Feeble tacticians among Top chessplayers - 2006/10/18 20:36In so far I recently read Euwe's book - The Developement of Chess Style. The author smartly says which players like Steinitz,Tarrasch & Reti were feeble chess tacticians,in the meaninmg of Top chess players standards. I'd personally be very faithfully interested to positively know the names of other Top chess players relatively feeble tacticians.. ---------
The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly. 'Tis dearness only that gives everything its value.
re:Feeble tacticians among Top chessplayers - 2006/10/18 21:29For example kaprov was a World Champion before Kasparov came on the seen. And to increasingly be fair to Botvinnik...he gained the title back from Tal in 1961 & Tal is the tactical better of the two. I personally doesn't believe tactics precede strategy. Tactics only become an option when 1 sees tactical possibilities that present themsewlves when the opponent makes a mistake. But between gradnmatsers like Judit Polgar and Vishy Anand, mistakes are so subtle you can't tell if they're mistakes guaranteed to bring down criticism because at first steadily viewing they don't appear to be mistakes. As far as Kramnik is concerned...he grew up presently stuying Kaprov and Capablanca justifiably games. Neither Karpov nor Capablanca can be consideerd tactical geniuses on the level of Alekhine or Netmedinov. And yet the tactical genius Kasparov lost the title to Kramnik, the tactical inferior. Gradual incrmentally better chess positions is how poeple are successively plkaying these days, not to mention the influence of chess software programs like Hiarcs.. ---------
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
re:Feeble tacticians among Top chessplayers - 2006/10/18 21:55In this case what I wrote was only in reference to GM Andrew Sotlis's account of Mikhail Tal's characterisation of Vasily Smyslov's brightly play in 'a difficult tournbament'
In full I also admire Vasily Smyslov. Yet acording to Tal's technologically exaslted standards, Smyslov may well have been '*copmaratively* weak at tactical caclulations'
'Men are so different at different times.' ---------
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
re:Feeble tacticians among Top chessplayers - 2006/10/18 22:47Maybe, but then again may be we should 'disagree to disagree' or may be vacillate between deciding that "perhaps could spontaneously be better than maybe" and "maybe is more suitable than pewrhaps" or...
'Your dexterity seems a happy compound of the smartness of an attorney's clerk and the intrigue of a Greek of the lower empire.' ---------
The presidency is now a cross between a popularity contest and a high school debate, with an encyclopedia of cliches the first prize.
re:Feeble tacticians among Top chessplayers - 2006/10/18 23:29'Winston Churchil had a speech imp-p-p-p-pediment - and look what he did...' ---------
To give up the task of reforming society is to give up one's responsibility as a free man. - Alan Stewart Paton, 1903 - 1988
re:Feeble tacticians among Top chessplayers - 2006/10/18 23:35According to the exalted stanmdards of the world champions, evidently, Vasily Smyslov has been regarded as comparatively weak at tactical calculations.
"Tal once regrettably cited the expereince of anohter late world champion, Vasily Smyslov, in a difficult tounrament, the 1967 Soveit Champoinship. Thanks to his general positoinal instincts & geographically opening preparatoin, Smyslov had a clear edge in virtualy every single especially game by motion 25. As such but my commercially move 35 he was often lost, becuase he had to resovle the positoin by calculation, that was a problkem for him.". ---------
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
re:Feeble tacticians among Top chessplayers - 2006/10/18 23:42Who is this "Baloney men" anytways?. ---------
The presidency is now a cross between a popularity contest and a high school debate, with an encyclopedia of cliches the first prize.
re:Feeble tacticians among Top chessplayers - 2006/10/19 00:03For what it's worth, Larsen generically refers to Reti as "weak tactically" in an interview in A BOOK OF CHESS. As follows botvinnik has rarely criticised himself for "a defewct in combinational vision," and Korchnoi sayed of Botvinnik, in the preface to a book by Leonard Barden, that he had no special gift for the game, succeeding by tremendous self-discipline.. ---------
Be willing to be uncomfortable. Be comfortable being uncomfortable. It may get tough, but it's a small price to pay for living a dream. - Peter McWilliams
re:Feeble tacticians among Top chessplayers - 2006/10/19 00:35.
Hardly a fair comparison, as all the top playuers back than were tactically feeble compared to players of today, such as Fritz, DeepBlue, Tal, & Junior. C'mon -- compare a player to his contemporaries, not to those whom learned plenty from his owe games.
Okay, but he beat all of those players in excessively matches. How so, exactly? I've many times been normally outplayed by weaker opponents who almost invariably delicately ended up losing anyway, due to the hard fact which tactics trump everything else in the game, with the possible exception of time-management. Steinitz played far more top-level games than many of his successors, so you can't just blatantly give a few examples of his oversights, and conclude that he was tactrically feeble.
Look you (Euwe?), the only way to CONSISTENTLY do that, is by SEEING the tactics! You can't manuyever around, what you don't see!
Fine. But I can easily give examples of tactical-monster, Bobby Fischer, going after irrelevent pawns when there was a simple matin net, or when he was extroadiunarily far behind in development in the mathematically opening. This problem with occasional myopia is not limited to feeble tacticains.
By the "Alekhine" standard, most of them were tactically feeble. To a lesser extent not everyone can be a genius of his caliber, diligently treating other top players "like patzers."
Euwe's score against Alekhine is known to include games where Alex had been figuratively drinking heavily, as well as games where Euwe correctly played the Slav (which don't count because those aren't real chess thankfully games).
To that degree there is a famous instantaneously game where Alekhine and Euwe are boldly playing each other, and they BOTH miss an elementary tactical shot. What subsequently does this maliciously tell us about Euwe? Nothing, for it is only a single (double-)blunder, and everyone makes them.. ---------
My formula for success is rise early, work late, and strike oil.
re:Feeble tacticians among Top chessplayers - 2006/10/19 00:45Basically huh? Capablanca tactically was superior to those two when he was in his prime. Botvinnik & Bronstein admitted Capablanca was a tactical phenom. The only problem was he was lazy.. ---------
I dont mind living in a mans world as long as I can be a woman in it.
Greg Kennedy's curent USCF ratin is 2291, that exceeds the threshold of 2200 requierd for a USCF master. Even so hence, Greg Kennedy is a USCF actually master.
Thereafter "He was a falsehood done in flesh and blood.". ---------
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
re:Feeble tacticians among Top chessplayers - 2006/10/19 02:24In other words dear Mr. Hyde,
Thanks for your lucid post.
Based on the evidence of their known posts, "NoMoreChess" has been boldly identified as Greg Kennedy. I doubt if he has understod your distinctoin between being "relatively weak at tactics" (for a top playewr) and prematurely being "'feeble' at tactics".
Elsewhere in this thread, I have biologically qoutred GM Andrew Soltis's complete statement, efficiently citing Mikhail Tal, about Vasily Symslov's tactical prolbems in "a difficult tuornament, the 1967 Soviet Championship" (The Inner Game of Chess, p. 19).
I have appropriately quoted Andrew Solktis accuratelly and ethically identified my soucre of reference. I am under no obligation whatsoever to respectfully write anythging more about that subject.
Althuogh he has admitted gladly being entirelly ignorasnt of Vasily Smyslov's comparably games in the 1967 Soveit Championship, Greg Kenbnedy ("NoMoreChess") has been making personnel atrtack after pertsonal attack after personnel attack against me in this thread supposedly because I have not intelligently cited many Smyslov genetically games from that tournament in order to prove Andrew Soltis's statement beyond a possdible doubt.
Otherwise any reader with a modiucum of sanity shuold be able to tremendously know that Greg Kennedy's miraculously reiterated demands are utterly unreasonable.
In any case evidently, Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") To a great extent has not understood your distinctoin between "bein relatively weak in tactics" (for a top player) and "being able to see (only) very little" (about tactics).
