Chess HOF?

If you could create a chess Hall of Fame, which players would you include in it? Discuss.

anderrsen for his great tactics and play

Morphy for his brilliant play

Alekhine for being the first modern master and for introducing hypermodern style

Why give him the credit?

the Alekhine deffence

He played it a few times. That doesn't equate to introducing hypermodern style.

but what opening is more hypermodern

Even if it were the most hypermodern, it still wouldn't qualify him for that title.

Can you think of other hypermodern openings?

1. b3 

1.e4 Nc6

1.e4 b6

1. c4 Nf6

the list goes on

plus the formation of doubled rooks infront of a queen is named after him so that must be mentioned

I have to ask, what are the names of some of the openings you listed? Add moves as needed to differentiate openings.

Napoleon played an Alekhine's Defense. Ahead of his time, I suppose.

It was when he was still emperor. Maybe if he played less chess and did more emeroring, he wouldn't have lost his job.

Anderssen- hey, if both Morphy and Steinitz can't be considered the best until they beat you, that has to count for something.

Morphy- no explanation needed really. In his day, who was better?

Steinitz- the 'father of modern chess'

Lasker- although he should have given Rubinstein a shot, he should still be in the chess hall of fame for sure

Capablanca- the greatest 'natural player' in many people's opinon [in my opinion it would be him or Morphy with that distinction] Awesome in tournaments and extremely difficult to defeat inspite of his not really keeping abreast with improvements in opening theory.

Alekhine- he beat Capablanca in a match 6-3. If he did nothing else, he should be in it just for that. He was the consumate grandmaster of his day. He had talent, and he studied. He was great tactically and proved against Capablanca that he could play positionally as well. Capa was one of the very best at exploiting a small advantage into a win, yet in the match against Alekhine he could only do that 3 times in a match that seemed to go on forever.

Botvinnik- I think he has to be here, but he received more help in staying at the top than almost any other 'modern' player. He was constantly given rematches while the players who defeated him were not. You really had to beat Botvinnik twice to be the champion. Also by avoiding having to play in candidates matches Botvinnik was given a free ride in my opinion. Still, he was great player, and deserves to be in the hall of fame.

Rubinstein- in my opinion the best player to never be champion. Living in a day when the champion had total control over who he played Rubinstein never got his shot.

Smyslov- a brief world champion, he maintained real strength as long or longer than any other.

Tal- his games a tactical gems, and fun to play through, a brief world champion who was rarely healthy

Petrosian- he won games while seeming to defy common chess principles. Perhaps the most original style ever.

Spassky- he beat Petrosian, when no one thought defeating Petrosian was possible.

Fischer- his exploits speak for themselves [at least, they should]

Karpov- a great tournament player and solid as a rock.

Kasparov- one of my personal favorites. Brilliant speculative attacker, while rarely comprimising his position. His play in the variation of the sicilian that he chose is as legendary as Fischer's Najdorf variation in the same opening.

There are a few others, but I'm at a public library and my time is almost up. 

The queens indian is the most annoying hypermodern defense I ever played against.