Botvinnik-Capablanca 0-1, Moscow 1936. That's why S_F mentions the period 1938-1963.
Fine had 2/3 against Botvinnik: two draws, one win .... in Amsterdam 1938. 

PS: Petrosian also deserves mention, as Andrew Brett has already done.  I once had an unusual but seriously flawed mechanism for figuring out who was the best World Champion.  I wouldn't consider anyone who had not successfully defended his title at least once.  That knocked Capa, Euwe, Smyslov, Tal, Spassky and Fischer out.  Petrosian stays in, and since he too was playing in the Silver Age* of Chess (the 1950s-1972), deserves serious consideration.   

Petrosian's style was almost impossible to copy, but so was Lasker's.  Then again, every World Champion has had a style that couldn't be copied.  Petrosian loses style points for agreeing to draws far too often.  He gains some back because he didn't lose many games to the very best players, but I place him behind Botvinnik, Lasker, Alekhin, Steinitz and Capablanca.

* The Golden Age of Chess probably spans Kasparov's career.  I don't know if we're still in it or not, but I have a feeling that Topalov's bathroom complaint will signal the beginning of the end.   

Toppy's complaint may have been ridiculous, but it marks the first time in the history of the World Championship that a game was decided by the threat of a computer.   The petty act of a desperate challenger may have signalled the end of the greatest period of artistic and competitive growth in chess history.  From here on out, it may be the Age of Computers.

My great predecessor – Lucena. 

woofwoof wrote on 11/14/06 at 16:02:59:


Completely agree! Lasker is a legend, but nevertheless "a dodger". 

Yes Morphy another great also.

Lasker is one of my favourites but I happen to think he is not even close to Capa in the all-time scheme of things - Lasker was clever and made sure not to play Rubinstein at his peak, and to arrange good conditions and opponents for himself in matches (even then he was somewhat blessed to hang onto the title so long). Capa on the other hand lost unexpectedly to alekhine when he was close to his best having recently convincingly won a tournament with all the worlds best in it. If we read Botvinniks impressions it is clear Capablanca was shocked to lose to Alekhine, but what is even more shocking is he never got a rematch.

In the end it is impossible to compare across generations - the top modern players like Leko, Anand, etc. all agree on this. It makes for good chat and arguments on forums though 

Well keano thanks for putting me in my place ! I personally think Capa is overated and that Lasker was stronger than him (and yes I know about their W Ch match). A lot of Capa's fame is due to the 9 year undefeated streak but he only played 60 odd games. On the most natural talent I think Karpov is who I would go for or maybe Reshevesky. 

I don't agree with your comment on it being almost impossible to compare . In particular the Botvinnink to Fischer era continously had several W Champs who played each other for 20 years or so.

Anyway thanks for the post.

Andrew

Thought I'd sound you out as to who we think was the best world champ pre Fischer days. It seems obvious that Kasparov Karpov and Fischer are probably the 3 strongest players in history but who do we think was the strongest before this era 

I look forward to hearing your views ! My own preference is for Petrosian but I doubt if that will be a popular choice.

Andrew