how good is Emory Tate

Agreed

chessmicky wrote:

Just for fun, I looked at Tate's record on Chessgames.com against all the players who had won or tied for first in the U.S. Championship between 1990 asn 2002. There were 19 games and Tate's record was 2 wins 15 losses and 2 draws. Or 3 - 16.

Emory Tate is a very good player with an attractive attacking style. He could wipe the floor with me, and with most of us here. But I think the average player doesn't really comprehend how tremendousl strong a grandmaster really is and how huge the gap is.

If you're an IM, your good. If people are wondering how you'd do against the world's number 1 or a previous number 1, you're good. Better to ask how he would fair against the average FIDE tounament player ... he would destroy them. It's easy to pick a favorite player and wonder how they would do against whoever. It's a lot more difficult to get to their rating on your own...

What a load of crap from "ThrillerFan", probably based on pure envy or jealousy. Just because Emory knows better than you does not mean he is not good to analyzye with. He was known for taking time to look over poeples games even if they were not at his level which he did not need to do. He made analyzing exciting for everyone who watched (errrr....other than you). And now he's dead! Shame on you for saying throw a party when he's gone for good??!!! Who are you and who says something like that??!!! You are right about one thing; they call it analysis. The idea is to show what will work. He may not have time to go through every move that does NOT work but kids loved to analyze with him as most adults. And to say he had the IQ of a dead pigeon? Odd thing to say about one of the world's best tacticians and chess players. How could he be dumb if he corrects you with the right move? If you are going to insult, at least make it accurate. Something about him obviously bothered you but none of your comments warrant bad wishes on someone or explain your disguist. I sure hope his kickboxing son doesn't see your comment! And sorry, he did not lose every game he played How was your record against him ? I'm guesing you never even got to play him because he was out of your league? And what titles do you have to even speak on the matter to critique his analysis style to begin with? Big crowds asking you for your help?  Notice you are the only one with the negative comments on him also....I can't count how many times I heard people comment how much more fun tournaments are when Emory was there. Fun! That means people enjoyed him being there. And you....whoever you are.....yeah you do not seem fun. At all. Good luck learning. Focusing on bad moves you can't get god players to entertain probaby won't do it. It sounds like you are mad because he played beyond your abailities, people liked having him at tournaments, and he got publicity. As he should have. 

I also find it interesting Tate has the respect of GMs and everyone I know of he has played or even see his name on the wall chart beside their own. But lower ratyed players think they can access his skill level when in actuality they are not at a level hgh enough to even detemine such a thing. As one person said, anything can happen in a game. I saw him beat Frritz plenty of times. That says enough to me. Between Fritz and 
Kasparov, my $ goeas to Fritz. So one in a million for Tate vs Kasparov is laughable. As laughable as a computer offering a human a draw in a position with plenty of play..... 

Throwing a party, Thriller? Idiot.

Stuart Rachels, former U.S. Champion: "Tate was a lunatic, a creative genius, a 2400 with more talent than a hundred GMs or a single [Kamran] Shirazi. Underneath he was disarmingly sweet, even timid."

I believe I have close to even record against tate on icc in 5-min pool, so he could not be that strong.

whizpopper wrote:

I also find it interesting Tate has the respect of GMs and everyone I know of he has played or even see his name on the wall chart beside their own. But lower ratyed players think they can access his skill level when in actuality they are not at a level hgh enough to even detemine such a thing. As one person said, anything can happen in a game. I saw him beat Frritz plenty of times. That says enough to me. Between Fritz and Kasparov, my $ goeas to Fritz. So one in a million for Tate vs Kasparov is laughable. As laughable as a computer offering a human a draw in a position with plenty of play..... 

Got any recordings of this claim of him beating fritz ?

I'll scan my old harddrives, it was some years ago

Emory was a great friend who helped me tremendously w/ chess . He was a great drinking buddy and life-saving snake handler as well. I will miss him always and quote him when I can.

"What about this move?"    "No Time!"

To "chessmater102": I do have them but why share with you while I am grieving and Emory might not have wanted that. Too bad I can't ask him. If you asked nicely like "can I see those games" instead of challenging it as a claim, MAYBE I would. See Yargo's comments. He saw the the same thing and not always at the same time I saw it. Yargo was one of Emory's closest friends.....we both knew him well. I spoke to Emory a few days ago and just got a long letter from him. If you prefer to believe Emory never beat Fritz and there is a random group of people just makng up nonsense, fine. But there are quite a few of us here in NC who saw this besides Yargo and I. If you think Emory Tate was not capable at all in any given game to beat Fritz it just shows you have no idea of his skill level. Emory meant a lot more to me than winning some games against Fritz. It was just a point to his talent. If I do reveal the games, it is because Emory himself chose to save them and he is not here to defend himself. I'll think on it..... maybe Yargo will be a little nicer....your tone did not come across well to me, especially within hours of his death. And yes Emory really saved my friend's life by removing a 14 foot python from his neck when my friend's face was blue. Sorry don't have that on tape. Call that a claim too if you like. More glad that friend is still alive, unlike Emory. And my friend is alive because of Emory. So the simple answer is yes, I have recordings of the games. I see that they are for me now, not you and the rest of the world.

WAS I guess as he is not here anymore. I would say he beat Fritz 1 out of 10 or 1 out of 20, certainly not most games. But the ones I remember best are when we he was training me on the Caro-Kann and those gamnes were saved for me, not his ego (I mean we all know that was in place never said the man was perfect but his ego served him well I would say). Quite helphul...I'm far from great but it helped me soar from 1400 to over 1800 in USCF real quick. So I will keep those to myself as I am debating playing in tournaments again. I have not played in tournaments in well over 10 years myself. It is a past time for me at this point. I just got back on this site recently and hardly play. But I could not help but reply to someone speaking of marveling in Emory's death (ThrillerFan, not ChessMaster102). I did not mean to sound so bitter to ChessMaster102....not a good time for me. 

its ok, I understand your grieveing and ill leave it alone.

He was considered to be a stronger tactician than Magnus

Whats his username

@TopGdaddyngl