Who was the single greatest tactician ever, and why???

German attention was focused on the eastern front, the African front was starved, Rommel severely undersupplied. He almost, with a bit more support he would, succeeded in routing the English from whole of northern Africa. He was not a general governed by caution; he was not averse to very risky decisions – both military and personal. His men loved him, his mere presence on the front could restore morale. By the way I don’t think he was actively involved in the plot against Hitler.

Great generals are not necessarily those that go on to win in the end, but those working miracles with what they have. In that more often than not it is the losing part that creates the greatest men, because difficulties force brilliance to the front. I think your general Lee is considered the best American Civil War general.

I might have oversold Rommel’s case, he didn’t invent the Blitz for instance - got carried away there, but I think most historians generally agree he’s the best general WWII produced.

Incidentally there’s another Rommel thread here

  • Rune

Great responses guys. I found a lot of the answers extremely intriguing.

I would disagree heavily with this one. I am more along the lines of thought with Morris Rossabi. Genghis Khan did not have an overall plan to dominate the world. He didn’t have a map of all the places he would end up ruling. In the end, he was probably pushed by his retainers (i.e. the generals and the soldiers they were in command of) to obtain more and more resources and plunder (i.e. land, wealth and women). His great ability was that he knew how to pick good and competant generals. His life shows a pattern of being pushed from one event (from the slaying of the Naimans in North Western Mongolia) to another (the conquest of China). I would put him firmly in the tactical section, as he moved from event to event successfully, as opposed to having an overall strategic aim.

I would say no way, primarily because at critical times he made some real bad choices. He was also a very public figure and he revelled in the limelight - a disastrous decision as he made his way up the federal authorities list of “bad boys”. I’d even give the nod to Luciano above Capone. The more smarter gansters were the ones you didn’t really hear about. Look at Carlos Gambino (okay he became a celebrity, but only after the glamour surrounding the mob in it’s afteryears, and look how he handled it), the guy whacked so many darn top mobsters, and yet no one ever laid a finger on him.

My personal favourites from this list:

  • Von Manstein
  • Claire Chennault
  • Jay Gould
  • Orde Wingate

Why? Hardly anyone ever heard of 'em (except maybe Gould).
I love the unlikelies. Bobby Fischer was a cool choice too.

However,

You got to be kidding right?

I have to agree Fischer in his primer was invincible, too bad he went nutz. He did come back and play Spassky in a rematch in 1992 winning 17.5 - 12.5 but he was still as creepy and wierd as ever. Apparently he plays Judit Polgar casually and the results are mixed. I think he was good at everything, not just tactical ability. Isolating tactical ability, I would still pick Alekhine.

Re: Mikhail Tal and Alekhine, I see your argument, and this is very contentious. I pick Alekhine because Tal made too many unsound sacrifices, his flashy play didn’t bring him the same success as Alekhine.

Kasparov is another candidate for sure. Alekhine is also famous for making a move then proceeding 10 moves down and saying “… the point”. Kasparov considers himself a continuatoin of the Alekhine tactical technique as mentioned in his recent book.

Finally I disgree with the statement Fischer would beat Kasparov (though I agree he would have beaten Tal or Alekhine). Computers have increased the level of game considerable, because of that Kasparov is undoubtably the strongest of all time. He makes this point clear in his books as he analyzes the old masters and points out mistakes that would be crucified now due to new theory.

VRIGGS: I have to disagree strongly with your statement that Kasparov is the strongest of all time.
Without a shadow of doubt Fischer was the greatest chess player of his or any other time. The sheer brilliance of the man was astounding. He will never be surpassed IMO.
The fact that computers have increased the level of the game would only have served to make Fischer EVEN better than he was (if that is possible)
Fischers astounding memory coupled with his ability to see not 20 moves ahead but 30 or more was remarkable.
I am a great admirer of Fischer as a chess player, his other activities/views leave me cold.

