Maybe on RJF's attitude, never on his chess abilities.james uselton wrote:Miguel, I seem to recall several derogatory remarks about Fischer in your recent posts. Maybe I mis-read your remarks.michiguel wrote:Capablanca, Fischer and Kasparov are obvious choices but they have other attributes that made them succeed. Nerves of steel, competitive edge, etc. etc. Rubinstein was a loner made of only 100% talent and a philosophical approach to chess.james uselton wrote:Well, Rubinstein was certainly a talented player, but the most talented? I think he was known as the most blunder prone of all the elite Grandmasters.michiguel wrote:I think Ilie Nastase would be a good example of amazing talent too.M ANSARI wrote:To me talent is when you can do something without training hard for it. In tennis Mc Enroe was an amazing talent and drove other competing tennis players nuts because he could get away with not training and still play world class tennis. In chess Capablanca is the same, a natural talent who seems to have been born with chess abilities. Remember talent does not mean the strongest chess player ever, that would have to go to Fischer or Kasparov.
By the way, I also think Carlsen is an exceptionally talented player ... in a few years he might surpass everyone.
I do not believe that talent is when you can do something without trainiing hard for it. I think that is a consequence of it. To me, talent is to have a superior understanding and mastery, linked to skills that allow you to do things that fewer can do. Talent is potential. As a consequence, most talented players may be able to perform well with less effort.
I chose Rubinstein for those reasons. He mastered all levels of the game, despite he started to play relatively late. Only a handful of players in history may compare to his endgame skills. His games were symphonies at a time that most players were just hackers. He was only shadowed by his occasional blunders, his mental problems, and that his prime was by WWI. I witnessed Najdorf telling some stories that he and other players visit him when he was hospitalized. They could no beat Rubinstein at blitz, and the man was completely insane.
You are making my point with the blunders. His overall chess was like Michelangelo's Moses. A Masterpiece full of talent with a blunder on the knee.We are talking about someone that was in a mental institution for years. No, the comparison is not the same.You say---"They could no beat Rubinstein at blitz, and the man was completely insane." One could almost say that about Fischer---No one could beat him at blitz and he was almost completely insane!
And yet I dont think you feel very highly of Fischer.
Where the heck did you come up with the idea I do not feel highly of Fischer?!?!?Rubinstein shoudl have been WC from ~1910 to 1921. Capablanca should have beaten Rubinstein then, not Lasker. That would have been a match 20 years ahead of his time!
What about Capablanca? Somebody said that he was quoted in 1907 as having said he had never opened a book on openings. Of course, no one knew who he was in 1907--- He was a student at Columbia. He was champion for 6 years (he never played anyone) and on his first defence he loses to a player who had never beaten him ever! Thats reminiscent of Spassky v Fischer isnt it.
Lasker who was champion the longest---never played anybody! Steinitz was an old man. Marshall was a terrible match player. Lasker handled him like a baby. Ditto Janowsky. The drawing master, Schlechter, put up a good fight---too bad he didnt play like that all the time.
Its fun to speculate but you can punch holes in almost everyone! Dont all of these elite GMs of the past come up short when tested by computer programs? How talented can you be with all those mistakes!?
That would have make Capablanca an ever better Champion.
Other options in modern times are Tal and Spassky. Tal was clearly held by poor health, and Spassky just did not love chess. Spassky was one of the few who could play any style. He could play like Petrosian or could be an attacking beast. He told Panno once: "Why do I want to win this match?" (He was playing Portisch in Switzerland at that time). If I win, I will have to prepare for the finals, and then against Karpov, and if I regain the title, it will be more and more problems.
Another name that shoud consider among the top talented players is Harry Pillsbury. Withouth disease, Lasker would not have been a Champion in the XX century.
So you are saying that Rubinstein's talent is comparable to Fischers? What are you arguing about then?
You said "Rubinstein was a loner made of only 100% talent and a philosophical approach to chess."
Let me change the wording around slightly and we will have a nice description of Fischer and Rubinstein---They were extraordinary loners made of 100% talent and a maniacal approach to chess.
Let me clarify: Philosophical was meant as, "AR tried to play the best move for a given position, regardless of opponents or circumstances."
Fischer in his prime was worried that Russians were after him. Rubinstein in his prime thought he had a fly in his head buzzing during the game. Later in his life, Fischer was paranoid, whereas Rubinstein was completely schizophrenic. The difference is big.
You say---"We are talking about someone that was in a mental institution for years. No, the comparison is not the same."
Maybe, maybe not. I think everyone agrees Fischer was mentally ill. Maybe his life was more difficult because he was not in a mental institution. Anyhow, I doubt if Rubinstein played the class of blitz players Fischer did---No, the comparison is not the same.
There are many similarites regarding chess between AR and BF. Except the competitive edge, nerves etc. who faver BF and not AR. AR did to his opponents in ~1912 what Fischer did in the handful of years before 1972.
Both had clean chess, with a purpose from the beginning to the endgame, only understood by the opponents in retrospective. However, AR was the first one to come up with this type of beauty. At least Fischer had Capablanca as model, Rubinstein had a clumsy imperfect Steinitz to learn from.
Fischer chess was superb, but what AR achieved in terms of positional understanding is remarkable for his time. BF had several gigantic shoulders to stand on. AR had a couple of old shoulders from Steinitz. Not very firm if you ask me .
Thanks! You are making my point! Kasparov did not think AR would lose based on talent!Miguel, you said---"Rubinstein shoudl have been WC from ~1910 to 1921."
Thats your opinion and welcome to it. Kasparov has said that had there been a match between Lasker and Rubinstein at this time, Rubinstein would have lost due to his psychological weaknesses. Amigo, I have to side with Kasparov on this one!
Besides, AR never lost a match, AFAIK. AR beat Marshall, Bogoljubov, and Schechler, all previous and future WC contenders.
The overall score was even. In fact, in St. Petersbourg 1896 he beat Lasker in the individiual match, despite he started to suffer the impact of syphilis in the second half of the tournament.You say---"Another name that shoud consider among the top talented players is Harry Pillsbury. Withouth disease, Lasker would not have been a Champion in the XX century.
maybe, maybe not---Pillsbury, in his prime, before his illness, still had a minus score against Lasker. Correct me if I'm wrong. So, one could conclude, even without Pillsbury's illness---Lasker would still have been world champ.