After reading that article it seems his life is still a strategic game.
Perhaps a Carnegie Mellon scientist can "bring him back" using a DNA sample? We have computers that can beat humans at chess, I guess undead that can beat humans at chess is the next thing.
I read 'Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess' many years ago. That book has some good stuff.
to be exhumed
Sounds reasonable to me.
|
given that my board handle is 'sozin', I feel compelled to post:
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cd4 4 Nd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bc4!
The Sozin variation of the Sicilian Najdorf, Fischer's favorite weapon against the ultra-sharp najdorf.
Fischer was brutally effective with this variation.
After reading that article it seems his life is still a strategic game.
Perhaps a Carnegie Mellon scientist can "bring him back" using a DNA sample? We have computers that can beat humans at chess, I guess undead that can beat humans at chess is the next thing.
I read 'Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess' many years ago. That book has some good stuff.
It would be nice if we could engineer away the paranoid schizophrenia. You work yourself into ceteris paribus arguments, though (just think what a sane Bobby Fischer could accomplish!). His illness was an integral part of him, and maybe a sane Bobby Fischer wouldn't have become the strongest player in the world and won the world championship.
|
|
I don't see a problem in exhuming Fischer: you can't disturb a body's soul if the body never had a soul to begin with.
Fischer: great player -- probably second best ever -- but a horrible person in life.
I do wish he would've stuck around a few more years; we missed some great Fischer/ Spassky/ Korchnoy matches -- plus the fact that maybe Gulko and his wife would've gotten out of the USSR earlier and we could've seen a Fischer/ Gulko match.
But most of all, it would've been great to see Karpov annihilate Fischer by the end of the 70s.
Fischer: great player -- probably second best ever {snip]
Begs the question - who do you think is Best and why?
Figure a little thread-steal isn't bad since we done the 'exhumation of Fischer' to death. :)
Easy. Karpov.
And the answer to 'why' you are of that opinion?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I threw "Easy" in there just to be provocative.
Well, I'll start with the claim that the strongest chess player is either Kaspov or Kasparov. I'm sure that Lasker or Capablanca could have been even better if they had the modern storehouse of games to study, if they had the same kind of professional teams and computer assistance as modern players; just as some of the legendary baseball greats could probably have been even better if they were working in a 21st Century environment. But the question at hand is: who is the best.
So that's the first claim.
Then you look at Karpov and Pasparov's work, at how they play against the same opponents. Karpov is more adaptable. He's makes fewer terrible blunders (which, to be fair, Kasparov provokes more than anyone else). And finally, Kaspov would have broken through Kramnik's Berlin Defense.
I threw "Easy" in there just to be provocative.
Well, I'll start with the claim that the strongest chess player is either Kaspov or Kasparov. I'm sure that Lasker or Capablanca could have been even better if they had the modern storehouse of games to study, if they had the same kind of professional teams and computer assistance as modern players; just as some of the legendary baseball greats could probably have been even better if they were working in a 21st Century environment. But the question at hand is: who is the best.
So that's the first claim.
Then you look at Karpov and Pasparov's work, at how they play against the same opponents. Karpov is more adaptable. He's makes fewer terrible blunders (which, to be fair, Kasparov provokes more than anyone else). And finally, Kaspov would have broken through Kramnik's Berlin Defense.
I remember the old Karpov-Kasparov matches back in '84. It was fun to watch back then.
That is one thing computers have done is taken the fun out of playing chess. Sad.
That is one thing computers have done is taken the fun out of playing chess. Sad.
Which is why eventually all the chess masters will take up Go, because Go masters can still lick the tar out of the best computer programs.
|
|
Kasparov is universally considered best ever. No one who studies chess disagrees.
Capablanca, Fischer and Karpov are typically argued next.
Lasker was great but really, who did he beat?? Steinitz was a hundred years old when they played in '94 and over the next decade the only top players: Schlecter, Marshall, maybe Zukertort -- weren't nearly as good as other world champion's adversaries. The one exception is Tarrasch and had Lasker & Tarrasch been able to play in '03 I think Tarrasch could've won -- not that he would've, necessarily, but that he was good enough. By the time they played in '08 Tarrasch was past his prime.
