|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 65 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-25-04 | | ruylopez900: <s.po> Classical time controls are (I believe) 40 moves in two hours, 40 moves in two hours and then 20 moves in one hour (repeating). Either that or it's 40/2hrs, 40/2hrs, SD/1.5hrs. Or maybe I'm forgetting the last control. Anyway, that's my two cents worth. |
|
| Apr-04-04 | | fred lennox: I've always admired his subtle and twisting tactics. A wizard at generating tension in near symmetrical and nearly drawn positions. Also of keeping the tension going while exchanging. Unlike the other prodigies, Morphy, Capablanca, Fisher, Revhevsky style is not classical. Nor is it hypermodern or romantic. It's what I call "street fighter" style as is Lasker, Korchnoi and Miles. These GMs are pragmatic, tenacious, good at defense, like complications. They aren't drawn to combinations but aren't of afraid of them either. |
|
| Apr-09-04 | | ConLaMismaMano: Reshevsky was a child prodigy? and was he born in the U.S.? |
|
Apr-09-04
 | | Gypsy: Yes. No. |
|
| Apr-17-04 | | badbadLeroyBrown: I believe Reshevsky was born in Poland. He disliked opening theory and didn't memorize openings, hence he used more clock than his "booked" opponents. As for why Reshevsky never was World Champion there are 3 main theories.. 1)a case could be made of behind the scene dealings by the Soviet chess machine, which we've discussed ad nauseum on other pages, mostly with respect to Fischer. (2)Sammy usually didn't have a second in tournaments, which could be reflected in his minus scores vs some of the Soviet GMs of the era. I read a story on Chesscafe about the Russians showing up at Zurich '53 with a virtual army of seconds (one for each participating GM), a couple politicos, and even their own cook! Reshevsky showed up by himself and couldn't afford to bring a second! (3)The last theory, and most plausible one to me, is that Reshevsky COULD HAVE been the best if he hadn't "retired" from chess at 11 (in return for a free education). If he had continued his early development who knows how good he might've been. But he might've ended up being a one-dimensional freak like Fischer. But as good as he was,imo, he just wasn't strong enough to win all the marbles. |
|
| Apr-17-04 | | Dudley: I have read somewhere that Reshesky was actually a time trouble "addict", meaning that he seemed to need the adrenaline kick caused by having to make several moves real quick to make the time control.He sometimes tortured himself and those near him by his physical manifestations of extreme stress-he was uncomforable to watch and be around at these times. From what I have read his talent was first rate but he also had to earn a living as insurance salesman to support his family. How do you compete with solo fanatics like Fischer or state subsidized Russians under those conditions? |
|
| Apr-20-04 | | tyson6587: i read that if sammy was to get a title shot against Botvinnik at the time he would have won 4 sure....:) |
|
| Apr-20-04 | | Minor Piece Activity: Reshevsky must have been puffing on his pipe a bit too much when he played Evans in Larry Evans vs Reshevsky, 1963. But Larry Melvyn Evans is on pot, so I guess it must cancel out! =D |
|
| Apr-30-04 | | madlydeeply: I think the two best non champions are Bronstein and Korchnoi. Bronstein becaue he had essentially won it, and was ordered by the soviet higher ups to throw the last two games (according to Bronstein) and Korchnoi, who was playing under stress, with his son in KGB detention during the match. Karpov is one of the greatest players, but I have always considered the two WC matches with Korchnoi to be suspect. That is unfortunate, because Karpov could probably have won anyway... Both Bronstein and Korchnoi are more interesting and better players the Euwe, in my opinion. So I consider them Champions and Euwe not. But I love Reshevsky's fighting tenacity! I just read the Zurich 1953 book written by Bronstein, where Bronstein said that his two games with Reshevsky were the best games he played in the tournament. The tenacity is definitely a Champion's trait. That is what is wonderful about Karpov, Kasparov, Korchnoi, Reshevsky, Fischer. They fought in their games until the bitter end.
Anand and Kramnik? Are they tenacious?
Not in my opinion and therefore not as much fun as the others. |
|
| May-01-04 | | iron maiden: I won't argue with Korchnoi, but Bronstein greater than Reshevsky and Keres? If you base your criteria purely on someone who "almost won" the WC once, what about Schlecter? He would have won it but for a loss in the last game of the 1910 match. Plus, can you not argue that Reshevsky or Keres could have come as close to defeating Botvinnik in 1953 if they got the opportunity to play him? And both of them (along with Korchnoi) were close to the top in skill for a long time, characteristic of most champions. Bronstein's play fell off considerably after he drew the match with Botvinnik, and he never came close to winning the title again. |
|
| May-01-04 | | ughaibu: Iron Maiden: The point about longevity of strength in assessment of true ability is a good one. |
|
| May-01-04 | | Calli: Reshevsky had the worst memory of any great player according to some of the New York players. They would show him a game or position and he wouldn't remember that he just played it a few months ago. This really held him back. He admitted that he never studied middle or endgames, just calculated over the board. He spent all his time trying to memorize openings. Often not too sucessfully!. |
|
| May-01-04 | | ughaibu: I read somewhere that Mieses couldn't replay games that he'd just finished (his memory was so bad) but he won a blindfold match with Schlechter. |
|
May-01-04
| | Gypsy: Bronstein-Reshevsky +3-1=1
Bronstein-Keres +7-4=22
Bronstein-Korchnoi +9-5=17
(I removed one dupplication from the Bronstein-Reshevsky tally, a draw, but I had not have the patience to do it for the other two.) To me, Bronstein's intellectual longevity is inspirational. After 1953, however, he decided to turn it more towards the creative- rather then competitive aspects of chess. This probably was (a) his more natural leaning and (b) recognition of the political realities of the time withing USSR. This "fast deterioration of Bronstein's strength" myth seems to have started with one of Fine's books and it gets repeated a lot. But I am not sure what it realy means. For instance, show me a single GM of any era, that would ever, even today, confidently say: "Tomorrow I play some old pushover. A guy named Bronstein; he was once great, I guess. That will be an easy point." Since chess is not a hundred-meter dash, and since the intellectual output of a master is multidimmensional, it realy makes it hard to compare the relative strengths of players of different eras, ages, health, political- and world-event pressures, and such. Thus I cheat: my "Top Ten" list has some two-dozen names, icluding <iron maiden>'s Keres, Reshevsky, and Schlechter, as well as <ugi>'s favored dark horse Geller; and Tarrash, Rubinstein, Pillsbury, and a few guys who actually were the world champs. And I lso have a "Top Ten" Original Chess Thinkers list, which contains Greco, Philidor, Stauton, Morphy, Steinitz, Chigorin, Tarrash, Lasker, Rubinstein, Capablanca, Nimzowich, Reti, Alechine, Botvinnik, Boleslavski, Bronstein, Larsen, Stein, Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov. Either by example, or writings, or both; these guys changed chess the most. While I do value the competitive aspects of chess, overall I value its intellectual aspects more. |
|
May-01-04
| | Gypsy: Before I get crucified: Tal is a member of both my "Top Ten" lists. |
|
| May-01-04 | | ughaibu: "While I do value the competitive aspects of chess, overall I value its intellectual aspects more." another good one. |
|
| May-01-04 | | iron maiden: I agree that Bronstein was a very creative and imaginitive player, and his lust for beauty over results was something almost unique among the players of his day.
But. if Bronstein's overall playing ability did not fade after the Botvinnik match, why did he never pull off anything close to his 1948-51 WC cycle performances? According to chessmetrics (http://chessmetrics.com/PL/PL5041.htm), after 1958, he was never even in the world top ten again. |
|
| May-01-04 | | PizzatheHut: Bronstein finished tied for 2nd with Reshevsky at Zurich 1953. |
|
| May-02-04 | | madlydeeply: If you believe Bronstein, he did not "almost win" the WC, he had won it, and was ordered to lose. But I can't argue that he fell off after that. But one thing that defines World Champions is that they set standards for play. For the period that they are WC, they define chess standards. They are the ultimate example of chess perfection at that time. Bronstein's play is inspirational. World Champion inspirational. I suppose Schlecter got close too, but his games aren't as striking as the WCs. But if he faded, he cannot be compared to those champions who didn't, like Karpov, Alekhine, Lasker. But his games are great. He is one of those players, you look through his games, and you thank the lord for creating such a player. I think he kept respect throughout his career, no? Any Grandmaster was honored to play Bronstein, I am sure. And Bronstein could pull an amazing game out as he got older, just like Korchnoi and Smyslov. He is one of my WCs. |
|
| May-10-04 | | Everett: It always interesting to see how many of Fischer's wins are commented upon against Sammy, but none when Sammy smacks Bobby around. |
|
| May-12-04 | | ruylopez900: How close has Reshevsky gotten to the world crown (or more appropriately how close did he get?)? |
|
May-12-04
 | | Chessical: <Ruylopez900> In 1948, he played Botvinnik (14/20), Smyslov(11), Keres (10.5) and Euwe (4) for the world championship, coming third equal with Keres. |
|
| May-12-04 | | ruylopez900: <Chessical> ah, was that the tournament held after Alekhine's death? |
|
May-12-04
| | Chessical: <Ruylopez900> Yes; I believe Fine declined his place, and that there was some controversy that Najdorf was not given a place when he had won a very strong tournament soon before at Pargue. Many at the time that the Prague event was sufficently strong to entitle him to be a contender for the title. By the way, Kasparov in his new book states that the Russian authorities wanted a championship tournament as soon as possible, especially before Reshevsky could get strong international practice. |
|
| May-12-04 | | ruylopez900: <Chessical> Cool, but wasn't he already experienced enough? (having played 30 years) |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 65 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
