Alias wrote on 04/14/11 at 07:38:04:


Here we go again. The forum has seen many such discussions, so let's not start another one here. All I would say is that It depends really whether one subscribes to the theory that the development of the chess player does best to follow, more or less, the lines of the development of the modern game itself (starting with the Morphy era). The best games of he past form the basis of a "good education" in chess. I subscribe to that theory. It pleases me logically, it chimes with my experience as a junior coach, and I happen to believe that there is also much enjoyment to be had that way. We play chess fun, don't we?

Karpov/Kramnik vs Morphy/Spielmann:

Why is all-out attacks so important? I like Michael Stean's book "Simple Chess" and players playing simple (looking) chess. Is it really so bad playing sound chess putting the pieces on good squares and do the best of the positions without going for attacks all the time?

I know the importance of tactics. Kramnik and Karpov are up for it when necessary.

kylemeister wrote on 04/13/11 at 20:51:25:

Shame on you!

Edit: I didn't see the 2nd page, when this joke had already been made twice!  Sorry...I must be a ridiculous troll as well.

That's right, kylemeister.  Some of us are getting mighty tired of your trollsome ways.  And make sure you check your facts next time.  Or else.

You believe wrong. It was in something written by Kasparov himself. 

If there were any more when he got to 2800 first (unlikely), they slid back by the middle of the year so that my statement was not wrong and did not suggest anything wrong... not several people there at the same time all year as your post ridiculously implies.   

(I have decided to delete the link to this website because I know it's a common strategy of trolls to contradict another person in order to receive direct links and explanations without directly asking for them and I don't want to reward that. The website is easy to find.)

Search the 1990 ratings for " 27" (note the space). There are both mid-years and January rankings. Fischer was in the 2700s also but his rating was inactive. In 1991 Ivanchuk joined the 2700s for mid-year rankings, in 1993 Anand joined them. These are mid-year rankings though so people could have hit the 2700s at other times. 

There was a point in time when Karpov was the only person in the world in the 2700s. 

Only problem was, Kasparov was in the 2800s...

bicycle wrote on 04/12/11 at 23:44:05:


Depending on your current strength and experience, the best answer could well be: neither, just yet.

If you've never enjoyed the open, attacking chess of the old masters (such as Anderssen, Morphy, Tchigorin, Spielmann), you've not only missed a real treat but omitted an important, some would say vital, phase in your development as a chess player.

If Leko had found a few accurate moves in the last game in Brissago, what would he have been? Tenth among equals? 
WC doesn't elevate one to the pantheon, it just means you won a match...