Pillsbury would've beaten Lasker had they played during WWI.
By 1912 or 1913 -- and CERTAINLY by 1915, Capablanca was the best player in the world. It's tragic that The Great War got in the way from any chess being played. By the time the 20s rolled around Lasker was too old to be a Candidate even though he was still, technically champion. Capablanca, Alekhine, Rubinstein, Nimzovitch, Bogojulbov -- all stronger than Lasker by then. Just about everyone puts Alekhine and sometimes even Rubinstein, ahead of Lasker on Greatest of all time lists.
|
|
Chris, were you confusing Kasparov with Karpov earlier -- or just kidding?
How many times did Kasparov beat Karpov in the 80s? Yeah, almost all of them. He beat Karpov to become Champion when Kasparov wasn't even in his prime yet -- while Karpov was smack in the middle of his prime. And Kasparov never lost a match to Karpov. Not once.
As far as Kramnik goes in '00 -- Kasparov was getting past his prime (almost 40 by then!). And some people in the past few years have questioned the validity of that match. Even in the months preceeding it people were pretty vocal that the only reason Kasparov chose to play Kramnik instead of Anand (World #2) or Shirov (World #3) is because he wanted the next Champion to be Russian. And looking at Kramnik's play the past decade -- when he's never been #1 and back in 06 dropped to like 19th or something -- one does have to wonder if Kasparov threw the match.
Since Chris brought up baseball greats and we're talking exhumation and legal battles in the wake of deaths of famous people -- how about Ted Williams?
Regarding Chess greats, it's an unending argument. Like comparing Pele v. Beckham or Bonds v. the Babe. I'll throw one name into the ring, maybe not for all-time greatest chess player, but for most entertaining games -- Morphy. From the most static looking positions the man could conjure a catastrophic onslaught.
|
|
It's an argument for number two greatest of all time -- not number one. Really, no one places Karpov ahead of Kasparov -- they played in the same era and Kasparov beat Karpov every match. I think Chris was just confusing the two.
It's interesting that you mention football. As an American I'm only learning football from my British friends but.... I don't think anyone compares Beckham to Pele.
I have heard people compare Maridona to Pele and I've heard that the Argentinians (obviously) are quite vocal that Maridona was equal to Pele. I've seen Maridona on YouTube and OMG, I can see why people say it about him. But still, I'm an American -- when people say football I think of my VIKINGS, my football, not real football. So I can't really chime in with an opinion, just regurgitate someone else's.
As far as Beckham goes, I don't think football fans consider him the best of his generation -- don't they usually put Thierry Henry ahead of Beckham?! I assume Americans, because they've heard of Beckham, are, um, misinformed.
|
|
Morphy is important to the Chess conversation.
I use to go toe to toe with my coach with why Morphy couldn't be considered equal to Kasparov and Fischer. Of course, I was the Scholastic Class player and he was the GM -- with all the years of study, so I couldn't really make much of an argument. (And, since I'm still just a Class player...)
Morphy would have crushed Staunton if that faggit had actually stepped up to the plate and faced him (that's why he refused to play Morphy!) and Morphy did beat Andersson.
The thing that makes chess historians reluctant to place Morphy in that top 5 list is so few games. It would've been great to see Morphy v. Staunton and then later Morphy v. Steinitz. At least we would have games to study.
---------------------------------
But I don't think Morphy is even the biggest surprise name-drop in the "#2 of all time Chess player" -- can you say Philidor?!
My coach used to say that one way to judge chess greats is to look at the difference between a champion and how far behind his challengers were to him.
Strictly by using this, Phildor would be number 1. Kasparov 2, Morphy and then Lasker. But really, no one would put Fischer 5.
We have what, maybe a dozen games recorded of Philidor's?! And only one game of Kermer's (against Philidor!).
