Ah yes. Certainly Capablanca could only be defeated by a genius. A man of of such inexplicable talent - a man who could not read yet was able to defeat a very recent world champion of chess. A man of such talent never seen before, or after, or perhaps ever again. Certainly only such a man could defeat the mighty Capablanca. There is certainly no possibility whatsoever that Capablanca may simply have underestimated a reasonably competent opponent - perhaps even became a shade hubristic and played less than stellar chess. He was Capablanca after all - the greatest raw talent of all time.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1135510

Alekhine beat Capablanca in a match, but Alekhine was highly studied and played his heart out whenever he faced Capablanca. Sultan Khan on the other hand, couldn't even read by many accounts, and Capablanca called him a genius afterward.

Beating Capablanca =/= Genius
Beating Capablanca without being able to study chess books and then having Capablanca call you a genius = Probably a genius.

The tone of your post is unwarranted.

Fairly interesting derail so I'll play along. Here's some work by Edward Winter on Khan http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/e...ultankhan.html. So yeah, seems like he was indeed really talented. However you are vastly underestimating Kasparov's raw talent. All those awe struck accounts of him seeing everything in post mortem? 11½/15 and 2 points ahead of the field in Banja Luka '79 as 16-year old? Saying that Morphy or Capa were clearly more talented than him is just insane.

The older I get, the less I believe raw talent actually matters.

Giri-Nakamura is interesting for me to see, although it's not a very interesting game. A very old line of the Dragon, but one that I had thought was perfectly sound for Black (and if my recollection serves, some more recent correspondence games confirm this). It offers zero winning changes for Black, but at that level, I don't think one really worries too much about suffering in those endgames.

Well firstly, I'm a casual chess fan so nothing I say is the gospel. I have however, a great interest in this and have read several of Kasparov's books and have listened to all the interviews that I can find with Fischer as well as reading several biographies of him and most of what I can find about Morphy and Capablanca and others.

I don't know if I underestimate Kasparov as much as I find Fischer, Morphy, Capablanca to have been extreme freaks of nature.

Kasparov was the undisputed best player in the world for 20 years, but he had great trainers when he was young, an incredible work ethic and competitive instinct, and tended to edge out his challengers repeatedly. The others in question did freakish things without a fraction of those advantages, and/or treated the top players in the world like children. Capablanca didn't read chess opening books when he was young and according to wikipedia was specifically forbidden from intensive training, but had something like an 8-year-stretch where he was unbeaten in roughly 60 games, including his world championship victory, where he never even focused hard. Fischer played the "Game of the Century" when he was 13-years-old and was the American National champion within the year. And at his peak he had his freakish 6-0 streak against world championship contenders, including the world #3. Morphy was more interested in being a lawyer than a chess player, but in his early 20's crushed everyone who would play him in the world and offered anyone else a pawn and a move.

There's also the issue of psychological signs. We obviously can't see intelligence but we can look for patterns that are signs of level of calculating ability. There's Aspergers and the "Einstein-habit" of lack of attention to personal hygiene and single-mindedness and isolation from other people. Morphy and Fischer both show obvious signs of this as they became recluses with mental illness later in life. Kasparov, on the other hand, seems like a normal healthy, human being (though I admittedly lack information on this for Capablanca and he apparently was great with women) and even actually a bit pretentious and overreaching in how he presents himself, as though despite being a world champion and all-time great, he seems to be struggling to present himself as even more.

I don't know enough about Khan or Pillsbury to see where they fit in here, except that a little tidbit that Khan was noted for his high-pitched laugh that was also associated with Mozart and most stereotypical computer-geniuses these days...and Khan's lack of ability to read English chess books mirrors Capablanca's success with very little early assistance.

A relevant answer...Fischer was asked if an average guy could be great at chess...he replied, "Great, no. He could be good though. A lot of the top players I don't think are that talented. They just work like dogs."

Magnus also seems like a freak of nature but the biggest difference is that he grew up with computers while Kasparov did not. He states in some interview that he doesnt even have a set of pieces in house, he just uses a computer and in his head he views position in 2d.

Yea I guess if by "raw talent" you mean this kinda intricate positional feel/knowing where the pieces want to go then Kasparov is maybe among the best ever. Having the human equivalent of deep blue inside your skull is also raw talent imo and that's where the Boss shines

Ow, noticed a quote from Chess Duels about Kasparov's calculating ability had been posted online

Chess talent number one is interest. Second is willing to work hard and third is iq. If the smartest man on earth was interested and working hard on chess, he would achieve an unbelievable rating.


He did not use much computers when he started though.

I tend to think of Kasparov as the hardest working champion in Chess.Nakamura made an interesting comment about him recently after working with him he said "Kasparov was very good at the openings and when he could not get an advantage in them against Kramnik he lost his title"
I tend to agree with this statement Kasparov without a doubt is one of the best players
in history but as for talent I think there are many players who surpass him.

That's what interests me the most about Magnus, he seems quite clearly to be as gifted as Morphischeranca, but he he is the first to have had access to the greatest learning tool that has ever existed in human history. Which may partially explain why he was kicking Karpov's ass and drawing Kasparov when his feet couldn't touch the floor from the chair.

The 2840 rating at his age is probably a big sign of that too, as well as his insane maturity and lack of pretense or "magical statements" about his talent. I really think the access to all that information helped make his brain so informed and efficient that he isn't fooled by superstition or very self-impressed by what he does. Though he does know that he is better than most other players in the world.

