Was Sammy Reshevsky Underated

What was the difference between Alekhine and the magician of Riga then . Maybe one played better more inspired chess when inebriated and it enhanced his performance whereas it was detrimental to AAA’s performance. Who knows?😳😳😳🫣🙄

“”DreamscapeHorizons
I met him before. The first chess book I ever studied was by him. The Art Of Positional Play I think it was titled. I wish I had it with me when I met him, I probably could've got him to sign it.””

wow !! yes. I always wondered how it differed from tactics.

Sammy must have been renowned for positional play back then. 
“””Simply put, tactics are immediate threats, 'positional' concerns are long-term advantages. If there is a series of moves that can force an outcome (win of material, checkmate), that's what tactics mean.”””

But members here are saying that Sammy was not noted for opening theory as strongly as positional play.

I always assumed you needed both at elite level or you would have been disadvantaged. Maybe Sammy was that good that he didn’t need to be one of the best opening theorists to beat many of the soviets on occasions at that time.

Reshevsky was weak in the opening. Here is an example:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008376

He could not remember any theory.
He made up for it by thinking longer, but that landed him in time trouble.

In this game he got a winning position, but with 4 minutes for 16 moves he took a draw.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1101238

Yes. They termed the first game you presented as the opening trap to be remembered.

The second point highlighted the reason I wrote a forum on the Sokolsky opening. With top players knowing opening theory back to front in the modern game it seems like chess “ begins to be played almost at the middle game” when you watch the short forms you see the pause around the middle game when the opening finishes and chess starts” for fear of time pressures at the end game. The Sokolsky started the “ chess” being played earlier according to comments received in the forum

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/sokolsky-opening-has-anyone-had-success-persisting-with-the-lines

But that is just a side issue. It did look like Sammy was not renowned for his opening theory study.

Not an expert.... but from what I read he was famous for a fierce fighting spirit, not missing any combination of 3 moves of less and forgetting opening theory. He would use tricks like offering a draw but not really by asking '' Are you playing for a win here?'' and would really be pissed if someone beat him in a simul. - all part of his burning competitive spirit. For many years, the Russian chess establishment thought him their main rival in the west and focused their efforts in tournys on keeping him from winning.

That's what I recall about him. Bill

Thanks Bill. A good summary and interesting

In one of Assiac's books, he gives a speed game that Sammy beat Botvinnik. Not sure if that game is in the database of Reshevsky's games.

That's interesting because Botvinnik famously hated speed chess, there's actually a famous quote where Botvinnik said he'd only ever played a single blitz game in his entire life.

Reshevsky won two classical games against Botvinnik:

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032174

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032363

I guess everyone likes to tell the dramatic tale of Fischer standing up to the Soviet machine and beating them despite not having the huge advantages of living there around the old greats. Reshevsky is sort of neither here nor there because he was from that part of the world but came to the US when he was 9 and proceeded to become among the world's elite. He's sort of inconvenient to the epic tale of Fischer being the only one to do anything like it.

So yeah, I guess he is sort of underrated. Keep in mind also though that he was the generation before Fischer, and he never became world champion. He died in 1992, meaning most people today have no experience of him being up there among the elite.

Fischer was better of course, but Reshevsky could hold his own to say the least and actually drew their match.

In the Zürich 1953 Candidates' Tournament Bronstein got strict USSR team orders to beat Reshevsky.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1033870

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1033878

There was a culture in the USSR where authority thought that any big loss to international players was a national disgrace. That's why Taimanov was exiled after he lost to Fischer in the candidates.

And Botvinnik won 5. 
Lifetime score is 5-2.

Everyone loves the epic tale of Bobby Fischer. Often forget to mention most of the players he was beating were more than a decade older than himself. Bobby got destroyed when they were on equal footing and made a return in the late 60s. Then he dominated the old competition (apart from Spassky who was only 6 years older than Fischer) and when the next generation emerged in Karpov, we know how that went. 
The players Fischer was beating in the early 70s, which eventually culminated in his huge rating gap (1970-72) were Bent Larson (more than a decade older than Fischer), Petrosian (15 years older than Fischer), Korchnoi (more than a decade older than Fischer), Efim Geller (20 years older than Fischer), Lev Polugaevsky (more than a decade older than Fischer), Botvinnik retired in 1970 but he was still in the top 10 at age 60 (33 years older than Fischer).
Reshevsky played the best his entire career but no, he never became world champion, I think the most interesting question is who is greater, Fine or Reshevsky?

@76
"who is greater, Fine or Reshevsky?"

Reshevsky 2776 in 1952-1954 is historically rated above Fine 2756 in 1939-1941.
http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp

Considering elo both draws the fun out of these comparisons and isn't really a fair comparison. The elos you're referring to are simply estimated elos. The elo system wasn't used until way later. FIDE adopted elo officially in 1970. These elos are also 10 years apart and are just estimates. Elo is a bit fickle, sometimes it inflates and deflates making it extremely tenuous to base assumptions off of. They don't mean anything. Before Fine left chess he had an incredible run of tournaments in the late 30s, including jointly winning 1938's AVRO tournament in the Netherlands which is the strongest tournament (or at least one of the) strongest tournaments of all time.

@78

"The elos you're referring to are simply estimated elos." ++ No they are calculated backwards.

"The elo system wasn't used until way later. FIDE adopted elo officially in 1970." ++ Yes, but based on those the calculation was performed backwards with the historical results.

"elos are also 10 years apart" ++ No problem, present elo are 54 years apart from 1970.

"are just estimates" ++ No, they are not estimated but calculated.

"sometimes it inflates and deflates" ++ That is mainly in the lower regions.

"They don't mean anything." ++ They are a good predictor based on actual results.

"including jointly winning 1938's AVRO tournament in the Netherlands" ++ With Keres

"which is the strongest tournament (or at least one of the) strongest tournaments of all time"++ New York 1924, Zürich 1953, Linares...

Also 10 years or 20 years in chess was a much longer time back then than it is today. Chess evolved very rapidly during those years, chess material and opening developments and theory exploded, which greatly favoured the young, upcoming Fischer above the older generation.

Despite his suspicious-sounding name Reshevsky was also Polish not Soviet, so unless he also spoke Russian wouldn't have had access to all the Soviet books written in Russian, and as stated moved to the US when just 9 years old.