- About Us
- Chess Improvement
- Chess Puzzles
- Chess Research
- College Chess
- General News
- Home
- Major Tournaments
- News
- Polgar Events
- Privacy Policy
- Scholastic Chess
- SPICE / Webster
- Susan’s Personal Blog
- Track your order
- USA Chess
- Videos
- Women’s Chess
- Contact Us
- Daily News
- My Account
- Terms & Conditions
- Privacy Policy
E. Lasker, for it really looks like a psychologic game to handle. By the way ‘St Peterburg 1914’ is my chess book at the moment …..
Cheers from france
Bobby Fischer for a blizgame or Anand if the timecontrol suggests a rapid game.
Kasparov. No reason to ask anyone else.
hmm… and who am i playing against?
Garry Kasparov for a classical time control and Mikhail Tal for a Blitz game.
that’s easy TOPALOV
Hoddy, that’s the Topalov who’s just lost a match to Kramnik? He’d be good for entertainment value certainly – “The compere’s going to the toilet too much” and “I demand a rematch”
Who would I want to play for me? Probably Kasparov, although Karpov in his prime would be a close second choice.
goron …but there would be no FIDE or Putin Political
manipulation…it would be a fair game…Topalov would beat anyone today under those kind of playing conditions
sorry… gordgon
I take this question to mainly mean who do you think would be the greatest player for one match everything else equal.
As such, I’d probably go Fischer or Morphy. They seem to have the most pure talent and I’d take them in a single match over anyone else… assuming I can give them time to get “caught up to speed” with the current chess knowledge.
If not, then Kasparov.
Hoddy:
the FIDE loves Topalov and cleary was biased towards him. How can you honestly claim the FIDE hurt Topalov? Furthurmore, it was all fair play for Topalov, not for Kramnik. He was awarded a free game and had more whites than Kramnik yet still lost 2 more games.
This is a very thought provoking question!:)
1) Kasparov
1A) Morphy (if he could be brought up to speed on modern theory)…his match play is/was a marvel to behold. If he could somehow learn modern theory, then Morphy would be #1 and not #1A (I just couldn’t place him as “2” due to his match record).
Most Sincerely,
Tim Harris
I would definitely play the game myself.
After all, who needs the million dollars anyway. 🙂
I would choose definitely you, Susan and when we won the game I’d share that million dollar with you and then we’d go out for a boat trip, visit a tropical island, play chess under a palm tree, nice music in the background, the sun sank in the water, really romantic and then we would a kiss. That is what I would do with that million dollar dream.
Is anyone who is not American crazy enough to say Morphy?
To win one game now against any opponent, must be Kasparov.
Kasparov. No hesitation at all.
I’ll change the rules first.
No breaks. (no wc, no rest rooms and …)
No draws in the first 60 moves.
No manegers.
No computers.
And my choice will be for Topalov!
I would chose Kortchnoi
I had shoot a photo from the Thessaloniki chess Olympiad with the Hungarian women chess team and guess who is inside 🙂
Whoareallthepeopleat http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=129&PID=2230
To Anon:
Sorry everyone for interjecting this long post but it bothers me when someone uses words like “crazy.” More proper words could be used. So, I’ll rant for a moment.
The question was whom would the reader choose…it’s not a popularity contest. It’s my opinion, only.
Is anyone who is NOT American “crazy” (you shouldn’t use such a word…we’re all here to enjoy the free exchange of ideas not insult people for their opinions) enough to state that Morphy wasn’t amongst the greatest match players in chess history?
Here is a quote by some NON-American (I’m including Fischer as he is now a citizen of Iceland) GM Botvinnik:
“To this day Morphy is an unsurpassed master of the open games. Just how great was his significance is evident from the fact that after Morphy nothing substantially new has been created in this field. Every player- from beginner to master- should in this praxis return again and again to the games of the American genius.” ~ Mikhail Botvinnik
From Bobby Fischer:
“A popularly held theory about Paul Morphy is that if he returned to the chess world today and played our best contemporary players, he would come out the loser. Nothing is further from the truth. In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today… Morphy was perhaps the most accurate chess player who ever lived. He had complete sight of the board and never blundered, in spite of the fact that he played quite rapidly, rarely taking more than five minutes to decide a move. Perhaps his only weakness was in closed games like the Dutch Defense. But even then, he was usually victorious because of his resourcefulness.” ~ Bobby Fischer
From GM Smyslov:
“There is no doubt that for Morphy chess was an art, and for chess Morphy was a great artist. His play was captivated by freshness of thought and inexhaustible energy. He played with inspiration, without striving to penetrate into the psychology of the opponent; he played, if one can express it so, “pure chess”. His harmonious positional understanding; the pure intuition, would have made Morphy a highly dangerous opponent even for any player of our times.” ~ Vassily Smyslov
Lastly, Alekhine:
“…Morphy, the master of all phases of the game, stronger than any of his opponents, even the strongest of them…” Alexander Alekhine
and the list can go on.
