online chess

Online Chess

Share and you will unmask!
Funny name, real matters
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
ufo84 14 ( +1 | -1 )
What makes a great chess player? Is it just the ability to beat everyone else? Surely this cannot be. So, what do you think makes a great chess player?
olympio 15 ( +1 | -1 )
if a strong player who has keen understanding not just knowledge.. and a good sense of sportsmanship. someone who promotes the game as well as plays it well.
anaxagoras 15 ( +1 | -1 )
Wishful Thinking "Surely this cannot be."

Why not? It's kind of obvious that if I say "he's a great chess player," someone can ask me "Why?" and I reply: "Because he beats everyone else!"

invincible1 27 ( +1 | -1 )
ufo84 Fischer makes the greatest of all chess players! Find out how he played and what a showman he was and what effect his famous world championship with Spassky had on the sale of chessboards...... then you will know what makes a great player.

He was the greatest of them all!!!!!!!
mattafort 8 ( +1 | -1 )
yes There has never been anyone like Fischer
Will never be!
olympio 4 ( +1 | -1 )
was fischer a gracious loser? or a sore loser?
sxyvoice 47 ( +1 | -1 )
GR8 Chess Player = Cool (1) good manners ( as like GK ppl including U )
(2) Fair game
(3) Various thoughts
(4) Deep thoughts
(5) Think fast ( could it B possible.. )
(5) Fantastic ending ( including nice opening .. )
(7) wise n smart ( including chess )
(8) Feel free from rating

( 4 ex ) same person
▶ on Gk chess
coz timed out or resigning ( even when someone winning... )
then...the rating is no meaning..

▶ on the other chess
3023 wins
536 losses
156 draws
invincible1 24 ( +1 | -1 )
olympio I dont get what you mean....
He was just a cynosure in his time. Sale of chessboards went up by 2000% after the match against Spassky!
There has never been another Fischer like also, and probably will never be....
tryfon 108 ( +1 | -1 )
A great chess player - José Raúl Capablanca Capablanca is a model chess player and representative for the game.

He was arguably one of the finest ambassadors that the game ever had. Coming from the small country of Cuba, his government allowed him to be a country representative through Chess. He gave plenty of simulataneous displays, was a real charmer for the women, was a sportsmen and a gentlemen.

He was a very social and outgoing chess player. With respects to his talent, and one that was more talented than any other player in Chess history, being able to defeat his dad when he was about 4, after watching just a few games.

I have done a section about him at the Barnet chess club site:-

www.gtryfon.demon.co.uk/bcc/culture/culturemain.htm

Click on the Capablanca link under Kasparov

or here is the direct link:-

www.chessclub.demon.co.uk/culture/worldchampions/capablanca/capablanca.htm

Best wishes
Tryfon
mate_you_in_fifty 47 ( +1 | -1 )
No offense... but I think it's not a good idea to adopt ANY GM as a role model. And despite all the Fischer-bashing,his games (and that's the only thing that matters) are more interesting than the drawish games so common today.
BTW,I agree with anaxagoras. A great chess player is ultimately a strong chess player. Now the question "what makes a great person" is entirely another matter.
olympio 9 ( +1 | -1 )
invincible it was just a question. i would like to know whether he was a gracious or sore loser
drgandalf 56 ( +1 | -1 )
The correct question is what constitutes a great contributor to the world of chess.

Playing outstanding tournament chess can be one of many ways to contribute. However, writing great books and articles, directing clubs, tutoring and teaching also count as significant contributions.

Ultimately, chess is not merely a sport, but an experience. Anyone who contributes to a positive experience of chess has contributed. And all those destructive individuals who stomp on others to get a higher rating or tournament prize, champion status or author status, are counter-productive. That includes the so-called "heroes".
peppe_l 236 ( +1 | -1 )
What makes a great chess player? Fischer, of course!

He seems to be the answer to all questions :-)

Seriously, Fischer was a great player but the topic is what MAKES a great player?

If we talk about chess players, does anyone think longevity is important too? Then one must give lots of respect to Lasker and others who had long and succesful career.

Other interesting points given by others

- Affect to the popularity of chess

Going back to 1972 Spassky - Fischer match

Sales of chessboards went up by 2000% - now thats amazing! I assume 2000% wasnt only in US? Fischer had crowd-pleasing style, lots of tactics, few GM draws and so on. But how much the people who bought chessboards (mostly people who were relatively new to chess!) knew about playing style? I am wondering how big role Cold War had? You know, American hero beating entire Evil empire in their "own" game :-) How many saw someone beating his opponent by playing brilliant chess and how many saw American beating Russian in chess?

We can see nationality and even world politics can have an effect on popularity of players.

- Playing style

It is generally known majority of chess public loves sharp openings, tactics, mating attacks and hates positional play, endgames, draws...

Anyone have been wondering why there are so many Tal fans and so few Botvinnik (or Petrosian, Smyslov...) fans? Does that mean Tal was better or greater player or simply that majority of chess public is incapable of understanding the nuances of positional play and endgames? Why chess public always forgets Lasker when they debate who were the greatest champions ever?

IMO in chess "boring" often means "I dont have a clue" :-) So, does one really need crowd-pleasing style in order to become great player?

- Good manners

Fischer wasnt the only player guilty of bad behaviour sometimes (a recent example - Kasparov & beauty prize schism) but it made him even more popular! People love controversy. We expect guys like Kramnik and Anand to behave well but the nasty remarks of Steinitz live on. As the saying goes there is no bad publicity :-)

Finally, back to the original question

"Is it just the ability to beat everyone else? Surely this cannot be."

Perhaps not, but its a good start :-)
peppe_l 75 ( +1 | -1 )
Drgandalf Good points. I agree playing brilliant chess is only one way to contribute.

But for the sake of discussion, Kasparov is a good example of someone who has very simple goal - to beat everyone. He hates losing and has revealed he even calls opponent IT, not him or her. And how about his recent behaviour after losing to younger opponent? How about his endless conspiracy theories after losses to Karpov or Deep Blue? Still many people have found chess thanks to Kasparov. How about Fischer who was far from being a good loser and often made negative remarks about hobby players? But how many people - especially in US - have found chess thanks to Fischer?

So, are Kasparov and Fischer positive or negative contributors?
bluebabygirl 45 ( +1 | -1 )
to peppe_l it has been commented to you by many that you never miss a chance to bash Fischer . now this is at least 6 times that i have seen. i only been here just over a month. so to me you have a problem with Fischer!! you even try to bash his chess as well . but you can not do it because true chessplayers understand the brilliant chess he played . my suggestion is may be consider keeping his chess career and his personal life seperate . yours BBG
peppe_l 182 ( +1 | -1 )
BBG To me Fischer was a great chess player. In fact in none of the discussions here I have claimed him to be less than one of the greatest of all time. But I suppose saying he was "only" one of the greatest of all time is bashing as well. So is pointing out his personality is flawed (I thought that applies to all human beings). When he says 11/9 was the happiest day of his life I suppose critisizing him is bashing too. Everything except "Fischer was greatest player of all time" is bashing.

So, lets all chant together "Fischer was greatest..."

I am sure we will have fantastic discussion. No bashing.

Seriously,

You have opinions, lots of opinions. But you never back them up in any way. No facts, let alone proofs. Everytime I ask you to give ANYTHING that supports your opinions and theories the only answer I get is silence. In fact every time ANYONE asks you to give facts or proofs you disappear. Why?

We have a discussion about ELO ratings, you claim they have inflated by 100 points or so. I ask a simple question - how do you know? No answer. I ask why Judit Polgar cant be 65-85 point from Fischer? No answer. Why?

"you even try to bash his chess as well"

Where?

"but you can not do it because true chessplayers understand the brilliant chess he played"

Well I am just a patzer. I guess true chessplayers (I assume you are one of them) understand his games much better than me. I understand he was a great player but I suppose true chessplayers see something more. But I will never know.

Next time, please prove your accusations. Show an exact quote of where and how I was bashing someone. Otherwise I am forced to take your accusations as insults.

Keep posting and worshipping Fischer, you can learn a lot from his games (at least I assume even true chessplayers still have something to learn, but Im only guessing). Good playing

Yours

Peppe The Basher


bluebabygirl 68 ( +1 | -1 )
to peppe i dont give some answers to you because first your attitude is bad. I have much to back up my claims but i refuse to give it to you , because you would not accept it no matter who was the author or what they said! sorry that my being pro-fischer upsets you so much. you seem to have a problem with him, because every post that has some comment good about him ,you comment on with negative comments concerning him personally.I sincerely hope you overcome this problem. best of luck to you bye . please no more discussions with me about him,,im tired of trying to explain info to people that have no real desire to recieve it or use it .--BBG
mattafort 36 ( +1 | -1 )
The mind of a Champ. Fischer is unique chessplayer, as well as person.
Many great masters have special personalities.
Kasparov is no everyday man, is he?

Without those special qualities of mind they would probably not have been so good players.
To reach the very top you've got to be a little odd in the eyes of "normal" people.

Kasparov HATES to lose - has made him a winner!
winslow_hendershot 65 ( +1 | -1 )
Fischer was great but he was before my time. I just started getting into chess during the first Kasparov vs The World match. Even though I have since learned that Kasparov isn't the greatest person, he has done a lot for chess. A lot of harm, perhaps, but a lot of good as well. But what are WE going to do for chess now that we are here? Our wonderful webmaster (bring back the forums! whimper....) has made an excellent contribution to chess with this site. What else can we do to help? I run a small chess club here, only as a way to search for opponents to play. But it usually ends up that I have to teach them how to play first. Oh well...
indiana-jay 104 ( +1 | -1 )

It is not a secret that most of MENSA members are emotionally illiterate. Chess world champions are intelligent people, if not geniuses. You may say that many great masters have special personalities. You may also say terrible personalities, with not too much difference in meaning. You cannot simply just try to be odd to reach the very top, as the very top is for people who happens to be odd.

One very simple bad "personality" of intelligent people is their arogance. Logically you don't hurt people to be arogant. But psychologically, by simply saying that you're "great", you may hurt many people who listens to your words. These many people are mostly not intelligent people, but sometimes they are. These few people who cannot tolerate others to have a quite the same personality are "worse" than the un-intelligent ones.

Fischer, was surely a great chess player. If he also have an odd personality, that may not be a coincidence. For me, there are many reasons to respect him than not, as he (and his families) have never hurt me as I assume he never did either to many people in this forum.
peppe_l 98 ( +1 | -1 )
BBG "I have much to back up my claims but i refuse to give it to you"

Well so far I havent seen you giving such information to anyone :-)

"im tired of trying to explain info to people that have no real desire to recieve it or use it"

How can I receive information that does not exist?

"you seem to have a problem with him"

Because I dare to critisize your demi-god? He is one of my favourite players and yesterday I played trough some of his best games from Finnish Chess Magazine. Yeah real problem...

Makes me think about suggestion you gave earlier:

"my suggestion is may be consider keeping his chess career and his personal life seperate"

Based on our discussion about Korchnoi & Karpov it seems you are the real master of keeping chess career & personal life separate...

I study and like both Fischer and Karpov because they both were (are?) brilliant chess players. How about you who refuse to study Karpov because of his personality? ;-)
indiana-jay 131 ( +1 | -1 )
To BBG,
I don't think that peppe_l has a problem with Fischer, nor he has a conspiracy with Soviet government. Certain people just too logical and become "hard" in a discussion or argumentation. Sometimes they just jump in and take opposition against weak arguments or opinion-based conclusions.

You may be right that this is not a good manner as this may hurt people, but the good thing is that such people will easily accept their mistake in argumentation (when they make it) without getting too emotional.