As I said before, I feel that the opportunity to see which of these two (Fischer v. Kasparov) would win a protracted match (world championship caliber) – that has eluded the current generation – is one of the biggest disappointments of my lifetime. We can rue the lack of confrontations of the past, such as Morphy v. Staunton, and the multitudes of top rank players who never made it to the championship level for whatever reasons, but the biggest ripoff has to be the failure of FIDE and other organizers, not to mention the players themselves, to bring these titans to the table. Politics and personalities aside, it would be something that would advance chess theory and praxis well beyond what computers have done. And the thrill of watching those games would exceed any sports event I can imagine.

Since I can’t reasonably bet on who would win such an event, it’s the inability to see it happen that annoys me. I think both are beyond our abilities to predict, since their mastery of the tactics of the match itself is what brings them to our attention. I think both would do whatever preparation it would take, both in terms of actual study and practice, and also in the psychological area. It would make Reykjavik look like a cakewalk. Electricity!

ZELDAR: You hit the nail right on the head with the word Electricity, a game between Fischer and Kasparov would be just that.
So far as Howard Staunton is concerned IMO the only thing that he really brought to the game was the standardisation of the pieces, from what I have read he does not appear to me as a player of great calibre, bit like Ruy Lopez really…good but not brilliant.
…and finally, since Fischers departure from the scene FIDE have done absolutely zilch to promote the game which is why chess is still in many eyes looked upon as one which old men with long beards play and this really pisses me off. :frowning:

spogga, I agree on the FIDE issue. I can time my interest in chess (of the serious variety) to parallel the heydays of both Fischer and Kasparov. I’m a bit older than Fischer, so I can remember when he was just bursting onto the scene. It was even before I got all that interested in the game, even though I did know the moves early on. It was when he was making it through all the stages of the World Championship (mid to late 60’s) that my interest developed to the point of clubs and tournaments and oodles of books. Fischer did that to many people, not just Americans, and chess “came out of the closet” in terms of its sports appeal.

After all that shit with Karpov, my interest dwindled for a decade or more, until Kasparov started his antics and it looked good again for chess. That revived my interest in playing and studying and I spent five years or better getting back into chess heavily. But the squabbling and pissing that FIDE and the other organizations that Kasparov either started or sponsored got things so screwed up that I can’t tell you who is the current champ or even if there is one!

I always thought chess was more of a sport than a game. I lost at least 10 pounds in one weekend tournament, and I know that the better players are in great physical shape. They have to be. But getting the game promoted to the level where people would crowd around a demo board and spend four hours watching two guys duke it out in slow motion has never been managed to the satisfaction of the powers that be. European audiences maybe, but not the USA. The only times I can think of where it really worked well were during the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match, and the times when Kasparov was playing those IBM toys. But that may have had more to do with my own interest at the time than with a general interest in chess by the lay public.

It may take some other titan of their caliber ever to bring chess to the level of, say, soccer or tennis, but I see those games/sports as sharing some features with chess in terms of the attention required and the pacing. Anyway, FIDE had never had the vision to get it done!

Batman…if he was prepared.

I give you

John Churchill 1st Duke of Marlborough.

This account of the Battle of Blenheim show how he drew his French opponents into committing more of their reserves into a less important part of the battlefield, and this gave him the edge in the main confict zone where it mattered most.

http://www.hfac.uh.edu/gbrown/philosophers/leibniz/BritannicaPages/BlenheimBattle/BlenheimBattle.html

http://www.hfac.uh.edu/gbrown/philosophers/leibniz/BritannicaPages/RamilliesBattle/RamilliesBattle.html

http://www.hfac.uh.edu/gbrown/philosophers/leibniz/BritannicaPages/OudenaardeBattle/OudenaardeBattle.html

French casualties outnumbered allied by 3 to 1 according to some reports.

As for Arthur Wellsley, The Duke of Wellington.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/monarchs_leaders/wellington_01.shtml

He took on Napoleons’ army many times and never lost, he was responsible for defeating the French in Portugal and had it not been for British politics would have certainly cleared Spain completely.
During his campaign in Spain and Portugal he was outnumbered virtually every time, and although he was forced to retreat on occasion, he was never defeated, nor did he lose so much as a single cannon and in the whole series of engagements was completely successful.

They say a good general thinks about tactic and strategy, but a great one thinks about logistics, and this was definately true of Wellington, and was one of the greatest differances between him and Napoleon.