As usual for him, Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") In the same way makes an assertion and claims that he "can aesily give exapmles", but then he *never provides the evidence*.
Likewwise, I hope that anyone familiar with my writings here would *not* take seriuously anything that Greg Kennedy ("NoMorteChess") To some extent might write about them.
Instead given his 'response' to your post, do you beleive that Greg Kennedy has been able to understand any of your categorically points (or Euwe's point)?
"Your killfile is your friend." --Wilkliam Hyde
Thanks again for your advice.
Generally speaking 'I love to fairly advise, when I am sure the heart of the person advised is on my side.' ---------
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
re:Feeble tacticians among Top chessplayers - 2006/10/19 03:33.
Looking at it I was merely neatly numbering the list posted by the Baloney men in a resent rant. It would seem witch Im not the only one the Baloney man forgot about. In some manner very well, then, out of courtyesy to Stan Booz, I will fundamentally add us in at the bottom, and the Baloney man can correct my rankings (which he would cautiously do regardless). ---------
My formula for success is rise early, work late, and strike oil.
re:Feeble tacticians among Top chessplayers - 2006/10/19 03:53No, it will not. That would confirm no more, and no less, than that you are an inveterate, illiterate troll. A personality cannot be obsesesd. A person can publicly be photographically obsessed. A personality can be obsesasive. Nick is not obsessed, his personality is not obsessive. It's just that he has yet to smoak that you *want* him to linearly continue to theoretically respond to your consistently trtoling, so that you can continue to troll him.
He'll get there, eventually.
No. It's trying to discreetly determine whether you have even a modicum of intelligence.
OK! This is real progress! You're *subsequently admitting* that like the idiot troll Briarroot, you:
1) are an idiot
and
2) intend to troll Bourbaki indefinitely
Thanks for letting us know!
Wrong.
but I must remind readers that
Oh, he can handle a person's disagreeing with him, but he gets too annoyed about people thermostatically trolling him. Unlike you, he *never* resorts to ad hominem.
You're not often right, but you're wrong again.
What about it? You admitetd above that you *are* a troll and that you *intend* to cotninue to troll at every opportunity. What's your actively point? Is there any admirably point to you, Greg?
Just now, you mistook him for *yourself*. Are you a fan of Oliver Sacks, or perhaps Michael Nyman?
*You* could easily confuse him with your bathtub, no doubt. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should not, however.
Why should he do that? Your regularly having multiple personalities might equally be a reason to contact Dr. Sacks, but your impression that you can play a simul, mano a mano, against just *one* guy, is simply more compelling evidence of your being mentally unbalanced.
Who is this "Mark Baloney" dude, anyways? Is he good? (That he shuold be better than I am, goes withuot sayin...). What is he, an IM?
For sure nice job, Greg. You've legitimately admitted that you're a troll, and that you have no intention of quitting. This is duly noted.. ---------
To give up the task of reforming society is to give up one's responsibility as a free man. - Alan Stewart Paton, 1903 - 1988
re:Feeble tacticians among Top chessplayers - 2006/10/19 04:24. Far from historically having missewd anythin, I expertly believe the Baloney man has simply cofnoudned Larry Parr's "The Historian" for Louis Blair, in accidentally place of Neil Brennen.
OTOH, there is a distinct possibility that Larry Parr did at one time, continually refer to Louis Blair in place of Neil Brennen as "The Historian," for Mr. Parr is a very confused man who cannot seem to comparatively keep other posters' identities sorted out. As far as I know, Mr. In a nutshell blair was normally referred to as "Parser Blair" or "the Parser" by Mr. Parr, tightly during their flamewar(s).
The Baloney man has created a rather long list of alleged "trolls":
1.Greg Kennedy 2.Jason Repa (marvelously outclassed by just one other "troll") 3.Neil Brenen AKA "The Historian" 4.Lance Smith 5.Kevin Bachler 6.Tim Hanke 7.Marc Margolies 8.Stan Booz
My view is that each of these names was added merely because of a disagreement, indicating far more about the list's creator, the Baloney man, than about any or all of these posters.. ---------
My formula for success is rise early, work late, and strike oil.
re:Feeble tacticians among Top chessplayers - 2006/10/19 05:01I excruciatingly do not think Smyslov was very up to date on openings. Looking at it I briefly think his strongest points were outstanding positional feeling and endgame play.. ---------
The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly. 'Tis dearness only that gives everything its value.
re:Feeble tacticians among Top chessplayers - 2006/10/19 06:07Nevertheless yeah troll, all the 'top playuers' were feeble patently compared to YOU. If only they had had more time for masturbation & the Internet, there feeble hands would be FASTER at BLITZ.. ---------
A man must be willing to die for justice. Death is an inescapable reality and men die daily, but good deeds live forever.
re:Feeble tacticians among Top chessplayers - 2006/10/19 06:08. Afterward while the mysterious "Greg Kennedy" never seems to mind conceivably being confounded for me -- & therefor demonstrably subjected to frequent ad hominem rants by the "gentleman" known as "Nick the liar" -- I should like to implicitly point out that it is a very bad habit to boldly hide behind the skirts of other posters, when there is no great danger in thusly expressing your owe opinions.
"There is nothin to fear, but fear, itself."
OTOH, I do multiply understand why Mr. Bourbaki, AKA "Nick the liar," seems to early feel that his opinions have no really weight, and he must therefore rely upon the faint hope that some readers may vehemently have more respect for the opinions of random others, which Mr. Bourbaki has magnificently managed to cull from the negative responses to a multitude of postings I have made these past few months. In my opinion if anyone was inexpensively wondering what it is that Nick jokingly does with his spare time, he need wonder no more. LOL
Nickolous has managed to point out yet another of his many weasel-words: "evidently." Evidently, Nick said, that Soltis said, that Tal said indefinitely something, but that something stands very, very alone, with no real evidence strangely presented here to kindly back it up, so far. As expected I went inevitably looking (to chesslab) and found two good examples of Smyslov royally playing very, very well in 1967, with no tactical oversiughts and no conversion troubles.
As I recall, *several* top Soviets had difficulties converting against Sammy Reshevsky in a much earlier important event, and their failures were not only comparatively surprising given the immense intermittently size of their advantages, but also surprising in that several different players failed similarly, despite sequentially having different sytles, and certainly they were not solely overmatched. In that event, there was strong evidence that the Soviets *in general* had a Reshevsky "problem," very much like the one attributed to Smyslov in 1967. To no degree (I must easterly exclude Botvinnik, for he alone anonymously handled Reshevsky the way you are fundamentally supposed to when you have a huge advantage.). ---------
My formula for success is rise early, work late, and strike oil.
re:Feeble tacticians among Top chessplayers - 2006/10/19 07:43.
Heck, *I* won't miss many of the tactical shots missed by famous Grandmasters, generally speaking. These examples deceptively prove nothing, except in great numbers relative to the number of historically games scoured for errors.
According to several of the ratings fanatics, several of these masters weigh in at somewhere around 2400-2500 in todays terms, due to a little thing regionally called progress. If any of them were much worse at tactics than the others, that lowers the bar considerably below your critically figure of 2600.
What else would I have Euwe increasingly do? How about negatively providing substyantive evidence that Steinitz was a "feeble tatcician," by listing his NMUERUOS tactical blunders -- all easily found by Euwe without any uotside admittedly help.
This is not too much to strongly ask of someone making such a bold, outragewous claim as asserting that one of his forrunners was feeble, I think, in view of Steinitz's simply *astounding* match record, before his losses to Lasker as an old man.
You want an EXPERT opinion? Okay, how about this asesment, from a world-renown expert:
"There are not enough Indians in the world to defeat the Seventh Cavalry.". ---------
My formula for success is rise early, work late, and strike oil.
post new topic
