29 Dec 05
It is almost impossible to compare GMs of different eras. Each successive GM benefits from the earlier ones so they don't begin equally. I like the guys who have the greatest impact on changing the way the chess of their time was played at the time that they lived. I think those would be Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Botvinnik and Fischer. Of those, Fischer would be the biggest. So he would be the greatest player in the history of chess.
Geller may have been the best player never to be World Champion, with Keres a close second, then, arguably Stein. (Ignoring currently active players.)
The very best player was probably Kasparov, but recent players have a huge edge in this category because of those who went before.
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by aging blitzerI guess Ninzowich could be considered a significant chess thereotician, but as he player he wasn't so hot. Alekhine used some of his ideas, but frankly it wasn't until after the war that Botvinnik, Bronstein and some of the Russian players of the mid-centry really made the King's Indian and Nimzo/Queen's Indian into mainline chess. Nimzo was ahead of his time and his contributions are significant, but if we were rating players, then he wouldn't make the list. Botvinnik is kind of his descendant in some ways. Just me thoughts, not the last word! 😛
Anybody mentioned Nimzowich yet?
07 Jan 06
3 edits
Originally posted by lukemcmullanI saw this post over at chessgames.com re: Capablanca and his superiority over the other players of his day. It's an interesting thought,
Has to be Capablanca. His games make chess look so simple!
found at:
http://www.chessgames.com/player/jose_raul_capablanca.html?kpage=61
Post from "KingG"
"... 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 game to which the poster referred:
[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
EDIT: Edited a couple of typos form King's post
08 Jan 06
Originally posted by YugaAll that studying Alekhine did and he just couldn't completely domination Capablanca. I don't think Capablanca ever studied much. He - like Morphy - was a natural. I think he learned over time and became stronger from games analysis. But, I don't think he ever opened tactics manuals. LOL
[b]Capablanca.
9 games to 7 with 31 draws.
According to:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.[WORD TOO LONG]/b]