Dubious style? like what?
O_O
O_O
Compare his opening choices to Mamedyarovs and you'll get it. If you choose tricky over solid, probably that's not the best way to go.
It's pretty hard to say who the best chess player is. I mean, they are all good based off what we knew about chess at the time, ofc pinning them against each other would make the matches incredibly one sided.
Candidates tournament 1971 :
1. round Fischer vs.Taimanov 6:0
2. round Fischer vs. Larsen 6:0
final round. Fischer vs.Petrosian 6.5:2.5
compare this to candidates tournament in the following decades where it goes : 1/2, 1/2, 1/2, 1, 1/2, 1, 1, 1/2, 1/2, 1/2,
Fischer was one of the greatest chessplayers of all time.
1971 this is a score of a genius who had no real challenger at the time of his peak. If there was a dominant chess genius today i would expect also results like 6:0 , 6:0, 6,5:2,5 and not one draw after the other where no player is courageous enough to risk something. Carlsen vs. Karjakin was boring and from the result a joke if you consider that it happened when "The Mozart of chess" movie was coming out. I highly respect Carlsen and his chess. But if he was the Mozart of chess i would expect spectacular results and games.
1. round Fischer vs.Taimanov 6:0
2. round Fischer vs. Larsen 6:0
final round. Fischer vs.Petrosian 6.5:2.5
compare this to candidates tournament in the following decades where it goes : 1/2, 1/2, 1/2, 1, 1/2, 1, 1, 1/2, 1/2, 1/2,
Fischer was one of the greatest chessplayers of all time.
1971 this is a score of a genius who had no real challenger at the time of his peak. If there was a dominant chess genius today i would expect also results like 6:0 , 6:0, 6,5:2,5 and not one draw after the other where no player is courageous enough to risk something. Carlsen vs. Karjakin was boring and from the result a joke if you consider that it happened when "The Mozart of chess" movie was coming out. I highly respect Carlsen and his chess. But if he was the Mozart of chess i would expect spectacular results and games.
Indeed. The overall standard has much improved. Fischer faced clowns (weaker players, worse defenders), but today the top is quite dense.
Nowdays candidate masters call legendary GMs like Taimanov, Larsen and even a former WCC clowns. We haven't advanced a bit in chess understanding, that's for sure.
Admittedly, „clowns“ is too harsh. But the density was just not as high as today, Fischer had a much easier task. He was far ahead of his companions, that’s true.
I don't know, seems to me like claiming people all of the sudden became more clever. Now there are computers, but no Soviet school, and it isn't obvious which one is harder to face. Prep was harder to get, he worked alone, Kasparov didn't give him chess lessons (this one is about MC). And his oponents were much like modern pros who dedicated all their time to chess.
@Sarg0n Sorry my friend but calling Taimanov and Petrosian clowns !!? They are legendary GM and chess teacher who wrote a lot of books about chess and where some of the leading heads of the Russian chess school. All created all that Karpov and Kasparov where did benefit of in their chess development. Maybe you should see chess more from the historical kind of view. Because in 1971 there where no better clowns but these great masters of chess. And wouldn't you agree that someone who is celebrated as the chess genius of our time might have to show crushing victories?
@Sarg0n Larson, Petrosian and Spassky are not clowns, in any era.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.