Author: KarinsDad
Date: 19:41:59 03/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 05, 1999 at 19:57:19, Lawrence S. Tamarkin wrote: >On March 05, 1999 at 16:55:53, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On March 05, 1999 at 02:47:05, Lawrence S. Tamarkin wrote: >> >>>Here I can't resist putting my own two cents in! BIG DEAL - Morphy had a period >>>like Tal where he totally crushed even Anderson & Lowanthall. But if you look >>>at the careers of these fine getleman, you will find that their careers were >>>signifcantly longer, and that their games (of which ultimately there were more >>>of), were of very high quality, had more of the (later called hypermodern), >>>concepts than morphy's overall, and that if there were no Morphy, these guys >>>would have been regonized far more deservedly by the average chess player (chess >>>book reader), today! >> >>Total agreement here with two exceptions. One is that it was a big deal. Morphy >>became the recognized first world champion and he won the championship match >>while he was ill. > >If we look objectively at the games of Morphy, And paricularly Anderson today, >we find that Anderson's games are quite impressive in their own right. Further, >Anderson, like Euwe later on played as an amature for most of career. Because >Americans always have to dominate, the talent of these Europeans is often >overshadowed by guys like Morphy who had a short, but meteoric career. In a 100 >years, people will likely think that Karpov was significantly stronger than >Kortchnoi, even though in history Kortchnoi will like wind up with a better >perchantage score. I think the thing to do in these types of cases is to look at the performance ratings as well as the percentage scores. Kortchnoi was GREAT in his day and almost made world champion. With a different political situation, it's quite probable that he would have made it. > >> >>The second is that Morphy was like Fischer (and unlike Kasparov) in that he >>finally gets up the nerve to make a go of the championship (Staunton refusing to >>play him not withstanding), he does so, he is successful, and then he sort of >>goes over the deep end and plays little chess for the rest of his life. This is >>the main reason that he had a shorter career (and the main reason he has >>detractors like you, at least I assume you are a detractor from your big deal >>comment). No, I'm not a detractor of Morphy's, but neither do I think he was that much better than Anderson in particular. And if you judge a player by their whole career, and not just by their 2 year peak, then you get a better picture of them as a player overall. Sadly, we will never know if Morphy could have dominated like Kasparov or was just a 'flash in the pan'. We will never know if Morph would have won later matches against Anderson, Zuckertort, and Steinitz, because he was too damn chicken (or crazy), to come and play! And to me, that tarnishes how great you perceive the guy to be. Whatever else you think of Kasparov, this guy is impressive - He dominates the game completely & is affraid of no one & nothing! Agreed. >> >>As for Tal, he was still fairly dominant for years. He never made it back to the >>Chess Championship level once he lost it, but he played excellent chess for many >>years. For example, Tal was the youngest world champion until Kasparov. Tal also >>won the world blitz championship at the age of 51 (almost 30 years later). Tal's >>record for olympiad play is +59-2=32. Tal won or tied for first in the USSR >>championship 6 times (beating people like Keres, Bonstein, Petrosian) from 1957 >>to 1977, a 21 year period. He also came in second twice. In 1972-73, Tal went >>+47-0=39 in international play. You must remember that Tal played in the Russian >>school where the competition was (and is) drastically greater than it is in the >>US. So if you consider Tal to be a flash in the pan (I realize that you did not >>explicitly say that), you are mistaken (he was also plagued by kidney problems a >>good portion of his adult life). > >Why are you acusing me of being a detractor of Tal? Tal is/was my favoright >player. I do agree with you about Tal - He continued to be an important >extremely strong player for many years after losing the title back to Botvinnik. > But no one (maybe not even Morphy?), dominated the game like Tal between the >years 1959 - 1961. From 1909 to 1921, Capablanca went +33-2=27 in match play against the likes of Marshall, Alekhine, Tartakower, and Lasker. In tournament play during the same period, he went +103-8=33. This is an average of less than 1 loss per year. From 1959 to 1961, Tal went +94-22=64 in tournament play and +11-12=19 against Botvinnik. Even not counting his second match loss to Botvinnik, he was still +100-24=46 overall. Capablanca had more wins than draws and almost no losses at match play. The same cannot be said of Tal. I did not realize that I was calling you a Tal detractor. You mentioned that Morphy had a period like Tal where he was crushing. Since you then went on to minimize Morphy's accomplishments, it seemed (implicity) like you may be minimizing Tal's. Hence, the phrases "So if you consider Tal" and "you did not explicitly say". The implication was there, so I responded to it. Glad you like Tal as well as I since he is one of my two favorite World Champions (as you can probably tell, Capablanca is the other). > >>This applies to Morphy even moreso. While he played, he dominated both the US >>and European chess scenes. He was the Kasparov of his day and age. - I don't agree here. People were more impressed by less back then. Even though Morphy dominated the game for those two years, he only played what - 61 one serious tournament & match games. By the time other guys like Zuckertort came along who could impress everbody with their blindfold feets, Morphy was deep in his delusions. One does not have to be great for a long period of time (just look at the Deep Blue supporters with only 12 games total in the career), in