Who had the best opening, midle game, and endgame ever?
Carlsen, Carlsen, and Carlsen!
(Sounds like a law firm, doesn't it?)
Who had the best opening, middle game and endgame ever?
Sort:
Kasparov, Alekhine - openings (notable mention, my countryman - Tartakower)
Tal, Fischer, Carlsen - middlegame
Rubinstein, Botvinnik - endgame
Feb 14, 2013
0
#64
hoynck wrote:
varelse1 wrote:
Who had the best opening, midle game, and endgame ever?
Carlsen, Carlsen, and Carlsen!
(Sounds like a law firm, doesn't it?)
-----
That reminds me of the opening ceremony of the Interzonal Tournament in 1976 in Biel (Switzerland). One of the grandmasters held up a large board predicting the final result:
1. Bent Larsen.
2. Larsen, Bent
3. Larsen (Danmark)
And the big guy did indeed win this super tournament (20 players), half a point ahead of Petrosian, Portisch and Tal. Bent Larsen, a wonderful and very creative player, 'the best of the West' at that time.
yeah very strong player in 60s and early 70s but i remember him with his memorable deafeats.his crushing defeat against spassky in century match and his devastating 6-0 loss against fischer.
Capablanca was named the "chess macine" for a reason.
Feb 14, 2013
0
#66
hoynck wrote:
@tesla1
He suffered memorable defeats, like you mention. But becoming 1st in Biel in 1976 ahead of three former World Champions (Smyslov, Tal and Petrosian) was a grand achievement. I am still glad I could witness it - and to be able as a 17 y.o. to exchange a few words with him. He did not behave as a superstar but as a friendly human being, ready to talk with anyone. Just like Boris Gelfand nowadays for example.
of course he had greater achievements in 60s and early 70s but after his loss against fischer he never was the same.
Every Great Player had those skills.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Alekeine was known for this. It was said that in order to beat him, you had to beat him 3 times...once in the opening, once in the middle game, and once again in the endgame.
Therefore, ALEKEINE.
hoynck wrote:
Not so! Computers DON'T miss anything; there are NO surprises in these prepared openings, everything has been analized by the computers. There was a game between Karpov and Kasparov where Kasparov offered an exchange sacrifice; Karpov smelling a prepared line decline and simplyfied to a quick draw. A couple of Manths later another master took the exchange sacrificed and He was lost in 47 moves!!
Well, reproducing certain routines can bring you to the moon, so to say. The point is that you need to be quilified to improvise if things go different, to end your journey safely.
The same with chess of course.
That is how deep the computers analyzed!! This was admitted by Kasparov himself!
well yes but i refuse to believe that computer are like 100 percent accurate in 47 moves, i mean wouldnt they have solved chess already if that were the case? besides well its a logical fallacy to take just the result as accurate measurement of the accuracy of something.
If engines didn't have opening books and endgame tablebases they would suck (compared to engines with them and top GMs). Also computers are nowhere near perfect when it comes to endgame. It's a fact.
TetsuoShima wrote:
well yes but i refuse to believe that computer are like 100 percent accurate in 47 moves, i mean wouldnt they have solved chess already if that were the case? besides well its a logical fallacy to take just the result as accurate measurement of the accuracy of something.
They have, but until they can find a way to do cibernetic implants in the human brain, Chess still will be a fun game to play.
Again these super computers with parallel processors can performs one billion calculations per second, being the maximum number of possible moves equal to 2 to the 64th power; I would think that it would takes minutes for the computer to figure every possible move.
mauriciolopezsr wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
well yes but i refuse to believe that computer are like 100 percent accurate in 47 moves, i mean wouldnt they have solved chess already if that were the case? besides well its a logical fallacy to take just the result as accurate measurement of the accuracy of something.
They have, but until they can find a way to do cibernetic implants in the human brain, Chess still will be a fun game to play.
Again these super computers with parallel processors can performs one billion calculations per second, being the maximum number of possible moves equal to 2 to the 64th power; I would think that it would takes minutes for the computer to figure every possible move.
well as far as i know they havent. well i thought like you but someone, gave me the mathematic explanation why its not possible. well sadly i dont belong to the intellectual elite so i cant give you the explanation myself.
opening:me
TetsuoShima wrote:
mauriciolopezsr wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
well yes but i refuse to believe that computer are like 100 percent accurate in 47 moves, i mean wouldnt they have solved chess already if that were the case? besides well its a logical fallacy to take just the result as accurate measurement of the accuracy of something.
They have, but until they can find a way to do cibernetic implants in the human brain, Chess still will be a fun game to play.
Again these super computers with parallel processors can performs one billion calculations per second, being the maximum number of possible moves equal to 2 to the 64th power; I would think that it would takes minutes for the computer to figure every possible move.
well as far as i know they havent. well i thought like you but someone, gave me the mathematic explanation why its not possible. well sadly i dont belong to the intellectual elite so i cant give you the explanation myself.
Whom ever told you that was lying! again the maximum number of moves is 2 to the 64th power, it is not a number like Phi which is an undetermined infinite number.
Feb 14, 2013
0
#77
Cnacnel wrote:
If engines didn't have opening books and endgame tablebases they would suck (compared to engines with them and top GMs). Also computers are nowhere near perfect when it comes to endgame. It's a fact.
quite the opposite is true... machines excel at tactics. They outplay GM's in endagames
plexinico wrote:
Any doubts, ask Kasparov, He got his A... kiced royally by Deep Blue!
Cnacnel wrote:
If engines didn't have opening books and endgame tablebases they would suck (compared to engines with them and top GMs). Also computers are nowhere near perfect when it comes to endgame. It's a fact.
quite the opposite is true... machines excel at tactics. They outplay GM's in endagames
Kasparov for opening.
Capablanca for middlegame. Fischer is a close second. (I prefer Capablanca as I tend to favor a more positional style.)
Botvinnik for endgame. Karpov is a close second.
plexinico wrote:
Cnacnel wrote:
If engines didn't have opening books and endgame tablebases they would suck (compared to engines with them and top GMs). Also computers are nowhere near perfect when it comes to endgame. It's a fact.
quite the opposite is true... machines excel at tactics. They outplay GM's in endagames
http://pastebin.com/nJnqQMsZ just a couple of 7-men positions where GM> computers. GMs are better than engines in endgame, it's a fact which is known in high level of play, and is one of the tactics in correspondence chess (get to the endgame and win because your knowledge is better than engine knowledge).
but besides that we definetly dont know how correct the assessment of korchnoi, korchnoi critizises many people.