Chris, were you confusing Kasparov with Karpov earlier -- or just kidding?
How many times did Kasparov beat Karpov in the 80s? Yeah, almost all of them. He beat Karpov to become Champion when Kasparov wasn't even in his prime yet -- while Karpov was smack in the middle of his prime. And Kasparov never lost a match to Karpov. Not once.
As far as Kramnik goes in '00 -- Kasparov was getting past his prime (almost 40 by then!). And some people in the past few years have questioned the validity of that match. Even in the months preceeding it people were pretty vocal that the only reason Kasparov chose to play Kramnik instead of Anand (World #2) or Shirov (World #3) is because he wanted the next Champion to be Russian. And looking at Kramnik's play the past decade -- when he's never been #1 and back in 06 dropped to like 19th or something -- one does have to wonder if Kasparov threw the match.
I agree with you that Kasparov was the greatest ever. But here are some points to consider:
You might argue that Kasparov's victory was evidence that he was in his prime, and also note that Karpov was nearly 40 in the 1990 match, which Kasparov won narrowly. All of the K-K matches were competitive. It's also important to remember that we are judging greatest by 2 skill sets, success in matches and success in tournaments; admittedly, there is overlap, but skill in winning matches is different from skill in winning tournaments. I think that tournament record is probably more useful for taking a player's measure, if only because it provides us with so much more data, and Karpov is the most successful tournament player in history. We can name many great athletes we would consider slobs if we just looked at their Finals or World Series performances. Another factor which might lead us to overestimate Kasparov is his strong personality and charisma, compared to Karpov's relative lack thereof.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It's an argument for number two greatest of all time -- not number one. Really, no one places Karpov ahead of Kasparov -- they played in the same era and Kasparov beat Karpov every match. I think Chris was just confusing the two.
No, not confusing the two. Just being ornery.
You're probably right, insofar as Kasparov beat Karpov, just barely, most every time they met. (After the abortive 1984 championship; I was a senior in college at the time, and it was huge news.) But there are too many world class players that Karpov handled well, but against whom Kasparov struggled, for it to be as dismissive a shoo-in for Kasparov as all that.
It has never occured to me to consider the Kramnik losses to be a thrown match. (Or, to be fairer, a match played at less-than-full intensity.) That still strikes me as very unlikely, given the temperament of the people involved. (And, as I'm remembering, would have required the tacit assistance of Anand, who remained the hold-out in Kasparov's attempts to arrange a match.)
I wouldn't place too much emphasis on Kramnik's performance thereafter, as evidence of rigging. He had been one of Kasparov's pit crew, and knew Kasparov's chess better than he knew the work of other players. I doubt Kasparov had that many useful surprises for him, and he only needed one or two to spring himself.
Morphy is important to the Chess conversation.
I use to go toe to toe with my coach with why Morphy couldn't be considered equal to Kasparov and Fischer. Of course, I was the Scholastic Class player and he was the GM -- with all the years of study, so I couldn't really make much of an argument. (And, since I'm still just a Class player...)
Morphy would have crushed Staunton if that f*&git had actually stepped up to the plate and faced him (that's why he refused to play Morphy!) and Morphy did beat Andersson.
The thing that makes chess historians reluctant to place Morphy in that top 5 list is so few games. It would've been great to see Morphy v. Staunton and then later Morphy v. Steinitz. At least we would have games to study.
---------------------------------
But I don't think Morphy is even the biggest surprise name-drop in the "#2 of all time Chess player" -- can you say Philidor?!
My coach used to say that one way to judge chess greats is to look at the difference between a champion and how far behind his challengers were to him.
Strictly by using this, Phildor would be number 1. Kasparov 2, Morphy and then Lasker. But really, no one would put Fischer 5.
We have what, maybe a dozen games recorded of Philidor's?! And only one game of Kermer's (against Philidor!).
I disagree about gap between the best and the rest. Fischer was much farther ahead of his contemporaries than anyone since. This is what typically happens in competitive enterprises, because there is less variation over time as people figure out the best ways of doing something (and also as incentives grow, motivating competitors to strive harder). A really good essay to read about this phenomenon is SJ Gould's about how the disappearance of .400 hitters records an improvement in baseball performance.
To preface my comments... I am not a serious student of Chess or Chess history, so some of my comments are most likely ignorant.
I think 'Best' is a broad and slippery term. Clearly there are records for most wins or highest winning % - but as others have pointed out - before the advent of international air flight, it wasn't as if it were easy to play competitively against people on the other side of the world. We also have Elo scores but again, that may not be a strictly fair comparison against those old time players. And clearly the tactics, gambits, etc. of those older players have helped improve the skills of the following generations. So, to my mind, comparisons are tough.
My personal, utterly subjective, definition of 'Best' has to include who brought advances to the game, their 'brilliancies', and whose games I just love to recreate and still fill me with wonder.
Based on that (again subjective) criteria and my novice knowledge of Chess - in no particular order - I'd have to tip my hat to Morphy, Philidor, Capablanca, and Lasker. And Morphy, far and away, is my favorite player although I don't pretend that he would beat Kasparov on any day of the week. Although, given he was the ultimate Romantic player, I would have loved to watch him (with an updated knowledge of the game) go against Karpov - arguably the best Positional player ever.
You may now proceed to call me a philistine who doesn't know his @$$ from a hole in the ground when it comes to Chess. :)
...You may now proceed to call me a philistine who doesn't know his @$$ from a hole in the ground when it comes to Chess. :)
"@$$ to Bishop 6. Check."
...You may now proceed to call me a philistine who doesn't know his @$$ from a hole in the ground when it comes to Chess. :)"@$$ to Bishop 6. Check."
Ahh... the Skull-%%$(^& Gambit - haven't seen that one in awhile.
"@$$ to Bishop 6. Check."Ahh... the Skull-%%$(^& Gambit - haven't seen that one in awhile.
"Got a brainstorm, huh, Stormraven? Milk and cookies kept you awake, huh? Lets discuss this. You better come up, Stormraven."
"Got a brainstorm, huh, Stormraven? Milk and cookies kept you awake, huh? Lets discuss this. You better come up, Stormraven.""@$$ to Bishop 6. Check."Ahh... the Skull-%%$(^& Gambit - haven't seen that one in awhile.
Bladerunner... great movie. I'm STILL pissed that it lost out to ET for the Best Special Effects oscar.
|
"Got a brainstorm, huh, Stormraven? Milk and cookies kept you awake, huh? Lets discuss this. You better come up, Stormraven.""@$$ to Bishop 6. Check."Ahh... the Skull-%%$(^& Gambit - haven't seen that one in awhile.Bladerunner... great movie. I'm STILL pissed that it lost out to ET for the Best Special Effects oscar.
When my time machine is done that shall be corrected.
|
|
It's an argument for number two greatest of all time -- not number one. Really, no one places Karpov ahead of Kasparov -- they played in the same era and Kasparov beat Karpov every match. I think Chris was just confusing the two.
It's interesting that you mention football. As an American I'm only learning football from my British friends but.... I don't think anyone compares Beckham to Pele.
I have heard people compare Maridona to Pele and I've heard that the Argentinians (obviously) are quite vocal that Maridona was equal to Pele. I've seen Maridona on YouTube and OMG, I can see why people say it about him. But still, I'm an American -- when people say football I think of my VIKINGS, my football, not real football. So I can't really chime in with an opinion, just regurgitate someone else's.
As far as Beckham goes, I don't think football fans consider him the best of his generation -- don't they usually put Thierry Henry ahead of Beckham?! I assume Americans, because they've heard of Beckham, are, um, misinformed.
Wasn't Beckham that chick in that movie about bending stuff?
|
|
I agree with you that Kasparov was the greatest ever. But here are some points to consider:
You might argue that Kasparov's victory was evidence that he was in his prime, and also note that Karpov was nearly 40 in the 1990 match,
Yes, Kasparov's wins in the early to mid 90s are evidence over people in the same generation as he (Short, Beliavsky, Salov, Bareev, Sierawan). The thing that makes Karpov so awesome -- "ranked" equally with Fischer and Capa -- is that in those same 90s, aged 39 to 43, he was clear Number two, ahead of great players 10-15 years younger than he. Of course, Kasparov (12 yrs younger) was still better. Thus, it's better to look at the Kasparov Karpov games in the 80s to be fair to Karpov. Kasparov won those, also. Close, sure, absolutely, but Kasparov won (beating Karpov at age 22 when Karpov was 34), thus he's better.
we are judging greatest by 2 skill sets, success in matches and success in tournaments;
Very good point. In any other argument I'd agree -- comparing Geller (1960s) or Leko (95-present) {strong tourney results/ poor match results} -- with top GMs from way back such as Bogojulbov, Euwe or Stahlberg, one has to look at otb match play vs tourney tables. But Kasparov and Karpov played at the same time. Kasparov's rating was always higher and even if they had even tourney tables in the 80s, Kasparov always won in match play.
I think that tournament record is probably more useful for taking a player's measure, if only because it provides us with so much more data....
and Karpov is the most successful tournament player in history.
Hmmm, well it's off topic a bit but I dunno. In a tourney you're gonna get draws for the following: it's late and both players want a draw so they can go to sleep;... you're good friends and you'll agree to a draw so you can both prepare for next round;... you'll give a countryman a draw so he can get his final GM norm;... and of course the "every tourney game ever played" reason: well, it looks like it'll end up as a draw so we'll just accept a draw and not fry our brains looking for a win, just to end up with a draw and exhaustion for next round." Plus, in tourneys you're not gonna get the help from others that you get in match play. In a match you can "home-prepare" your opening lines and variations for your specific opponent, you force a draw with Black and win with White. You plan for your opponent's customary lines. In a tourney you just play whoever the TDs give you 15 minutes before the round.
Match games are FAR more revealing of a player's strength. Look at Mark Taimanov: a good, up and coming Soviet of the 60s, young but getting strong and posting some fine results in tourneys. Then, in a Candidates match, Fischer beats him 6-0!!!! That's something that just never, never, happens. And Taimanov's career was over.
As far as Karpov being the best tourney player ever, I'm not sure. I haven't seen enough crosstables to make a competent judgement. I do know that in the 90s Kasparov dominated crosstables with ease. His scores from Linares and Wijk aan Zee are unbelievable. I don't believe for a second that Karpov has better results in the 80s -- for no other reason than he was playing Kasparov at least one game in each of his tourneys back then.
Besides, one can't really look at crosstables to determine who's the greatest, come on. Look at the crosstables of the 50s when the KGB stood over the shoulders of EVERY player facing Botvinnik -- yeah, they were there to make sure Botvinnik's opponent knew there'd be consequences for giving the Champ problems! At their best, crosstables only show you how a player compares to the other players during that tourney only.
We can name many great athletes we would consider slobs if we just looked at their Finals or World Series performances. Another factor which might lead us to overestimate Kasparov is his strong personality and charisma, compared to Karpov's relative lack thereof.
See, this is why we can actually hold a conversation comparing chess greats. We have the games. We can see who blunders and who discovers brilliancies! We can easily!!!! compare a game of Rubinstein's in the 20s with one of Carlsen's today. With enough games and a handful of years to study -- one can make real comparisons.... We just have to acknowledge the evolution of Opening theory and not hold bad Opening lines against players from way back. We have to study mid game play.
|
|
You're probably right, insofar as Kasparov beat Karpov, just barely, most every time they met.
Ayup, that pretty much settles it. It's far harder comparing Fischer and Capa and Karpov -- decades and decades separate them. But Kasparov beat Karpov. Every year for, what, 10 years. He's better.
But there are too many world class players that Karpov handled well, but against whom Kasparov struggled
Who?
Of course they occassionally lost games to other players but the only player who had a shot at really challenging Kasparov 85-95 was Karpov. And the only person who could regularly handle Karpov was Kasparov. It's like there was this considerable gap between #1 and #2.
