Quote:You SHOULD include Fischer on that list, since he's the only World Champion never to have won a single tournament or even a single game of chess.
Yes, you're right!
And another thing, what definition of weakest is it? Compared to their contemporaries? Or compared to modern standard?
And maybe we should start with a vote on *who should* be on the list before voting?
Lasker
Euwe
Fischer
Kramnik
are the only ones that now look obvious to me, but I'm probably the only one with that exact line up...
Quote:I voted Smyslov though I was thinking to vote Spassky, but he had the title 2 years longer. Tal will I think never be voted in such a competition, though he may very well be the best candidate, but his style kind of forbids it to vote him as weak.
Well, they all lost to magnificent players, and won when their titles against magnificent players, so maybe the number of years holding a title is not the best way to separate the weakest. After all, Lasker held it the longest, but avoided his strongest challengers...