While we are still on Euwe, there a nice write up on him for thoseinterested.:
http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/kings/euwe.php

The webpage also features other interesting writeups and certain key games of the other champs as well.

Quote:

Check the scores of the Russkies vs Botwinnik and you'll see my point.

MNb said,

Quote:


I don't really get your point, MNb, except to bring Spielmann into the conversation again.

To boot Euwe only had a minus one (iirc could be 2) score against Alekhine. That is including the disaster of 1937.
Smyslov doesnt have such a record against Botwinnik and neither does Tal. In fact all russians except Botwinnik and Tal have a negative score against Fischer and Tal's positive score is only due to one tournament which led to his Wch.
Personally I think that Tal escapes in all these types of polls because of his style. Smyslov gets away because of his low profile. Petrosjan gets away because he is seen as indefeatable (just as Capa). Spassky is less lucky due to his defeat against Fischer and Euwe is even more unlucky since he played against someone who was/is considered the best ever.

Its rather easy to vote Euwe the weakest world-champion.
But remember that before 1946 he held a full time job.  The week after he won the world-championship he was back at his school as a math-teacher. Actually he has been world-champion twice. He also won the amateur-world-championship back somewhere in 192?.

In 1953 when he was no longer a young man he participated in the famous Zurich Tournament. In the first halve of this (30  round!) tournament he scored 7.5 /14 and won the brilliance-price twice. Replay his games against Geller and Najdorf and you will doubt if he really was so weak. More than that between 1930 and 1946 Botwinnik never won a single game against him.
Unfortunately the picture we have of him
is painted by Aljechins comments (who was not above
praising himself and demeaning his opponents) and by a rather repeated use in chess literature of his famous blunders and misadventures. His loss against Fischer for instance is widely quoted. But he played him 3 times and scored 1.5-1.5!.

In his book Fischer and his predecessors he mentions the five greatest world champions:
Lasker, Capablanca, Aljechin, Botwinnik and Fischer.
He claimed no place in chess history for himself.

I close with a quote from Bronstein:
"Euwe however is not easily flustered. Remember that in his lifetime he played more than seventy games with
Aljechin; the most feared attacking player of our time".

Don't forget Portisch. In the K-K 1990 match he was second of Karpov. When telephoning with arbiter Gijssen Portisch had to identify himself by singing in Hungarian.

Interesting bit of trivia found on the net: Smyslov is also singer. . Apparently he made a few recordings & his songs can still be heard on Russian radio !

So that makes 2 chess players with musical inclinations. The other being Taimanov who is also an accomplished pianist.

Hollandais, c'est une sauce, non?  Ce n'est pas de pays des champions du monde!  

I have voted for Euwe.

Capablanca is missing, with Fischer, Kasparov and Kramnik !

"So even during Karpov & Kasparov matches, me mate supported Kaspy cos he saw it as a match against communism."
I am sorry, but this is typical USA cold war nonsense. During the Reagan government many Americans and Europeans needed a dissident chess hero and Kasparov was the obvious choice, non regarding the facts.
Facts are: as a child Kasparov was guided by Botvinnik, a very convinced communist. Later Kasparov was protected by Aleev, who was an important party apparatsjik in Azerbeidzjan from 1980 until 1991 and afterwards became president of the new republic.
If you need a rebel against Sovjet communism, than Spassky is the best choice. He refused to sign the party petition against Kortsjnoj after his departure to the west. Even a better choice is Boris Guljko with three hunger strikes in the early 80's. What did the hypocrite Kasparov ever do to help him? Exactly, nothing except having a big mouth.

Ok! Thanks very much TJ & Smyslov-Fan. I never knew Garry was a commie before this. That he was forced to become one is even more unique i must say 

Hmmm..... regarding Karpov...... He could've been forced too, TJ! Good argument there!  But assuming that  the newspapers were correct..... Then (jus maybe) he wasnt mentioned in that article u mentioned cos karpov joined willingly. I do vaguely recall that he was quite an  active member. Then again.... i (or rather the papers) could be wrong.

Smyslov-fan,

Im, afraid I cant provide websites to prove the validity over what ive written about karpov & kaspy. All that i've written came from what i remembered from the newspapers eons & eons ago!  It was the papers which said that karpov was a member of the communist party. I remembered it well cos it was such a unique piece of info - world chess champ + communist party member!

Anyway, if the current sources say otherwise, i back down. . Perhaps even papers can make mistakes too i suppose.

Quote:


It's the other way round. Karpov was the member of the Communist Party, Kasparov was a 'rebel'. I remember this very clearly cos one of my mates hated Karpov for this very reason. So even during Karpov & Kasparov matches, me mate supported Kaspy cos he saw it as a match against communism. There was animosity betn the two because of their respective political leanings. Now with Kaspy out of chess...... he formed his own political party against Putin. So it can clearly be seen that Kaspy was rebel from the very beginning!

History is interesting.  I've got nothing against history.  I just wanted to say something about the upsdide-down idea of debating which one of a group of very strong players was the "weakest".  The arguments concerning "who was a nazi" and if Keres was forced to let Botvinnik win and stuff like that, well, go ahead and figure it out.  I'm not interested enough now in that stuff to comment.  Doesn't mean it's not interesting.   

I'll bypass the historical discussion, and slightly get back to the topic. 

These guys were all very strong players (some still are).  How else could they have got to the top?  For patzers like us (yes, including me) to debate which of them was the "weakest" seems silly.  That's like saying a 500 pound grizzly bear is "weaker" than a 600 pound grizzly, who is "weaker" than a 700 pound grizzly, etc.  They will all kill you quite easily.   

Imagine going to a boxing discussion site, if one exists, and finding boxing fans arguing about which heavyweight champ was "the weakest."  Was Jack Dempsey "weaker" than Rocky Marciano?  Was Larry Holmes "weaker" than Floyd Patterson?

Apparently there's a little known clause in FIDE's rejection of the Botvinnik Rule:  Botvinnik himself was grandfathered in.  That means, he still had the right to challenge Petrosian in a rematch if he wanted to.  He declined (and this time he was right to because Petrosian woulda beaten the old champion in '64 too!).  Botvinnik cited health reasons for not challenging again, and when you consider how old he was, he probably was telling the truth!

Botvinnik retired because FIDE had changed the rules so he wouldn't get a return match...

That only B enjoyed this is of course due to 1) that he was the first fide champ and 2) he was soviet and thus had the support of the soviet and other eastblock delegates in fide's congress.

"Moreover, Botvinnik was especially selective in who was invited to the 1948 AVRO tournament at which he won the title."
I agree with Smyslov_Fan and largely with TalJechin here. The AVRO tournament was of course in 1938, not in 1948. The five strongest players participated. Maybe Fine should have been replaced by Najdorf, but I do not think Najdorf would have stand a chance. Something one must know, is the agreement of 1939. The plan was, that Keres would play a match against Euwe - which actually took place and Keres won. The other match would have been Fine against Botvinnik. The winners were expected to play again and that winner against Alekhine. So the match-tournament of 1948 was indeed the best solution; pity that Fine withdrew.
Not so long ago I read a comment by Kortsjnoj on Keres and the conspiracy theory. I think Kortsjnoj came close to the truth. After 1945 until 1948 Estonia suffered more from Sovjet occupation than it had from Nazi occupation - with the exception of the jews of course, who were exterminated. It is likely, that Keres had to fear transportation to the mines of Siberia. According to Kortsjnoj it was Botvinnik who prevented this. One can imagine, that these events were not encouraging Keres to perform well against Botvinnik.
Fact is, that Keres was not allowed to participate in the Staunton tournament in Groningen, immediately after the war.
I must say, that this theory looks probable to me, considering the characters of Botvinnik and Keres and the political circumstances of 1945-1948.

Quote:


Well, the comparison between Keres and Tal limps a bit since the latter resulted in an all Soviet WCh showing off the total Soviet domination. While Keres was a risk for that dominance, since he'd played in Nazi Germany and not being a true Soviet communist etc, so naturally they would prefer the devoted Botvinnik and probably did tell Keres that famous: 'if Botvinnik doesn't win it should not be because of you...'

I looked at the games Keres-Botvinnik some years ago and got convinced that some of them looked very suspicious. And I definitely don't believe Keres would normally play below par just because he had a dry position to play. All top players know that sometimes against weaker players you need to take some risks to win in such cases, but they all know how to draw these against their peers!

On the other hand, I don't believe Botvinnik asked for any unfair priviledges. And thus I don't consider him any dirtier than any other Soviet World Champion, surely they all had connections and took advantage, except perhaps Tal, who fell ill just before the return match in '61 and Botvinnik denied him time to recuperate, which could be another sign who the athorities wanted...

But other than that, I don't think a return match is unnatural or unsporting. If you really are a stronger player than the champ, it shouldn't be so hard to beat him twice. Historically, both Steinitz and Alekhine got return matches and Capa surely regretted he didn't have one stipulated in the contract...

When reading Sosonko's Russian Silhouettes, I got a very favourable impression of Botvinnik. Ultra serious and with bone hard principles, and not one to ever forget an injustice but not unsporting or devious...

Besides, wasn't it B who made sure Kasparov got a fair chance in his first match with Karpov?

I'd like to toss in a word (or as is my habit, a ream of words ) on Botvinnik before it really starts to snowball.

Botvinnik did not hand pick those who played in the 1948 match-play tournament for the World Championship.  The 1948 tournament ranks as one of the all-time greatest contests, despite what GM Larry Evans was to write nearly fifty years after the fact.  Botvinnik won every single mini-match of the tournament, and did so in extremely convincing style. 

The tournament was originally planned for six players to play five-game matches against each other and the winner would be declared champion.  Given the circumstances, this was most fair for all concerned.  Euwe, as the last living World Champion plus the other top five players were invited.  Reuben Fine declined his invitation.  Smyslov, Keres (about whom so much has been written) and Reshevsky were all there, but the clear favorite was Botvinnik. 

Botvinnik lost only two games in the entire tournament, to Reshevsky and Keres.  He finished three points clear of second place (Smyslov) despite having relaxed in the last series of games. 

I don't know about anyone else, but I have played through the games of this tournament about three times now.  Botvinnik's performance was absolutely amazing, and any claims to the contrary strike me as irrelevant griping.  I am sure he received help from the Soviet Union in the form of the best training facilities and comfortable lodgings, but I am also certain that he won the match fairly. 

Keres, who seems to be everyone's favorite victim in this tournament, beat Smyslov 3-2, lost to Botvinnik 1-4. (The score itself created the controversy because people in the West couldn't believe a player as strong as Keres could be dominated.  But as GM Evans says, just look at the games! )  Keres lost his match to Reshevsky 2-3, and beat Euwe 4.5-.5.  Maybe that last result should be analysed!   (Euwe's performance was so abysmal that when he left the Hague where the first half of the tournament was held, he was called "Ik no winnik" -- "I don't win" as a play on Botvinnik's name.)

The conspiracy theories revolving around Keres having to throw games do not match the facts either of this tournament or his subsequent career.  Keres had an exploitable weakness which even non-Soviets took advantage of.  He was not good (against the very best in the world) in relatively dry positions.  He would make absolutely reckless moves that would blind lesser lights, but were butalized by the very best.  His last game against Smyslov in 1953 is a case in point.  Yes, I know what Bronstein has to say in The Sorcerer's Apprentice, but Bronstein's comments about the Zurich tournament are not supported by any other player, including himself in earlier writings!

There is one final point to make about why Keres was supposedly singled out to lose games.  There have been those who said that Keres was encouraged to lose because he was Estonian.  Yet a decade later a player from the next Baltic state over won the right to play Botvinnik for the title.  He was not reprimanded, he was glorified for his crushing defeat of Smyslov and others.  Of course, I am talking about Mikhail Tal.

I do not defend the horrors of the Soviet system, but there is no evidence that Botvinnik was complicit in any scheme to throw matches.  The worst that can be said of him is that a) he was overbearing and b) he actively lobbied for the "Botvinnik rule" which granted him a re-match within a year of losing any match.

I expect that this suggestion will be met with howls of derision, but I've been leafing through The Sorcerer's Apprentice this evening, and Bronstein makes no secret of his contempt for Botvinnik.  Could Botvinnik, in fact, be the weakest world champion?

Note that Botvinnik played five matches for the world championship, but only won two of them.  And likely only qualified to win the two he did because of the absurd rule he made up that guaranteed him a rematch should he lose the title (do you really think he could have made it through all the candidates' matches to challenge Smyslov or Tal?).  Moreover, he was especially selective in who was invited to the 1948 AVRO tournament at which he won the title.  In his match with Bronstein, which he drew, he won the final two games after Bronstein was comfortably ahead.  Was Bronstein coerced?  Bronstein also notes that Botvinnik won all his games in that match after adjournments--Bronstein all his at the first sitting.  No one would question Botvinnik's powers of analysis, but he certainly was fallible at the board (same as in his matches with Tal).  Botvinnik was not above avoiding players either, especially Najdorf and others.  Botvinnik also had the ruthless Soviet machine in his corner, which bent over backwards to support him and his claim to the championship.

Just some rambling thoughts...

Bronstein also says he met Petrosjan for the first time in Tblisi in 1942 in the sorcerer's apprecentice.

Well according to Google, Tigran was born in Tibilisi (- only one source claimed Armenia), but I'm still not convinced that made him Georgian though...

Found an interesting discussion with some anecdotes at

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=16149

Btw, check out the Spielmann link at the bottom, with his J'accuse letter to Alekhine. Another speculaltion mentions that Spielmann wasn't invited to AVRO 1938 perhaps because he was jewish - if this was the reason(?), then I suppose Big Al(ekhine) wasn't the only anti-semite...

Well, if both his parents were Armenian, then he should be Armenian too, but perhaps with a double nationality as some countries automatically gives away citizenship to those born there. But you still haven't revealed your source of information - hope it's not Ripley's Believe It or Not!

I don't think we should judge anyone, especially not upon hearsay or on his reaction in a very difficult time in history.
Immediately after the war, there were many who took the chance of pointing out scapegoats to avoid their own actions being scrutinized. And many of those persecuted, were hardly morally guilty - for example women who had had relationships with german soldiers were also ostracized by their peers as well as their children...

Quote:


Source? This sounds incredible to my ears, as -ian is a typical ending of Armenian names, (and -shvili of Georgian names). Not to mention the statue of Petrosian in Erevan and his status of Armenian folk hero.

MNb,

Petrosian was a Georgian who grew up in Tblisi, not Armenia.  His brother was drafted and presumed dead while the Nazis invaded the Caucuses.  The shock of his brother's death (which was misreported) killed his mother. His father also died during the war due to illness.  He reports that his best friend in 1941 had been evacuated from Kharkov.  In a very real sense, even though Tblisi itself was not overrun, his homeland was.

He claims that his style was informed by Nimzovich, Capablanca and his teacher, Ebralidze. Ebralidze believed in "the infallibility of strategic laws and could for hours seek a refutation of some attack or combination, if only, in his opinion, the position did not permit a "forcible" solution."  (The Games of Tigran Petrosian, Vol. 1(1991) p.17)  

He refused to rush into attacking positions even though the Soviet press berated his play regularly in the 1950s as being too stodgy.  A weaker person would almost certainly have caved into the pressure to play more "attractive" chess.

Quote:


Well, according to the rumours Diemer was a convinced nazi even after the war... And Fischer's current writings and speeches are at least as bad as Alekhine's, but Bobby hasn't much of an excuse at all, except possible insanity...

Btw, Korchnoi recently expressed the opinion that no one becomes really good in chess by being a nice guy.
- So, Euwe saving Jews during the war may in fact qualify him as by far the weakest world champion of them all!

As I remember it, Alekhine didn't avoid giving Capablanca a return match - he only set the same terms as Capa did, put up 10 000 in gold and we'll talk about it...

As for the nazi accusations, Alekhine did write some antisemitic pamplets and participated in nazi tournaments (like Stoltz, Mattisons and many more). But given that Nazi Germany wasn't very fond of slavs either, who knows for sure what kind of pressure Alekhine was under?

It's easy to judge in the safety of our current safety & stability - and conveniently forget that most of the civilised world 65 years ago would be clearly racist by today's standards. Nazi-Germany was certainly not first to single out some ethnic groups and persecute them in different ways.

In the US blacks weren't allowed to use the same bench, rest room or bus as white folks and a further 60 years back, chinese immigrants could be murdered practically with impunity as a white man could only be convicted on the testimony of another white man. But that was hardly Pillsbury's fault...

"Petrosian grew up during WWII and saw his homeland destroyed."
The homeland of Petrosjan was Armenia. The German nazi's came far, but not that far.
We should remember, that Petrosjan developed a sharp way to combat the Queen's Indian: 4.a3, which gave Kasparov so much success around 1980. Somewhere I have read, that Petrosjan turned to his ultra-solid defensive style, because he spoiled some attacking games. I do not know if this is true.

I do not know, if Alekhine holds the title for moral cowardice. From 1925 until 1929 Bogo had hardly worse tournament results than Capa: Moscow 1925, Bad Kissingen 1928, Berlin BSG 1928. Then in 1930 Capa more or less withdrew, while Alekhine proved his strength in San Remo etc. OK, the 1934 match was superfluous. But in 1935 Euwe was a logical choice. Eight years before Alekhine had won an informal match with the narrowest possible margin. In Zürich 1934 Euwe shared 2nd place behind Alekhine.
Numbers: Alekhine defended his title three times from 1927 until 1935. Capa waited six years after defeating Lasker.
Moral coward number one in my opinion was Lasker though. Around 1900 both Tarrasch and Pillsbury deserved a match. Instead Lasker simply did not defend his title from 1896 until 1907 and then chose Marshall, a Tarrasch, who already had lost his greatest strength and two times Janowsky. Lasker's only strong opponent was Schlechter and prompt Lasker could not win. And of course Lasker avoided Rubinstein between 1910 and 1914. No surprise, that Lasker holds the record in years.

Finally Alekhine was not the only collaborator. Bogo was member of the NSDAP and Keres did not object either to play for the nazi's.

Quote:

Spassky never recovered??
Run through the games of his match against Karpov in 74. I cant judge the level, but according to Timman and Spassky himself he played better than in 72. Spassky also said that that match was when he was at his best.
Not to mention that 3 years later he played again in the candidates final.

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

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.

Quote:

I'm not so sure which part of the drunk Aljechin is true, it is a bit similar to the stories about Capa playing domino during his lost match.
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.

Voted for Euwe, as with a sober Alekhine he would probably not have become champion at all.

Though I think it's a bit unfair to exclude Kramnik, after all, he's 'defended ' his title once which is more than some of the other guys got time to.

And he's most unconvincing world champion  in modern time imo, if he was included my vote would go to him - after all, Euwe at least gave Alekhine a return match!

So get Kramnik on the list and remove Karpov and Botvinnik!