Leonardo Mayer: "Federer is a genius, Djokovic a robot, Nadal a gladiator"
- Thread starter vanioMan
- Start date
stephenbbb
Rookie
the biggest servbot of all time is Fed. the only difference between him and Raonic, Isner is that he is more successful by serving more roboticly consistent. Not harder serves but more robotic.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Totally agree, love the ruthlessly efficient guys who maximize everything and get rid of extemporaneous nonsense. Simple, basic, and straightforward. Liked Lendl too for that reason, although his persona was not as cool as Novaks imo. Much more Ivan Drago like lol.
Capablanca is my favorite chess player.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Capablanca was too lazy to be my favourite. He was a brilliant and efficient natural but he lacked a sort of drive to truly seek perfection. I think Fischer really tried for it but he was a nutter.
Capablanca lacked a curiosity for the game that captured the likes of Botvinnik, Fischer and Kasparov. Maybe it was too easy for Capa, as he was such an effortless player - of course all those top level players weren't truly effortless but I mean by comparison, like Federer to Nadal.
Also, sometimes the tweener is the more efficient choice.
Capablanca lacked a curiosity for the game that captured the likes of Botvinnik, Fischer and Kasparov. Maybe it was too easy for Capa, as he was such an effortless player - of course all those top level players weren't truly effortless but I mean by comparison, like Federer to Nadal.
Also, sometimes the tweener is the more efficient choice.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Korchnoi was the ultimate toiler. Oh, and he doesn't seem to like Carlsen one bit.
http://whychess.com/node/1724
"You think he has an effect on his opponents?
Probably. I also told Ivanchuk: “I envy two people, you and Kasparov. I envy you in a good sense: because you managed to introduce so much beauty into chess. And I don’t envy Magnus Carlsen in that good sense: a man who doesn’t work on chess but still achieves huge success, beating everyone he wants with one hand tied behind his back!” Ivanchuk replied that he can see Magnus Carlsen’s thoughts at work, that it’s no accident that he comes up with such strange moves. In general, our opinions differed. Despite that I’ve still got the impression that Ivanchuk didn’t understand my idea that I envy him in a good sense, while I envy Magnus Carlsen in a bad sense! (laughs) That’s what I wanted to say, and you can write that! [...]"
#KingOfOffTopicRamblings
http://whychess.com/node/1724
"You think he has an effect on his opponents?
Probably. I also told Ivanchuk: “I envy two people, you and Kasparov. I envy you in a good sense: because you managed to introduce so much beauty into chess. And I don’t envy Magnus Carlsen in that good sense: a man who doesn’t work on chess but still achieves huge success, beating everyone he wants with one hand tied behind his back!” Ivanchuk replied that he can see Magnus Carlsen’s thoughts at work, that it’s no accident that he comes up with such strange moves. In general, our opinions differed. Despite that I’ve still got the impression that Ivanchuk didn’t understand my idea that I envy him in a good sense, while I envy Magnus Carlsen in a bad sense! (laughs) That’s what I wanted to say, and you can write that! [...]"
#KingOfOffTopicRamblings
O
OhYes
Guest
I would like to see this kind photos of Federer. But we know Federer's physicality more less. He is not like Mc Enroe, but he isn't Djokovic either.
I am amazed by Novak's legs. No wonder he is moving so well.
O
OhYes
Guest
Since we talk about chess now, I will mention just 2 names: Alexander Alekhine and Mikhail Tal. 
Bobby Fischer might be the one, everybody are saying he had brilliance nobody ever will. And too bad we couldn't see Morphy hand in hand with Fischer in their cold war fights against Soviets. He was hell of a player too.
Bobby Fischer might be the one, everybody are saying he had brilliance nobody ever will. And too bad we couldn't see Morphy hand in hand with Fischer in their cold war fights against Soviets. He was hell of a player too.
roger presley
Hall of Fame
I would like to see these kind of photos from Pennetta,Wozniacki,Ivanovic and I'm amazed by Sharapova legs. This legs and torso are not for me,but I'm glad that they impress somebody except Jelena Djokovic.I would like to see this kind photos of Federer. But we know Federer's physicality more less. He is not like Mc Enroe, but he isn't Djokovic either.
I am amazed by Novak's legs. No wonder he is moving so well.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Enough of the photo-shopped images of Novak at the beach/pool. Here are a couple of true images:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
But isn't perfection in tennis hitting the best shot at the right time? So if the right shot to maximize you chances of winning the point is flamboyance and aggressive the player should try to hit that shot. I've seen players pass up opportunities to hit a winning volley off an easy floater because they are afraid to move in. That's not perfection. That's just avoiding a shot because the player is afraid. Of course it depends on the skill level of the opponent. For prime Nadal a forehand down the line is child's play. Other players would find it much harder.
Did someone once say in tennis that you have to learn to hit the same boring winner?
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Haha, epic crankery from Korchnoi though.
I think I can understand what he's getting at with Carlsen, but still:
"expressed the view that Magnus Carlsen achieves his success due to “hypnotic abilities”.
"It’s something strange, something to do with the psyche, because such play has nothing to do with pure chess."
"But after all Carlsen is now at the very top. He’s first on the rating list.
It’s amazing! I can’t accept that’s correct."
"he essentially stands for an amateur rather than a professional approach. He’s an amateur and he’s nailing the professionals!"
Those grapes do seem tasty
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Kinda like it but I think Djokovic suffocates and swamps his opponents so perhaps I see him as the Water and a Tsunami.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Haha, epic crankery from Korchnoi though.
I think I can understand what he's getting at with Carlsen, but still:
"expressed the view that Magnus Carlsen achieves his success due to “hypnotic abilities”.
"It’s something strange, something to do with the psyche, because such play has nothing to do with pure chess."
"But after all Carlsen is now at the very top. He’s first on the rating list.
It’s amazing! I can’t accept that’s correct."
"he essentially stands for an amateur rather than a professional approach. He’s an amateur and he’s nailing the professionals!"
Those grapes do seem tasty
A true MEGALOL quote, if I ever saw one.
uscwang
Hall of Fame
Yep.
V
VexlanderPrime
Guest
donquijote
G.O.A.T.
This proves he is indeed a robot, erm well at least a sheep with that kinda necklace.Best-ever photo of Nole below-- conclusively proves he's real and not a robot:
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Actually Federer can do on a less consistent basis than Sharapova, Serena and even Roddick
stringertom
Bionic Poster
These are pseudonyms for Ultron, no?
stringertom
Bionic Poster
His tape of Simon vs Monfils wore out???
marc45
G.O.A.T.
it changes just a little, was actually long for him at the U.S. Open, seriously....3D printing?
Nobody disputed that. He said that he didn't like it when players hit a tweener when a regular groundstroke would be more efficient. Which I totally agree with.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
We're getting there
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Mayer offering wisdom.
O
OhYes
Guest
In case anyone feels insecure - just post robot pictures.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
That's my problem with Capablanca also. A genius no doubt but his talent was so great that he really didn't have to study much. He thought the game was played out and it wasn't by a long shot. Botvinnik did say in the 1980s I believe that if Capa had six months to learn current theory that he would have been number one. Even Botvinnik thought Capablanca was a genius. Still I marvel at Capablanca's games even now. I also like Karpov, Fischer, Petrosian and Kasparov. Never cared much for Lasker.
Yes sometimes the tweener is the choice but I'm talking about the many times it's used and it isn't the best choice.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Since you appear to have a penchant for provocative poolside pics, here's one for you:
I would like to see this kind photos of Alekhine and Tal.
Last edited:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Imagine Bobby Fischer as a tennis player. He had the physique for it and was supposedly athletic. McEnroe would be in awe of his meltdowns.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Nobody disputed that.
stringertom
Bionic Poster
Sampras played chess? In, before 60's Weed, calling him undefeated GOAT because he doesn't "tip".
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
LOL.
O
OhYes
Guest
Since you appear to have a penchant for provocative poolside pics, here's one for you:
I would like to see this kind photos of Alekhine and Tal.
