|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > March 2005 > GK -- The Greatest
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
GK -- The Greatest
|
|
| Angelo De Pa1ma 2005-03-11, 3:51 am |
|
Garry Kasparov's retirement from professional chess marks not just the end
of an era, but the beginning of a new dark age for professional chess and,
most likely, for the game itself.
Kasparov is the only legitimate living link to chess's great history. You
could argue that Anand has had a better two years or that Topalov was the
moral victor at Linares. But neither one, certainly not Topalov, can claim
to have dominated the game for any decent stretch of time. Kasparov's
20-year reign as the highest-rated (and arguably the best) player could
easily fill four outstanding world championship resumes.
Kramnik is little more than a first among second-tier equals that include
Leko, Anand, and Topalov. The combined tournament victories of the entire
top ten during the last five years barely equal Kasparov's achievements in a
year or two during his prime.
Chess could survive if Kasparov's departure from the scene meant only that a
top talent was moving on. But Kasparov has meant so much more than his
rating and won-lost record, impressive as those may be.
To me, and I'm sure to many die-hard chess aficionados, Kasparov was the
only justification for title unification. With Garry gone who really cares
if Kramnik, Topalov, or even Rustam "Minus 4" Kasimdzhanov holds the world
title? Chess could deal with Kasparov getting fat and lazy, like most
42-year-olds do. Chess could survive had Kasparov lost the championship, and
then was knocked out in the quarter- or semi-finals of the next couple of
elimination cycles.
But world professional chess has no legitimate championship elimination
cycle. For all its press releases, Olympic pretensions, phony guarantees,
and obsession with amber body fluids FIDE has not held a bona fide
championship since the early 1990s. Think about it: For each of the last 14
years the FIDE champion and the strongest player in the world were two
different people. At least while Garry was active we could chuckle at FIDE's
alleged champ. But now the standard against which to compare this pretender
is gone.
With GK out of the picture the con-artists and also-rans will finally be
able to savor their 15 minutes of fame. Khalifmann, Leko, Kramnik, Anand,
Kasimdzhanov, Topalov, Adams, Polgar, and everyone else who breaks the 2700
barrier can now jockey for advantage and seeding in FIDE's next championship
scheme. But for a very long time, whoever is #1 on the FIDE list, whoever is
"champion," will be compared with Garry Kasparov.
adp
| |
| David Kane 2005-03-11, 9:52 pm |
|
"Angelo De Pa1ma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message
news:24ednTa2JtvOiqzfRVn-3g@garden.net...
quote:
>
> Garry Kasparov's retirement from professional chess marks not just the end
> of an era, but the beginning of a new dark age for professional chess and,
> most likely, for the game itself.
>
> snipped
>
> But world professional chess has no legitimate championship elimination
> cycle.
You're leaving out one little thing in your tribute. The above
state of affairs is largely Kasparov's own doing. One can
argue that others contributed to the process, but GK is the
person most responsible for destroying high level chess'
greatest asset - the world championship.
That, too, is part of his legacy.
| |
| Paul Rubin 2005-03-11, 9:52 pm |
| "Angelo De Pa1ma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> writes:
quote:
> With GK out of the picture the con-artists and also-rans will finally be
> able to savor their 15 minutes of fame. Khalifmann, Leko, Kramnik, Anand,
> Kasimdzhanov, Topalov, Adams, Polgar, and everyone else who breaks the 2700
> barrier can now jockey for advantage and seeding in FIDE's next championship
> scheme. But for a very long time, whoever is #1 on the FIDE list, whoever is
> "champion," will be compared with Garry Kasparov.
Ehh, all the champions since 1974, including Kasparov, are still being
compared with Fischer.
| |
| Vladyslav Kosulin 2005-03-12, 3:49 am |
| Paul Rubin wrote:
quote:
> Ehh, all the champions since 1974, including Kasparov, are still being
> compared with Fischer.
Compared by Western, not by Russians.
And hey, there were only 3 champions since then: Karpov, Kasparov, and Kramnik.
Both Karpov and Kasparov played better chess and for a longer time than Bobby.