For advice on a single game…Kasparov but the question.
I’ll end on this, and the readers can say what they will. I do not have to defend Morphy. He was the greatest natural chess talent of them all.
“Morphy, I think everyone agrees, was probably the greatest genius of them all.” ~ Bobby Fischer, 1992
Respectfully,
Tim Harris
Tim, yes Morphy in theory…but the fact remains that Morphy’s game scores were routinely changed after the game, i.e. doctored before publication. Thus, Morphy does indeed appear at first naive blush to play perfectly, when in actuality, he usually erred far less than his opponents prior to Steinitz proposing new, systematic chess training.
Crawl in my time machine with me sometime and we shall visit Morphy during his heyday, and you will see his unpublished mistakes, too.
In many ways, this also shows how our historians (in this case chess history books) tend to revise history to more socially favorable results (acceptable conclusion) as time goes by.
I would probably call Keres for advice.
Kramnik if I only need a draw!
If I need a win and a draw is as bad as a loss. Then I would pick Tal
Yes! Keres came to my mind also. He was very sound.
Dear Chess Historian,
Again…for advice on a single game: Kasparov (few can doubt this).
I’ve already stated this. Morphy is an enigma. I’ll give anyone my Email and we can carry on lively conversations about Morphy or the history of chess, in general.
I will not inflate the posts with what, as I have said many times, my personal opinions regarding Morphy.
I never said he didn’t make mistakes. Of course he did. His games are published and have been analyzed over and over.
What historical evidence, what documents, where is the tentative “proof” that “Morphy’s game scores were routinely changed after the game?”
I would like to verify this myself.
Again, though, I agree with many others that if I had to choose one player to ask advice and 1 million dollars were the stakes…I’d want Kasparov.
I routinely bring up Morphy to:
A) Stimulate debate because I learn from what others have to say.
B) I think most contemporary GM’s have studied Morphy and did so for a reason. If he is so unimportant and it’s just “American arrogance” (as some have inferred) to mention his name, then why do so many non-Americans praise him?
I have always stated that my posts are my opinion only. My opinion really doesn’t matter as the world will go on regardless of what I think. It’s just nice to talk about something OTHER than contemporary GM’s, scandals, computers, etc.
Stick to his games and forget about where he happened to be born.
I could go on but I’m going to be quiet and let others say what they wish.
Since the majority of chessplayers alive today are not ranked at the Master level or above, Morphy would still be able to defeat, I dare say, you club players, your “Experts” and, excluding modern Masters and above, just about everyone else.
Most chess players aren’t a rated expert or above.
Ahhhh, I’m repeating myself. I’ll shut up now. It’s time for some coffee.
Cheers to All!
Tim Harris
P.S. Well, at least respect my willingness to stand up for what I believe in! More people need to do this.
a GM in history…….for money….. definitely Kasparov.
I think everyone is posting without incorporating what is known about the mindset of your Grandmaster of choice!
Morphy would most likely decline due to his aversion to being compensated for his chess activities, so he is ruled out!
Karpov in his prime was still not a “capitalist”, so if we rewind the clock we would have this a part of his thought process also. It might be tough to motivate him.
Kasparov is eliminated as a choice since:
a) He would probably not allow the “procedure” to take him back to his prime. He might insist that he “is still in his prime”, at which time he would probably say:
b) He is busy trying to unseat Vladimir Putin
c) He’d probably want a big chunk of the prize fund.
Kramnik would have too much on his mind at present, so he might be distracted from play, so I would not opt for him either.
Alekhine might want a date with mom in order to help out, so that’s off the table.
Capablanca would play not to lose, so if he draws, we might not get the money.
I would choose Schlecter. He could have taken down Lasker, were it not for him trying to win game #10 instead of being just content to draw. And he is probably very motivated to demonstrate to the world how good he really is, as I think he has never been given the proper credit for his true strength.
Yes, Schlecter would be properly motivated to score a win.
I think everyone is posting without incorporating what is known about the mindset of your Grandmaster of choice!
Morphy would most likely decline due to his aversion to being compensated for his chess activities, so he is ruled out!
Karpov in his prime was still not a “capitalist”, so if we rewind the clock we would have this a part of his thought process also. It might be tough to motivate him.
Kasparov is eliminated as a choice since:
a) He would probably not allow the “procedure” to take him back to his prime. He might insist that he “is still in his prime”, at which time he would probably say:
b) He is busy trying to unseat Vladimir Putin
c) He’d probably want a big chunk of the prize fund.
Kramnik would have too much on his mind at present, so he might be distracted from play, so I would not opt for him either.
Alekhine might want a date with mom in order to help out, so that’s off the table.
Capablanca would play not to lose, so if he draws, we might not get the money.
I would choose Schlecter. He could have taken down Lasker, were it not for him trying to win game #10 instead of being just content to draw. And he is probably very motivated to demonstrate to the world how good he really is, as I think he has never been given the proper credit for his true strength.
Yes, Schlecter would be properly motivated to score a win.
Hello Edtrice,
Just want to say that you make several good points. Thanks for your post. It has me reflecting…again!:)
All the Best,
Tim Harris
P.S. Ben Franklin once said, and I believe this to be true, that: “Passion (or emotion) governs…and it never governs [us] wisely.”
How true!
Fischer
and to insure victory I would hope he was playing against Topalov
Who’s the opponent?
Like Steitniz: I plan a match versus God ;o)
With the new Fide- Fischer system ! ;o)))
with serious regret to capablanca, id go with tal
Kasparov for shure, unless the opponent is deep blue 🙂
Yeah, who’s the opponent? Are we playing a comp, or some GM? If a GM, which?
Also, if I pick a GM from the past (or present), do I get to get him from his peak year? Like, can I get the 1971 version of Fischer? Or would I be stuck with the 2006 version? Can I get Tal from his best year?
Also, if I get a player from the past, can he/she have a year to study current theory, or are we stuck with the knowledge of the past as well? (Those of you who favor Morphy, do you really want to play 2.d4 against the Sicilian and so on, and what will he do if the opponent goes hypermodern?)
If we don’t get study time, then maybe we better go with somebody from the present day. I guess I’d have to go with Topalov. If the opponent is anyone but Kramnik then we have a good chance of a decisive result and a good chance of a win. Even if the opponent is Kramnik, I think Topalov has a better chance of WINNING a game against Kramnik than anyone else does, even another Kramnik.
Kasparov. It’s the only logical answer.
Definitely not Fischer, as he might throw a wobbly and default the game.
Any old-time GM would have to have at least the caveat that he spent a few years catching up with modern theory and understanding. As that wasn’t in the question, I have to discount them.
But even if it were, who has a record to equal Gazza?
The Fischer of 1970-72.
(I voted Lasker -first comment today)
The point is I guess a ‘must win’ situation (vs anyone actually) and I do believe Lasker is the one. He demonstrated that all along his very long career (would be worse after the opening but would be back in a double edge middle game and would spendidly win the 1M$ in the ending). Of course I would share it with him for all along his life he never had much money !
>>that’s easy TOPALOV
Yeah, I say Topalov too. Even if he loses, his pouting and sulking would make for great TV.
Most of you didn’t read the question carefully. It say “win” the game, not “draw” the game. With this in mind I’d choose Topalov – this would be the best shot since he always plays for the win.
Fischer, the unshakable will to win combined with the talent to back it up and bring home the bacon.
Ofcourse Kasparov and maybe subtitute Topalov – they play for win, if i`ll win even drawing – that easy – Kramnik
Deep Blue
OF COURSE I WILL CHOOSE SUSAN,SOFI AND JUDITH With the support of TAL OR LASKER IF THEY WOULD ALIVE YET,Anand as Second.But of Course:We will win,and after we will use the money for fight aganist wars,poverty,and ilness,and for improve the society and education in better way.OK?
Many Kisses
“Hoddy:
the FIDE loves Topalov and cleary was biased towards him. How can you honestly claim the FIDE hurt Topalov?”
The key word in what you just said was “honestly”. Of course, you can’t say it honestly, that’s why all such claims are just vague assurances, and why no GM’s have supported Topalov’s behavior. Why do you think Susan is always telling people to lose with dignity? Because it’s such a hard thing for some people to do.
Forgetting the pecularities of individual GMs’ characters, and assuming they would all agree and play at their best strenght –
Morphy if he has sufficient time to study modern chess; Kasparov otherwise (I am not American).
Alekhine would be my man, I think (can´t say why). But listen, Alex: QUIT DRINKING! ;o)
Give me Viktor the Terrible he has seen it all
Morphy hands-down! Geez, it doesn’t take a genius.
It seems most wants Morphy. Go dancing inside a circle of shoes:-)
Some wants Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov, …
I want a W Bush, sending in the arm force for some random reason and force the money into my pocket
and somebody else’ son into bodybag.
Anonymous said…
Is anyone who is not American crazy enough to say Morphy?
To win one game now against any opponent, must be Kasparov.
As all of Tim’s quotes point out, plenty of people would pick Morphy.
We must remember that Morphy almost never lost a game. He just destroyed everyone. Kasparov, OTOH, has lost many games to other top players form his time.
You could make an argument for Kasparov being better, since he has things like an extremely long reign at the top going for him, but in a single match there are plenty of people who have beaten him. Almost none who beat Morphy.
anonymous said… hoddy the
FIDE Loves Topalov…
The FIDE and their Putin boss manipulated that so called Toiletgate Match .
As for them loving Topalov hahahahahahahahahahahahah
they would not even let his plane land to pick him up
now ther’e play with dignity …
I can’t stand dictatorship or power cronies manipulation…
Topalov was badly done by
lincoln wrote:
>>We must remember that Morphy almost never lost a game. He just destroyed everyone. Kasparov, OTOH, has lost many games to other top players form his time.
>>
Have you ever actually played over Morphy’s games, rather than just relied on reputation? He lost plenty for a guy whose active career spanned less than 2 years. Chessbase has 15 defeats on record for him from 1857-1858, and that’s not counting odds games, where he got destroyed in later years by Charles Maurian (who by that time was much too strong to be able to give Knight odds to). Morphy was a clear cut above his contemporaries, but far from invincible. His success came not from natural talent so much as that he understood how to play Open Games better than anyone else of his time did. If you want invincible, you’d go for somebody like Petrosian.
But if win/loss record, rather than playing strength, is your critera, you’d have to go for IM William Martz, who once won a hundred consecutive rated games, which is far and away the record.
Mr Robert James Fischer of course !
Regards
Cplr
Along the Morphy discussion – here is an enigma that I’d love to shed light upon: This player Grigor Minchev (see the profile at http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=79792
) never lost a game and suddenly dissapeared from the chess scene. There is an obsessed “Heroes” gamer that creates maps etc. with this name and I wonder if chess lost this brilliant guy to “heroes”…
In game 6 and 7 of Kramnik-Topalov…hundreds of thousands a record Loged on to ICC,Playchess.com Susans Blog and lots of other live broacast sites…live comments from the general puplic and GM’s everywere hooting for Topolov’s to win…10% against him
Dear Anon,
As GM Andrew Soltis says of Morphy, “Genius is a starry word; but if there ever was a chess player to whom that attribute applied, it was Paul Morphy.”
Now, on to your words.
“Have you ever actually played over Morphy’s games, rather than just relied on reputation?”
Yes. The games are marvels. Even his losses are quite educational. No point in saying anything else.
“His success came not from natural talent so much as that he understood how to play Open Games”
I, respectfully, say that you cannot be further from the truth. Regarding natural talent, Morphy was the absolute epitomy, the finest example of natural chess talent. statistically “the gap” that separated him from his generation was larger than any other player in the history of the game of chess. The same cannot be said of Kasparov.
Unlike todays rising chess start, he did not have a team of GM’s to aid him in study, he did not have hundreds of books dealing with theory on every aspect of chess, he did not have Rybka, Fritz, or shredder to evaluate games.
What did he have? Morphy certainly had an innate ability to look at a chess board and “see” combinations and ways to victory that stunned not only his contemporaries but is still awe-inspiring today.
Of all the GM’s that praised Morphy and I quoted earlier (read my earlier post), are you saying that you know more about chess than they do? That when Lasker and Fischer call Morphy a “genius” then they do not know what they were talking about but you do?
Men like Lasker, Smyslov, Capablanca, Alekhine, etc would not heap such accolades upon a chess master whose only qualification to greatness was that he “understood open games” better than his contemporaries and, just so happen to win more matches.
Please. You can do better than that.
If it was only an understanding of “open games,” that made Morphy so far ahead of his time, then why are his games so studied by contemporary chess players?
Morphy was virtually invincible in open games. However, he could play a closed game and make it a masterpiece. His sacrifices that led to victory are works of art! Morphy was a player who intuitively knew what was best.
This is not to say that he never made blunders, never lost a “won game,” or anything like that.
He would have defeated Staunton. Chigorin thought Morphy his superior in chess. He proved himself against Andersson (who should be in the top 100 in chess history), and he did it all without
rushing back to his hotel and having a computer analyze his mistakes.
He simply was…the best natural talent ever. That is the truth and that is all I have to say about Morphy and those that question his greatness.
Respectfully,
Tim Harris
P.S. I wonder…Did GM Susan study Morphy’s games? I wonder what her opinion is of his place in history?
me
it wouldn’t be interesting to win something by someone else
for the love of chess
Robert James Fischer .
Chessbase has 15 defeats on record for him from 1857-1858, and that’s not counting odds games, where he got destroyed in later years by Charles Maurian (who by that time was much too strong to be able to give Knight odds to).
I guess it depends what games you are counting.
According to wikipedia: “Of Morphy’s 59 “serious” games — those played in matches and the 1857 New York tournament — he won 42, drew 9, and lost 8.”
which is a pretty stellar record.
Another brillant topic by Susan. I think that is reflected in the incandencence of many of the posts here. Kasparov, has been called many, the greatest player of all time. I think that we are in a gray area here. Some regularly say: “It is not worth discussing, there is reason to compare, it’s obvious…..etc.” Frankly I don’t have an easy answer for this one. Alekhine, Kasparov, Morphy, Tal, and Topalov come to mind. I would rate A, and K higher because they had better endgames and positional sense. They can squeeze as well as crush. If you could draw till win, I would pick Capa who had the lowest loss percentage. Now I will defer my opinion to a much higher source: Capablanca. In the 1930s, when Lasker was in his late 60’s(!!) Capa said that though his age prevented him from winning a long tournament, that in any one game Lasker was the most dangerous play around. Wow!
“Chessbase has 15 defeats on record for him from 1857-1858, and that’s not counting odds games, where he got destroyed in later years by Charles Maurian (who by that time was much too strong to be able to give Knight odds to).”
Wasn’t logged in last time.
I’m not really sure what these 15 defeats are supposed to mean. His Chessebase.com record of everything, not just serious games, has him at an 84.6% win average.
Compare to the following:
Fischer: 72.5
Kasparov: 69.2
Lasker: 65.5
Karpov: 65.2
Topalov: 58% (which seems almost crazy low for supposed world champion, considering that he is still young and many of Karpov and Kasporov’s defeats are from when they were past their prime)
Tim, some of your posts on Morphy are beautiful. They bring flesh to the arcane pages of history. But it is not simple on who was the best or most talented. One has to seriously consider Capa or Reshevsky. To measure talent is no small task. I
I would probably choose Capablanca.
The poorest GM on the planet!
(I think that excludes you, Susan.)
Chessbase has 15 defeats on record for him from 1857-1858, and that’s not counting odds games, where he got destroyed in later years by Charles Maurian (who by that time was much too strong to be able to give Knight odds to).
I guess it depends what games you are counting.
—————-
Let’s set the record straight about Maurian and Morphy.
Morphy had a friend Maurian and he taught him how to play chess. He more than likely, advised him on how to make his moves, how to look at the overall picture of the pieces in play on the board, and as a teacher, let him win instructively, showing him how in the process, and letting him keep his note of those studies to review. Those games come down to us, and we are to believe Morphy lost, what BS, nothing could be further from the truth. Morphy won, he won a friend for life, and someone he could practice out his theories with. Maurian was a great friend and was challenged by Morphy’s abilities. The only one to know how Morphy really thought about the game of chess in fact, was Maurian.
So, the games where Maurian is listed as winning, are more than likely Morphy playing for Maurian a win against himself. Better not to use these games at all when measuring Morphy’s performance on a chessboard.
Morphy, second choice will be kasparov. If morphy can learn modern theory, i will choose him. Can I choose the opponent please!!!!Judith polgar’s cute little kid can be the opponent you know! 😀
Actually, I think it nearly impossible to simply say that one individual was the “best chess player in history.” However, saying that an individual had the most natural talent is another matter.
One can only state clearly that an individual is the best at a certain period in history. It is quite unfair, I think, to compare and label as “better” or “worse” a player that is known only in the pages of history to, say, Kasparov proves nothing.
Of course Kasparov is probably still the best player in the world. He certainly could beat Morphy but that is only because he has the advantage of 150+ years of theory.
We can, with a certain degree of certainty, compare a player with all of his/her contemporaries (during any historical period) and draw conclusions based upon this.
It’s quite simple. In 200 years from now, human chess GM’s will be far more advanced than Kasparov. The will have all the knowledge that the next two hundred years of theoretical development, along with more sophisticated computer analysis, to learn from.
Yet, regarding natural talent, that is, what one seems to have been born with, is another matter.
It is this point, that Morphy had the best natural (or “innate”) chess intuition than any before or after him. Now, I’m asserting this as my opinion. This is how I interpret history.
There are certain people that seem to stand as giants in their field in each historical era. Newton, Einstein, Hawking in science. Beethoven, Mozart, and many more in music. Descartes, Leibniz, Hume, and Kant in philosophy…and so on.
In this sense, Morphy stands out as a giant within our sport.
His record speaks for itself. His natural ability speaks for itself. Like Fischer, all we can do today is wonder, “What if…”
We shall never know.
Thankfully, at least, the history of chess is alive today and names such as Philidor, Morphy, Bird, Chigorin, Steinitz, etc are still well known to chess devotees.
The spirit of debate is alive and well. This is good and may it (borrowing from Spock) “Live long and prosper!”
To All:
Cheers!
Tim Harris
No one has mentioned Morozevich? But some of you would allow Topalov (blunderov as he is known these days) to blunder away your million dollars?
I’d pick Anand, Kasparov, Fischer, Morozevich, and Kramnik, in that order too.
In this and other recent threads I”ve seen several posters put forward Topalov as a candidate for the best ever or the best or recent times.
I’d honestly be interested in hearing wh you believe this to be the case, becuase I can’t figure out any reason to see him listed so highly. I’ll explain briefly why it doesn’t make sense to me so you can see where I’m coming from:
It seems to me that there are several criteria that could weigh in to decided the best player of all time (or best active player). These would mianly be:
– Dominance of contemporaries (Where the likes of Fischer and Morphy stand out. Topalov doesn’t here. Contemporaries like Karmnik, Anand, Kasparov and others are clearly in the same realm if not better than him)
– Longevity (The best case for Kasparov. Topalov obvioulsy doesn’t fit here as he is still young and has only won a world championship match once.)
– Quality of play in key matches (Topalov fails here too as we saw with Kramnik. His stregnth seems to be in round robin type tournaments, not individual matches.
– Win/loss ratio (according to Chessbase, his is pretty low compared to the other top players)
So by what criteria is Topalov one of the best players? It seems to me that no matter what critera one could bring up, Topalov would have a dozen or so people ahead of him. The only criteria I can think of in which he seems elite is in his FIDE ranking, which puts him as one of four to get over 2800. But here he is well behind Kasparov and given rating inflation probably well behind many other people. On Chessmetrics he is only #33 for 3 year average… but Chessmetrics hasn’t been updated since the start of 05.
So what is the argument for his eliteness?
Just ask the record of hundreds of thousands of fans that watch him play
I’d make Ruy Lopez play the scotch game.
I don’t really see how that is an argument at all…
Sometimes Topalov’s play is exciting but often he reverts to Draw-palov mode, like in the second cycle of the 2005 championship.
But how exciting a player is to watch doesn’t really factor into their greatness.
DAINALOV.
I WILL HAVE HIM PULL A FAST PROTEST/COMPLAINT THAT THE GAMES ARE RIGGED AND THEN I WILL WIN THE MILLION DOLLARS BY FORFEIT.
I WILL MAKE TOPALOV MY SECOND AND KRAMNIK MY TOILET MANAGER.
agreed ! he is the one who wants to play attractive, not for your ranking! and people love him for that, not for your or Fide ranking.
Tim, I do believe that talent can be measured. I think that it is another order of maagnitude for to to be absolutely discerned. Two phrases that you made that I like are: Referring Morphy as “a Giant.” Of no surprise to you as a fellow student of chess history, there are a few other giants. I am a mere 2100 player. The training to get to even that level required me to re-evaluated what I previously thought again and again. At the end of his career, Lasker was trying play chess by forgeting everything that he learned. I’m not at the level were I can fully (to say the least!) evaluate the relative strength or talents of the great ones. But it is fun! And great mentor that Susan is, she does not beat up on us!
Your posts are always full of content. I remember the post where one said that “any IM could beat Morphy” I admit, I felt I was able to address that in the negative. I must tell that despite being a student of chess for almost 40 years, I cannot get a real grasp on how Morphy would have evolved to in today’s world. I think that chess developed quite a deal from the 1850s to the 1930s. Alekhine or Botvinnik are a “closer reach.” There is an short bit by Capablanca on Morphy in Winter’s book on Capablanca. I don’t remember the specific content, but it addresses the “if Morphy were here today he would…” question a little differently than the quotes that you mentioned. Obviously, Capa wanted to look good in comparison with Morphy, but there was a technical objectivity to the tone and content of comments as well.
hahahha you guys are funny
….The other phrase that I like us: “in my interpretation.” Bravo! recognition of one’s subjective state. If some of these choices were so absolute, we would not have such fun discourse. the complexity and uncertainty give beauty. Arthur Rubinstein said that the composers were not better nor worse, but different. Brahms or Wagner? Tchaikovsky or Verdi? Beethoven or Bach? I love the comparisons, and with a dosee of humility. That humility it the common lubricant that allows all of us to learn.
It must be Kasparov! Nobody has the greater strength to beat anyone over one game in today chess world.
CAPABLANCA, the greatest.
Remember, he won the world championship defeating (4-0) to Lasker. 4 to 0!
What about: Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov, Botvinnik, Alekhine or Morphy (6-2 with Anderssen) .
Plus, Capa had a natural talent, he played great his whole life.
Fischer level right now is low, u can simply check his 1992 match against Spassky (the reason why he is avoiding playing against Karpov and Kasparov?
Toppy?? Come on! Maybe to assist u complaining to the judges.
Capablanca, of course. As Lasker said, he knew many great chessplayers, but only one genius: Capablanca: I refer to the Capa between 1914-1922: in those years he was invincible.
Eduardo Heras
Kasparov
AS THIS POST WINDS DOWN the most talked about Players were..MORPHY AND TOPALOV
Murphy greatly loved by most
Topalov has a Love a Hate relationship with his Fans
Even the Haters seem to Love him (Topalov)
Fisher always talked about
Dear GM Susan,
Thank you for placing such a thought provoking question on your web-site! I, and I’m sure many others, really enjoy answering your questions. Plus, the enlightening debates that often ensue are refreshing.
Keep up the wonderful work!
Most Sincerely,
Tim Harris
Tim Harris, I think you need a personal support group so you can become comfortable in your own skin, in your own time, and need not justify yourself or your cause.
Experiment with them.
Learn about the forgotten Paul Morphy:
The Chess Players (1960)
by Frances Parkinson Keyes
Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, New York
ISBN: 9997403460
Based on the life of Paul Morphy. The life and times of Morphy and the foibles in mid-19th century chess.
The mad genius, Bobby Fischer in his prime.
Gabor
This question is extremely boring.
just another boring hoog
Dear College Professor..if you realy are one……….
Why two thousand words in your respond when two will
do….. p— o–
If you must respond at all
Dear Anon,
There are, among us, fear us as you might, an academic! I lose no sleep as to the question of whether you believe me when it comes to what I do for a living.
I have nothing to prove. Either you want to engage in an intellectual debate or you do not.
Most importantly, GM Polgar knows who I am. That is enough for me.
You can either engage in intellectual discourse or talk to yourself in the mirror. Trust me…I still get paid the same handsome salary.
Let us talk of chess. Nothing more.
I bid you a firm “adieu.”
T. Harris
Tim Harris writes:
“My posts are often lengthy because I think it proper to support assertions with evidence of some type. I am a college professor. I write and teach for a living. I’m “wordy” and have many opinions. Yet, I do not like to simply throw out opinions on topics that are worth of debate.”
To which I respond: If you are a college professor, (1) Why do you feel such an urgent need to brow-beat us with your pseudo credentials and name, rather than the substance (or lack thereof) of your assertion/argument. This is a typical student’s/child’s/political pundit’s ploy, not one that we usually see from a “college professor”. If you are indeed a college professor, I strongly recommend that you take medical leave of absence and get counseling, immediately. You will learn that your need to brow beat us with pseudo credentials means little when you are wrong, or in need.
Throughout recorded history, people such as you have tried to stifle creativity and openness. For instance, during the sixteenth century AD, Copernicus discovered that the planets orbit around the sun rather than the widely held opposite view (a view substantiated by scientific, repeatable proof), yet he delayed publication of his findings until after his death in 1543 AD. In the seventeenth century, academia, religion, and government persecuted Galleleo for proving Copernicus’s model.
Contrary to the teachings of the then accepted Alchemy, in the eighteenth century AD the Frenchman Lavoisier condemned academia’s reliance upon fiction rather than repeatable proof. At the time, the German chemist George Stahlal (1660-1734) advanced the so-called phlogiston theory of matter. A theory proposing that all substances were ultimately composed from water and three varieties of earth, one of which was a combustible material called phlogiston that was ejected into the atmosphere—much alike the hot air which you eject now. Fortunately for us, Lavoisier recognized Stahlal’s theory for what it was: hot air, or looking-glass chemistry, and thus proposed a new scientific experimental method of discovery and proof; a method which required that any new theory be modeled, verified, and reproduced given the constraints of the experiment. We know this method today as The Scientific Method.
In the early twentieth century, a Swiss patent clerk proposed new theories linking time, space, and motion (relativistic theories) which earned him considerable rejection at first from his academic colleges, as well. Perhaps you recall the name Albert Einstein…
Finally, Tim Harris, I suggest that you read The Emperor’s New Clothes by Hans Christian Anderson. Perhaps you will then learn why your attempts in brow-beating me with your title and/or past credentials or argumentum ad hominem, instead of arguing the substance/evidence of the issues (the Socratic method) is childish, foolish, a waste of time, and insults any reader’s intelligence.
http://tinyurl.com/wkcze
Your turn Timy you not going to let him/her get away with that..Ps it might be Susan
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Once more R.J. Fischer. He was not to buy. I can trust him that in that game I willbe not sold.
Cplyr
Dear “Anon,”
In response to your emotional outburst (i.e. comments toward me):
(1) Why do you feel such an urgent need to brow-beat us with your pseudo credentials and name, rather than the substance (or lack thereof) of your assertion/argument. This is a typical student’s/child’s/political pundit’s ploy, not one that we usually see from a “college professor”. If you are indeed a college professor, I strongly recommend that you take medical leave of absence and get counseling, immediately. You will learn that your need to brow beat us with pseudo credentials means little when you are wrong, or in need.”
I am sorry that you feel this way. I am not “brow beating” anyone. If you feel that I have been, then I am truly sorry. I will not become involved in a verbal sparring match with anyone. I am as welcome here (and I do not cloak myself behind the veil of “anonymous”) as anyone.
I come to this blog because I am a great admirer of GM Polgar’s work to improve the status of chess in society…for all ages.
Moreover, this blog is the best place to obtain daily news regarding what is going on in the world of chess.
So, my answer to you is quite simple. I have nothing to prove to you and I do not “brow beat.” If you feel this way, then it is your own response to emotional stimuli that you should question (i.e. I recommend reading the ancient Roman Stoic philosopher Epictetus…or the “Meditations” by Marcus Aurelius).
I have said nothing insulting to anyone. Just ignore what I say if you do not agree with it. Pretty simple, isn’t it?
Now, you go further and state:
“I strongly recommend that you take medical leave of absence and get counseling, immediately. You will learn that your need to brow beat us with pseudo credentials means little when you are wrong, or in need.”
“pseudo credentials?” Let me correct you on something. My “credentials” only mean something on a college campus in two subjects. That is it. They mean absolutely NOTHING in the chess world.
I am not a chess master. Never claimed to be. My “credentials,” as you refer to them, have nothing to do with chess.
You may post all the insults you wish. Again, they are comical. Entertain us with more, if you so desire.
Do you really think I care what you think of my professional credentials?
Do not turn GM Polgar’s blog into a forum for childish emotional outbursts.
You may insult me all you want too. That is fine. Again, I feel quite comfortable with my life and myself.
Stick to chess. This is what we are all here for.
Just calm down and try not to hate and insult so much.
We are all coming to GM Polgar’s blog to talk of chess.
I felt obligated to respond to your “style” of a post this one time only. However, I will not respond to personal insults any longer.
Post as many as you wish. I will not respond to them.
Most Sincerely,
Tim Harris