@Smyslov_Fan: it does not matter if you spell Speelman or Spielmann. Both are/were better writers than Kortsjnoj.  . With you I think the strongest chess player can be someone else than the greatest chess writer (Donner!). Unlike you I think to be the greatest chess player one must show sportmanship.

@Willempie: I did not nominate Spielmann, remember? I know, that Tarrasch vs Spielmann was overall 50%, Spielmann winning most before 1914 and Tarrasch after 1918. But I think an experienced player like Tarrasch, still in his prime (according to you) losing such a game against a youngster cannot be the greatest player. Sorry, but your 1925 game does not prove anything in our argument.

On Tarrasch: won DSB-Kongress 1889. Steinitz and Tsjigorin weren't there. Won also DSB-Kongress 1892, ahead of Magovetz and Porges (who?). Drew against Tsjigorin in a match in 1892. Won DSB-Kongress 1894, ahead of Lipke (who?). Hastings 1895: behind Lasker, Pillsbury and Tsjigorin. Nürnberg 1896: behind Lasker and Maroczy. Budapest 1896: 8th, behind a whole bunch. Vienna 1898: shared 1st place with Pillsbury. Monte Carlo 1902: 6th. Monte Carlo 1903: that's a convincing result. Oostende 1905: behind Maroczy and Janowsky. Forget DSB-Kongress 1906. Oostende 1907: fine win, but Maroczy and Lasker weren't there.
No way, that Tarrasch can claim to be the strongest non WCh ever based on these results. I even rate Maroczy and Tartakower higher. Tarrasch was of course a very strong player, but not more than subtop - like for instance Spielmann. 
In the list of this poll Tarrasch should be replaced by Fine. 

On Bogo and Alekhine: afterwards it is easy to bash the first because of the two WCh-matches. But let us pay a little attention to Moscow 1925, Bad Homburg 1927 and Bad Kissingen 1928 (ahead of Capablanca and Nimzovitsj for instance). I have stated it before: at the beginning of 1929, at the time the WCh match was arranged, not knowing the future, Bogo's claim to play a match for the title was as least as strong as Capablanca's and Nimzovitsj'. And do we know any better challenger between 1930 and 1935? Capablanca and Lasker had retired, Nimzovitsj' strenght declined. I don't like Alekhine's character, but his choice of opponents was quite reasonable. That is something I cannot say of both Lasker and Capablanca, even though I find the first far more sympathetic.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/20/06 at 20:29:32:

Bronstein's book on the Zürich 1953 Candidate's Tournament was great (maybe the best tournament book ever written!).  I'm curious: has he written anything else close to that quality (I think he's produced a few duds, but I can't offhand think of a second, truly great Bronstein book)?

Just a quick reminder,

Everyone on Nietzsche's list was indeed great.  When I state that one player is not deserving of being the greatest, I don't mean to denigrate his accomplishments.  I don't consider the writing when I consider "player", otherwise someone such as Timman, Speelman (yes, MNb, I spelled that one correctly  ), Nimzovich and Bronstein would finish miles ahead of Korchnoi.

A computer needs to qualify in tournaments!  A tournament schedule has proven to be quite difficult the few times that computers were allowed to play.  There will always be discussions of the manner in which it stores its memory compared to human memory.  Should the computer be able to look something up in a book, or can human memory be good enough to match it?  

Should computer programmers be allowed to tweak the program as the tournament progresses, or should all seconds (even for the humans) be disallowed?  A computer is at a disadvantage in a tournament setting compared to a match setting, unless the computer plays someone like Adams!

Until a computer can qualify against humans, it shouldn't be considered a contender.  Once it does, then the question becomes too philosophically confusing for me.  After all, does a computer understand the concept of being a "player"?  Or does it matter?

I'm glad to see that people are actually looking at the figures now, hence my earlier statement about statistics.  When skewed the way these were, they become meaningless.

BTW, it's interesting that Dragan Glas sees similarities between Karpov and Capablanca.  I see them as opposites when it comes to playing in tournaments.  Karpov was the most active World Champion of them all, and Capablanca played very rarely during his famous unbeaten streak.  During that unbeaten streak, he didnt' even win all the tournaments he played in!

Karpov certainly gets my respect, and as a young player (about the same age as Kasparov in fact), I tried to emulate him more than anyone else.  However, that doesn't detract from my previous statements about Kasparov.

Anyway, enough ranting about the World Champions.  This thread's supposed to be about the non-champs.  Rubinstein never played for the World Championship because he couldn't find sponsors.  There was a time when he might have become champion.  I'm not convinced that makes him the "greatest" player not to win.

Bogoljubov was pretty much hand-picked by Alekhine, and was suitably blown away.  Some of the games from those matches are sheer embarrassments.  Bogo didn't seem to know the first thing about endgames and he missed some tactical shots in the middlegame.   

I doubt that Nimzo would have fared much better, but we'll never know.  Obviously, the best match that didn't happen during Alekhine's reign was a re-match with Capa.  But that's another story.

