Originally posted by zakkwylderWhat are you, a moron? Korch has declared anything prior to the last Kasparov-Karpov match as pre-modern. That is the way it is PERIOD.
Just to be certain though, December 31st, 1989, say around 10ish shouldn't be considered modern?
All players who played before the last Kasparov-Karpov (including Kasparov and Karpov) were thus weaker and their games cannot be considered when using engine analysis match ups to evaluate the strength of the players.
So it is written (by Korch) and SO IT MUST BE.
"In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn’t do well. They’d get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability. Memorisation is enormously powerful. Some kid of fourteen today, or even younger, could get an opening advantage against Capablanca, and especially against the players of the previous century, like Morphy and Steinitz. Maybe they would still be able to outplay the young kid of today. Or maybe not, because nowadays when you get the opening advantage not only do you get the opening advantage, you know how to play, they have so many examples of what to do from this position. It is really deadly, and that is why I don’t like chess any more." - Fischer
If Fischer himself puts this much emphasis on opening theory then perhaps there is something to Korch's argument. I however would still like to believe that Fischer could overcome a poor opening and still win.
So not only is Korch an authority on all things considered, so is Fischer? To say that he knew more than the players of 100yrs ago or so is not only arrogant but is only conjecture. Fischer was a great player, one of the best. However you can't say you could beat Michael Jordan one on one if you never played him. No more than you could say you could beat Capablanca if you've never played him.
Thought I'd add, Fischer regarded Staunton, Alekhine, Capablance and Steinitz 10 of the best players ever.
Originally posted by zakkwylderIf we talking about authorities, then according to Kasparov chess in 70ties was in obviously lower level to compare with chess 20-30 years later - feel free to read his "My great Predecessors" (vol. 4 and 5) and "Modern Chess Series, Part 1: Revolution in the 70's".
So not only is Korch an authority on all things considered, so is Fischer? To say that he knew more than the players of 100yrs ago or so is not only arrogant but is only conjecture. Fischer was a great player, one of the best. However you can't say you could beat Michael Jordan one on one if you never played him. No more than you could say you could beat dd, Fischer regarded Staunton, Alekhine, Capablance and Steinitz 10 of the best players ever.
Actually idea that Fischer of 70ties wouldn`t have such a good results today is generally accepted by strongest modern players.
Originally posted by KorchI wonder why.
If we talking about authorities, then according to Kasparov chess in 70ties was in obviously lower level to compare with chess 20-30 years later - feel free to read his "My great Predecessors" (vol. 4 and 5) and "Modern Chess Series, Part 1: Revolution in the 70's".
Actually idea that Fischer of 70ties wouldn`t have such a good results today is generally accepted by strongest modern players.
Of course we will never see, he's dead you now, I'm sure you know. Maybe its just my American bias(though I don't see believe everything American is better, quite the contrary), however I believe Fischer would have matched very strongly against some of today's top GMs. The great thing about chess is you don't reach a certain age where you can't perform anymore like American football or soccer. Its is a mind game, if your brain is still in shape, you're still in your prime. Both Spassky and Fischer played great Chess in 1992, when they were both "out of their prime". You tell me.
Originally posted by zakkwylderI believe Fischer would have matched very strongly against some of today's top GMs
Of course we will never see, he's dead you now, I'm sure you know. Maybe its just my American bias(though I don't see believe everything American is better, quite the contrary), however I believe Fischer would have matched very strongly against some of today's top GMs. The great thing about chess is you don't reach a certain age where you can't perform an cher played great Chess in 1992, when they were both "out of their prime". You tell me.
I believe that he would be able to produce some good games, but I`m sure that in most of them lack of modern chess knowledge would be more important factor.
The great thing about chess is you don't reach a certain age where you can't perform anymore like American football or soccer.
I should disappoint you - also in chess age affect your play. Especially in highest levels when you need more physical stamina and nerves to make good success. Even such chess long-liver Korchnoi is only shadow to compare with Korchnoi in his best years 30-40 years ago.
Both Spassky and Fischer played great Chess in 1992
I`m sorry to disappoint you again, but according to opinion of many specialists (including Kasparov) their match in 1992 was in much lower quality than match in 1972.
Originally posted by KorchAre there new pieces or spots on the board that I was not aware of? My God man, how long have you been sitting on this information?
Yes. What could be more arrogant than view that chess has developed fast during the latest decades.....
Its not the chess that develops, its the players who develop.
Originally posted by zakkwylderWith "chess" I did mean "chess theory". Your nit-picking is miserable.
Are there new pieces or spots on the board that I was not aware of? My God man, how long have you been sitting on this information?
Its not the chess that develops, its the players who develop.