50 Ways to Name your Masters
Sort:
Dec 29, 2007
0
#162
I'll do some research and comparisons. We'll see how they stack up. Thx.
Dec 29, 2007
0
#163
John Cochrane, Max Lange, Larry Christiansen and Nick DeFirmian, all good, none good enough. In my opinion, that is.
I tend to go with historical players too, but for 2 reasons, one good, one not so good. The good reason is that we have perspective on historical players and can evalutate their contributions more clearly. The not-so-good reason is that I know more about them and can make a reasonable case pro or con.
Maroczy has my unqualified vote. Najdorf, I'd vote for with resevations.
The problem with who we have left (historic players, that is) is that it includes players who had great potential and never quite realized it. Reshevsky should have been WC at some point, but never made it. Pillsbury might have, if he had lived. Janowski, I'd like to vote for, but after our recent discussions that reminded me of his weakness at match play, I'm hesistant. Flohr, he was a national hero but never seemed in quite the same class as his contemporaries Alekhine and Capablanca. Tartakower, Najdorf called him his teacher, but Najdorf's teacher was on the wrong side of a lot of brilliancies. I'd classify Tartakower somewhere with Spielmann.
I'm also wondering why we lack theorists (other than Steinitz, Reti and Nimzowitsch)
thanks for the post
Maroczy makes 44. Only a half-dozen to go. The next six on the Bill Wall list who we have not already included are Ivanchuk, Svidler, Ljubojevic, Adams, Morozevich, and Kamsky. Svidler has been previously rejected. Next is Bareev, Bacrot, and Timman. So logically we should consider these 8: perhaps vs the next two "historic" players on the Wall list, Portisch and Geller. Batgirl has previously weighed in in favor of Ivanchuk.
Also don't forget Najdorf, who has won one vote plus one qualified vote.
Dec 30, 2007
0
#167
Efim Geller - yes. A great player, theoretician, coach, analyst, you name it. Spassky wrote: "He was a grandmaster of very high class and would play one or two games a year which would determine the direction that chess took in this or that opening."
I had to look up Lajos Portisch to find where he stood in relation to other players. He seems to have been a great tournament player with an overall plus score against such great players are Petrosian, Korchnoi and Larsen. His Olympiad results are amazing, really (+121 =113 -26). He's had a long career and is a Hungarian national chess hero. I had been thinking of Pal Benko, but at this point I would easily choose Portisch over Benko, but Reshevsky over Portisch.
Geller makes 45. Batgirl, do we need to look back before Philidor as you suggested earlier? Greco, Damiano, Ruy Lopez?
Dec 30, 2007
0
#169
Damiano, Ruy Lopez, Lucena - bah!
Greco is another story. If what we know of him is even partially accurate, he was the strongest known player in his day. He was an itinerant player who made several fortunes at chess, both playing and teaching. So, he was not only good, but he spread his knowledge throughout Europe - Italy, France, England and Spain, possibly even the East Indies. Even more important, he was the first known person to compile actual games, rather than positions or problems. After his death, his manuscripts were compiled and published into books commonly referred to as Calabrians (Greco was from Calabria and was known as il Calabrese). Calabrians were essentially the Chess Bible for over a century and can still be used today for insight into the weaknesses of inferior play, such as any book on opening traps. I don't think Greco's importance can be overstated. The only reservation might be that he pre-dated what might be considered "modern chess" by some definitions.
Dec 30, 2007
0
#170
What about Raymond Keene? He was awarded the Order of the British Empire (OBE), on Queen Elizabeth II's Honours' List, for services to chess in 1985.
Greco makes 46. Four to go. Any ideas? Time to admit Najdorf and Reshevsky?
The only reason for this post is to bring the topic back toward the top of the list. Do we have anything else to say?Do we leave it at 46? So close!
Jan 13, 2008
0
#173
Time to admit Najdorf and Reshevsky?
I think so. Maybe Bogulyubov and Tartakower too.
Done! That makes fifty.
Jan 13, 2008
0
#175
And the list of the 50 Most Imortant Chess Players of All Time is:
1. Philidor
2. Deschapelles
3. de la Bourdonnais
4. Staunton
5. Anderssen
6. Morphy
7. Steinitz
8. Lasker
9. Capablanca
10. Alekhine
11. Euwe
12. Botvinnik
13. Smyslov
14. Tal
15. Petrosian
16. Spassky
17. Fischer
18. Karpov
19. Kasparov
20. Kramnik
21. Khalifman
22. Anand
23. Ponomariov
24. Kasimdzhanov
25. Topalov
26. Tarrasch
27. Nimzovitch
28. Bronstein
29. Zuckertort
30. Keres
31. Schlecter
32. Tchigorin
33. Rubinstein
34. Fine
35. Menchik
36. Polgar
37. Korchnoi
38. Blackburne
39. von der Lasa
40. Reti
41. Leko
42. Shirov
43. Marshall.
44. Maroczy
45. Geller
46. Greco
47. Najdorf
48. Reshevsky
49. Bogulyubov
50. Tartakower
going once....
going twice.....
Alexander Petrov
Jan 14, 2008
0
#177
A simple name isn't enough. At this point you must build and present a convincing case, not only why he should be included, but included above some other player already on the list.
Hurrah!
GM Ante Brkić 2558.He is 19 years old,from Croatia.
No one had proposed these names up till now. Can you make a case for any of these? Who of those already selected or nominated would you put aside in favor of any of these? Tacitly, we have eliminated virtually any modern player who did not make Bill Wall's top 100 list.