Strongest ever player

Originally posted by Fat Lady
I believe Tal had a plus score against Fischer too, mostly due to the 4-0 drubbing he handed to a 16 year old Fischer in the 1959 candidates tournament.

Edit: I was wrong, I've just checked and they ended up tied at four wins apiece with five draws.

When were Fischer's 4 wins?

Originally posted by Bedlam
Im not amazed. Iv heard that competitive correspondence players can use engines designed to check blunders but have no positional understanding at all.

I wonder if he ever said which engine he used.

I think most of the top correspondence players use several engines, presumably calculating day and night. I suppose there is a certain amount of skill in weighing up their different suggestions, but it seems pointless to me.

I have no idea why ICCF thinks engine use is acceptable. I'm sure it is one reason that many top OTB players have no interest in it, even after they have ceased playing in OTB tournies.

Originally posted by powershaker
I read in CHess Life that a dude - in a correspondence chess game versus Hydra - defeated Hydra and his rating wasn't even beyond a 2600 correspondence rating.

Please read the link I posted. The guy in question uses (an) engine(s). Plus, he played one of the weaker versions of Hydra.

Adams did not play well against Hydra, but Hydra is phenomenally good. I think you could have given Mickey decades to make his moves, and he'd still have struggled.

Originally posted by Fat Lady
I may be wrong, but I thought several people had a plus score against Fischer:

Efim Geller (W5 L3 D2)
Anthony Santasiere (W1 L0 D1)
Max Pavey (W1 L0 D1)
Abe Turner (W2 L0 D0)
Dr. Joseph Platz (W2 L0 D0)
Dragoljub Janosevic (W1 L0 D2)

Yes, you're right, but I'm speaking in sanctioned terms. I believe Geller is the only one in "match" play. I may be wrong though.

Originally posted by dottewell
I think most of the top correspondence players use several engines, presumably calculating day and night. I suppose there is a certain amount of skill in weighing up their different suggestions, but it seems pointless to me.

I have no idea why ICCF thinks engine use is acceptable. I'm sure it is one reason that many top OTB players have no interest in it, even after they have ceased playing in OTB tournies.

We could always ask Motown Dave, who says that he is a Correspondence Chess Candidate Master 🙂.

Originally posted by dottewell
Please read the link I posted. The guy in question uses (an) engine(s). Plus, he played one of the weaker versions of Hydra.

Adams did not play well against Hydra, but Hydra is phenomenally good. I think you could have given Mickey decades to make his moves, and he'd still have struggled.

Yeah, but there's something about an Adams, isn't there? hehe That's my last name, so I should know. lol

Originally posted by powershaker
Yeah, but there's something about an Adams, isn't there? hehe That's my last name, so I should know. lol

Okay, I give in. The first part of that's quite funny.

Have a rec.

Originally posted by leestatic
My money would go on Lasker undisputed champion for 27 years, a reign no other player has even approached.

Lasker did not play Rubinstein for the title nor did he beat Schlecter. I do not know if he proved he was better then Pillsbury or not.

Originally posted by dottewell
I have no idea why ICCF thinks engine use is acceptable.

For the same reaon that monks have bad habits. It is difficult to banish successfully.

Kasporov played in an era different era and against different opponents. You cannot compare across time zones.

Originally posted by Kirwan
When were Fischer's 4 wins?

Fischer beats Tal:
Bled 1961 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008404
Curacao 1962 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008413
Herceg Novi 1970 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044336
Herceg Novi 1970 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044701

The last two were blitz games, which I must admit I didn't realise when I read that Fischer had beaten Tal four times. Nevertheless, they are both very good and hard fought games!

This is worth watching if you're a fan of Fischer or Tal (and what chess player isn't?)
YouTube&search=benkoe

Originally posted by Superman
I dont think preparation would matter, in the case of capablanca, he never readed a chess book, he was the best natural player, but all GMs have this natural talent.

So if it comes to preparation on studying modern and advanced opening theory, how was capablanca able to play the way he did.

PS:I have a friend who belives he was a reincarnation of another GM.

Here's an interesting opinion as to why Capa was so good even though he really didn't study:

from:

http://www.chessgames.com/player/jose_raul_capablanca.html?kpage=61


"...one of the most interesting explainations i've heard of why Capablanca was the best player in the world for so long is one the Jacob Aargaard gives. That is, Capa was the only player of his generation who had a good understanding of weaknesses. His opponents would often make weakening pawn moves and then Capa would exploit them. Perhaps this is why his games look to be so clear. It's because he had a clear plan.

The example Aargaard gives is Bogoljubov vs Capablanca, 1924. Now, if you now even some basic elements of positional chess, you see how ridiculous some of Bogoljubov's moves are. But notice what Capa does, he sees potential dark squared weaknesses on the queen side, so he exchanges off dark squared bishops, he then uses those dark squares to attack the backward pawns on the light squares.

If you keep this in mind, i think the reasons for Capa's superiority over the other players becomes more apparent. It could also explain why he didn't need to study much. He basically had a 'system' that would allow him to beat almost every one. This changed with the new generation who had a greater positional understanding."


Here is the PGN from the Bogoljubov-Capablanca game mentioned in that post:

[Event "New York "]
[Site "New York "]
[Date "1924.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "9"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Bogoljubow Efim"]
[Black "J Capablanca"]
[ECO "D05"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "64"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 c5
5.b3 Nc6 6.O-O Bd6 7.Bb2 O-O 8.Nbd2 Qe7
9.Ne5 cxd4 10.exd4 Ba3 11.Bxa3 Qxa3 12.Ndf3 Bd7
13.Nxc6 Bxc6 14.Qd2 Rac8 15.c3 a6 16.Ne5 Bb5
17.f3 Bxd3 18.Nxd3 Rc7 19.Rac1 Rfc8 20.Rc2 Ne8
21.Rfc1 Nd6 22.Ne5 Qa5 23.a4 Qb6 24.Nd3 Qxb3
25.Nc5 Qb6 26.Rb2 Qa7 27.Qe1 b6 28.Nd3 Rc4
29.a5 bxa5 30.Nc5 Nb5 31.Re2 Nxd4 32.cxd4 R8xc5 0-1

Originally posted by dottewell
Okay, I give in. The first part of that's quite funny.

Have a rec.

lol

Originally posted by dottewell
I think most of the top correspondence players use several engines, presumably calculating day and night. I suppose there is a certain amount of skill in weighing up their different suggestions, but it seems pointless to me.

I have no idea why ICCF thinks engine use is acceptable. I'm sure it is one reason that many top OTB players have no interest in it, even after they have ceased playing in OTB tournies.

I questioned MotownDave about the use of engine use in the ICCF (he is a member there) and he gave a very nice response. Here it is:


"Hello, I will help try to answer your questions. Yes, in the ICCF engine use is allowed and I am a member. It is not controlled, but among strong players, a stronger player with a computer will beat a weaker player with a computer as often as in unassisted play. It is so impossible to police that they don't try. In fact most computer programs will make weak moves, including Fritz and Shredder. The secret is picking them out! Since everyone has an engine, it is still equal play!"