HgMan wrote on 07/19/06 at 17:49:30:

This activity says a lot about Karpov.  I have some trouble deciding who should be considered the greatest player ever (in contrast to some people...  ).  I have an easy time choosing which World Champion I admire the most as a chessplayer - Karpov, hands down - without hesitation! When he acquired the title through Fischer's forfeit, it seemed that he immediately went about proving his worthiness with outstanding tournament play (and he did this!).  But I've always thought that with Karpov it was more about competing against the best in the world whenever possible than proving something about his standing.

This is pure conjecture, but comparing Kasparov and Karpov: my impression is that Kasparov cared more about being World #1 than the game itself, while Karpov cared only about the game - the opportunity to compete!

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/19/06 at 17:27:50:


I think the case with Reshevsky was that he has this nasty habit of getting into time trouble very very frequently in all his competitions. He lost many points due to blunders during that stage.  Bronstein too had that disease, just that the irony of it all was that he still managed to find decent moves more regularly compared to Reshevsky whilst in a time scramble! 

Bronstein's rants in The Sorcerer's Apprentice has done him little service.  He complained of his own play in the World Championship match, and of Smyslov's play in Zurich.  His own notes to the games and the comments from other players (Smyslov characteristically remained silent) suggest that Bronstein was just plain wrong on that occassion.   

But you're right Ostap, it opens another can of worms and GM Larry Evans (who has no first-hand knowledge and loves to attack the Soviet Chess Machine at every opportunity) would relish besmirching the reputations of the Soviet players.

I agree that Reshevsky was certainly a contender, as I mentioned in a previous post.  Yet he was never quite up to the level of his competitors at the world stage.   I would place even Keres ahead of Reshevsky in the poll.

Willempie, 

Thanks for the link. 

It's proof of Disraeli's quote, "There are lies, D----d lies, and statistics."

Steinitz falls to the bottom on almost every list because, well, there weren't any world champions for him to beat up on.  He was the first.  

Also, Capa looks much better than he would if we paid attention to the games he won and the problems with the Lasker match.  Lasker resigned the match before it started, played well below his own ability, and lost without much struggle.  While we can't penalize Capablanca for that, we shouldn't reward him, either.

The inclusion of Khalifman and Anand skews the data.  Also, without considering when the games were played, the stats are again skewed.  Candidates were determined by markedly different criteria over time, so the caliber of opponents within their own generation is questionable.

Also, Karpov is penalized for playing tough matches against Korchnoi and Kasparov.  He still comes out above 50%, but not as good as he would if we counted successful defenses of his title against the next best player available.



Still, it's interesting to see some surprising names in the lists, and a reference point for some discussion even if some data is inaccurate.

Some food for thought from a statistical viewpoint:
http://mark_weeks.tripod.com/chw01i01/wcc-stat.htm

QUOTE: "Ivanchuk is brilliant, but too brilliant for his own good.  He loses games that he could win if he was just a bit more practical."

Its funny that you should say that.  I had the same thought in my head back in 1998 (or so).  I was looking at all these brilliant games from Ivanchuk and was very impressed by his strength.  However, I kept finding more and more games (about 1 per tournament) where Ivanchuk would have a better position and then hit the "random" button.  He would go in for these very complicated tactics in a position where he already had a comfortable edge.  I assume its because he didn't think the 'clear edge' was actually good enough to win against his peers (i.e. the best players in the world) and so added more fuel to the fire.  I remember Shirov flat out stealing some games from him.

I noticed he let Kasparov off the hook a couple of times and missed a lot of half-points against Anand, who it seemed could always negate or at least lessen Ivanchuk's edge right at time control (I assume this was because Anand was a better blitz/rapid player) then hold the slightly worse or equal endgame.   

