* Kasparov

* Fischer

* Karpov

* Capablanca

wrote:
* Kasparov
* Fischer
* Karpov
* Capablanca

You include Capablanca but leave off Lasker and Alekhine??

Taylor Kingston wrote:
wrote:
* Kasparov
* Fischer
* Karpov
* Capablanca

You include Capablanca but leave off Lasker and Alekhine??

Do you think Lasker and Alekhine are in the same level?

CS

"CS" wrote in message
oups.com...

* Kasparov
* Fischer
* Karpov
* Capablanca

You include Capablanca but leave off Lasker and Alekhine??

Do you think Lasker and Alekhine are in the same level?


It`s interesting : Lasker was the World Chess Champion longer than any other
Champ (27 years) but Alekhine was the World Chess Champ till his strange
death.

Jerzy

But who would you pick?

wrote in message
oups.com...
But who would you pick?


Once I thought that Fischer was greatest ever but nowadays I tend to call
Kasparov greatest ever.

I hope that he will still be active in the field of chess even if he doesn`t
play in Linares, WAZ etc ... what a pity, by the way, that we probably won`t
see him there anymore as a player.

CS wrote:
Do you think Lasker and Alekhine are in the same level?

I certainly think that Lasker and Alekhine belong in such a list if
it includes Capablanca.

wrote:
But who would you pick?

This is one of the most well-worn topics on the chess newsgroups. A
major obstacle to settling the question definitively (other than the
fact that the masters involved cannot play each other!) is that varying
conditions can be proposed. Do we try to compare ratings? If so, for
what period: 5 years? 10? Lifetime? Do we fantasize using a time
machine to pluck, say, Capablanca from 1922, Lasker from 1900, Alekhine
from 1931, and Morphy from 1859, and immediately plunk them down in
front of today's Kasparov? Or do we give them a year to study first? Or
do we, =E0 la "Jurassic Park," take their DNA to produce clones all of
the same age? Could such clones actually be considered "Morphy" or
"Lasker" per se, without them growing up in their respective
historical/cultural milieus?
And are we discussing innate talent, or dedication as well? For pure
talent Capablanca was hard to beat, but his work ethic lagged well
behind Alekhine's, Fischer's, Kasparov's and others'.
These are just a few of the complications that prevent this question
from being settled.

I don't know but I hear Kasparov and Fischer's name in the news almost
every week.

Maria
Chess Mom


Taylor Kingston wrote:
wrote:
But who would you pick?

This is one of the most well-worn topics on the chess newsgroups. A
major obstacle to settling the question definitively (other than the
fact that the masters involved cannot play each other!) is that
varying
conditions can be proposed. Do we try to compare ratings? If so, for
what period: 5 years? 10? Lifetime? Do we fantasize using a time
machine to pluck, say, Capablanca from 1922, Lasker from 1900,
Alekhine
from 1931, and Morphy from 1859, and immediately plunk them down in
front of today's Kasparov? Or do we give them a year to study first?
Or
do we, =E0 la "Jurassic Park," take their DNA to produce clones all of
the same age? Could such clones actually be considered "Morphy" or
"Lasker" per se, without them growing up in their respective
historical/cultural milieus?
And are we discussing innate talent, or dedication as well? For
pure
talent Capablanca was hard to beat, but his work ethic lagged well
behind Alekhine's, Fischer's, Kasparov's and others'.
These are just a few of the complications that prevent this
question
from being settled.

"Maria Perez" wrote in message
oups.com...
I don't know but I hear Kasparov and Fischer's name in the news almost
every week.

Maria
Chess Mom

And your child wants to be like Fischer or like Kasparov ?
BTW please don` t toppost I`m not used to reading from down to up.

Jerzy