|
I'm really interested not just by the relatively similarities of the players' success charts, but also by the comparisons you made to their play style.
It would make sense that the first "best" player would be whoever first actually understood what the game was about, followed by those that discoved new things, to be later eclipsed by players that took the fundamentals, the new styles, and then combined it with non-gimmicky skill.
For other people that know the history of chess and/or bw well, does the descriptions he made of those players accurately match the reality?
|
I don't know if I'm grinning so hard because I'm laughing or not. lol what a badass post.
|
This is absolutely amazing. Feature this! the amount of work deserves praise Botvinnik and July <3 Learned something new ^^
|
This is an amazing piece of work! Those analogies are enlightening, never really knew the history of chess other than Kasparov = bonjwa. Thanks!
|
I don't even want to imagine how much effort it must've taken to create that post. Mindblowing comparisons and simply brilliant read. 5/5
|
That was very interesting, I got to the end of it without even noticing adn was left with wanting more. The graphs add a lot.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
Great read, I would have put it in spotlight but someone beat me to it.
Please carry on as if it was my doing.
|
really good! lol i love the parallels you draw... reminds me of when i actually tried to play chess
|
Wow, I really really loved this article. It gives you so much to "wow" about.
|
Great read, although I would have gone with Nada-Botvinnik for their professionalism and especially July-Tal because both used aggression a psychological weapon.
|
|
Amazing post. Fischer truly was the greatest, until the bonjwa Kasparov arrived on the scene.
So many of these posters say they love chess, and they aren't participating in the TL chess match?
|
That was incredible analysis, and comparison.
|
On October 01 2011 05:20 heyoka wrote: I spotlighted this. Thanks, Heyoka. I never find myself looking in the blog section but some of the most entertaining posts end up in here.
|
soo amazing!
|
On October 01 2011 05:03 Emporio wrote: I'm really interested not just by the relatively similarities of the players' success charts, but also by the comparisons you made to their play style.
It would make sense that the first "best" player would be whoever first actually understood what the game was about, followed by those that discoved new things, to be later eclipsed by players that took the fundamentals, the new styles, and then combined it with non-gimmicky skill.
For other people that know the history of chess and/or bw well, does the descriptions he made of those players accurately match the reality?
I did my best to match up players who I felt had something important in common, in terms of career progression, history, contribution to the game, and style. July/Botvinnik is probably the biggest stretch - historically they match up very nicely, but stylistically they are very different. Of course, some will probably not agree with some of the comparisons, and in deciding to draw parallels between the histories I was forced to leave out some players who did not have a clear doppelganger.
|
Thanks so much for the spotlight! <3
|
|
|
Epic! All I can say, this has to be featured. I always found the characters behind the game a lot more interesting in chess than the game itself. And a little refresher on Broodwar history won't do any harm. Very nice.
|
|
|
|