Author: KarinsDad
Date: 00:38:03 03/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 05, 1999 at 23:59:40, Lawrence S. Tamarkin wrote: >OK! - Thanks for explaining your views. They are well thought out, backed by >various statistics, and lucid. I volunteer to throw no more wood into the >fire:) (It takes too much work, looking up stuff, & so forth). Well, just one >little thing. I find it fancinating that your two favoright world champions are >Capablanca & Tal. I can't think of 2 more contrasting playing styles. Is that >the reason that you like them the best? I think I was first drawn to Capablanca due to his impressive records, both in tournament and in simultaneous play. And from there, it went to his solid play. I was drawn to Tal due to his tactics and sacrifices. Finally, both players were (relatively speaking, at the GM level) not opening experts, but rather used their raw talent to overwhelm their opponents. Tal usually with some tactical finesse (until his later years) and Capablanca with nearly flawless play that allowed his opponent's position to steadily deteriorate, and of course, hardly anyone could approach Capablanca's endgame skill. Actually, a more impressive statistic for Capablanca than the one I gave before is that from 1915 to 1927 in match and tournament play (until he lost the championship to Alekhine in 1927), his record was +94-4=58. This included his taking of the championship from Lasker in 1921 with +4=10, a record from a challenger that I do not think anyone has even approached since. Similar to the political problems Korchnoi had which prevented him from becoming champion, Capablanca could possibly (or even probably) have been champion earlier (from 1911 to 1927) if Lasker would not have had such prohibitive restrictions on the match play (and possibly from 1915 to 1927 if the war would not have broken out). > I would expect most chess player's would >like one type of player or another, such as Alekhine & Tal or Capablanca & >Karpov for instance. Now me, I've always liked Tal for historic study & Michael >Rohde (my freind since 1983), for contemporary study - Both more tactical types >in my opinion, although I think Mike in his 'old age' is becomming much too >subtle! But what do I a mere USCF Life master and perpetual expert know anyway, >to make such a stylistic call... Well, based on your rating, you know a heck of a lot more about the playing of chess than I do. I just know trivia (and even that I only remember the gist, I have to look it up). KarinsDad :) > >regards, >mrslug - the inkompetent chess software addict!
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.