Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

My list of Top 10 chess players


  • 3 months ago · Quote · #122

    SmyslovFan

    Oh, my "hateful jab" wasn't aimed at Fischer. It was a playful jab, at you.

    I actually love Fischer's chess. 

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #123

    SmyslovFan

    I have a very long list of personal favorites. But here's my current list of top ten favorite players, based purely on their contributions to chess. If I were to put it together ten minutes from now, that list may change. 

    1.  Kramnik

    2.  Kasparov

    3.  Tal

    4.  Rubinstein

    5.  Alekhine

    6.  Karpov

    7.  Fischer

    8.  Smyslov

    9.  Shirov

    10. Morozevich

    Some of the greats I really love who didn't make this iteration of the top ten include

    Carlsen, Capa, Pillsbury, Schlechter, Caruana, Taimanov, Anand, Mikhail Gurevich, Speelman, Bronstein, Boleslavsky, Euwe, Geller, Petrosian, Spassky....

    I'd better stop there. That's a pretty good top 25. 

    Topalov, Ivanchuk, Korchnoi, Kamsky, Steinitz, Lasker, Nezhmetdinov are not among my favorites. They all created beautiful games, but also played very negatively in one way or another. 

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #124

    Synaphai

    SmyslovFan wrote:

    Topalov never won a "world championship" tournament that included the two best players of that specific time. Kasparov and Kramnik both refused to play in San Luis, and Topalov didn't even defeat Anand in the tournament. Topalov won the tournament by beating up on lower rated players. That's precisely why tournaments are considered inferior to matches in determining a world champion. 

    All I see is mindless Topalov bashing and parroting of tired clichés.

    "Topalov never won a "world championship" tournament"

    It was called a world championship by FIDE, the governing body of chess, but I guess your opinion overrides that (LOL).

    "Kasparov and Kramnik both refused to play in San Luis"

    Kasparov retired several months before that tournament took place. He is about as relevant to this discussion as Fischer.

    "Topalov didn't even defeat Anand in the tournament"

    And the fact that he scored "only" +6 in 14 rounds there just underlines how poor his performance there was. :-)

    "That's precisely why tournaments are considered inferior to matches in determining a world champion."

    Repeating mindless crap doesn't make it true or a widespread view.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #125

    SmyslovFan

    Synaphai wrote:
    SmyslovFan wrote:

    Topalov never won a "world championship" tournament that included the two best players of that specific time. Kasparov and Kramnik both refused to play in San Luis, and Topalov didn't even defeat Anand in the tournament. Topalov won the tournament by beating up on lower rated players. That's precisely why tournaments are considered inferior to matches in determining a world champion. 

    All I see is mindless Topalov bashing and parroting of tired clichés.

    "Topalov never won a "world championship" tournament"

    It was called a world championship by FIDE, the governing body of chess, but I guess your opinion overrides that (LOL).

    "Kasparov and Kramnik both refused to play in San Luis"

    Kasparov retired several months before that tournament took place. He is about as relevant to this discussion as Fischer.

    "Topalov didn't even defeat Anand in the tournament"

    And the fact that he scored "only" +6 in 14 rounds there just underlines how poor his performance there was. :-)

    "That's precisely why tournaments are considered inferior to matches in determining a world champion."

    Repeating mindless crap doesn't make it true or a widespread view.

    Yes, in this case my opinion does override FIDE's. Not because I'm a better authority than they are (which actually is an open question Wink), but because they themselves created the world championship in 1993 to compete with the world championship between Kasparov and Short, the defending champion and the legitimate challenger. 

    The 1993 FIDE event was between the third and fourth best players. From 1993 to 2005, the unbroken line of match-play champions dating back to 1948 went through Kasparov to Kramnik (and in 2007 to Anand). FIDE's alternatives during that period were often laughably bad. 

    Karpov, Topalov and Anand were the only elite players to win the title during that time. While the latter two would have been worthy challengers in a match against Kasparov or Kramnik, neither proved themselves to be true champions during that time. None of FIDE's champions had to defeat the defending world champion.

    Anand became the "classical" or "match-play" world Champion only in 2007. 

    My opinion regarding that period of chess history is echoed by just about every reputable chess author of the period. Even Anand himself considers his 2007 match title to be his crowning achievement. 

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #126

    SilentKnighte5

    Topalov was a great player who was worthy of winning a classical championship, but he never did.  No respect for that mess FIDE toyed with for a while.  Just have them arm wrestle for the title.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #127

    Justs99171

    stuzzicadenti wrote:
    Reb wrote:
    stuzzicadenti wrote:
     

    The fact is that Topalov won the 2005 FIDE world championship tournament, and then he failed to beat both Kramnik and Anand in matches.

    The 2006 Kramnik-Topalov match was for the purpose of reunification of the chess world, with Kramnik having the classical "real" title and Topalov having the FIDE title.