Even Kasparov (Karpov's biggest hater ever) mentioned that Karpov's chances to
win were higher if Fischer agree to play in 1975.
I also remember Bobby's long list of losses before the phenomenal 1970-1972.
And even during 1970-1972 he managed to beat players who were not as great as
Botvinnik, Smislov, Tal, Petrosian before, or Karpov and Kasparov after.
Fischer was great, but his top success happened when there were no other great
players around. Only Korchnoi and Spassky, but Spassky was well known for his
weak spirit.
IMHO
Vlad
| |
| Angelo De Pa1ma 2005-03-12, 3:49 am |
|
Fischer's record in 1971-72 speaks for itself. +9 or so in the Interzonal,
Tamanov 6-0, Larsen 6-0, Petrosian 6.5-2.5. Decisive match vs. Spassky.
Performance rating in the stratosphere.
Stupid post.
"Vladyslav Kosulin" <vladyslav.kosulin@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:l3tYd.269$FB6.139@trndny09...
quote:
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>
> Compared by Western, not by Russians.
>
> And hey, there were only 3 champions since then: Karpov, Kasparov, and
> Kramnik.
> Both Karpov and Kasparov played better chess and for a longer time than
> Bobby.
>
> Even Kasparov (Karpov's biggest hater ever) mentioned that Karpov's
> chances to win were higher if Fischer agree to play in 1975.
>
> I also remember Bobby's long list of losses before the phenomenal
> 1970-1972.
> And even during 1970-1972 he managed to beat players who were not as great
> as Botvinnik, Smislov, Tal, Petrosian before, or Karpov and Kasparov
> after.
> Fischer was great, but his top success happened when there were no other
> great players around. Only Korchnoi and Spassky, but Spassky was well
> known for his weak spirit.
> IMHO
>
> Vlad
| |
| Equinorm@AOL.com 2005-03-12, 6:52 am |
| The "stupid post" comment seems a little strong, as I would guess that
many people would agree with at least some of Mr. Kosulin's remarks. I
am American, not Russian, but I too believe that Kasparov is the
greatest player of all time in terms of chess strength and results,
Karpov a close second, and Fischer would be fighting with various
others for a rather distant 3rd place.
Of course, Fischer did have phenomenal results for a relatively short
period. But, probably partially in reaction to those results, the
Soviet chess machine started producing some monstrously strong players.
If Fischer-Karpov would have gone forward in 1975, I wouldn't care to
guess at the result. But I do think that if Fischer was going to face
the 1978 Karpov, he would have needed to raise the level of his game
considerably to survive.
Fischer deserves a lot of credit for changing the top players approach
to chess in terms of opening preparation and precise technique. He
also deserves a lot of credit for achieving what he did mostly on his
own. And he gets a lot of credit (which he doesn't deserve) for being
a kind of Cold War warrior, which he wasn't. But his tenure at the top
was relatively short, and his match against Spassky was of relatively
low quality (although this was mostly Spassky's fault) and compares
unfavorably to the great series of Karpov-Kasparov matches.
Many people seem to idolize Fischer at least partly because he was the
only modern American World Champion. I don't mean to suggest his
achievements in chess weren't outstanding and worthy of admiration.
But I don't understand why people refuse to recognize Karpov's and
Kasparov's greatness as players and champions. They both dominated
chess for much longer periods than Fischer, and against stronger
opponents.
Just my opinion.
- Geof
| |
| Ray Gordon 2005-03-12, 5:50 pm |
| > The "stupid post" comment seems a little strong, as I would guess that
quote:
> many people would agree with at least some of Mr. Kosulin's remarks. I
> am American, not Russian, but I too believe that Kasparov is the
> greatest player of all time in terms of chess strength and results,
> Karpov a close second, and Fischer would be fighting with various
> others for a rather distant 3rd place.
>
> Of course, Fischer did have phenomenal results for a relatively short
> period. But, probably partially in reaction to those results, the
> Soviet chess machine started producing some monstrously strong players.
Fischer was so far beyond his peers when he retired that it's highly
unlikely Karpov could have hung with him. In 1981, he was beating the
world's best players like they were amateurs. My personal guess is that
Kasparov would have dethroned him around 1988 or so.
