How is is that Emory Tate never became GM
Sort:
Aug 17, 2017
0
#2
Most IMs can beat lots of GMs because they play lots of GMs. Simple.
BeepBeepImA747 wrote:
Most IMs can beat lots of GMs because they play lots of GMs. Simple.
wasn't Tate essentially Fischer 2.0
Aug 17, 2017
0
#4
He might have been as talented as Fischer, but did not work as hard as Fischer...
Aug 17, 2017
0
#5
his way of playing prevented him from making GM. he was fun to watch play, and analyze.
Aug 17, 2017
0
#6
Not only did he not cross the 2500 barrier it may be that he didn't have the norms either. I'm guessing FIDE removes norm information from their site after a player is inactive, since I'm not finding anything for him on their website to verify how many norms he may have had.
IMBacon wrote:
his way of playing prevented him from making GM. he was fun to watch play, and analyze.
Do you agree that he had the talent of Bobby Fischer
mickynj wrote:
Emory Tate was a swashbuckling tactician who loved brilliancy at taking risks. He played the kind of chess he loved But he was a somewhat one-sided player who lacked the strategic patience and feel of a real grandmaster, and certainly didn't have tremendous endgame technique. There is no reason to think that he had the talent of a Fischer, or a Kasparov. There is a reason why the true giants of the game are giants! I am in no way putting Emory Tate down. He played exciting attacking chess and created many beautiful wins--and some spectacular losses too! He enriched our game, what else do you want?
that's a fair assessment
Aug 17, 2017
0
#9
Tate was a Grandmaster! A Grandmaster at being an a-hole away from the board that is!
Aug 17, 2017
0
#10
Tate was a fantastic player!
I have a completely different perspective of Tate than ThrillerFan has. He was very gracious to me. He did seem to come unhinged pretty easily. During one tournament, he quite literally believed that the spectators were sucking up his oxygen and he couldn't breathe.
But to answer the question, for every great, brilliant game that Tate played, there's an inexplicably bad loss to some fish. Tate could raise his game to beat GMs because he was so creative. But he didn't have any self-discipline, and it cost him in his games.
The argument about how much talent a player has is meaningless to me. That's just a way of saying that a player coulda been better.
Sure. Tate coulda been better. But then he wouldn't have been the Tate we know. He did work hard on his game, in the manner that worked for him. One of the great things about Tate is that he enjoyed his reputation as a giant killer. He wasn't as interested in being one of the giants, but in having the respect of the great players he faced.
Aug 17, 2017
0
#11
King343 wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
his way of playing prevented him from making GM. he was fun to watch play, and analyze.
Do you agree that he had the talent of Bobby Fischer
Not even close.
Aug 17, 2017
0
#12
IMBacon wrote:
King343 wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
his way of playing prevented him from making GM. he was fun to watch play, and analyze.
Do you agree that he had the talent of Bobby Fischer
Not even close.
If you believe that talent is somehow divorced from the ability to study harder than anyone else, then it's almost impossible to guess who had more talent.
The word begins to lose meaning because anyone can claim that any chess player had more or less talent than someone else. There's no way to prove or disprove such statements.
Aug 17, 2017
0
#14
Was Tate a talented player? Yes.
Was he as talented as Fischer? Yes...No...Possibly...Take your pick.
Am I as talented as Fischer? Possibly.
Aug 19, 2017
0
#16
ChrisWainscott wrote:
Vodka.
The End.
The End.
Actually, I don't think he drank at all. I'm not 100% sure of that, but when I met him, he said he never drank.
Jul 13, 2021
0
#17
It would be pretty cool and interesting to have a chess bot of Emory Tate
Too much weed.
Jul 13, 2021
0
#19
its really hard to play the chess Tate did and get consistent results. They are a few rare players with wildy speculative style like Rapport that make it to the top but it is a sight to see.
the thing about getting the big titles is that you need to 1. play in certain events where norms can be earned, and 2.play with enough consistency to get the rating average agaisnt strong players accross 3 tournaments with 9 rounds. With the crazy style like Tate this is very hard in a single event, especially when your opponent is also norm hunting and may play in a way to hamper your strengths if they researched you beforehand.
Another thing is, when norm hunting there is such a thing as strategic drawing. The always play for a win style and personality of a player like Tate probably would dissuade him from pursuing draws when advantageous
it seems like he never crossed the 2500 barrier or became GM
even though its reported that he beat over 80 GM's with his tactical abilities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emory_Tate