Well, I doubt too many people would name Tal as a preeminent endgame grinder.
Not many people nowadays would claim that Morphy played boring chess... but that's exactly what he was criticized for in his own times.
By the Middle Game Tal's opponents had no socks.
The makers of the Great Game Machine offered their opinion: Grunfeld for the opening, Morphy for the Middlegame, Capablanca for the Ending.
Still like Tal.
SmyslovFan has no earthly idea what he's talking about. He's obviously some kid who wins a couple internet blitz games against some 900-rated novice and now thinks he's Bobby Fischer.
Lol it's understandable. I was like that when I won my first tourney. To his credit he is right in a elementary sense of what an endgame is.
Every single match-play world champion excelled at endgames. You can't win a world championship match without excellent endgame technique.
Obviously. But he was hardly known as an endgame specialist (I can remember he himself writing somewhere that he believed his prowess at opposite-colored bishops endings had in fact been overlooked). Anyway, Botvinnik seemed to think that that was one area of the game where his weakness lay...
I thought Fischer was considered quite good at endgames, how would you say he stacks up against the people already mentioned?
I think he was a bit lax at first (mainly because he was so young, and a bit arrogant as well as lacking in knowledge). But he did indeed become a major major gun at them (as with everything).
I think it's in 60 Memorables that he mentions his encounter with Fridrik Olafsson as an analyst, which did a bit to cure him of his hubris regarding rook & pawn endings. It's one of the more memorable anecdotes in there. 
I never finished it :( It's one of those books on my to-do list heh, with about half a dozen others.
If you are looking for a single player that has the best opening, middle and end game, I will have to say Bobby Fischer and Tigran Petrossian.
If You are looking for indiviluas as far as opening preparation I would have to say Kasparov as to middle game skills I would have to go with Miakil Tal the Magician of Riga that could set the board on fire from apparently drawish positions and could carry out attacks with 3 and 4 pieces pending capture as to the end game most definitely Jose Raul Capablanca capable of nursing the most elemental positional advantange into a full point.
Petrosian? openings?
I never finished it :(
Wow. Did it bore you or something? How far did you get?
I never finished it :(
Wow. Did it bore you or something? How far did you get?
I usually set myself tasks too large, either in the amount of time I spend or... in this case I decided I'd memorize all the games in a month in groups of 6. After two sets of 6 I decided it was too much and stopped (the long games I'd get confused about the move order in the end and have to spend additional time). As usual I burn myself out heh.
If all I did was play over 1 game a week I'd have played though it multiple times by now and be a much better player for it. Or even better, if I didn't concern myself with the trivial task of pure memorization and instead picked interesting patterns or ideas... but anyway.
Fischer was more precise in the endgame than Capablanca, who really is overrated as an endgame player. Fischer himself pointed this out in his own comments on Capablanca. Fischer's grasp of endgame technique was remarkable in his own time. Perhaps only Smyslov and a few others were as good at technical endgames from about 1965-1972, but this wasn't the source of Fischer's greatness.
Fischer and Capablanca's real strength wasn't in the technical endgame phase, but in realising which endgames were advantageous before their opponent and steering the game towards those positions. Fischer was able to rattle of 30 moves of endgame theory in a Bishop endgame at blitz speed, which is impressive. But the thing that set him apart from the rest was his crystal clear understanding of how to reach winning endgame positions.
Most of today's elite GMs have learned from Fischer. Aronian and Carlsen, have a bit of what Capablanca and Fischer had.
Fischer was more precise in the endgame than Capablanca, who really is overrated as an endgame player. Fischer himself pointed this out in his own comments on Capablanca. Fischer's grasp of endgame technique was remarkable in his own time. Perhaps only Smyslov and a few others were as good at technical endgames from about 1965-1972, but this wasn't the source of Fischer's greatness.
Fischer and Capablanca's real strength wasn't in the technical endgame phase, but in realising which endgames were advantageous before their opponent and steering the game towards those positions. Fischer was able to rattle of 30 moves of endgame theory in a Bishop endgame at blitz speed, which is impressive. But the thing that set him apart from the rest was his crystal clear understanding of how to reach winning endgame positions.
Most of today's elite GMs have learned from Fischer. Aronian and Carlsen, have a bit of what Capablanca and Fischer had.
I can guarantee that in any endeavour if one lets another entity do most of their work for them, they won't get anywhere. They can be assisted sure, but the real bulk of the work has to come from the individual.
EDIT: Manufactured pop stars aside.
Well Fischer was the strongest in Opening definetly no question about that. For me he was also the strongest in middlegame, with endgame its hard to judge if he was better but he was at least not inferior to anyone in endgame play. i think there is really not one best endgame player under the really strong gms who are good in endgames i think, but then again i know to little about chess but i think its impossible to be really better in endgames upon the strongest. I think nowadays its impossible to really have more knowledge about endgames. If im incorrect please correct me
Fischer was not the best player in the opening. The greatest openings experts in the twentieth century were probably Akiba Rubinstein, Alexander Alekhine, Mikhail Botvinnik, Vasily Smyslov, Anatoly Karpov, and Garry Kasparov. Each of those played very precise openings and created new ways of playing the opening.
The greatest openings expert in the 21st Century is Vladimir Kramnik. Vishy Anand and Garry Kasparov have both praised Kramnik's openings as the best in history.
Fischer complained about the Soviets working together to bust his openings because they succeeded! Taimanov, Petrosian, and Spassky all got great positions out of the opening against Fischer. Fischer's main contribution to opening theory occurred in the Sicilian. But apart from his handling of the Sozin as White, he has not left a deep, lasting mark on opening theory.
Karpov, Korchnoi, Kasparov, and Kramnik all have.
"Fischer was the strongest in Opening definetly no question about that"
"again i know to little about chess"
Putting these statements together, I'm not sure that assertion holds much weight.
Smyslov fan are you kidding? none of then was better in Openings than Fischer, most of Fischer lines are still vaiable and not only that, if soviets tried something new in the opening against him and it wasnt sound, he crushed them more often then not right away .
Also Fischer i think didnt say that, he complained that russian gms talked about the game in progress he was playing and giving each other help.
Karpov and Kasparov i think were using people like roman dzindzi.. sorry i cant write his name. i mean why is there a dzindzi indian and not kasparov indian or karpov indian?? maybe there are lines after them but i know there are lines named after Fischer.
Botvinnik ok he was really good in openings i suppose but i thik he was know match for Fischer, i mean he worked for the people Fischer crushed and he had the command in the soviet team as far as i know.
You can say Fischer was limited in his Openings repertoire but what he believed in he clearly was best.
I dont know Akiba Rubinstein too well, i know his play is quite remarkable and its amazing how he plays, but i dont think the is an opening expert. I think he is more of the endgame expert.
SmyslovFan has no earthly idea what he's talking about. He's obviously some kid who wins a couple internet blitz games against some 900-rated novice and now thinks he's Bobby Fischer.
I tried to get away from that yesterday on tv.