So, perhaps Ivanchuk wasn't comfortable enough with "good winning chances" and would take on more risk (i.e. endanger his position) to play for more.  But of course, thanks to this practice, he could blow away your standard GM thanks to this ability to "turn it up a notch" when he smelled blood.  And, of course, I'm talking about a "weakness" in a player that could destroy me in a match where he was drugged, blindfolded and deprived of sleep for a week.  So, I'll shut up now.

All of the people listed in the poll deserve mention as great players, but very few deserve to be considered the "Greatest player not to win the World Championship".  

First of all, I consider the world champions to start with Steinitz and end with Kramnik.  If Topalov wins their match, I will consider him to be the World Champion.  Topalov's excellent performance at San Luis is one for the ages, but he didn't even beat Anand in their mini-match.  I believe that match-play is the surest way to find the best player in the world.

Ok, now for the contenders:

Akiba Rubinstein was, before WWI, certainly deserving of at least a chance.  Mikhail Chigorin, despite his chances and his mark on chess history, showed that he wasn't strong enough to be a real contender for the "greatest non-champ."  Karl Schlechter did a better job.  Pillsbury, Frank Marshall, and even Sammy Reshevsky never were as great as their European and Cuban counterparts.  I can't see how they could be considered the greatest non-champ.

Reuben Fine had a strong argument after the AVRO Tournament, 1938.  But he didn't show the consistent desire necessary to be the World Champion.  He's probably North America's best candidate for the title.

Among other westerners, Miguel Najdorf, Bent Larsen and Jan Timman are the three top contenders.  Yet none of them even made it to the finals (Timman's match against Karpov in the alternate universe of FIDE's world championship showed how weak he was in match play.)
That leaves Eastern Europeans and one Indian.  

I've written elsewhere (see the other link for relevant comments) why Paul Keres shouldn't be considered the greatest non-champ.  To summarize, his weaknesses were widely known, and exploited,  yet he was considered a "great knight" of chess.  One of the players left off the list was Leonid Stein.  He received no votes in the other list, but was highly recommended by a number of posters.

Viktor Korchnoi is legendary for his staying power.  He was Karpov's sole challenger during the desert years of the 1970s.  There just wasn't anyone else who was close to them.  The old soviet guard was too old, and there wasn't a strong generation of players to challenge them.  That's why Leonid Stein's early death hurt chess so much.  

To give an idea of just how weak the generation of Karpov was, consider that when Kasparov finally came on the scene he had to defeat... Smyslov for the right to play Karpov.  You want to talk about staying power, Smyslov lasted longer than Korchnoi did as a top contender!  But then, Smyslov is knocked out of the running for the same reason Tal is:  they both won the title!

That brings us to the 1990s.  It's too early to tell how good some of these players are and whether they will win the title. (Topalov and Anand don't get my vote for this reason.)  Alexei Shirov was great, but most people here aren't impressed with his match win over Kramnik.  Petr Leko also improved dramatically under the tutelege of Fischer, but I think (think) his time has past.  Ulf Andersson was great, but never quite great enough to challenge for the title.  Ivanchuk is brilliant, but too brilliant for his own good.  He loses games that he could win if he was just a bit more practical.

So, who's left?  Well, there's David Ionovich.  He wrote the greatest chess book of the 20th Century (Zurich, 1953) and tied for the World Championship at a time when Botvinnik really looked like a World Champion for the ages.  His complaints many years later just don't hold water, and detract from the games themselves.  He beat Boleslavsky, one of the other greats, to get to play Botvinnik, and he won many brilliant games against the best players of the next generation (Tal, Geller, Spassky, and so on).

My sentimental choice is for Schlechter, even though he was never dominant.  My second sentimental choice is Leonid Stein.  But Bronstein makes a good candidate among those listed.

EDIT:  I changed WWII to WWI when discussing Rubinstein.  Mea culpa for the typo.

OstapBender wrote on 07/18/06 at 12:08:13:

Yeah, well it dates from further back. GM Donner once wrote an open letter to a dutch magazine in which he complained about both the magazine and Fischer (who was interviewed) for not mentioning him in the list of 10 greatest players.