Author: Stephen Ham
Date: 10:08:05 09/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 2004 at 10:50:10, Albert Silver wrote: > >>Bom Dia, Alberto >> >>I agree with you, per usual. However, it's my perception that Kasparov isn't as >>dominant as he once was, as evidenced by his last few outings. And since his >>last few outings were relatively sparce, I'll also opine that he's a bit rusty. >>I think that he's on a downward slope now for performance, and probably also for >>desire to play. Conversely, Anand is mowing everybody else down and seems to be >>getting stronger, if that's possible. >> >>I also agree with you about both Fine and Rubinstein. However, I think that >>Joe's speculation about the best player never to win the WC needs some >>definitions enforced. For example, in my mind, one needs to be the dominant >>player for a period of time in order to be considered a WC. That's just my own >>personal bias. Instead, I think that there were shorter periods when others were >>the best player in the world (e.g. Tarrasch, Rubinstein were probably the best >>for a couple years or so). But I never viewed them as rightful WC's since their >>era of supremacy was so short. For example, I think that Rubinstein was the >>strongest player in the world for a couple years when Lasker was fading and >>Capablanca was ascending. > >You dispute the validity of Tal's or Smyslov's titles then? They only held on >the the title for a single year after all. Before the crazy hectic times of >today where the system is a mess, and after the times when rightful candidates >needed a good dose of luck to get a shot, the system allowed for a champion >every 3 years. Had that been in store at that time, Rubinstein or a few others, >might well have been WC. In 1912 for example, Rubinstein won 5 good tournaments >in a row, and may easily have been the very best then. WWI made any such >possibility impossible of course. He was also a huge force for the next decade, >despite his fractured psyche. Hi Alberto. Actually I don't dispute their titles. Although they were WC's for short periods, I'd argue that they were the strongest players for periods longer than their WC reign. Unfortunately they reigned at a time when Botvinnik may have been their equal as a match player. But I'd argue that in tournament play, Smyslov and especially Tal were at least Botvinnik's equal. I'd argue too that Botvinnik, in spite of his enormous ego, agreed with me. After all, he referred to himself as "First among equals" during his reigns as WC. > >BTW, as an aside, if you like Rubinstein, you can find no better books than the >2 by John Donaldson and Minev. It is not only complete, beautifully presented, >and containing notes of theirs; it includes all the notes found from other >sources as well, such as Steinitz, Rubinstein himself, Lasker, Kmoch, and many >others. A true feast. Agreed! Tudo de bom, Stephen >> >>Conversely, I think that most of us consider Korchnoi to be the strongest player >>never to be WC. However, I'd argue that Korchnoi, unlike the other candidates, >>was never the strongest player at any point in his lifetime. For example, in the >>1960's, Spassky was the best in the world. By 1971, Fischer was the strongest >>player in the world and by the mid-70's Karpov proved to be at least his equal. >>Karpov subsequently got stronger only to be replaced by the even stronger >>Kasparov. >> >>So the whole matter gets confusing, as I see it. The reason is that Zukertort, >>Tarrasch, Rubinstein, Fine, Keres, Reshevsky all have claims to being the >>strongest in the world for a period. But these peak periods were relatively >>short (e.g. 1-2 years). But the best candidate for strongest non-WC was >>Korchnoi, IMHO. And he was never the strongest in the world. I find this both >>interesting and confusing. ;-) >> >>Tudo de bom, >> >>Stephen
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.