It has never occured to me to consider the Kramnik losses to be a thrown match. (Or, to be fairer, a match played at less-than-full intensity.) That still strikes me as very unlikely,
Well, of course we'll never know for sure. And I didn't even say he did, just that people have grinned and nodded slyly about it from time to time. I don't mind saying it's unlikey -- just like you -- but I'll certainly stay a bit suspicious about it. It's very much in the realm of possibility. This kind of thing has been unwritten LAW in chess for 150 years. There are examples from every generation of chess since chess history has been written.
(Kramnik) had been one of Kasparov's pit crew, and knew Kasparov's chess better than he knew the work of other players.
Well, at that level every player knows intimately every other player's games. Kramnik had memorized every game of Kasparov's, yes. And Anand's. And Shirov's. And Leko's. And Ivanchuk's. And Svidler's. And Morozevich's. Etc. And Kasparov had memorized and studied the same.
|
|
I use to go toe to toe with my coach with why Morphy couldn't be considered equal to Kasparov and Fischer.
My coach used to say that one way to judge chess greats is to look at the difference between a champion and how far behind his challengers were to him.
Strictly by using this, Phildor would be number 1. Kasparov 2, Morphy and then Lasker. But really, no one would put Fischer 5.
I disagree about gap between the best and the rest.
Yeah, so do I and my old coach. It was just a fun thing to look at. Nothing for serious. Like I said, you could never put Fischer as low as #5.
Fischer was much farther ahead of his contemporaries than anyone since.
No dice on this one.
Philador was miles and miles ahead of anyone else in the world. Like comparing Michael Jordan at his best to the average NCAA tourney player.
Morphy was a few miles ahead of everyone else in the world. Like Jordan vs the average NBA back-up.
Lasker, for about a decade, was half a mile ahead above everyone else.
Kasparov and Karpov several hundred yards.
Fischer, hmm, yeah, probably several hundred yards also. Except that Spassky and Tal, at least, had a chance to take him, even though he was better.
|
|
I think 'Best' is a broad and slippery term.
In everything else, I absolutely agree. The difference here is that, unlike comparing Arnold Palmer to Tiger Woods, or Ty Cobb to Pete Rose -- we have the actual games. In chess you think about what move you want to make and make it. We can study all the moves in your game, even if you played it 100 years ago -- so we can tell whether or not it was a good game.
before the advent of international air flight, it wasn't as if it were easy to play competitively against people on the other side of the world.
Well, this was never a big deal. At least until 1860 or so. Morphy had to come to Europe to play the top players but he was able. The only other US player during that time that was any good was Paulsen and he was literally nothing compared to Morphy. And, in his games overseas, he was nothing, literally nothing, compared to the European masters.
Lasker and Zukertort and Tchigoran and Tarrasch all lived in Europe so that was no big deal.
And after WWI, Capablanca was Cuban but he just had to play in Europe, where he was clearly world #1.
We also have Elo scores but again, that may not be a strictly fair
Yeah, ELO is subject to inflation. You cannot compare outside of one generation.
My personal... - in no particular order - ...Morphy, Philidor, Capablanca, and Lasker.
Cool. It actually looks like a list based on the "gap between #1 of his generation and #2" except for Capa who had to deal with Rubinstein and Alekhine, not to mention Nimzowitch and Bogojulbov. But he's always on everyone's top 5 anyway.
.
.
.
If you're looking for "Romantic" you may want to look up Alekhine (ranked right after the Fischer-Capa-Karpov tier). He's often called the first Romantic World Champion.
I hate him because of his match with Capa in 27.
If you're looking for "Romantic" you may want to look up Alekhine (ranked right after the Fischer-Capa-Karpov tier). He's often called the first Romantic World Champion.
I hate him because of his match with Capa in 27.
I've heard of Alekhine but I don't think I've ever re-created his games. I'll definitely take a look at him. Thanks for the recommendation!