    In the 2010 Anand-Topalov match, Toaplov was not champion and had to go through a qualification process where be beat Kamsky in a candidates match, but then he failed to beat Anand.

    The fact of the matter is that Topalov is a strong player, consistently in the top 10 for two decades, with having achieved a 2800+ rating and being former #1 on the rating list, but he was not a world champion in the sense that Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand, and Carlsen were.

    The world chess championship challenger used to be determined by a candidates tournament. San Luis 2005 was essentially that - a tournament with most of the best players of the world minus the world chess champion. How can you include Topalov on a list with winners from those knock out tournament atrocities?

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #128

    Justs99171

    IoftheHungarianTiger wrote:
    Justs99171 wrote:
    IoftheHungarianTiger wrote:
    Justs99171 wrote:
    IoftheHungarianTiger wrote:
    Justs99171 wrote:
    IoftheHUngarianTiger wrote:

    I have to respectfully disagree.  Of the players you mentioned, four actually met Steinitz over-the-board in multiple encounters, and their results can hardly be considered conclusively dominant.

    Steinitz’ record against Tarrasch was +0-3=1 (Tarrasch was admittedly superior in their encounters).  However, in their first recorded meeting, Steinitz was 59, while Tarrasch was only 33.

    Steinitz’ record against Pillsbury was +6-5=3.  In their first recorded meeting, Steinitz was 59, and Pillsbury was only 23.

    Steinitz’ record against Maroczy was +2-1=2.  In their first recorded meeting, Steinitz was 59, and Maroczy was only 25.

    Steinitz’ record against Schlecter was +3-4=3.  In their first recorded meeting, Steinitz was 59, and Schlecter was only 21.

     

    I don't believe these results can be reasonably interpreted as “objectively stronger than Steinitz.”

    None of those guys were at their peak when they played Steinitz. Theory had advanced as well.

    Well ... you are entitled to your opinion. :)

    It's not an opinion. Either I'm right or wrong. We're not comparing musicians.

    Regrettably, I must correct you.  It is your opinion.  Having an opinion is not necessarily exclusive of being right or wrong.  Without having more data than what the historical record provides, the results between Steinitz and many of his contemporaries (if we are to term competitors half his age contemporaries) are inconclusive, and both our positions are therefore personal estimates on incomplete data.  I believe the existing record supports my position, while you have the opposite opinion.

    Which, as indicated earlier, I will not personally begrudge you. :)

    That is total bullsh*t. You can run all those games through a computer. I've seen Steinitz totally botch basic rook endgames.

    As stated, you are entitled to your opinion. :) But I should point out that whether Steinitz did or did not botch basic rook endgames is rather irrelevant to factually establishing whether he was inferior/superior to other masters of his day.

    However, I see you you are quite happy with your present considerations regarding the subject, so I will not press you further.  Have a nice day :)

    It's an objective fact that top players in the early 20th century were stronger than Steinitz. You obviously haven't been over the games. This isn't an opinion. Just go look at the databases at chessgames.com. They studied everything Steinitz ever published; all his games and his ideas. There was nothing that Steinitz understood that they didn't. It reflects in their games. These players were better in all three phases, and especially the endgame.

    What you're saying is so stupid. It's not quite the extreme of saying Kasparov wasn't any better than Morphy, but it is still stupid. Resorting to calling it an "opinion" is totally asinine.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #129

    dhmhtrhs1999

    hmm my favorite...easy...capablanca morphy tal fischer rubinstein karpov botvinik alekhine reti lasker

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #130

    SmyslovFan

    dhmhtrhs1999 wrote:

    hmm my favorite...easy...capablanca morphy tal fischer rubinstein karpov botvinik alekhine reti Lasker

    -----------

    That's an interesting list. I wonder how accurately we could guess a person's demographics, especially age and nationality, by who their favorite players are.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #131

    Justs99171

    SmyslovFan wrote:

    dhmhtrhs1999 wrote:

    hmm my favorite...easy...capablanca morphy tal fischer rubinstein karpov botvinik alekhine reti Lasker

     

     

    -----------

    That's an interesting list. I wonder how accurately we could guess a person's demographics, especially age and nationality, by who their favorite players are.

    I noticed that Fischer's favorite players were both western guys - Morphy and Capablanca. He also claimed that Sammy was the best in the world at one point, but I don't think it was true.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #132

    SmyslovFan

    Fischer said a lot of things that were just meant to highlight how little respect he had for "Commies".

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #133

    JamieDelarosa

    Justs99171 wrote:
    SmyslovFan wrote:

    dhmhtrhs1999 wrote:

    hmm my favorite...easy...capablanca morphy tal fischer rubinstein karpov botvinik alekhine reti Lasker

     

     

    -----------

    That's an interesting list. I wonder how accurately we could guess a person's demographics, especially age and nationality, by who their favorite players are.

    I noticed that Fischer's favorite players were both western guys - Morphy and Capablanca. He also claimed that Sammy was the best in the world at one point, but I don't think it was true.

    Reschevsky may very well have been the top player in the early 1950's.  He had the same problem at the 1953 Zurich Candidates Tournament that Fischer had a decade later - Soviet collusion.

    Furthermore, Reschevsky had the burden of having to support his family with a real job, rather than a government stipend, and without a political machine behind him.

    ChessMetrics reports that Reschevsky was the highest rated player in the world for 14 different months, from 1942 to 1953.  He reached his highest rating in October 1953, at 2785, and was last ranked #1.

    http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S108065186111111000000000025710100

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #134

    IoftheHungarianTiger

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 10 days ago · Quote · #135

    fabelhaft

    Kramnik giving his top ten:

    "I’ve got in mind one of your interviews, where you include only four geniuses – Kasparov, Fischer, Capablanca and Tal.

    That’s using the strictest of measures, and I also had in mind chess players who had already finished their careers. If you lower the bar a tiny amount then both Anand and Carlsen would be among them. Moreover, Magnus’ career is only beginning – in another decade or so he might perfectly well move into the category of the very greatest.

    If you were the coach of the all-time team comprised of ten boards, who would you include in the line-up? You could, by the way, also be a playing coach.

    Interesting, I’ve never thought about that… We already mentioned the top four…

    What would the board order be for them?

    That would be very tough, and in the given situation the order would be insignificant anyway. Anand and Carlsen would also get in, and then… Definitely Karpov. Definitely Alekhine. Unquestionably Lasker. And then for the tenth spot there are a lot of candidates – Botvinnik, Smyslov and many others.

    https://chess24.com/en/read/news/vladimir-kramnik-it-turns-out-i-m-52-not-40

  • 9 days ago · Quote · #136

    watcha

    Anand had a bad luck with Carlsen. Had Carlsen not appeared on the stage Anand could still shine at the age of 45 as number one as it was underlined again at Norway Chess 2015. Carlsen made him look very vulnerable and this in the long run will weigh on his heritage. May be in the long run he cannot belong to the all time top 10 despite all his obvious talent.

  • 9 days ago · Quote · #137

    Justs99171

    watcha wrote:

    Anand had a bad luck with Carlsen. Had Carlsen not appeared on the stage Anand could still shine at the age of 45 as number one as it was underlined again at Norway Chess 2015. Carlsen made him look very vulnerable and this in the long run will weigh on his heritage. May be in the long run he cannot belong to the all time top 10 despite all his obvious talent.

    I don't understand why not. Kasparov is probably number 1. So how would losing to number 1 diminish your legacy? He did soundly defeat Kramnik and Topalov both. According to computer analysis, Kramnik is a top 3 player of all time. Anand lost to Kasparov and Carlsen. That's two players and that's two players anybody else would have lost to as well. There are 8 more slots. If you're looking at top 10 talents, he probably makes the list. If you're looking at top 10 in terms of absolute strength, he is easily in the top 10.

  • 9 days ago · Quote · #138

    stuzzicadenti

    Anand in no way "soundly" defeated Kramnik and Topalov. Against Kramnik he got lucky with opening preparation in one particular variation which Kramnik foolishly repeated in two key games. Anand was basically better prepared in one specific opening which he suspected Kramnik would play, so his match strategy was better, but in terms of a pure chess playing standpoint there wasn't much to separate them. Against Topalov there were lots of decisive games for a match of this caliber maybe because both players were playing very aggressive, and probably both Anand and Topalov have similar tactical styles (although Anand is slightly more solid and consistent), and the result came down to tie breaks. I'd wager that Carlsen beat Anand (in both matches, but moreso in the first one) by a larger margin than Anand beat Kramnik. What happened to Anand against Carlsen was an unprecedented mental and psychological collapse, something of the scale not seen in Anand's career since 20 years ago in his very first world championship match (against Kasparov). Even Kasparov said that Anand was every bit at his level chess-wise, but that he was inexperienced in match play and psychologically not strong.

  • 9 days ago · Quote · #139

    watcha

    May be he could have gotten away with just the defeat from Kasparov. This was early in his career, this may have somehow been forgotten. But decisive defeats from two of his contemporaries is too much for an all time top 10 player. The two successive defeats from Carlsen were so hopeless, may be the first one again was forgivable, but not the second one. Despite being in remarkable form at the age of 45, coming back from these two defeats seems a very tall order for Anand. All the Nakamuras, Caruanas, Giris of the world were not a problem for him but then came this monster and spoiled everything. I really feel sorry for him.

  • 9 days ago · Quote · #140

    micahgeisel

    nice


Back to Top

Post your reply: