vfonvnofCPO wrote:
I agree. The computers are a huge advantage. It´s chess doping.
You agree with a completely unhinged rant?
There is a grain of insight in what the jo90ways guy says, but it completely drowns in a sea of insanity.
Who was the Greatest Chess Player of All Time?
Sort:
Botvinnik_the_6th escribió:
vfonvnofCPO wrote:
Fischer is the greatest because the gap between him and his contemparary chess players is the greatest gap ever. Never there was a difference as greater between the number 1 and the rest.
And his reign was not so short as you think, because since 1962 until 1972 HE WON ALL the competitions but two tournaments where he got two seconds places, and in one of them was winning but he retired without playing the final games.
Bobby Fischer refused almost sistematically in playing in the candidates competitions, so he was a king without crown almost a decade. So the number one in the world during almost 13 years.
The tournament thing isn't true. He played 3 Olympiads in this time period where he came 2nd, 2nd and 8th on first board for the US. He came 4th at the Carucao candidates in 1962. Plus the two tournaments you're talking about where he came 2nd. It's also a pretty misleading statistic as Fischer did not play many tournaments during this period and he certainly wasn't playing many tournaments against the best in the world. You also can't just say his reign was somehow longer as you'd have to do this for heaps of players to have this be a justification for Fischer's GOAT status. Players had very good results before or after they won the title and in several cases players were hampered by things outside of their control (WWI & WWII, sickness, bias, etc).
You are not telling the truth. And you know it. Almost in ten years, maybe starting in 1963 Fischer was virtually unbeatable.
magipi escribió:
vfonvnofCPO wrote:
I agree. The computers are a huge advantage. It´s chess doping.
You agree with a completely unhinged rant?
There is a grain of insight in what the jo90ways guy says, but it completely drowns in a sea of insanity.
Not with the rant but with this idea: A chess player like Fischer or Capablanca played chess using their legs but today´s players play chess using a car.
They needed a whole night to find the best move, nowadays just a one second mouse click.
vfonvnofCPO wrote:
A chess player like Fischer or Capablanca played chess using their legs but today´s players play chess using a car.
They needed a whole night to find the best move, nowadays just a one second mouse click.
That only refers to opening preparation, which is only a tiny part of chess.
Today's players don't use any computers when they play a game (hopefully). If someone hits them with a a crazy sacrificial attack, they have to figure out the defense on their own, without any help. There is absolutely no difference.
vfonvnofCPO wrote:
Botvinnik_the_6th escribió:
vfonvnofCPO wrote:
Fischer is the greatest because the gap between him and his contemparary chess players is the greatest gap ever. Never there was a difference as greater between the number 1 and the rest.
And his reign was not so short as you think, because since 1962 until 1972 HE WON ALL the competitions but two tournaments where he got two seconds places, and in one of them was winning but he retired without playing the final games.
Bobby Fischer refused almost sistematically in playing in the candidates competitions, so he was a king without crown almost a decade. So the number one in the world during almost 13 years.
The tournament thing isn't true. He played 3 Olympiads in this time period where he came 2nd, 2nd and 8th on first board for the US. He came 4th at the Carucao candidates in 1962. Plus the two tournaments you're talking about where he came 2nd. It's also a pretty misleading statistic as Fischer did not play many tournaments during this period and he certainly wasn't playing many tournaments against the best in the world. You also can't just say his reign was somehow longer as you'd have to do this for heaps of players to have this be a justification for Fischer's GOAT status. Players had very good results before or after they won the title and in several cases players were hampered by things outside of their control (WWI & WWII, sickness, bias, etc).
You are not telling the truth. And you know it. Almost in ten years, maybe starting in 1963 Fischer was virtually unbeatable.
Fischer was winning most of his games against far inferior opponents largely in the US. He wasn't playing top Soviet grandmasters, and when he was, he was losing. He threw an infamous tantrum after a terrible performance in the 1962 candidates (caused by Fischer losing games rather than his alleged soviet allusions) after which he vowed not to play another candidates (though, of course, he did). He pretty much refused to play against the best players, I don't know what to tell you. Blind fanatasicm.
vfonvnofCPO wrote:
magipi escribió:
vfonvnofCPO wrote:
I agree. The computers are a huge advantage. It´s chess doping.
You agree with a completely unhinged rant?
There is a grain of insight in what the jo90ways guy says, but it completely drowns in a sea of insanity.
Not with the rant but with this idea: A chess player like Fischer or Capablanca played chess using their legs but today´s players play chess using a car.
They needed a whole night to find the best move, nowadays just a one second mouse click.
If you want to go down the road of giving points to players who figured out the game, the goat has to be Wilhelm Steinitz since he revolutionised chess and brought it out of the romantic period. Or earlier players like Philidor, Morphy or even someone like Ruy Lopez or the Italians. They, by far, figured out the most without engines. Also I assume you mention Capa because of his high engine accuracy. Career engine accuracy is a joke. If you remove draws (and look at only descive games) you get completely different results. Career engine accuracy just rewards players who made a lot of "grandmaster draws" or had a lot of draws in general. It's a meaningless statistic.
Those pioneers were a true inspiration,
Computers rule the whole training, not just openings and endgames.
If you speak about opponents, with no courage at all, take a look Nepo´s World Championship games.
I guess, you only have memory of what is happening today. But chess is almost irrelevant in the mass media and popular culture. Those old Grandmasters were in the newspapers front, What is almost impossible today. Another proof of the quality of today´s figures. A figure that appears drunk in a youtube channel playing with friends like in a videogame tavern. That´s the big figure, now.
I agree. The computers are a huge advantage. It´s chess doping.