micawber wrote on 10/29/10 at 06:31:19:

A stupid reason is better than no reason.
What's worse: I have no reason to leave Lasker and Rubinstein out.

trw wrote on 10/29/10 at 07:29:31:

Then Rudolf Spielmann is in. The way he held that draw against Capa in Moscow is simply awesome.
In Karlsbad 1911 he beat Alekhine in a precise Queen's Endgame.
In Karlsbad 1923 he did the same again in a Rook and opposite coloured Bishop endgame - as Black. Now I ask you: how many players managed to beat the great Russian twice in different endgames?

One time wonder? No way. In a pure opposite coloured Bishop endgame he beat Vidmar in St. Petersburg 1909. So Spielmann preceded Smagin with a few decades ...   
(No, I don't want to change my votes)

Gorath wrote on 10/29/10 at 01:52:39:


In 1983, he was 4th on the official list after Karpov, Kasparov and Ljubojevic. On Chessmetrics he was placed 3rd.

Steinitz, Euwe, Alekhine,Keres and Nimzowich might have been in the list as well. Jan Timman has played some memorable endgames. In fact there are hardly any topplayers past or present who dont have impressive endgame skills.

But in the end I voted for Em. Lasker (assuming that Lasker dit not stand for Eduard Lasker).
If only for the impression that the endgame Em.Lasker-Ed.Lasker made where the former held a draw by escaping in a drawn N vs. R+p endgame. Em.Lasker also published several endgame studies.

Korchnoi has gotten very few votes compared to Karpov, which is interesting. Bent Larsen wrote prior to the 1978 match he considered Korchnoi the stronger endgame play. Which was more or less confirmed in the match.

Everyone in the list has shown us some wonderful endgames, so choosing the best is essential impossible.
And I cant argue or find fold with those who voted differently. 

One further mark: some posts argue that X or Y really cant be the best because he made an error/lost some endgames.
But I can recall famous endgame losses from almost everyone in the list... Chess endgames can be deceptively difficult    

Actually I closed my vote after picking Lasker (it didnt register I has five).
Four more of my favourites in random order:
Nimzowich, Botwinnik, Smyslov, Korchnoi.

Magnus Carlsen wasn't on the list, so I voted 'Other'.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 10/29/10 at 00:03:59:


Well, at his prime I'm almost sure that Ulf was rated in the top 5 - and he's still the highest rated corr player despite a long time of inactivity. So at one point he was one of the best players. Btw, he was even quite close to stopping Kasparov from qualifying to challenge Karpov; in the zonal tm of 1984.

As a kid when going thru Tal's games one thing that I noticed kept recurring was endings R vs B+N, R vs B, R vs N and it didn't really seem to matter which side of these Tal was playing, he always won...

Anyway, that someone is strong enough to finish off his colleagues already in the middlegame is hardly any evidence that you're not one of the best at endings.

Besides, it must be hard to win endgames if you have no advantage to exploit, and that advantage is usually created in the opening or middlegame...

Good question, TJ! I think the answer lies in the thought that Andersson is in this list and getting votes while nobody has complained (so far) about my leaving off Tal.

About Capablanca's current standing: Does anybody really believe he would have a chance against more recent greats like Kramnik, Andersson, Anand etc. in the endgame? He was so much less accurate (though against the weaker opposition he faced, it was more than sufficient). 

People must be voting for "most dominant endgame player for their time" rather than "objectively strongest", which is how I understood the question.

Capablanca almost missed my cut. (Smyslov, Rubinstein, Karpov, and Kramnik were the other four.)

Yet Capa leads the list so far. Fischer rightly criticised Capa's technical skill in the endgame, pointing out (along with many others) that Capa's great skill lay in recognising which positions to head for more than executing those positions efficiently.

In the end, I did select him in my top 5 of all time. I'm just disappointed that he appears to be #1 at the time of writing.