• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Paul Morphy -> Capablanca -> Bobby Fischer

miles_voltaire said:
OF COURSE! I believe the same than you, wogoga. Fischer is Capablanca and Paul Morphy. Perhaps Alejin (Alekhine) is Garri Kasparov.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Kasparov was born in 1963, not 1947 -- when, by the logic of OP, reincarnation of Alekhine should have been born.

So Karpov is not Alekhine either, as he was born in 1951.

Actually, I can't think of any great chess player born in 1947.

OTOH, Brian Lumley was born 272 days (almost exactly standard human gestation) after H. P. Lovecraft died. So maybe there is something to it! :D
 
Funnily enough, do you know who was really good at chess? Something of a fanatic at it (and fanatic about several other things as well)?

Tamerlane.

Yep. The guy who left pyramids of severed heads behind him (supposedly as they decayed, sometimes the gases emitted would glow green in the dark) was also a big chess expert. He invented several new pieces and playing variants as well.
 
I agree. It has been my observation that I share many key similarities with Alexander the Great. Except for the homosexuality. And the military bit. And the entire Greek deal. And the leadership ability.

But, I mean, we're both male, and that counts for something. Right? Right?!?
 
Beerina said:
Actually this guy makes a hypothesis that could be analyzed, if not tested. This earlier guy's gamestyle should be essentially identical (as chessmasters see it) in crucial areas to Bobby Fischer's. Is this the case?

I'll hold my breath while waiting. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Very dissimilar in a number of respects. Fischer was probably closer to Alekhine (IMO) than Capa in playstyle -- more aggressive/attacking.

Your mileage may vary.
 
EGarrett said:
I have prime Bobby Fischer beating everyone.

There's a very good chance that in his prime, Fischer was better at Chess than anyone has ever been at anything.
Click to expand...

Kind of hard to measure...

Better than Joe Louis at boxing in his prime?
Better than Irving Crane at straight pool in his prime?
Better than Einstein at understanding Relativity?
Better than George Bush at sucking? (sorry) :D

I'm not sure how to develop a standard of comparison.
 
Last edited:
Capablanca was far more naturally talented than any other chess player I have read about. These other players had to study like maniacs. Morphy? He was beating players who were generally deficient in proper chess opening theory. In contrast Capa was playing against those who were familiar with Steinitzian strategy such as Lasker, Rubinstein, Marshal, Bogolyubov and Botvinick. If indeed Fisher was the reincarnation of Capa where was his ability to play at the master level without cracking a book? Instead we find Fisher fanatically submersing himself in chess theory, tactics and strategy until he slowly grew into the great player he became. Capa didn't need to.
 
Last edited:
Fischer was great for a short time, but only an American would ever call him the greatest of all time. I say this as someone who happens to be a USAian myself. I'm not a chess expert, but any simple glance at tournament history shows Kasparov to be roughly ten times better, and also at least ten times more mentally stable.

While we're at it, is there an American soccer player who we should, for patriotic reasons, call the finest footballer of all time too? Nominees?

And to the OP'er: you are a clever troll if ever I saw one. I refuse to consider the other possibility.
 
If indeed Capa was the reincarnation of Morphy-where was Capa's deep aversion to anything even remotely resembling chess? Morphy had grown to detest the game and would ultimately fly into a rage whenever anyone as much as insinuated that he was a chess player.

BTW


I am repeatedly getting duplicate post warnings whenever I post once. Anyone else having this problem?
 
Last edited:
gnome said:
Kind of hard to measure...

Better than Joe Louis at boxing in his prime?
Better than Irving Crane at straight pool in his prime?
Better than Einstein at understanding Relativity?
Better than George Bush at sucking? (sorry) :D

I'm not sure how to develop a standard of comparison.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right, it's not exact...it's just a fun thing to think about.

There's a class of "Best in the World," then there's "Undisputed Best in the World by any reasonable person, for a long period of time"...and THEN there's "Dominant Freak who crushes everyone else in the world."

An Olympic Gold Medalist is obviously the first category, "Best in the World."

Wrestling: Kurt Angle
Chess: Tigran Petrosian
Basketball: George Mikan in his era.
Boxing: Lennox Lewis
Military: Hm, let's say George Patton.

Someone who wins more than one Gold medal or has the label of best for a long period of time is the next level-up. These people are usually national heroes and historical/mythical on top of it...and get the label of "Greatest".

Wrestling: Dan Gable (Gold Medalist, afaik went undefeated AND unscored upon when doing so)
Chess: Garry Kasparov (World Champion for many years)
Basketball: Kobe Bryant, Hakeem Olajuwon
Boxing: Muhammad Ali
Military: Napoleon

Even a level above that is the Dominant Freak. A person who not only is the best in the world, but in their prime crushes everyone else on the planet in a scary fashion.

Wrestling: Alexander Karelin (undefeated AND unscored on for something like 10 years. Won everything at his class in wrestling.)
Chess: Bobby Fischer
Boxing: Mike Tyson before going to prison, Joe Louis probably
Military: Alexander The Great
Basketball: Michael Jordan OR Wilt Chamberlain.
Others: Tiger Woods, probably Lance Armstrong, Secretariat, Mozart, Da Vinci etc.

Those are just the people I'm aware of...

The non-competitive ones are too hard to judge objectively. It really comes down to whether Fischer in his prime was more of a dominant freak than the other people in that category. You have to compare his 21-0 streak to Woods' 18-stroke victory, Mike Tyson's run of knocking guys out in the first round, Jordan's 3-peats, Secretariat's 31-length victory...and, well, Karelin's entire career.
 
EGarrett said:
You're absolutely right, it's not exact...it's just a fun thing to think about.

Even a level above that is the Dominant Freak. A person who not only is the best in the world, but in their prime crushes everyone else on the planet in a scary fashion.

Wrestling: Alexander Karelin (undefeated AND unscored on for something like 10 years. Won everything at his class in wrestling.)
Chess: Bobby Fischer
Boxing: Mike Tyson before going to prison, Joe Louis probably
Military: Alexander The Great
Basketball: Michael Jordan OR Wilt Chamberlain.
Others: Tiger Woods, probably Lance Armstrong, Secretariat, Mozart, Da Vinci etc.

The non-competitive ones are too hard to judge objectively. It really comes down to whether Fischer in his prime was more of a dominant freak than the other people in that category. You have to compare his 21-0 streak to Woods' 18-stroke victory, Mike Tyson's run of knocking guys out in the first round, Jordan's 3-peats, Secretariat's 31-length victory...and, well, Karelin's entire career.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on a lot of this (on Karelin, especially -- what did they feed that guy?) But I think your saying that Tyson is "on a level above" an Ali, and the same argument for Fischer, is going too far. Tyson, to my mind, is more on a level with Sonny Liston -- an intimidating, aggressive fighter who didn't do so well if his opponent wasn't afraid of him (Holyfield/Lennox Lewis/Hell, even Buster Douglas). Liston ran into the same thing with Ali.

I think the parallel between Fischer and Tyson is a pretty good one. Again, I think saying Fischer is "on a level above" Kasparov is ludicrous -- when he came out of retirement he didn't push for a match against Kasparov, instead going after Spassky, who was pretty much irrelevant by then. I'd say comparing Tyson/Fischer with Louis/Kasparov is more like comparing a really good cherry tomato with a really good full-sized tomato.

I think my list would go
CHESS: Kasparov, Morphy (if it's even worth comparing so far back)
BOXING: Joe Louis, Jack Johnson, Ali (probably in that order)
WRESTLING: Karelin
BASKETBALL: Chamberlain with Jordan a straggling second
GOLF: Tiger Woods (showing Ali-esque "heart" in winning the recent U.S. Open with an injured knee)
MODERN MARTIAL ARTS: The whole damn Gracie family, until everybody else started to study their methods
(JAPANESE) SWORDSMANSHIP: Tsukahara Bokuden, who wasn't a particularly good self-promoter, but who probably killed more than 200 men in battles and duels without ever being wounded except by arrows.

OK, I think I'm in full derail mode now, so I'll stop. :D
 
To derail even further:

FIGURE SKATING: Brian Boitano (as in "That's what Brian Boitano'd do")
MAMMALS: The grizzly bear (a godless killing machine)
 
EGarrett said:
Even a level above that is the Dominant Freak. A person who not only is the best in the world, but in their prime crushes everyone else on the planet in a scary fashion.

Wrestling: Alexander Karelin (undefeated AND unscored on for something like 10 years. Won everything at his class in wrestling.)
Chess: Bobby Fischer
Boxing: Mike Tyson before going to prison, Joe Louis probably
Military: Alexander The Great
Basketball: Michael Jordan OR Wilt Chamberlain.
Others: Tiger Woods, probably Lance Armstrong, Secretariat, Mozart, Da Vinci etc.
Click to expand...

Here's someone who dominated checkers bad. Real bad. Vin Diesel bad. 40 years straight of brutal Diesel goodness.

And his name was Marion.

When someone developed the Chinook chess computer program and challenged him, the Checkers Federation (or whatever the body is called) said he couldn't play the program, so he threatened to quit.

So he played. And the first game he lost. Like a giant waking from his sleep, the gears began to churn to their fullest again, and he pulled out a win, though two game loses count as 2 of the only 9 individual championship games he's lost since 1954 (just games, not matches.)

Of course, it's now been proven that 1. Perfect games of checkers can be played, and 2. Two such competitors will always end the game in a draw. I have no idea if that modern computer that calculated this (which took 10 years) could come close to actually playing a game in real time though.
 
Perdonad. I'm spanish boy-man. I don´t know english concert musicalishes nor american daugthers. A popi deschamps; Not esquare fiftymenti in the closed water. Return a perdonad.

About this theme' orthography I philip this time than Paul Morphy was Philidor (PHILIDOR IN XVIII'siglo). The Match continua.
 
Beerina said:
Of course, it's now been proven that 1. Perfect games of checkers can be played, and 2. Two such competitors will always end the game in a draw. I have no idea if that modern computer that calculated this (which took 10 years) could come close to actually playing a game in real time though.
Click to expand...

Was it a brute force algorithm of all possible moves, or was it a mathematical proof that such an algorithm existed?
 
miles_voltaire said:
Perdonad. I'm spanish boy-man. I don´t know english concert musicalishes nor american daugthers. A popi deschamps; Not esquare fiftymenti in the closed water. Return a perdonad.

About this theme' orthography I philip this time than Paul Morphy was Philidor (PHILIDOR IN XVIII'siglo). The Match continua.
Click to expand...

I think you might be more comprehensible in Spanish.
 
miles_voltaire said:
Perdonad. I'm spanish boy-man. I don´t know english concert musicalishes nor american daugthers. A popi deschamps; Not esquare fiftymenti in the closed water. Return a perdonad.

About this theme' orthography I philip this time than Paul Morphy was Philidor (PHILIDOR IN XVIII'siglo). The Match continua.
Click to expand...

Looks like Pillory moved to Spain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom