My pick is between Korchnoi and Keres for that title, both great players, and both were screwed by the system under which they played I believe.

A fantasy tournament with the best of the #2s: Korchnoi, Keres, Rubinstein....

I think you need to put Reshevsky right up there with Korchnoi and Keres.

What about Bronstein? I put him before Sammy.

Schlecter also came very close against the mighty Lasker.

I don't know, I'm pretty down on Lasker, relatively speaking, because he got trounced by Capablanca. It's almost like he didn't really know how to play, when you compare them.

I know I'm probably being too hard on him, especially because I think of his style and Korchnoi's as pretty similar, and I'm a big Korchnoi fan.

Im not a big lasker fan either.  I have a problem with him not playing Tarrasch until after his prime, defending the title against Marshall? Janowski?, and then puts off playing Capa as long as possible?

 It was Tarrasch who put off the match, not Lasker as I recall. Lasker was very great. Capa valued him as a player above all, even Alekhine.

I think Korchnoi got screwed the most. Theres no way anyone can play good chess when the 'system' is messing with your family members.

Actually, some people are at their best when the stakes are the highest.

I have no way of knowing what influence it had and would not speculate.

One time back in 1994 the Dali Lama was asked: French Revolution, good or bad?

His answer:  Too soon to tell.

"One time back in 1994 the Dali Lama was asked: French Revolution, good or bad?

His answer: Too soon to tell."

Usually attributed to chou en lai.

No doubt, but I was in attendance at the Carrier dome when the Dali dropped the same exchange in front of the Syracuse crowd.

Sorry if for some reason my post implied I was claiming he was the originator if he was not.  I was not making this claim, only that he said this.

I went off Korchnoi a bit when I saw in the free videos section of this site his game against Polgar.  He got arrogant after his loss.  Lost his dignity a bit.  Shame.

www.chess.com/free-videos

That is his charming side actually.

 I dont know why people make such a big deal of this myself, after seeing it. Polgar upset a great player who is getting old then after the game she made some remark that he didnt respond to very well/professionally. Big deal ! I think her comment was taken by Viktor as a bit of gloating , rubbing salt into the fresh wound. If so this would explain his reaction. I think she shouldnt have said anything after winning the game. I do think his reaction was uncalled for but so was her comment after the game. I just dont see his response as the horrible crime that some seem to see it as. Supposedly Nimzovich once proclaimed loudly , after a loss, "why must I lose to this idiot" and yet I dont see anyone attacking him for what I view as a much worse breach of sportsmanship. Why ? Alekhine once resigned by hurling his king across the room as well !  Have you never had a reaction to a loss that you arent too proud of ? I have but its just one instance from more than 30 years of tournament play....

they are all good palyers

topalov played some wierd moves

Irina Krush's reaction to losing the sudden death Armaggeddon game, and with it the US woman's championship, to Anna Zahkonskyh has be one of the most spectacular examples of poor sportsmanship recently. Still, Ms. Krush is a fine player and seems, from all I've read, to be a fine person too. The fault in the aforementioned case was that of the organizers for instituting such an idiotic way to decide a major championship. http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8467/141/

I've always felt that Korchnoi's approach to the game was closer to Lasker than any other past master. Both of them shone in defense and counterattack. Both were heroic pragmatists with an uncanny knack for digging themselves out of inferior positions. 

As far as his demonstration of bad form after losing to Sofia Polgar is concerned, Sofia's sister, Susan, put it succinctly when she stated that she'd never defeated a healthy man. Victor grew up in a time when, even in the Soviet Union, woman were not considered serious competition. To lose to a young girl, an unthinkable occurrence for almost his entire career, obviously scuffed his huge male ego.

Victor the Terrible has never been the most gracious of guys. Witness the goings on at the late Wolfgang Unzicker's 80th birth day. (see "Refutor's" observation down the page.) 

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=47776&kpage=1#reply14 

Still and all, old Victor, who just won the Swiss Championship at age 78, http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/aug/01/leonard-barden-chess-victor-korchnoi and still rated over 2600, is one hell of a chess player who has provided us with plenty of exciting games and lots of high drama. I, for one, can excuse his peccadillos.

What a useless spam...

It would be interesting to know what measure or facts or yardstick or benchmark people are using to rank the top say 5 or 10 players in the world of chess history.

I personally use the following criteria: win, losses and draws as well as the performance in world championship games, not for all players as this event started in 1886 when Steinitz played against  Zukertort.

No matter how short or how long the chess career was, the statistics are for me the number one criteria, as some of the greatest players stopped playing short of competion, Morphy is a prime example.

Do we elect to select the players with longest longevity in reign, why not? Do we select the one with the most number of games won? Do we select players for their contribution to the development of the openings or any other continuation named after them?

Do we select players for their number of participations in world championship tournaments and their outcome? Do we select players for their most original memorable games?

You tell me what your criteria are!