings so writting that <Euwe was just an goodwilling amateur genius> and <he didn't work really hard on his chess> is just total nonsense.. Lasker on the other hand was famous in that he almost didnt work on chess. leko is a very good player but he's full of theory. morozevich for example is 20-times more talented that leko!
and Pillsburry... ever read about his legendary simuls? |
|
| Sep-27-06 | | slomarko: <so many has won tournaments Naiditsch, Fine, Aronian, Keres. Timman won a lot of tournaments. I can't possibly put them all in the list!> well yes but putting for example Short, Browne, Larsen and not Keres is absurd.. |
|
| Sep-27-06 | | positionalgenius: <lostemperor>Many times Kasparov has rated Karpov his toughest ever opponent,including his recent visit to the London chess center.Putting Kramnik at 5 is insane. |
|
| Sep-27-06 | | you vs yourself: <lostemperor> Among natural geniuses, Anand ranks right up there with Capablanca and Fischer. I'm basing this on three things:
1.He plays strong moves quickly, just like Capa and Fischer.
2.Little or no formal training growing up, just like Capa and Fischer.
3.He's incredibly strong in classical, rapid, blitz and even blindfold chess. |
|
| Sep-27-06 | | slomarko: if we are rating natural geniuses i'd put Reshevshy higher than Fischer. |
|
| Sep-27-06 | | positionalgenius: Where is Pillsbury? And Lasker #20???
He was champ for 27 years! St.Petersburg 1914.Take a look at it.
Lasker deserves much more respect.
Sultan Khan?? Sorry but he is no genius. |
|
| Sep-27-06 | | iron maiden: Lasker would definitely be much higher on my list too--he never fully devoted his life to chess but still managed to stay at the world championship level for thirty years. |
|
| Sep-27-06 | | chessmoron: People criticize my Top list of basketball players and now people criticize your chess players. Excellent. |
|
| Sep-27-06 | | danielpi: <lostemperor><Most experts put Lasker in their top 10 of greatest champions where he belongs.> Since there have only been 14 champions (well, assuming 13. Kasparov, 14. Kramnik, which I suppose not everyone agrees is correct), top 10 is not really very much of an honor. <all> The man has a right to his opinions. I just think that Kramnik and Karpov are so similar; it's easy to compare their relative strengths. That is, if you wanted to put Alekhine over Capa or Capa over Alekhine, it's largely a matter of taste. But when comparing players like Karpov, Kramnik, Petrosian, Smyslov, their play was so similar that you can start to form something like a consensus on ranking them. Right now, Kramnik's legacy isn't really quite up to Karpov's. Seems like Kramnik has decent odds to win this match, though, and after becoming the one and only "true" champion (assuming all works out), perhaps he'll be closer to earning that place above Karpov. Then again, you do put them awfully close together in the rankings, and since you've got Carlsen in there on an estimate, I don't think it's entirely inconsistent to put Kramnik above Karpov. I'm just a little miffed that my favorite player (Karpov) isn't higher up on your list. It *is* your list though. |
|
| Sep-27-06 | | slomarko: <danielpi> Petrosian and Smyslov had different styles. Kramnik and Karpov are more similar but i'm my opinion Kramnik is still light years behind Karpov. |
|
| Sep-27-06 | | positionalgenius: <slomarko>yes.Karpov's achievements are way ahead of Kramnik's.Karpov is a much stronger player.Still Kramnik's legacy is being created. |
|
| Sep-27-06 | | danielpi: <slomarko> Petrosian and Smyslov are pretty similar. Actually, Fischer is not so different from Karpov, so I'd be tempted to include him in the list, but these comparisons don't have the pedigree of "common consent". Nonetheless, there are certain tendencies that result in similar plans/positions. It's a matter of opinion, perhaps, anyway. Incidentally, are you stalking me? <positionalgenius> You know, it seems like it's actually not entirely clear. I mean, it depends on how you judge them. I assumed we were talking about overall career achievements, but the precise criteria are difficult to nail down. Best tournament result? Karpov. Best score versus Kasparov? Kramnik. Most beautiful game? Ah, interesting. There are a handful of Karpov games, where the pieces work together so harmoniously, one gets the feeling that Karpov is composing music (though I hate such comparisons, generally). On the other hand, Kramnik has his share of fine games, where he just seems to pull resources out of thin air. In this sense, Kramnik is not unlike Tal (there's a comparison I doubt anyone's previously posited). The main difference seems to be that Tal pulls out hidden resources from insane positions, whereas Kramnik seems almost superhuman at finding hidden resources in dead positions. Both are indescribably instructive. Too bad most folks aren't willing/able to appreciate Kramnik's contributions to the game. You know, if you're going to name a contemporary Karpov, I think there's actually a better candidate than Kramnik, namely: Ponomariov. The big difference is that Karpov mostly benefited from FIDE. Pono, on the other hand... now, *there* is a guy who got shafted by FIDE. |
|
| Sep-28-06 | | positionalgenius: <daniel pi>Yes-Ponomariov has a similar style but he does not have the same strength as Karpov.
Also we must remember Kramnik faced Kasparov in his later years,while Karpov fought with a fiery young Kasparov,who thought he'd been cheated and called Karpov "evil" on many occasions.So I think kasparov had much more motivation to beat karpov than Kramnik. |
|
Sep-28-06
| | lostemperor: I knew my criteria to rank the talent of the greats needed a lot of explanation. (It would help if I wrote their name correctly for one <chancho> :)). I have little time to answer them completely now First the much critisized list:
The list of 40 greatest chess geniuses ever (revised): 1. Capablanca
2. Fischer
3. Morphy
4. Philidor
5. Kramnik
6. Kasparov
7. Karpov
8. Smyslov
9. Tal
10. Carlsen*
11. Rubinstein
12. Reshevsky
13. Anand
14. Petrosian
15. Topalov
16. Ivanchuk
17. Spassky
18. Leko
19. Adams
20. Lasker
21. Alekhine
22. Short
23. Polgar
24. Euwe
25. Bronstein
26. Steinitz
27. Botwinnik
28. Sultan Kahn
29. Korchnoi
30. Larsen
31. Schlechter
32. Andersen
33. Miles
34. Mecking
35. Browne W.
36. Granda Z.
* estimate
"If it were the greatest champions list however, Steinitz, Lasker and Botwinnik would have scored significant higher." There need to be some adjustments (e.g. I think Steinitz should definitely be rated higher)! <Euwe worked extremely hard> yes. But he had not the profesionalism, discipline and support of the Sovietempire Botvinnik has. Not by a long shot! Don't forget that Leko won Dortmunt Linares and Corus (only Kasparov and Kramik has done)! And he is worldchampion equal when he tied Kramnik (simply call that world champion)! Miles, Browne Mecking and Granda I put as a personal taste. I do think they are great geniuses. <Putting Kramnik at 5 is insane> maybe Kasparov was insane when he ranked Kramniks talent as definitely the number 1! <Sultan Khan?? Sorry but he is no genius.> if Capablanca called him a genius, who are you to judge? <Among natural geniuses, Anand ranks right up there with Capablanca and Fischer.> could be! My point exactly when I made this list. <slomarko: if we are rating natural geniuses i'd put Reshevshy higher than Fischer.> now we're talking! (that's why I give a high ranking for Reshvsky) <i'm my opinion Kramnik is still light years behind Karpov> no offence but think again! Kramnik only has a short longevity. And I don't talk about achievements solely.
This is a ranking of talents not of great champions. If so Steinitz, Lasker and Botvinnik may well be ranked highest! |
|
Sep-28-06
| | lostemperor: May I add that this list is not just my opinion. I made it based on expert opinions. Foremost two books: the Kings of chess by William Hartston and the Kramnik vs Leko WC matchbook of Keene. Expert opinions, that formed my opinion, not just of the writers but from different world champions about each other and grandmasters. I have given the list considerable thoughts but I dare not to put Kramnik over Kasparov if I had no expert opinion to back me up. It also helped if that opinion is of Kasparov himself(!) I'm not trying to prove my point here. I'm not a fan of Kramnik. But I admire his play then. I rather am a fan of Steinitz, Lasker and Karpov. But I had to make those conclusions since I sensed a whole different ranking as we've seen before. Otherwise I might not have mentioned it. I'm trying to be as objective as possible. I am also a fan of Mikhail Botvinnik, who build the Soviet chess empire almost on his own. As a chessplayer I think it is pity that chessempire is gone. |
|
| Sep-28-06 | | slomarko: <danielpi>Petrossian and Smyslov had different styles IMO. Petrossian was much more defensive he started to defend before being attacked. he was a counter puncher. Smyslov was more dynamic. Karpov and Smyslov are similar. in my opinion Kramnik is somewhere in between Petrossian and Karpov/Smyslov. i dont understand the part about Fischer and Karpov being not so different? they are as diferent as it gets. |
|
| Sep-28-06 | | slomarko: <lostemperor> you wrote <But he had not the profesionalism, discipline and support of the Sovietempire Botvinnik has.> i agree with that however 99% of players didnt have that. however that still doesnt make ur statement about Euwe that <he didn't work really hard on his chess> any less wrong. |
|
Sep-28-06
| | lostemperor: In comparison to Botvinnik everyone is an amateur. Botvinnik goes to all lengths in his scientifical approach of chess. When playing badly at Hastings he blame he had not enough time to acclimatise. So next time he arrived ten days earlier. Strict schedules for daily life during tournaments, meals, walks etc. When Botvinnik played at a tournament he would have studied the games of all his opponents to discover their weaknesses. But this latter also counts for Euwe although not so fanatically. Botvinnik is therefore also the King of the rematches and comebacks as I put it myself. He is able to beat anyone after losing to them. Let's say Alekhine worked harder than Euwe, who worked harder than Lasker, who worked harder than Capablanca. No one went to such extents as Botvinnik. (except perhaps Kasparov) |
|
Sep-28-06
| | lostemperor: You probably mean why Euwe is an amateur? I quote from aformentioned book: "Euwe seems out of place among the world champions. He was an ordinary man, polite popular and very bright certainly, but an amateur chessplayer whose acadamic carreer in mathematics and mechanics always took first place in his life." This is indeed a fact. Although Botvinnik also had a engineering carreer, I think it is clear that if you compare Euwe with the other world champions, the others are all full time chess professionals. I don't in anyway question Botvinnik great chess strength however. His play brought new depths and elegance. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 22 OF 285 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