Wellington drew the French onto fortifications that had been prepared in secret, and considering the scale of them, that was one heck of an achievment.
He used a scorched earth policy to deny material support to the invading French who thought their advance was a sign of success, yet this strategy, using the French own mindset against them, is what led directly to their defeat.

His use of the reverse slope, concealment of his strength from the enemy, the way he chose his ground made his defensive offenses the precurser of WWI strategy.

http://www.napoleonguide.com/battle_bussaco.htm

It was no accident that Waterloo was chosen by Wellington, the ground when badly drained is very deceptive, Napoleon was faced with lugging his heavy cannon across ground that was completely unsuitable and uphill.
By forcing Napoleon to fight in such a place shows how Wellington had dictated the battle order to Napoleon.

The result is the now famous delay that allowed the Prussian army to regroup and enter the fray at a crucial time.

Early on in his military career Wellington had made terrible mistakes, such as the criticality of supplies, but he learned, Napoleon never did, in fact his generalship declined, he overreached himself, he won famous battles but lost all the wars.

Look at the odds Wellington faced here

http://www.napoleonguide.com/battle_assaye.htm

ZELDAR: I think we had better make this the last on the chess scene before we get told to sod off with it, Kasparov is the current world champ and chess is recognised as a sport in the UK because cash grants are given to promote the ‘sport’ by our sports council, dunno about the US though.
I once lost 8lbs playing at the Greater Manchester Open, I was drawn to play Nigel Short in round 4 and he kicked my arse good and proper. After that my bottle went completely and I ended up with 3/6 and went home penniless.

Good point about the chess talk, spogga, but somehow chess is about all I know where tactics rise to a level worth discussing. The “real world” tactics others are talking about are out of my league. Machiavelli aside, The Sopranos and The Godfather are about all I know enough about to mention. The doings of such as Tommy Franks and Norman Schwarzkopf are more about applying overwhelming force. For tactics to be impressive to me, you have to have roughly equal strengths involved, with one side using them more wisely or with more impressive results. Either that, or the underdog wins, and I can’t think of good examples. The Alamo and Little Big Horn didn’t actually give much to the underdogs except a page or two in the history books.

One last chess comment: that’s cool about your Short runin. The only players of real class I’ve ever played have been in simuls. I drew Lev Alburt in a simul once. Won some software for it. ChessBase.

Menachem Begin.

Mahatma Gandhi

ZELDAR: Overwhelming force is of little use if you don’t know how to deploy that force, you can bomb and blast for all you are worth but the objective of an overwhelming force is to overwhelm.
The USA found to its cost in Viet-Nam that all the fire power in the world was but a means without an end.
Stormin’ Norman and Tommy Franks knew how to use their forces to the best ability, regrettably the leaders of the VN conflict did not.
Similarly, Hitler had an overwhelming force poised against the UK in 1939…the rest as they say is history.

I’ve been given to understand what goes on outside the board during a match is very important to chess players. I heard Fischer once showed up to an important chess match wearing a full diving suit; flippers, snorkel, mask, the works. Must have blown the other man’s concentration to hell. Can be likened to a tactical first strike perhaps.

  • Rune

Well I don’t know about that Winston (How is O’Brien BTW) but at one game I played in a guy turned up in full clowns regalia.

Seems he was going to a fancy dress party after…he lost his game!

That’s a valid point, although I think it IS fair to say that having overwhelming force makes things less difficult (that’s why you WANT overwhelming force in the first place). I don’t know that history will say Schwarzkopf and Franks did anything remarkable in the two Gulf Wars, since their forces were superior in every respect with the possible disadvantages of weather and terrain. Knowing nothing about tactics, I’d say it’s more like they made good use of their advantages and didn’t do anything special- because they didn’t need to.

Charles XII of Sweden. Classic example of a tactical wunderkind, without even a whiff of the political or strategic sense needed to back it. Charles XII was the hare to Peter the Great’s tortoise.

  • Tamerlane

Oh, greatest ever?

No, Charles XII was not that. But he was pretty darn good and the best example I can think of, of a brilliant tactician lacking in overall strategic ability.

  • Tamerlane