Garry Kasparov on coaching Magnus Carlsen

Interview with former world chess champion Garry Kasparov on the recent announcement that he has been working with Norwegian chess star Magnus Carlsen. Sep. 8, 2009. Interview with Mig Greengard.

Category:

Sports

Tags:

• Kasparov
• chess
• Carlsen

[Zeberdee691]

wow you must have one of those new and expensives cameras

[101194z4life]

Professor Garry Oaks.

[vortx100]

@willsmackyoudown Another great American player of course was Pillsbury, who in the mid 1890's Hit Europe and won a couple of the strongest tournaments ever played to that time (against much stronger opposition than Morphy ever faced. Had he not been a bit of a louche character and avoided contracting syphilis, dying prematurely of it, he would have been a good bet for a title shot against Lasker.

[vortx100]

@willsmackyoudown I don't think anyone is trying to 'play down' Fischer, The point of view that he was the greatest ever certainly has merit, I just think that the arguments in favour of both Kasparov and Capablanca (& maybe Morphy) being stronger than he, carry greater weight. Had Fischer fulfilled his promise to defend his title and test himself against a younger generation, maybe there'd be more substance to the arguments in his favour. He didn't; there aren't, so there you have it.

[willsmackyoudown]

@sausage4mash

Excuse me a 100 years. I will admit that Fischer may not have been the best... (although I think his drive was). But every European/Russian player quickly dismisses Paul Morphy in the top 10 when he was in fact one of the most talented player of all time.

[willsmackyoudown]

@sausage4mash

Right... down play Fischer even though Karpov and many others have said he was the best they had ever seen. Okay... unfortunately hes not the only American. Paul Morphy. Stomped every American and European at that time, including an embarrassing defeat to Anderrssen. Run his games through a Fritz engine and even a Hi developed computer can show you his genius was 200 years ahead.

[vortx100]

@willsmackyoudown If we MUST rank players in some kind of order then in terms of sheer natural ability Capablanca (& maybe Morphy) are tops - they beat everyone with little apparent effort. For sheer brute energy and creativity at the board then Kasparov is tops - his understanding, speed and depth of thought is/was uncanny. Fischer & Karpov are more like hard working Capablanca's and for me sit slightly below. In terms of effect upon the game as a profession - Fischer was most important.

[vortx100]

@willsmackyoudown Comparing Players from different eras is fun but largely meaningless, ALL of Fischers opponents (including Spassky) were past their peak when he was at his. players of his exact generation were muchweaker (Mecking was v good but unreliable). the next generation of soviet players (Karpov, Vaganian etc ) were still to make their mark. I think players who can be compared are those whose 'peaks' overlap, e.g. Capablanca/Rubinstein/Alekhine or Karpov/Kasparov/Anand/Kramnik.

[vortx100]

@willsmackyoudown Fischer certainly 'Dominated Everyone' (he played) in his world championship cycle - his (then) record rating was achieved by the run of wins in Interzonal & candidates games. we must temper our wonderment at his 6-0 scores & acknowledge that Taimanov was WAY off being a great player & Larsen was a notoriously bad match player - basically carrying over his risky tournament style into matches didn't work. go back a few years & Fischer was not so dominant.

[sausage4mash]

@vortx100 thank you ,someone who knows real chess history and has not swallowed the hype

[sausage4mash]

@willsmackyoudown Kasparov would not of had computer help in his formative years ,computers became strong enough to beat GM's in the 90's .by the way kaspy had a higher ELO than Fischer.

Fischer was a genius but he's not the greatest there has ever been,he's on a par with some of the other greats,my fav being Tal ,but Americans have mythologised Fischer for nationalistic reasons so no point even discussing it ,really .