Has any GM ever won *twenty* consecutive games on the road to the world
title? Get real.
quote:
> If Fischer-Karpov would have gone forward in 1975, I wouldn't care to
> guess at the result. But I do think that if Fischer was going to face
> the 1978 Karpov, he would have needed to raise the level of his game
> considerably to survive.
Karpov said this.
quote:
> Fischer deserves a lot of credit for changing the top players approach
> to chess in terms of opening preparation and precise technique.
Meaning he played the game properly while others did not.
quote:
>He
> also deserves a lot of credit for achieving what he did mostly on his
> own. And he gets a lot of credit (which he doesn't deserve) for being
> a kind of Cold War warrior, which he wasn't.
He declared war on the Russian chess system, which was an extension of the
cold war.
quote:
>But his tenure at the top
> was relatively short, and his match against Spassky was of relatively
> low quality (although this was mostly Spassky's fault) and compares
> unfavorably to the great series of Karpov-Kasparov matches.
Different era.
quote:
> Many people seem to idolize Fischer at least partly because he was the
> only modern American World Champion. I don't mean to suggest his
> achievements in chess weren't outstanding and worthy of admiration.
> But I don't understand why people refuse to recognize Karpov's and
> Kasparov's greatness as players and champions.
Because Fischer would have crushed either of them until 1988.
quote:
>They both dominated
> chess for much longer periods than Fischer, and against stronger
> opponents.
Neither one beat Fischer.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
| |
|
| Geof, excellent post! I'm not sure if GK is the greatest ever but he's
definitely in the top 2.
CS
| |
| ICS Administrator 2005-03-13, 3:51 am |
| In article <l3tYd.269$FB6.139@trndny09> Vladyslav Kosulin
<vladyslav.kosulin@verizon.net> wrote...
quote:
>Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>
>Compared by Western, not by Russians.
>
>And hey, there were only 3 champions since then: Karpov, Kasparov, and
>Kramnik.
>Both Karpov and Kasparov played better chess and for a longer time than
>Bobby.
No, both Karpov and Kasparov played somewhat weaker chess than Bobby but
they did so for a longer time than Bobby.
quote:
>Even Kasparov (Karpov's biggest hater ever) mentioned that Karpov's chances
>to win were higher if Fischer agree to play in 1975.
Kasparov's motive obviously being that he has demonstrated to everyone that
he is stronger than was Karpov, so by Kasparov pretending that Karpov could
have withstood Bobby in 1975, Kasparov is trying to show he is superior to
Bobby.
Which we know is not the case. Bobby until about 1980 was almost certainly
stronger than Kasparov ever was at standard time controls. Let alone
Karpov.
Kasparov's motives are so transparent only a Russian moron like you cannot
see them.
Even until a couple of years ago, there is some evidence that Bobby was
probably much stronger than Kasparov at blitz (pawn and move stronger, in
the published opinion of many GMs including Nigel Short, Jim Plaskett and
Tony Miles).
quote:
>I also remember Bobby's long list of losses before the phenomenal 1970-
>1972. And even during 1970-1972 he managed to beat players who were not as
>great as Botvinnik, Smislov, Tal, Petrosian before, or Karpov and Kasparov
>after.
Just reading Russian propaganda keeps you ignorant, you fool. In the
middle of 1970-72 was 1971, when Bobby annihilated ^^Petrosian^^ (the same
Petrosian you mention above as being one he did not beat in that period) in
the final match to decide who would challenge Spassky for the World
Championship. Yes, in 1971 Bobby won four straight games in a row against
Petrosian, a Petrosian who was stronger than Korchnoi at the time.
So much for your statement that
"even during 1970-1972 he managed to beat players who were not as great
as..
Petrosian before, or Karpov and Kasparov after"
Learn your history, you dumb communist XXXX!
quote:
>Fischer was great, but his top success happened when there were no other
>great players around. Only Korchnoi and Spassky, but Spassky was well known
>for his weak spirit.
>IMHO
Your honest opinion is worth nothing when you are so weak and ignorant.
