can we say in terms of tactical mastery he might of been above Bobby?
in terms of America..where will Emory Tate
You got to be joking.
i don't think its ridicolous to say that he had at least a better tactical mastery than bobby
You got to be joking.
i don't think its ridicolous to say that he had at least a better tactical mastery than bobby
Where did you get that from? Tate is a player who could not even make it to GM his whole life. Fischer is one of the best to ever played the game, only a fan boy would put the two in the same sentence.
I think very wek players, like chessmaster54458, are simply not capable of understanding the difference between masters, IMs, CMs, and the handfull of immortals. If you've ever had a chance to analyze with a top GM, or hear them analyze together, you woud realize how incredibly quick and accurate they are tactically.
I once spoke to an IM who had lost a game to Wang Hao (#34 in the wolds). He told me "I consider myself a good tactician--and among IMs I am good. But he analyzes so quickly I could hardly follow him! I had to ask him to go back and go over the line a little more slowly."
Emory Tate was an enterprising player, who always tried to attack and relied on tactics. He lost to far more GMs than he beat, because they were stronger than he was tactically.
Exactly.

I'm familiar with this game by Tate because Irina Krush went over it in the video she made as a teenager. He played the Czech Benoni as if he did not understand it and yet created some interesting complications.
Krush's comment are entertaining.

@Ziryab Don't know how you can judge his skill level from one game really... why even bring it up. He's no fischer, but doesn't mean he's not a colossal talent and made contributions to chess.
Emory Tate was my Us chess coach (I know, I'm lucky).
Bobby FIcher is better than him in everything except anything but chess.

They were never even in the same ballpark, most non-US guys here don't even know who are you talking about when you mention Emory Tate. So (very politely) when you ask how they compare... they just don't.
Emory Tate was a fine player, who played a lot of very interesting games--both his wins and his losses. It's no insult to say that he wasn't an all-time great. In fact, none of us would be pointing out Tate's weaknesses if ignorant peope didn't make idiotic claims like he was a better tactician than Fischer.
There are some very fine players who aren't world class, but make a real contribution and add a lot of color and interest to our game. Why don't we just appreciate them for what they are, instead of making ridiculous claims on their behalf?
Excellent post.

In terms of Tactical Skills, he was stronger than I will ever be.
In terms of people skills, he was light years worse than Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory.
2 things that need to be addressed
1. Bobby Fischer came from a position of privlege....Emory was a black man in America, we don't know the racism was that might of prevented him from being a GM. maybe he could of made it to Bobby's level..who knows (this isn't to discredit Bobby by no means)
2. the whole "Super GM" thing is really a myth...which is why they only play exclusive tournaments with each other
2 things that need to be addressed
1. Bobby Fischer came from a position of privlege....Emory was a black man in America, we don't know the racism was that might of prevented him from being a GM. maybe he could of made it to Bobby's level..who knows (this isn't to discredit Bobby by no means)
2. the whole "Super GM" thing is really a myth...which is why they only play exclusive tournaments with each other
We are not talking about what could be. I am sure he faced racism growing up. For comparison, he did not achieve GM title while Ashley did, so it is not impossible for African Americans to do that.
how does Emory Tate's legacy, chess skills compare to Bobby Fischer in American history