This topic has quieted down a bit, look for a new topic soon!

"Steinitz invented the term "world champion" and claimed he was it."
Disputable. Staunton considered himself as best of the world long before. To prove this, he organised London 1851. This event was organised similar to the 20th century Candidate Matches. With Bird, Staunton, Anderssen, Löwenthal, Kieseritzky and Szén participating, there are hardly objections to declare the winner world champion.
Anderssen hardly played less games than Fischer.
I have removed Smyslov from my list in my previous post.

Some random thoughts:

It's unfair to compare the number of games won against other world champions.  Steinitz didn't have too many world champions to play against, neither did Lasker, Capablanca, or even Alekhine.  The 1950s and 60s saw the most world champions, and therefore gave the greatest opportunity for strong players to beat up on former world champs in the 1960s and 1970s.  

For the record, Smyslov played in four, not two world championships, including 1948.

One of the hardest things to accomplish was to win the candidates cycle twice during the heyday of FIDE (1948-81), yet Spassky and Smyslov did this twice each!  Tigran Petrosian may not have won as many games as others, but he also lost fewer.  (Kramnik also has a very low loss percentage.)  

Another way to look at world champions (that isn't quite fair) is to compare the number of times they successfully defended their title.  Botvinnik has the dubious distinction of having never won a World Championship match as World Champion.  He also holds the record, like Muhammed Ali in boxing, for the most comebacks (he never lost a return match).  Of course, he had the "Botvinnik rule" to help him.  

Capablanca, Tal,  Karpov and Kasparov all were ranked Number 1 in the world in rating (or in Capa's case performance) after they had lost the title.  Smyslov was so great that in 1983 he played in the semi-finals for the world championship against Kasparov, 30 years after his great victory at Zurich.

It's also unfair to say that one person held the title for only one year and another held it for three years if they both lost on the very first defense.  In fact, as Tal said immediately after winning the title, It's great to win, but the elections come around too soon.

Oh yeah,  Steinitz invented the term "world champion" and claimed he was it.  So he was the first official world champ, and Kasparov was "lucky" 13.  There have been fourteen official world champions (not including FIDE KO). 

Only three world champions won the title without defeating the former world champion in a match:  Steinitz, Botvinnik, and Karpov.

Some players who were clearly the best of their era include:  Philidor, Alexander McDonnell and Louis de Labourdonnais, Howard Staunton, Paul Morphy, and Adolph Anderssen.  However, our records of their performance are so scanty that no reasonable argument could be formed as to how good they really were.  Very few of their games remain, and even fewer were played in anything like tournament conditions.

Anyway these are just some random thoughts.

LT, I think you might be confusing "weak" with "unpopular."

Just a side thought, how many people have broken 2800?  OK, Kasparov, of course, but wasn't there someone else?  The name eludes me...starts with a "K" maybe?  Oh, well, can't remember.  Probably just my imagination...  Guess it was just Kasparov.

OK, enough sarcasm.  I think a discussion on current popularity would muddle the debate, since I think this is more of a historical discussion.  If you want you can start a separate on "Why Kramnik sux!", but I rather you didn't. 

I hope Kramnik comes back in form.  Maybe the heavy use of computers is hindering his creativity and spontaniety?

One way to decide this, is looking at WCh being able to beat former, current or future (other) WCh's as BLACK in regular games. Here is the list:
Euwe: 1
Kramnik: 1
Steinitz: 1 or 2 (depending on Anderssen being WCh).
Alekhine: 2
Karpov: 2

Smyslov_Fan considered Spassky the 2nd weakest WCh. But he holds the record, having beaten Smyslov (ouch, that hurts), Tal, Petrosjan, Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov having Black.

Kortsjnoj, Larsen and Geller hold the record for non-WCh's: they all have beaten 7 WCh having Black.
Before WWII it was my beloved Spielmann, who managed to beat Alekhine in Karlsbad 1923, Capablanca in Bad Kissingen 1928 and Euwe 2 times having Black.

Like all other arguments this probably makes absolutely no sense.

Another meaningless way to look at this question then: which WCh's played the fewest WCh-matches?
Fischer: 1
Capablanca: 2
Tal: 2
Kramnik: 2
Euwe: 3 (1948 tournament included)
Spassky: 3 (lost 1966 match).
Petrosjan: 3

If possible, my vote would have gone to Ruy Lopez.

BTW: what do you mean with OFFICIAL WCh? The first one recognized by FIDE was Botvinnik!
There are some arguments to consider Anderssen, Morphy and even Staunton having been WCh too.

Well as early as 1921 he drew a match against Maroczy and still being a force to be reckoned with in 1953 doesnt make him look weaker than the persons I mentioned. He also beat Alekhine at what probably was his peak, after all the year before Bogoljubow got creamed (again).

BtW this is what Alekhine wrote: “Does the general public, do even our friends the critics realize that Euwe virtually never made an unsound combination? He may, of course, occasionally fail to take account … of an opponent’s combination, but when he has the initiative in a tactical operation his calculation is … impeccable.”

PS Kasparov should be in the list too, after all Steinitz and the others never lost to a machine

I voted for Max Euwe, despite Willempie's support for his compatriot.

Max Euwe was a great chess player, sportsman, gentleman, and the last amateur to be World Champion.  He beat Alekhin three successive games with the same opening (yes, from the White side and Black side)!  I don't completely believe in the drunk Alekhin myth.  Alekhin himself explained that he didn't start drinking heavily until the end of the match.  He claimed to have underestimated Euwe.  Euwe was still formidable in the early rounds of the great Zurich Candidates' Tournament of 1953, and played well in his homeland in 1946. 

However, I don't see any way that he could have won a match against any of the very best players after WWII.  He finished dead last in the World Championship match of 1948 only two years after Groningen (ten points behind the winner, Botvinnik, and 6.5 points behind Reshevsky who finished second from last).

My own list of weakest players on the list would go something like this:

1. Euwe
2. Spassky
3. Petrosian
4. Tal
5. Steinitz

I know Smyslov is a candidate, but as you can tell, I'm a fan!

Quote:

Dont exactly agree on Lasker, but you have a point.
My choice was based on both Spassky and Smyslov needing 2 attempts and then losing it immediately afterwards. All the others in the list made it the first time, some of them against the absolute best of their time.