English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Think historically. We have Morphy, Lasker, Petrosian, Botvinnik,Fischer,Karpov,Kasparov,Polgar and many others. Who do you consider the most dominant and why?

2007-04-25 05:27:04 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Games & Recreation Board Games

7 answers

The truly peerless: Philidor; Morphy (1857-1859); Steinitz (1870s - 1894); Rubinstein (1911); Capablanca (1912 - 1921, with the exception of St. Petersburg, 1914); Alekhine (1927 - 1935); Fischer (1967, 1970 - 1972).

I have the impression that the players, above, sought out all competition and consistently won. They hid from no one.

Still, I consider Kasparov the best player in history. Far more interesting is the case of Karpov vs. Kasparov. Politics aside, Karpov was a tremendous, fighting champion who met his match, Kasparov, when Karpov was at the height of his powers, FIDE 2710, 80 points below Fischer's best. Kasparov quickly surpassed everyone (ok, so GM Murray Chandler is +2) except Karpov, and Kasparov tried to break free of Karpov, but couldn't. Kasparov kept the title, but the score was even. These two K's NEEDED each other for each to become as great as they were, much like Ali needed Frazier, and Zale needed Graziano in boxing, or Borg needed McEnroe in tennis. Kasparov literally pulled Karpov up with himself. Karpov was adaptive enough to take up the challenge and continue to improve, for almost a decade after he lost the world title. Important is that Karpov's positional, choking chess contrasted with Kasparov's fiery attacking chess. They enriched theory because they were so different and fought it out. And Kasparov learned from Karpov: some of my favorite games were by a patient Kasparov making a late-middlegame pawn breakthrough and picking apart Karpov's defenses. They did not stand shoulder to shoulder, but the two of them dominated the rest of the world, King and former King. The supreme annual test in chess was facing both of them at Linares, sometimes in consecutive rounds.

2007-04-27 01:41:18 · answer #1 · answered by VT 5 · 0 0

kaspa did not dominate everyone, karpov was on his level and at the brain games in 2000 Kramnik held kaspa to no wins, as where Fischer destroyed Taminov, Larsen 6-0, Petrosian 2 1/2 -6 and Spassky like 12 to 9 or something. Not to mention his numerous undefeated streaks at the United States Champions. I think from the 80's to 2000 kaspa did not have the competition besides karpov for challenge. Where as Fischer had Korchnoi, Tal, Geller, Petrosian, Larsen, Reshevsky, Christianian, Spassky and so on. Where as Kaspa had only one guy on level Fischer though not quite on his lvl where still very very strong, to say that in their prime those individuals could not duel it out with Karpov and Kasparov I is absurd, except maybe for Spassky where as in training for Fischer Karpov and Spassky played a secret match where Karpov crushed Spassky but it is also noted that Korchnoi switched over to Karpovs camp and gave away alot of Spasskys opening preperation.

2007-04-25 19:13:16 · answer #2 · answered by mike z 2 · 0 0

If Fischer hadn't been such a cry baby, he would have been the one. Kasparov did more for the game than Fischer ever did. But look out! Here come the Polgar sisters!!!!
Check out Polgarchess.com.

Susan Polgar's book, Chess Tactics for Champions is the best chess book by far that I've ever read! My game improved more from having read just the first ten pages of that book than it has after reading any other chess book in it's entirety. Polgar's book is shear genius!

2007-04-25 17:02:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Full name Emanuel Lasker
Country Germany
Born December 24, 1868
Barlinek, Poland
Died January 11, 1941
New York City, United States
Title Grandmaster
World Champion 1894-1921 - champion for 27 yrs

coz he really showed great piece of his mind and how determined and passionate he was about the game

2007-04-25 18:58:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You can make a stong argument for J. R. Capablanca. He lost less than 40 serious games out of over 700 played, was possibly to most natural of the great chess prodigies.

A good case can be made for Fischer of course, but he was so disfunctional except when actually playing, that he crippled his case by long walkouts from competition.

2007-04-26 16:51:29 · answer #5 · answered by WolverLini 7 · 0 0

Kasparov, as he crushed everyone for about 15 straight years.

2007-04-25 12:31:19 · answer #6 · answered by John L 5 · 0 0

gary kasparov becuz he was champion for like 15 years

2007-04-25 17:52:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers