Thanks Again for sharing !

A list of the 30 greatest players of all time that omits David Bronstein??

He was considered, Batgirl. Again, it's only my opinion. I'm looking for others' opinions too.

And no Mikhail Chigorin?

 

Both Chigorin and Bronstein were more significant than Rashid Nezhmetdinov, Bent Larsen, Donald Byrne, Michael Adams, Efim Geller, Hikaru Nakamura, Gata Kamsky, Sergei Karjakin, Magnus Carlsen or even Vassily Ivanchuk. Anyway, that's my opinion.

GreatBut give the others time, for what most of the newcomers you have listed, they've achieved a lot, already. Nezhmetdinov was actually one of the best tacticians of all time. Many factors go into my selection criteria.

Chigorin was 31 on my list....I actually am considering using his opening in the Queen's Gambit declined in the upcoming tournament.

Bronstein, though, I admittedly overlooked. I enjoy the book I have of his, "200 open games"

As you implied, a list such as this is a personal thing. Even what constitutes the criteria is a personal thing.  So, I certainly wasn't complaining about your list, but just bringing up some players that would make my own list without question. 

Np. no harm, no foul. I'd be interested in your list. Would you make one up?!

My list would include all official WCs and one unofficial WC as de facto.

Steinitz, Lasker, Capa, Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Khalifman, Anand, Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov and Topolov. Add to that Morphy on the back end to give 19 de facto list members.

To that, I'd add Chigorin and Bronstein, Korchnoi, Keres, Nimzowitschz,  Rubenstein, Schlechter, Tarrasch, Shirov and Kamsky to fill in the 30 slots.

Good choices, and probably more thorough than mine as far as accuracy goes. But in my opinion Shirov should be replaced by Alexander Beliavsky . I'm not that familiar with Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov, and Khalifman to have an opinion.

 

Along with Topolov (and Anand and Karpov) Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov, and Khalifman were all FIDE WCs during the split-off of the WC title. I figured each of their titles was a valid as Kasparov's during that time. The WC title, in my opinion, trumps everything.

I chose Shirov because he beat Kramnik (who beat Kasparov) in the match to decide who would play Kasparov.

 

To be honest, players of chess, and even the game itself, confound me somewhat in the computer age.  I don't really think I'm a good judge of these players.  One can compare ratings or win/loss ratios and come to some conclusions, I guess.

 

I like what Brontein said in an interview:

 

"In olden days, quality of a game depended on how much you were using your own ideas, risking, daring. Later, Botvinnik and Smyslov had styles you could recognize. Chess has changed from a philosophical play to a sporting game. Long study has found best moves—the achievement of generations. But the old players did it automatically, fighting for their principles. Capablanca made simple moves. Alekhine, sharp ones. Botvinnik—all that work for a pawn! Tal—he just knew how to kill you.

Slowly, chess has lost its spirit, now it is just a sport competition for points. I’m a bit sad about it, but it’s inevitable. It’s just sad that youth cannot see the beauty and glory of thinking of a combination, of free brain vs. brain. Now there is too much book knowledge, even of the middle game. Quality has been lost."

I like what you wrote. Bronstein couldn't have been more succint or profound.