Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
ChessPub Forum - Real chess players
I was leafing through Aagaard's Excelling at Chess this evening, and was reminded of his reference to Kasparov's notion that there were only a handful of "real" chess players.
Real chess players are those special few who know exactly where the pieces belong, and calculate less than just thoroughly understand the nature and requirements of the position on the board.
Kramnik, obviously, is one of these.
Anand another. Who else among the current players might qualify?
|
|
|
Probably not Aagaard
|
|
|
Well, no...
Though, in fairness, I suspect he owned up to that in his book...
|
|
|
I think he included Adams in that category.
|
|
|
It seems Gelfand is not bad the last days but it may be a moment situation.
Topalov in his good days also understands a lot.
|
|
Gelfand is one of those guys.
Look at him, he has changed from Najdorf to Petrov just in a minute..., he really knows where the pieces belong.
|
|
Not to re-ignite a tired debate, but is Topalov a "real" chess player?
Aagaard compared Kasparov with Shirov (no slouch, himself) and noted how Shirov calculated very well, but lacked Kasparov's understanding of the game's spirit...
|
|
|
Ivanchuck should certainly be on the list.
And despite that he didnt qualify for Mexico: Kamsky: it is remarkable how fast his playing strength has recovered despite an absence from top level chess of 10+ years.
|
|
I hate the term "real" chess players.
I know what Aagard means, but it's really a stylistic distinction.
He would probably consider Botvinnik a real chess player but not Tal.
Today's best chess players are very concrete tacticians who also know where the pieces belong.
I prefer the term "natural" chess players, because their games seem to be organic, and the term is not as pejorative to those who don't play in that style.
Some "naturals" include: Capablanca, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian, Fischer, Karpov, Andersson, Kramnik, Leko, Anand and probably Gelfand.
Others who are much more concrete players include: Alekhine, Bronstein, Tal, Korchnoi, Geller, Kasparov, the entire English School of Chess, Shirov, Topalov, Ivanchuk, and Morozevich.
Of course, any attempts to categorize players is difficult.
To paraphrase the old idiom,
"There are two types of chess fans: those who categorize players into different types, and those that don't."
|
|
Looks like paraphrazing a running gag from a famous Italian movie.
Am I right?
I recognize the following types:
WCh's
Candidate WCh's
Those who win strong tournaments.
These are the real chess players;
Not that many.
|
|
(Still waiting for the likely to happen : someone claiming that real chess players are the ones who play 'real chess' : the BDG and stuff.
The rest are cowards as we all know.)
|
|
|
The real chess players are the slobs who go down to the club on Wednesday nights and play chess.
|
|
Nyoke wrote on 09/25/07 at 13:22:33:
(Still waiting for the likely to happen : someone claiming that real chess players are the ones who play 'real chess' : the BDG and stuff.
The rest are cowards as we all know.)
Kramnik once plaid the Bird.
Is he still supposed to be a coward?
|
|
|
Kramnik is the coward of cowards, especially when he wins.
|
|
MNb, why do you bait me so?
Ok, I won't rise to the defense of Kramnik.
I'm too tired to climb to his level.
|
|
|
|