Taljechin,

That's a great story about Spassky and Kasparov.  I have heard something like that before, but I have no idea if it's true. 

Woofwoof, you made some very interesting comments.

Regarding Tigran Petrosian:  He was the best blitz player in the Soviet Union yes, even better than my favorite player of the time, Mikhail Tal. Petrosian grew up during WWII and saw his homeland destroyed.  He was the consummate fighter, but hated losing more than he loved winning.  He believed that the World Champion was little more than the first among equals, and treated his opponents with perhaps too much respect.  This was definitely not weakness.

Regarding Smyslov:  I hadn't heard the story about his crisis of faith, but that he was able to play such amazing chess and be (a rarity among chessplayers) a well-rounded person even after losing the championship speaks volumes for his strength of character.  In fact, any Soviet player who survived both "The Great Patriotic War" and Stalin and Khruschev and Brezhnev is not weak in my book.

Tal's illnesses are legendary, but so are his performances despite his illness.  If strength can be said to be overcoming adversity, then Tal is one of the strongest players of all time.

Lasker was a great fighter when he was at the chess board, and his match against Capablanca should never have happened.  But if you want to see how strong he was, you need look no farther than the St. Petersburg tournament when by all rights he should already have retired.

If you are looking for moral cowardice, Alekhin (whose chess remains one of my favorites) takes the title.  I don't begrudge him not facing Capablanca in a rematch (which I think he would have won).  I do hold his pro-fascist statements against him.  As a world champion chess player and a first-rate thinker, for him to claim ignorance of what the NAZIs were is sickening.

Spassky's lack of fighting spirit is an interesting topic.  He was notorious for taking important losses badly.  Early in his career, he lost a crucial game to Tal (or was it Bronstein?  I don't remember now) that he was winning and took nearly a decade to recover his form.

Petrosian, Lasker, Taimanov and Spassky all lost badly to Fischer and never fully recovered.  Perhaps it was time to pass on the generational torch, or perhaps Fischer was so powerful that he demolished his opponents' spirits.  If you believe the latter (and Taimanov's Selected Games supports that thesis), then perhaps Spassky can be forgiven for losing his taste for the kill.  I dunno.

I still feel compelled to stick up for poor old Tigran.  He drew a lot of games, but he won more than his fair share as well.  Keep in mind that he was part of that generation of Soviet players who played a lot of "grandmaster draws" with his compatriots in order to save energy for the other opponents, so the statistics might be a little misleading.  While it's true that Petrosian was more comfortable building an impenetrable position to sacrificing material for the initiative, it is telling that his approach--effectively waiting for his opponent to develop a weakness--was highly effective.  It's a sign of an extraorinarily talented player that he could play quietly while not succumbing to passivity.  I'd question whether Petrosian really played not to lose, but the bigger point is that his style was highly effective and not a sign of weakness...

Some puzzling definitions, here.  Tal and Fischer were definitely victims of poor health.  Calling Smyslov spiritually weak seems a bit, well, weak.  He remains one of the greatest practitioners of the endgame of all-time and was still playing top level chess more than thirty years after being dethroned.  For what it's worth, Karpov traditionally showed signs of weakness in the later stages of matches against Korchnoi and Kasparov--perhaps signs of physical strain or spiritual resolve (or just over-confidence)--but I would never label him a weak player or world champion.  And I'm not sure it's terribly fair to call a world champion not very positive.  Petrosian held the chess crown (and defended it!) with a style that ultimately has been successful for Karpov and Kramnik.  Prophylaxis may not be the most exciting kind of chess, but it sure as heck isn't weak.  And to say that Spassky had no fighting spirit?  Hmm...

"If memory serves, and it usually doesn't, Euwe beat a drunk Alekhine the first time round and lost to a sober Alekhine in the rematch"
This is an urban chess legend, so your memory works as bad as ever.

I dunno about yall, but describing and World Champion as 'weakest' is beginning to give me the Willies.

This thread is just a bit too creepy for me, I feel like its offensive to Caissa or something.

Topscotch

Postscript: If memory serves, and it usually doesn't, Euwe beat a drunk Alekhine the first time round and lost to a sober Alekhine in the rematch. So beating the best, is a somewhat relative thing methinks.

Willempie,

Let's make a trade, the Dutch can have Bobby Fischer and the US can claim the legacy of Max Euwe! 8)  That way, you Dutch can have a neo-NAZI and we can have a great gentleman.  Oh of course, you would get the better chess player.    Oops.

Wasn't euwe Dutch?

Thanks

Topsy Turvey