In Senior High Schools or in families we are free to argue based on our opinions. And especially when we are smart, no-one will question our words no matter how weak they are (Have you ever said that you seen a ghost and nobody seemed to disbelieve you and asked for evidence?). As you get older and/or enter university, you will meet critical people and probably higher level of intelligent people (this is true if you entered a favourite university). For some people, this is the time they have to change their style, because everyone is demanding for proof, evidence and logical explanation.

Bluebabygirl, don't be mad.... :)
bluebabygirl 115 ( +1 | -1 )
to peppe and any on ELO question I do indeed say its inflated . for example in 1970 ,Spassky,the worlds champion.was rated 2670. you know what 2670 will buy you in the top 100 of today-----a tie for 28th with Rublevsky behind such stalwarts as Malakhov,,Van Wely,, Almasi,, etc. etc. and what of Tal,,, Keres and Petrosian---- they would be dragging thier heels behind guys like Bolgan,,Zviaginsev,,Zhang Zhong!!! IF THIS ISN'T INFLATION IT'LL MORE THAN DO TIL THE REAL THING COMES ALONG!!!!!--why just imagine TAL behind such greats as bologan,zviaginsev and Zhang Zhong what a laugh . to put TAL behind these players is a perfect illustration of the inflated ELO as I said .---You say one should give more respect to Lasker and his longevity----when was the last time you saw a top ten list without lasker on it?? Besides longevity isnt so important when a bright career burns like a comet and then expires such as Morphy,,Pillsbury,,Charousek and others.------------You keep harping on Fischer's lack of longevity. A ctually he was among the elite for ALMOST 2 DECADES, RETIRED FOR 20 YEARS MADE A SUCCESSFUL COMEBACK WHICH IS UNHEARD OF IN CHESS HISTORY AND LIKELY TO REMAIN SO!!!!-BBG
bluebabygirl 44 ( +1 | -1 )
to peppe>????????? you said i never give any facts . well how about those facts???? got any answer that will make sense about ELO ??? CAN ANYONE HONESTLY SAY THAT 27 PLAYERS THAT ARE RATED HIGHER THAN SPASSKY IN 1970 -WHEN HE WAS WORLD CHAMP ARE BETTER!!! WHAT A LAUGH!! BUT THIER ELO SHOWS THEY ARE , SO OBVIOUSLY ITS NOT ONLY INFLATED BUT IS ALSO INACCURATE TOO.---YOU EXPLAIN HOW THEY ARE BETTER OR ELSE ADMIT ELO IS INFLATED .--BBG
bluebabygirl 44 ( +1 | -1 )
to peppe>????????? you said i never give any facts . well how about those facts???? got any answer that will make sense about ELO ??? CAN ANYONE HONESTLY SAY THAT 27 PLAYERS THAT ARE RATED HIGHER THAN SPASSKY IN 1970 -WHEN HE WAS WORLD CHAMP ARE BETTER!!! WHAT A LAUGH!! BUT THIER ELO SHOWS THEY ARE , SO OBVIOUSLY ITS NOT ONLY INFLATED BUT IS ALSO INACCURATE TOO.---YOU EXPLAIN HOW THEY ARE BETTER OR ELSE ADMIT ELO IS INFLATED .--BBG
olympio 10 ( +1 | -1 )
yasser seirawan is a top class chess player and promoter.

probably one of the finest players around (not in rank but in chessmanship)
winslow_hendershot 22 ( +1 | -1 )
Yes, Yasser is one of my favorites. I loved his chess books when I first started playing 4 years ago. Very helpful for beginners. And he seems like a nice guy. You know who else is a nice guy? Me! If only I could get the chess world to pay attention to me.
chessnovice 7 ( +1 | -1 )
... A great chess player is defined by a great victory dance.
peppe_l 23 ( +1 | -1 )
BBG Lots of caps, but still no facts.

Funny post really. YOU claim ELO ratings have inflated in the terms of absolute playing strength, so it is YOUR job to prove it.

If you cant, your statement remains as vague as it is now.

End of story.