What an amazing picture ! I never imagined him like this
All that stayed in my memory is long skinny face and one with a beard when he was older.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Fischer wasn't always a nutter; he became one later in life
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
But he became one early enough to basically leave chess in the middle of his peak out of crippling paranoia. It just escalated later.. to ridiculous levels as far as sports/game icons go.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
A famous Hollywood actor known for movies such as Titanic, Inception, Blood Diamond, The Great Gatsby, etc.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I would say both. I enjoyed much of very deep slow maneuvering. It seemed boring to some but I often thought it was genius. And yet this same man could pull out the most brilliant tactical games like his game against Spassky in the tenth game of the 1966 World Championship.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1106725
Lasker, while he was a great player just didn't appeal to me as much as Capablanca. Many of his games just seemed crude to me. Yes I enjoyed his games like the famous game he played against Pillsbury at Hastings 1895 in which his rook seemed en prise for a good portion of the game.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1109097
None of this applies to Carlsen.
Actually I heard Lendl was an excellent chessplayer but I don't know if he was rated. I guess in recent times the player who was excellent in strategy and tactics who seemed to play chess on the court would be Mats Wilander. I supposed Tilden and Kramer in the past.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I know Spassky played tennis. I believe Fischer did play tennis.
There was actually a poster who got angry at me because I dared compare his favorite to Capa instead of Fischer because he thought I thought Fischer was the GOAT of chess. The truth was that either of them in my mind could be as well as Karpov or Kasparov. Heck Carlsen could be better than them all but I'm not as familiar with his games as the others.
The analogy was that his player's smooth style and efficiency was similar to Capablanca's. Actually Capablanca was far better as a chess player than his favorite was as a tennis player.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Interesting stuff. Lasker was indeed crude, but an ideas man. He was a radical player in many ways.
Last questions for now then. What are your thoughts on Carlsen, how he plays, his strengths and weaknesses and what you like and dislike about his play (and him if you wish)?
Yes, I believe Fischer did play tennis. BTW, Carlsen also plays tennis.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
In the past decade I haven't studied the great players as much as I used to. I recently brought a book on Carlsen so I will tell you when I get to play over his games. I'm fairly certain I'll like his game.
We always discuss technology in tennis but chess also has great advantages now in the computer programs we have today to analyze games. It's amazing to me now that even World Champions wouldn't stand a chance against the top programs. Not too long ago I knew a lot of people who could defeat the top chess programs but that's no longer true.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
So Nathaniel, who is the player in tennis whose style most resembles a chess player? And who are your favorite chess players? I also enjoy Karpov, Alekhine, Bronstein.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
The cerebral and positional players, so guys like Wilander and Djokovic, and the players with clear tactical repertoires, so Federer, Tilden, Edberg. It's a tricky question really, I mean all of the top legends in tennis really had a deep mind for the game of tennis and employ a lot of strategy and tactics for better or worse. Djokovic is a master of incremental pressure and control through positional means and I liken him to a mix of Carlsen and Petrosian, so I think he's quite chess-like.
I followed Kasparov quite closely and also liked Judit Polgar, and since then Carlsen and Aronian. From older times, the scientific types such as Korchnoi and Botvinnik (and currently Caruana) and the ideas people such as Lasker and Alekhine. For a sort of "mysticism" in chess, Capablanca and Carlsen. Also Keres.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 740774
Guest
that quote make me feel warm inside
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
He won't dare speak of The Stanimal AKA the Ultron smasher.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
I like this thought, though I don't agree with your metaphors/analogies.
I would put it as follows:
Playing Nadal is like climbing up a high mountain without sophisticated equipment. You're always on the edge and the air gets thinner the higher you get, making the slightest slip up fatal and increasingly likely the higher up you get.
Djokovic is like a flood. He slowly batters at your defences and finally punctures holes throughout them, suffocating you from all sides.
Federer is like a hurricane. He comes at you hard from the front and rips your defences apart, leaving you devastated if you do not layst until the eye of the storm.
This all refers to them at their best.
Similar threads