It could even be said that Magnus is the first of the computer-trained grandmasters just as internet-poker players dominate the old live pros who didn't have that learning advantage.

How much slower do you think your chess development would have been if you didn’t have a computer at hand?

I don’t know. I never thought about it. It seems to me (stopping to think), that the computer didn’t have any kind of fundamental influence on me personally.

That’s hard to believe… You stand out precisely for being ready to play any position “on sight”, for being ready to defend positions where “ugly” machine moves are required…

But that’s how it was. I can tell you that for the first few years I didn’t use the machine’s help at all, even as a database! Back then I simply put a board in front of me, took the books I was studying at the time and looked at everything on that. And the first time I needed a computer for chess was when I started to play on the internet.

Honestly, when I was about 11-12 I didn’t even know what ChessBase was. I realise that sounds pretty implausible from my lips – and the majority of people consider me a product of the “computer chess” era, but that’s how it was! I’d add that my computer “incompetence” in chess even amazed my first coaches. I had nowhere to show them databases, or my analysis…

Do you have any childhood notebooks with analysis which can be “documentary proof” of that? Are there any “living witnesses”?

Of course the people haven’t gone anyway – you can just ask my dad. As for any notes, I’m not sure. I didn’t particularly make notes.

So your chess understanding, your positional sense – it’s all human?

I think so, yes. And my fundamental chess understanding was formed without machine involvement. That was my approach to chess, my idea of the struggle.

It would be interesting to find out how Agdestein coached Carlsen when he was just becoming an IM at the age of 13. I would guess back then, chessbase and some engines were often used, but I'd think Agdestein's influence made a big impact on Carlsen, including his chess style and understanding. The same could be said for Kasparov: having exceptional training at the "Botvinnik school"; however, understandably, many believe that he was talented.

The real "freaks" are more like Fischer and Capablanca, and understandably, they both have a relatively clean style; Anand seems to gravitate towards complex positions ( well, maybe that's more of the influence of modern grandmaster praxis or modern opening theory ), but I don't know much about Anand's early training/coaching.

In his win against Aronian, I was a bit surprised that Magnus didn't find the nice study-like 57. Nd3! - the point being that on 57...Re4+ 58. Kd5 Rxh4? 59. Nf2! and the rook is trapped ( maybe 59. b4 also wins ).

I find style is a very personal issue in chess and it often emulates a person's personality outside the game.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6187

Carlsen: I’m not saying that I am totally stupid. But my success mainly has to do with the fact that I had the opportunity to learn more, more quickly. It has become easier to get hold of information. The players from the Soviet Union used to be at a huge advantage; in Moscow they had access to vast archives, with countless games carefully recorded on index cards. Nowadays anyone can buy this data on DVD for 150 euros; one disk holds 4.5 million games. There are also more books than there used to be. And then of course I started working with a computer earlier than Vladimir Kramnik or Viswanathan Anand.

SPIEGEL: When exactly?

Carlsen: I was eleven or twelve. I used the computer to prepare for tournaments, and I played on the Internet. Nowadays, children start using a computer at an even earlier age; they are already learning the rules on screen. In that sense I am already old-fashioned. Technological progress leads to younger and younger top players, everywhere in the world.

I think Kasparov's character and educational situation were far beyond many other players, to go with world-class talent. I also think that the existence of Fischer played a big factor too, as young Garry interpreted Fischer's stubborn refusal to draw with people who he knew were worse players as being an iron will to win. (not saying Bobby didn't have a strong will, but that his play "to the bare kings" was because he knew that he would win more often if he just kept the game going)

Garry sought to emulate this in his own games and developed that incredible fighting spirit that he thought Fischer had, and it served him well. Interestingly enough though, he actually reminds me somewhat of Kobe Bryant in that both of them are overly-concerned with how they compare to their vision of their god-like idols (Fischer/Jordan), seemingly even moreso than their own world-class ability.

All I know of Anand is that he and his mother used to solve chess puzzles in magazines in order to get prizes, and eventually the publisher asked them to stop taking the prize every month.

As a fan who doesn't wish to play himself, this is the type of thing I can't really comment on.

ewww Gashimov's position. Not very good for a 2761 to be in such a terrible position after move 15 against the Pirc Nakamura is showing that once you get good enough you can just ignore basic rules - hole on d3, no problem

Ivanchuk back to crushing souls, let's see if he crushes his opponent's this time.

It kept looking odd to me that Houdini slightly liked white even though it seemed like black's pressure on d3 was pretty powerful. I was thinking about posting the position in the interesting positions thread just to see some strong players give analysis of it.

did Carlsen miss a really obv fork right now? will he lose the game because of that?

23. ... NF2

Giri didnt go for it but Carlsen sacked anyway. am I missing some weird combination?

Don't think he missed it but Giri looking really good here. I already liked his position alot before Carlsen played Na4.

Go Giri!

btw iirc Giri won last year with black against Carlsen aswell. He might even have a + score against him? Carlsen sure don't like playing him.

according to the on-site computer evaluation Carlsen has close to sufficient compensation for the exchange. I also find it hard to see though what he planned or missed there when he played Re2.

Seems that white gets in trouble if he doesn't take the knife because of B5, B line, d5 (if white takes on b5) etc.