OK, so my statement was not complete. Try this one:

Sjirov, who never has played for the title himself, defeated someone in a match, who would become WCh within 2½ years. Who else can say something like that?

Regarding that Mark Weeks site: what kind of statistics is that, leaving interzonals and matches out? The results can't be reliable.

Willempie, thanks again for the link since it certainly is "food for thought". 
I was surprised by several of these lists (and the statistics) until I finally realized that many, if not all, of them are very biased when based on such a sampling.  And frankly, a rather arbitrary sample at that.
For a brief example, take a look at the following:

The champions against each other:

Player             +W-L=D            +W-L=D     Score      Games      Pct
Lasker, Em      +8-1=9               +5-3=6       20.5       32       64.06%
Fischer, R.       +3-0=3              +1-1=5         8.0        13       61.54%
Kasparov, G.    +18-6=23          +4-4=26     46.5      81         57.41%
Capablanca, J. +4-0=13            +5-5=8       19.5       35       55.71%
Botvinnik, M.  +4-1=7               +3-3=13    17.0       31        54.84%


First of all, Lasker lost 4 games to Capablanca in the 1921 match (and only 4 total loses are shown).  But Lasker also lost 5 to Steinitz in the 1894 WCC, and another 2 to Steinitz in 1896/7.  And that's only from just those 3 matches; Lasker lost tournament games to Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, etc.   Why do 32 tournament games matter more?   

Fischer lost 3 games to Spassky in 1972 (from a total of 21 games), yet his record only shows 1 loss in 13 total games. Don't people care more about his Candidates matches than how he fared in tournament when he was 15 years old?  Fischer was so much stronger in the 1970's than he was in the late 50's.   

Kasparov only shows 81 games, but he played 48 in his first Karpov match (1984/85) then 24 more in 1985, then another 24 in 1986, then another 24 in 1987, and yet another 24 1990.  That a total of 120 games from 5 matches with Karpov.  Why wouldn't these matter? 

Capablanca has a total of 5 losses when he lost 6 to Alekhine in their epic 1927 match.  Again, why not include such things?
I love Capablanca more than any other player, but I would have to say he title match against Alekhine is one of the most important aspects of his career; not the tournament results from the 1930s. 

And I don't even want to talk about the Botvinnik numbers....only 31 games??  Botvinnik was a match kind of guy and should probably be measured as such.  Why focus on tournament games and exclude all of his World Championship matches. He got 10 wins in his 1961 return against Tal.  That seems more relevent than 7 tournament wins.   

And as pointed out earlier, people like Botvinnik tended to only play in tournaments with the very best players in the World, whereas Karpov (to take a more modern example) played in many, many tournaments and some featured players that were quite a bit below his class (as in 300 points below).  I don't think the tournament records are very relevant to overall strength when dealing with such a large range of opposition and ignoring match play (which, frankly, was the cornerstone of the World Championship for over 100 years).   Its also such a shame that Capablanca's terrific match against Marshall or Fischer's domination in the Candidates isn't included.

Anyway, I think the point is made.  Check and you'll find many of the numbers on the site are way off when compared to total career records and when other important events (such as Candidate matches, World Championships) are included in the initial source. 

I just wanted to warn people who also got a shock from the Mark Weeks site on first viewing.   

Cheers,
Nietzsche

Greetings,

I'd tend to agree.

It isn't surprising, though, that Karpov did what he did given that his hero was Capablanca. The latter had set an example in seeming to be unbeatable in tournament after tournament - it was only natural that Karpov would seek to not only emulate, but better his hero's record.

It is strangley apropos that Kasparov should have been so similar to Alekhine in both how he played and in being the one to defeat the "new Capablanca".

One wonders will there ever be a modern "Lasker"?

I sometimes wonder how Morphy might have fared if he'd been around a half-centuty later and had had the opportunity to play the greats of the late-19^th and early 20^th century...!?

The difference between match-play and tournaments is something of a "random factor" in separating the men from the boys. Those who shine in one may not do so in the other.

This also touches on my post in the "Hard enough to be a GM ..." topic as a third criterion for what constitutes a "GrandMaster" - the ability to play all types of competitions well: match, tournament, rapid, "normal", etc.  

However, to return to the poll...

I seem to remember that Reshevsky was a child prodigy(?) - if so, he certainly didn't live up to his earlier promise, as Capablanca did.

Although, one could say that Capablance could have done even better were it not for his "laziness" in relying on his talent, rather than studying chess assiduously, as Alekhine did.

For all Capablanca's talent and skill in rook endings (he'd studied over a thousand of them), Rubinstein was considered even better in this area of the game.

I think it is very difficult to choose amongst those who might have been champion, if only because they lived at different periods.

My shortlist - in chronological order - would be:

Morphy
Nimzovitch
Bronstein
Korchnoi

Only the latter two have been to the wire in World Championship matches  - having come through both qualifying tournaments and knock-out candidate matches.

Of these two, Korchnoi is the one who did so more than once.

As such, notwithstanding the qualities of all the other possible players, he would have to be my chosen player.

Kindest regards,

James