IMHO.
quote:
>Vlad
ICS Administrator
| |
| Angelo De Pa1ma 2005-03-13, 5:53 pm |
|
I am no idolizer of Fischer. My only disagreement with your post is
regarding the #2 and #3 positions. Based on impact and results I'd put GK
first, AK second, and RJF 3rd. Based on longevity I'd put several players
ahead of Fischer though.
We just don't know Fischer's true potential. He dominated for a brief time
but for most of what could have been his chess career he was off sulking
somewhere. A Fischer-Karpov match (or two) would have made both players
better. Another view is that had Fischer been around Karpov would not have
dominated from 1973-1984 in quite the way he did.
We just don't know.
<Equinorm@AOL.com> wrote in message
news:1110618428.930307.266230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> The "stupid post" comment seems a little strong, as I would guess that
> many people would agree with at least some of Mr. Kosulin's remarks. I
> am American, not Russian, but I too believe that Kasparov is the
> greatest player of all time in terms of chess strength and results,
> Karpov a close second, and Fischer would be fighting with various
> others for a rather distant 3rd place.
>
> Of course, Fischer did have phenomenal results for a relatively short
> period. But, probably partially in reaction to those results, the
> Soviet chess machine started producing some monstrously strong players.
> If Fischer-Karpov would have gone forward in 1975, I wouldn't care to
> guess at the result. But I do think that if Fischer was going to face
> the 1978 Karpov, he would have needed to raise the level of his game
> considerably to survive.
>
> Fischer deserves a lot of credit for changing the top players approach
> to chess in terms of opening preparation and precise technique. He
> also deserves a lot of credit for achieving what he did mostly on his
> own. And he gets a lot of credit (which he doesn't deserve) for being
> a kind of Cold War warrior, which he wasn't. But his tenure at the top
> was relatively short, and his match against Spassky was of relatively
> low quality (although this was mostly Spassky's fault) and compares
> unfavorably to the great series of Karpov-Kasparov matches.
>
> Many people seem to idolize Fischer at least partly because he was the
> only modern American World Champion. I don't mean to suggest his
> achievements in chess weren't outstanding and worthy of admiration.
> But I don't understand why people refuse to recognize Karpov's and
> Kasparov's greatness as players and champions. They both dominated
> chess for much longer periods than Fischer, and against stronger
> opponents.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> - Geof
>
| |
| Angelo De Pa1ma 2005-03-13, 5:53 pm |
| This was a great post. For all his positives Kasparov is a tremendous
egomaniac. It's impossible to assess anything he does or writes out of that
context. For example, Topalov didn't beat him in that last game, Kasparov
lost. "That result had little to do with my opponent." Not a very
sportsmanlike thing to say, in my opinion. I'd believe that, sortof, except
he's made excuses for losing other games as well, e.g. to Radjabov.
I don't know any top GMs personally but my guess is that deep down they will
miss GK's beautiful games but will not miss the way his personality
dominated the game for so long, and how it did. Unfortunately for chess no
legitimate power or personality remains.
"ICS Administrator" <nospam@gorantomic.com> wrote
quote:
> Kasparov's motive obviously being that he has demonstrated to everyone
> that
> he is stronger than was Karpov, so by Kasparov pretending that Karpov
> could
> have withstood Bobby in 1975, Kasparov is trying to show he is superior to
> Bobby.
| |
| blanket@financier.com 2005-03-13, 5:54 pm |
| Do you believe it was his last game? I don't think so.
| |
| Cotton Blanket 2005-03-13, 5:54 pm |
| Do you believe it was his last game? I don't think so.
| |
| Ray Gordon 2005-03-14, 5:50 pm |
| > The "stupid post" comment seems a little strong, as I would guess that
quote:
> many people would agree with at least some of Mr. Kosulin's remarks. I
> am American, not Russian, but I too believe that Kasparov is the
> greatest player of all time in terms of chess strength and results,
> Karpov a close second, and Fischer would be fighting with various
> others for a rather distant 3rd place.
>
> Of course, Fischer did have phenomenal results for a relatively short
> period. But, probably partially in reaction to those results, the
> Soviet chess machine started producing some monstrously strong players.
Fischer was so far beyond his peers when he retired that it's highly
unlikely Karpov could have hung with him. In 1981, he was beating the
world's best players like they were amateurs. My personal guess is that
Kasparov would have dethroned him around 1988 or so.
Has any GM ever won *twenty* consecutive games on the road to the world
title? Get real.
quote:
> If Fischer-Karpov would have gone forward in 1975, I wouldn't care to
> guess at the result. But I do think that if Fischer was going to face
> the 1978 Karpov, he would have needed to raise the level of his game
> considerably to survive.
Karpov said this.
quote:
> Fischer deserves a lot of credit for changing the top players approach
> to chess in terms of opening preparation and precise technique.
Meaning he played the game properly while others did not.
quote:
>He
> also deserves a lot of credit for achieving what he did mostly on his
> own. And he gets a lot of credit (which he doesn't deserve) for being
> a kind of Cold War warrior, which he wasn't.
He declared war on the Russian chess system, which was an extension of the
cold war.
quote:
>But his tenure at the top
> was relatively short, and his match against Spassky was of relatively
> low quality (although this was mostly Spassky's fault) and compares
> unfavorably to the great series of Karpov-Kasparov matches.
Different era.
quote:
> Many people seem to idolize Fischer at least partly because he was the
> only modern American World Champion. I don't mean to suggest his
> achievements in chess weren't outstanding and worthy of admiration.
> But I don't understand why people refuse to recognize Karpov's and
> Kasparov's greatness as players and champions.
Because Fischer would have crushed either of them until 1988.
quote:
>They both dominated
> chess for much longer periods than Fischer, and against stronger
> opponents.
Neither one beat Fischer.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
| |
| Vladyslav Kosulin 2005-03-14, 5:50 pm |
| Paul Rubin wrote:
quote:
> Ehh, all the champions since 1974, including Kasparov, are still being
> compared with Fischer.
Compared by Western, not by Russians.
And hey, there were only 3 champions since then: Karpov, Kasparov, and Kramnik.
Both Karpov and Kasparov played better chess and for a longer time than Bobby.
Even Kasparov (Karpov's biggest hater ever) mentioned that Karpov's chances to
win were higher if Fischer agree to play in 1975.
I also remember Bobby's long list of losses before the phenomenal 1970-1972.
And even during 1970-1972 he managed to beat players who were not as great as
Botvinnik, Smislov, Tal, Petrosian before, or Karpov and Kasparov after.
Fischer was great, but his top success happened when there were no other great
players around. Only Korchnoi and Spassky, but Spassky was well known for his
weak spirit.
IMHO
Vlad
| |
| Paul Rubin 2005-03-14, 5:50 pm |
| "Angelo De Pa1ma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> writes:
quote:
> With GK out of the picture the con-artists and also-rans will finally be
> able to savor their 15 minutes of fame. Khalifmann, Leko, Kramnik, Anand,
> Kasimdzhanov, Topalov, Adams, Polgar, and everyone else who breaks the 2700
> barrier can now jockey for advantage and seeding in FIDE's next championship
> scheme. But for a very long time, whoever is #1 on the FIDE list, whoever is
> "champion," will be compared with Garry Kasparov.
Ehh, all the champions since 1974, including Kasparov, are still being
compared with Fischer.
| |
| Equinorm@AOL.com 2005-03-14, 5:50 pm |
| The "stupid post" comment seems a little strong, as I would guess that
many people would agree with at least some of Mr. Kosulin's remarks. I
am American, not Russian, but I too believe that Kasparov is the
greatest player of all time in terms of chess strength and results,
Karpov a close second, and Fischer would be fighting with various
others for a rather distant 3rd place.
Of course, Fischer did have phenomenal results for a relatively short
period. But, probably partially in reaction to those results, the
Soviet chess machine started producing some monstrously strong players.
If Fischer-Karpov would have gone forward in 1975, I wouldn't care to
guess at the result. But I do think that if Fischer was going to face
the 1978 Karpov, he would have needed to raise the level of his game
considerably to survive.
Fischer deserves a lot of credit for changing the top players approach
to chess in terms of opening preparation and precise technique. He
also deserves a lot of credit for achieving what he did mostly on his
own. And he gets a lot of credit (which he doesn't deserve) for being
a kind of Cold War warrior, which he wasn't. But his tenure at the top
was relatively short, and his match against Spassky was of relatively
low quality (although this was mostly Spassky's fault) and compares
unfavorably to the great series of Karpov-Kasparov matches.
Many people seem to idolize Fischer at least partly because he was the
only modern American World Champion. I don't mean to suggest his
achievements in chess weren't outstanding and worthy of admiration.
But I don't understand why people refuse to recognize Karpov's and
Kasparov's greatness as players and champions. They both dominated
chess for much longer periods than Fischer, and against stronger
opponents.
Just my opinion.
- Geof
| |
|
| Geof, excellent post! I'm not sure if GK is the greatest ever but he's
definitely in the top 2.
CS
| |
| Angelo De Pa1ma 2005-03-15, 5:53 pm |
| This was a great post. For all his positives Kasparov is a tremendous
egomaniac. It's impossible to assess anything he does or writes out of that
context. For example, Topalov didn't beat him in that last game, Kasparov
lost. "That result had little to do with my opponent." Not a very
sportsmanlike thing to say, in my opinion. I'd believe that, sortof, except
he's made excuses for losing other games as well, e.g. to Radjabov.
I don't know any top GMs personally but my guess is that deep down they will
miss GK's beautiful games but will not miss the way his personality
dominated the game for so long, and how it did. Unfortunately for chess no
legitimate power or personality remains.
"ICS Administrator" <nospam@gorantomic.com> wrote
quote:
> Kasparov's motive obviously being that he has demonstrated to everyone
> that
> he is stronger than was Karpov, so by Kasparov pretending that Karpov
> could
> have withstood Bobby in 1975, Kasparov is trying to show he is superior to
> Bobby.
| |
| Vladyslav Kosulin 2005-03-19, 3:49 am |
| My dear Goran,
Please take the Russian moron (who is apparently not Russian, and not a moron)
apologies to a VIP who still plays chess with Mr. Fischer as we all remember.
You definitely know better how strong RJF is :-D
quote:
>
> Just reading Russian propaganda keeps you ignorant, you fool. In the
> middle of 1970-72 was 1971, when Bobby annihilated ^^Petrosian^^ (the same
> Petrosian you mention above as being one he did not beat in that period) in
> the final match to decide who would challenge Spassky for the World
> Championship. Yes, in 1971 Bobby won four straight games in a row against
> Petrosian, a Petrosian who was stronger than Korchnoi at the time.
>
> So much for your statement that
> "even during 1970-1972 he managed to beat players who were not as great
> as..
> Petrosian before, or Karpov and Kasparov after"
>
> Learn your history, you dumb communist XXXX!
_BEFORE_.
Petrosian is 1971 was a mere apology for Petrosian 1963. He had serious health
problems starting mid-sixties. Being healthy he would never lose to Spassky. In
1974 he could not even finish match vs. Korchnoi.
This is like comparing Tal 1960 to Tal 1971. By the way, Mikhail Tal played with
Fischer like with pussycat during 60th. The whole world remember his "Bobby,
koo-koo!"
quote:
>
>
> Your honest opinion is worth nothing when you are so weak and ignorant.
Thank you, Goran, again for such a kind reminder about my weaknesses ;-)
Yours forever,
Vlad Kosulin
| |
|
| Vladyslav Kosulin wrote (to Nick about Goran Tomic):
quote:
> My apologies to Goran, if he is not an author of the post
> I replied to. My thought was that the author used anonimizer,
> but forgot to change his username. But you are right: whois
> shows that gorantomic.com is not in use.
Mr Kosulin, you would be far from the first reader here
who evidently has been deceived by a lying troll.
In short, my advice for every reader here, as always, is to read
carefully, remember what has been written earlier, and not believe
most of what is written in the chess newsgroups.
--Nick
|
| |
|
|