order to be great. >> >>> >>>Another comparison springs to mind, How would you like to be someone like >>>Karpov. All your results are judged by the guy who proceeded you (who it is >>>true was incredibly good for a relatively short period of time), & then you play >>>really, really strong beautiful chess for the next 20 years, but your >>>detracter's (one of which is me, as I have never liked Karpov - I'm actually >>>surprised I'm defending him here!), often say you are an undeserving champion >>>because of the guy before you, a guy who won't even play against any other Human >>>under his own conditions - ANYWHERE! What a bummer!, What's that saying? - The >>>more things change, the more... >> >>Well, anyone who thinks that Karpov is an undeserving champion is just plain >>stupid. - Then ther are a lot of stupid people out there, including me. Karpov had dominating results before Kasparov, but the fact is, he had the whole might of the soviet state behind him for a long time. FIDE has alway bent over backwards for this guy, and other soviet player's usually would at least draw at any time during a game, for fear that if they some how beat him, they wouldn't get to travel or whatever. Lets face it, this guy is one of the slimyist (FIDE) World Chess Champions in history. Just ask Victor Kortchnoi's son:) You are obviously not stupid. Karpov may have had the machine, but he still had to sit down at the board and win (even if some games were thrown by other soviet players) against the rest of the world. Even in the 3 World Championships that Kasparov defended his title against Karpov, Karpov's record was 35-37. I think you are more annoyed at the FIDE / Soviet political junk than you really are against Karpov's playing ability. Fair statement? > >Granted, he hasn't been playing Kasparov for the title in the last 8 >>years, but he was beating Kasparov in 1984 (until it was called) and lost to him >>in a tied championship tournament in 1987. His overall score against Kasparov in >>World Chess Championship play is 71-73. He has been the closest competitor that >>Kasparov has ever had in World Chess Championship play. At his strongest, Karpov >>was probably the 3rd or 4th best player in the history of the game and he >>definitely has one of the longest winning streaks at or near the top (and at a >>period of history when there has been the largest number of excellent players). > >Yes, Karpov was very, very strong anyway, but his reputation will always be >clouded by how slimy he is/was. > >>Although your analogy that Karpov was overshadowed by Kasparov is similar to how >>Andersen (and others) were overshadowed by Morphy is apt, you must admit that >>Kasparov did not dominate Karpov over the board anywhere near as well as Morphy >>did Andersen (in any of the Kasparov Karpov matches). Well of course Kasparov could not dominate Karpov earlier in his career, as he had not matured in his crushing streight at that time as he has in the last few years. Neverthess, once he teared the World Title out of Karpov Slimy, snaky claws he never relinquished it (except volontarily, the corrupt slimy FIDE title, that is) Although Kasparov is doing well now, it should probably be noted that he has not played tournament chess and has merely been studying (for the most part) in preparation for a World Championship match that never materialized. So it seems reasonable that he should be fresh with a lot of new ideas to bring into the recent tournaments (the last one of which he only defeated Anand by .5, but he's doing great in Linares). >> >>KarinsDad :) :) >> >>PS. In your signature below, I have never been able to figure out if it is the >>software that is inkompetent or the addict. Please advise. :) > >Well, I am addicted to chess software. I don't use a lot of the stuff I buy, >and I don't know how to use all the features of a lot of these programs, so I >feel inkompetent about that. (Unlike our dear, hopefully temporarily departed >friend, Komputer Korner, who seemed to know every little function of all the >software). > >Friends at the Marshall chess club said (during afectionately played 1 minute >games), that they are going to beet me like a slug, so the name stuck. I wanted >a little dignity, so I told them, "That's mrslug to you". So the name stuck >when I signed up on the ICC, and I felt it fit for me here too. Also, I figured >it was easy for people to remember and would arouse endless curiousity by >other's who saw it. I think I was right. > >mrslug - the inkompetent chess software addict! > > >P.S. - Are you sure your not trying to insult me. The entire tone of your >responce to my first post seems very much on a sarcastic level, as though you >didn't appreciate my having my own viewpoint and wanted to more 'shout' me down >with your own (considered opinions & knowledge, rather then to make your own >counter-point. If I am mistaken, I appoligize in advance. When it comes to >chess history I have my own opinions and don't mind making them, but I am not >(conciously), trying to take any 'shots' at the original poster's I am replying >too. You'll note that in both responses (the previous one and this one), there are instances of me agreeing with you and me disagreeing with you. That's how good debate and sharing of disparate views works. If you took my response as sarcastic, please take note that it was not meant to be (it was, however, meant to be informative). I was unsure whether to ask the inkompetent question, but I have wanted to ask it for some time, so I added the smiley faces to make sure you were not offended. If you were, I apologize. KarinsDad :) PS. I have often found that when two people agree (as you and I have done somewhat in these posts), that there is often not much more to be said then "Yes, I agree.". However, when two people disagree, there is usually more wood to be thrown onto the fire. > > >> >>> >>>mrslug - the inkompetent chess software addict! >>> >>> >>[snip]
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.