50 Ways to Name your Masters

"U can't kick Timman for Janowski."

What's the reasoning?

It's easy enough to leave Timman for now. The point is we're at 41 and getting close to 50. A pertinent question might be who among Leko, Ivanchuk, Shirov, Svidler, Ljobojevic, Adams, Morozevich, Kamsky, and Timman does anyone feel really belongs in the top 50? And if not, what are the alternatives?

Janowski bought his way into his championship match against Lasker (Paid him 7000 francs and claimed it was for an exhibition match and out of the blue Lasker then played Janowski for the World Championship) where Lasker handed him 8 losses and three draws. Janowski didn't win a single game. If he couldn't beat Lasker for a single game, there's no way he should be on the list. The world championship match took place between November 8th and December 8th in 1910 in Berlin.

At least when Timman played Karpov for the World Championship after 21 games, with a score of 12½ to 8½, Karpov may have become the 1993 FIDE World Chess Champion but Timman demonstrated he belongs in the list, maybe well below Karpov but way above Janowski.

"A pertinent question might be who among Leko, Ivanchuk, Shirov, Svidler, Ljobojevic, Adams, Morozevich, Kamsky, and Timman does anyone feel really belongs in the top 50? And if not, what are the alternatives?"

Rather than be hasty, I prefer to do some more research before even forming an opinion.

Janowski was, admittedly, one of the worst match players ever. However, he was one of, if not the, best tournament players for about a ten years span around the turn of the century. During that time several sources claim he was the strongest player in the world for a year or two. Even when his play became more uneven than normal (which is to say a lot), he managed to be a dangerous tournament player until he died in 1927 (scoring 8.5/17 in Semmering 1926, while debilitated from tuberculosis), giving him a chess career that spanned 33 years.

Batgirl touches an interesting subject here: match play vs tournament play. Which is more important in considerations like who belongs in the top 50 ? We may all differ in our opinions on this but its well known that some of the best players ever were stronger in matches than tournaments or vice versa. Geller for example was very strong in tournaments but did poorly in matches....there are many other examples in chess history. In my own mind a truly great player should be good in both. What is your opinion?

Since no one has objected to Blackburne, van der Lasa, or Reti, only to Janowski of the last four we added, I take it our list stands at 40.

Svidler - nyet

Ivanchuk, maybe - a splendid Olympiad record, won Linares at age 19. and a super-Linares at 21. Off-hand, I'd say he's in.

Morozevich, maybe - a great player, but with no comparably outstanding results, but a lot of consistency.

Leko, I don't know - an extremely stong player, but never even a WC contender. He seems to lack that extra something that would make him unstoppable.

Shirov won the 1998 contender match with kramnik +2=7 but never played for the title. Kramnik played instead. Would he be considered a WC contender who never contended? A great match player.

Mickey Adams, maybe - a great natural player with good results.

Kamsky, who knows? - plays, retires, plays, and is as good as ever. Potentially the best ever if he ever reaches his potential.

These active players are beyond me. Of those above, I like Chucky, Adams and Kamsky, but I'm not sure how valid my opinion is on them.

You're exactly right!

I was thinking of that match with Kramnik as a preliminary to the intended unification match, but, no, it was actually a classical WC match.

Leko's in.

Shirov's in

While I'm not impressed with the whole original 5 Grandmaster thing, I do agree that Marshall has several things in his favor. While he never even approached players like Lasker or Capa who were around in his prime, he held his own against the rest - and for a very long period of time. He had both a decent match and tournament history, was the national champion for almost his entire chessplaying life, founded the famous Marshall Club which, among other things, supported women's chess in America, and, as you said, he was a contender.

I think as far a strongest, he may be on the bubble, but as far as most important, I'm tending to agree with you.

"match play vs tournament play. Which is more important in considerations like who belongs in the top 50 ?"

I can't say. To me they are actually quite different things. I would think that great match players are more analytical, while great tournament players are more creative. Of course, in trying to determine the most important chess players, it's possible he could be less than great in both match play and tournament play and still qualify (for other reasons).

Maybe there should be three lists of the top fifty.

1. Match Players

2. Tournament Players

3. The best combined Match/Tournament.

I'd have to say that I agree the greatest players should have excelled in both match and tournament play.

Capablanca

Casablanca is a city in Morocco