Can’t go past Tal for No.1. Might put Fischer in, not because his style was particularly aggressive tactically like Tal, but because he always played for a win. Kasparov is probably in there. Morphy played at a time when defence wasn’t a priority, and maybe he didn’t play long enough, but otherwise he must be there. Alekhine is in. Shirov and Morozevic are more in the Tal style, but maybe don’t win enough. Could make a case for Topalov.
1. Tal 2. Kasparov 3. Alekhine 4. Fischer 5. Morphy
Other such as Morphy, Spassky and Kasparov were great attackers but really more universal. I include Alekine for his energetic style and predilection for tactical solutions, but he had to become a universal player to defeat Capablanca.
I feel that we must give Nimzovich credit where it is due…
Although he never attained the highest rankings, his “outside-the-box” praxis had an influence on all who followed him (Bronstein was similar…and they both were innovators who valued originality and imagination above tried and “true” rote memory).
Nimzovich’s influence can be readily seen in Kere’s & Kotov’s work – “The Art Of The Middle Game”. Their chapter on pawn configurations (especially) is a virtual mirror of the concepts that Nimzovich first presented in a rational form in the 1920’s.
This is important because of an insight I realized when reviewing Tal-Botvinnik, 1960. What I learned from Tal’s annotations was that in order to execute “correct” tactics, one must first have a “correct” assessment of the position. Tal’s annotations literally “blew my mind” because I was expecting reams of analysis justifying his tactics and sacrifices. Instead, what I encountered were thoughtful and rational positional assessments – arguably morphed indirectly from Nimzovich !
Conversely, when I approached Smyslov’s “Best Endgames”, instead of rational positional assesments – this widely acknowledged positional player proceeded to offer reams upon reams of tactical analysis !
There is a huge lesson to be learned here, and armed with that insight I eventually became a much better player…by not avoiding sharp positions in spite of my tendency for positional choices.
Just based upon the above considerations, Aron Nimzovich at least deserves kudos.
Morphy, Andersen, Tal, Alekhine, Fischer..
1. Mikhail Tal
2. Alexey Shirov
3. Veselin Toplaov
4. Garry Kaparov
5. David Bronstein
YEVLEV.
Morphy
Alekhine
Kasparov
Tal
Stein
1) Gary Kasparaov
2) Gary Kasparaov
3) Gary Kasparaov
4) Gary Kasparaov
5) Gary Kasparaov
Gary Kasparaov
Gary Kasparaov
tal, gary, nezhmetdinov, fischer, bronstein,.
Alekhine, Tal, Kasparov, Shirov, Topalov in no order.
In chronological order: Marshall, Alekhine, Tal, Fischer, Kasparov with honorable mention to Keres and Spielmann.
GM Lenoid Shamkovich
GM Arthur Bisguier
GM Larry Evans
GM Anatoly Lein
GM Lev Alburt
(1) Mikhail Tal
(2) Leonid Stein
(3) Rashid Gibiatovich Nezhmetdinov
(4) Alexander Alekhine
(5) Frank Marshall
(1) Mikhail Tal
(2) Leonid Stein
(3) Rashid Gibiatovich Nezhmetdinov
(4) Alexander Alekhine
(5) Frank Marshall
Can’t go past Tal for No.1.
Might put Fischer in, not because his style was particularly aggressive tactically like Tal, but because he always played for a win. Kasparov is probably in there. Morphy played at a time when defence wasn’t a priority, and maybe he didn’t play long enough, but otherwise he must be there. Alekhine is in. Shirov and Morozevic are more in the Tal style, but maybe don’t win enough. Could make a case for Topalov.
1. Tal
2. Kasparov
3. Alekhine
4. Fischer
5. Morphy
Alekhine
Fischer
Kasparov
Morphy
Tal
1-Robert James Fischer
2-Mikhail Tal
3-Gary Kasparov
4-José Raul Capablanca
5-Viswanathan Anand
Karpov, especially when he was young
prolific or proficient?
In more or less chronological order
Labourdonnais
Anderssen
Zukertort
Alekine
Tal
Other such as Morphy, Spassky and Kasparov were great attackers but really more universal. I include Alekine for his energetic style and predilection for tactical solutions, but he had to become a universal player to defeat Capablanca.
1. My teammate Jack
2. My neighbour Philip
3. My nephew Aristotel
4. Peter Mc Donald
5. Zachariah O’Reilly
Since there was no definititon nor criteria in the question, they are clearly the best I’ve seen.
Mumbo, Jumbo.
How Would Any Blogger Know?? Too patzer all we all.
Can Fritz engine answer this question?
I like Mirzoeva Elena. She checkmated in 50% of her games.
Alekhine
Fischer
Kasparov
Tal
Smyslov (his Endgame calculations)
I am unqualified to give an answer.
Tal, Morphy, Fischer, Anderssen, La Bourdonnais
Anonymous said…
1) Gary Kasparaov
2) Gary Kasparaov
3) Gary Kasparaov
4) Gary Kasparaov
5) Gary Kasparaov
Friday, June 19, 2009
Somebody doesn’t know how to count to five.
I’d have to go with Janowski as #1. That guy didn’t know what “defense” meant. Of course that’s not a GOOD thing…
I feel that we must give Nimzovich credit where it is due…
Although he never attained the highest rankings, his “outside-the-box” praxis had an influence on all who followed him (Bronstein was similar…and they both were innovators who valued originality and imagination above tried and “true” rote memory).
Nimzovich’s influence can be readily seen in Kere’s & Kotov’s work – “The Art Of The Middle Game”. Their chapter on pawn configurations (especially) is a virtual mirror of the concepts that Nimzovich first presented in a rational form in the 1920’s.
This is important because of an insight I realized when reviewing Tal-Botvinnik, 1960. What I learned from Tal’s annotations was that in order to execute “correct” tactics, one must first have a “correct” assessment of the position. Tal’s annotations literally “blew my mind” because I was expecting reams of analysis justifying his tactics and sacrifices. Instead, what I encountered were thoughtful and rational positional assessments – arguably morphed indirectly from Nimzovich !
Conversely, when I approached Smyslov’s “Best Endgames”, instead of rational positional assesments – this widely acknowledged positional player proceeded to offer reams upon reams of tactical analysis !
There is a huge lesson to be learned here, and armed with that insight I eventually became a much better player…by not avoiding sharp positions in spite of my tendency for positional choices.
Just based upon the above considerations, Aron Nimzovich at least deserves kudos.
(1) Mikhail Tal
(2) Garry Kasparov
(3) Rashid Nezhmetdinov
(4) Alexander Alekhine
(5) David Bronstein