J J Capablanca?
Jose Jaul Capablanca-Mikhail Tal
Sort:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Tal's skill, restinpeace, was in luring his opponents into a forest where 2+2=5 and only one would get out alive. In a place where "accuracy", as determined by a computer loses, you should prefer Tal by a country mile.
Tal's combinations are more of psychological than accurate, and making inaccuracies against Capa isn't such a good idea.
Ubik42 wrote:
Tepse wrote:
The soviet grandmaster would win because of better opening preparation and theoretical understanding. Natural talent is almost irrelevant on GM level. What most amateurs consider "natural talent" is actually passionate hard work and dedication to the game. When facing Tal, you're facing the whole Soviet school.
Also, arguments about playstyle are somewhat invalid as long as the masters aren't playing something ridiculously dubious. All masters are virtues - generally great at every aspect of the game.
Someone will have to explain Capa's success then, given that he was considered one of the laziest players ever. It was said he didnt even own a chessboard.
After defeating Bronstein and Nimzowitch he haven't even opened an opening book
mvtjc wrote:
Tal's combinations are more of psychological than accurate...
lol
SmyslovFan wrote:
Tal would win, convincingly, given that his health was good.
Capablanca had losing records against Keres and Botvinnik. This wasn't just due to age, it was due to the new Soviet style of chess. Capablanca just didn't understand the new dynamism.
In a twelve game match, Tal would win 7-4, the last game wouldn't need to be played.
The greatest misconception about his playstyle, try reading Lakadwala's book and you'll understand. Just because he is known to be the master of endgames and simplicity it doesn't mean it's only where he excells. I recommend also Kasparov's On My Great Predecessors vol.1 and try to see if what your claiming matches great GM's opinions.
AndyClifton wrote:
mvtjc wrote:
Tal's combinations are more of psychological than accurate...
lol
At least chessmetrics agrees with me. You need a 
'cos you obviously lack <3 
Yeah, just try reading Cyrus' book!
AndyClifton wrote:
Yeah, just try reading Cyrus' book!
lol
"Tal would sacrifice minor and major pieces, creating positions so complicated that most of his partners couldn't calculate all the possible variants and choose the right one during the game. They got nervous, made mistakes and lost. Later, after the quiet analysis, especially in recent years when powerful chess computers became available, it was often proved that many Tal's combinations, with pawn, knight, bishop, rook, queen sacrifices, were unsound and could have led him to defeat"
Just some random comments from a radio station...
mvtjc wrote:
At least chessmetrics agrees with me.
Oh wow, chessmetrics! I'm all impressed.
But if the only one who could've possibly figured that out was Tal...then I'd say they were pretty damned sound after all. 
Apr 4, 2013
0
#33
Capa, if he was given enough time to "brush up" on modern opening and endgame theory, which seems doubtful considering his casual (euphemism for lazy) attitude towards the game.
Capablanca was snatched too early from the chess world. With his death we have lost a great chess genius, the like of whom we will never see again. - Alexander Alekhine
I have known many chess players, but among them there has been only one genius - Capablanca! - Emanuel Lasker
(Capablanca's) phenomenal move-searching algorithm in those early years, when he possessed a wonderful ability for calculating variations very rapidly, made him invincible. - Mikhail Botvinnik
AndyClifton oh sorry maybe you are a butthurt Tal fan, I am actually a fan too. But I accept the fact that most of his sacrifices are unsound, it was psychology that helped him win. And I am not saying he is not a great player, he is! Just clearing things out so you don't get hurt boy.
AndyClifton wrote:
But if the only one who could've possibly figured that out was Tal...then I'd say they were pretty damned sound after all.
I think you don't know what a 'sound' move means.
No, it wasn't "psychology." It was the fact that he played into positions which only he could possibly fathom. Same as when some microtechnician like Carlsen is able to grind out his wins in positions he clearly understands better than his opponents.
mvtjc wrote:
I think you don't know what a 'sound' move means.
lol...yeah, good point kiddo! That's how I got my rating. Sheesh.
AndyClifton wrote:
mvtjc wrote:
I think you don't know what a 'sound' move means.
lol...yeah, good point kiddo! That's how I got my rating. Sheesh.
lol good point butthurt Tal fanboy!! Too bad I will still believe Kasparov than you, but don't worry there will also be other butthurt kids out there that may follow you because of your SO FREAKIN' AWESOME rating.
My sentiments exactly. And I hope you've got a roadie (those drum kits can be a pain to tote).
The soviet grandmaster would win because of better opening preparation and theoretical understanding. Natural talent is almost irrelevant on GM level. What most amateurs consider "natural talent" is actually passionate hard work and dedication to the game. When facing Tal, you're facing the whole Soviet school.
Also, arguments about playstyle are somewhat invalid as long as the masters aren't playing something ridiculously dubious. All masters are virtues - generally great at every aspect of the game.
Someone will have to explain Capa's success then, given that he was considered one of the laziest players ever. It was said he didnt even own a chessboard.