Pt. 1 of Fischer’s TOP 10 LIST of the World’s Best Players

In 1964, for ChessWorld Magazine, Robert James Fischer was asked to name the Top 10 Best Chess Players in the World. 

Here is his list (in alphabetical order) of those players.  Alexander Alekhine, Jose Capablanca, Paul Morphy, Samuel Reshevsky, Boris Spassky, Howard Staunton, Wilhelm Steintz, Mikhail Tal, Siegbert Tarrash, and Mikhail Tchigorin. 

Divided into 10 parts (one part per player) each Part will include a brief description by Fischer of each player and a couple of games he played against them where applicable.

 Alexander Alekhine - 1892 - 1946.
Fischer said: “Never a hero of mine. His style worked for him, but it could scarcely work for anybody else.”
“His conceptions were gigantic, full of outrageous and unprecedented ideas. It's hard to find mistakes in his games, but in a sense his whole method was a mistake.”
“He had great imagination; he could see more deeply into a situation than any other player in chess history... Many consider Alekhine a great opening theoretician, but I don't think he was. He played book lines, but didn't know them very well. He always felt that his natural powers would get him out of any dilemma.” 
Needless to say, Fischer never met Alekhine OTB, but to see the full short game between Alekhine and Koehnlein from a tournament in Dusseldorf in 1908 see Pt. 1 of Fischers 10 Best List at: www.chess.com/blog/Reshevskys_Revenge

Fischer was full of shirt about Alekhine not knowing book lines "very well." 

His Top Ten List sucks ass IMHO - and it's now badly outdated to boot. BUT, maybe his list was based on his idea of the Top Ten theoreticians of all time? In which case Nimzovitch should've been on it, not Reshevsky (nothing personal here BTW)

Still, this is an interesting project you've assigned yourself and it will be interesting to see what games you pick for each player.

Fischer's top ten was a deliberate affront to the Soviet School of Chess. he made that clear at the time, in subsequent comments, and in his choice of who he left off the list. 

The only reason anyone is interested in that list at all is the Fischer name. It has no credibility as a list of the ten best players, it is only an historical footnote.

Yes, he did leave some great ones off!  He also revised the list in 1970.  This project is an exercise in chess history, and there is no doubt when players begin debating what's what and who's who in chess, the sparks will fly!  BTW -I think the magazine ChessWorld only lasted for 3 issues.

He revised the list in 1970? Seeing is believing...hint...hint

I could only find 6 so far from his revised 1970 list: Tigran Petrosian, Brent Larsen, Svetozar Gilgoric, Mikhail Botvinnik, Mikhail Tal, and Samuel Reshevsky.  Most every chess player probably has a TOP 10 list, and most all differ a little to a lot.  But yes, it was Fischer's list, not Joe Schmo's, which makes it interesting.  And actually, I like the history involved. There's something about playing over the games of Morphy, Smyslov, Fischer, Capablanca and reading about their personal lives.  Do you know which Grand Masters threw punches at each other at  tournaments?  I taught a Summer class at the college where Morphy attended and graduated.  I've walked down Morphy Avenue.  I corresponded, joked, and laughed with Sammy Reshevsky.  It's all about the history - which to me is way more glamorous than the present chess scene.

That wasn't a 10 Greatest of All Time list, as I recall from Brady's biography.

I suppose this is a reference to the Fischer/Benko incident ?  I am not aware of other incidents in which famous GMs traded punches , are there any ?  I have also read that Petrosian used to sometimes kick his opponents under the table during games and he and Korchnoi have traded such kicks before . I often wonder if these " strories " are true .  They are often humourous . 

@NMreb Korchnoi and Petrosian hated each other's guts, a very unfunny situation from their perspectives. Petrosian's wife was a harpy who did all or most of his dirty work for him like pestering the authorities to f**k over VK and other opponents and favor Tigran as much as possible. Of course in VKs case that was probably much easier than usual due to his big mouth and total lack of tact, although you can hardly blame him when you read up on how he got totally jerked over in the 1974 Final CM match vs Karpov (the authorites decided in advance who they wanted to win, so Karpov got Tal and several other megaweight seconds, while only GM Dzindzashivili had the guts to work with VK)

I don't have any sources here besides my own shaky memory, but I'm pretty sure Edward Winter's Chess Notes (available at chesscafe.com) might cover their deadly hatred of each other somewhere or other.

Reshevsky was one player about whom I read that got into some "scraps" but I can't remember who the other players were. As you say though, there are "stories" and may not all be true.

It’s impossible to compare two players from different epochs. It’s extremely unfair because we know more now and also because my opponents are stronger than those Fischer had to face. I am not trying to underestimate Fischer’s achievements! The only real point of comparison between the two of us is the size of the gaps between ourselves and our respective opponents. I think that the gap between Fischer and his opponents is still the widest in chess history. The only possible way to compare Fischer, Botvinnik, Morphy, Steinitz and Kasparov is to place them in the context of their eras and to measure the distance between themselves and their opponents. Fischer’s distance was vast! -- Garry Kasparov

I see he DID include Tal. A soviet player he had little love for.

But am surprised Laster and Nimzovitch weren't on that list. Surely Staunton could have been bumped for one of them.

And interesting thread would be about why players were excluded from this list.

Well said, Reshevsky!

Of course, all such competitive activities each have their own rich, unique history. thae same as chess does. And we could have fallen in love with any one of them.

But in no other such activity can we look over a tournament or match that occured 150 years ago, and see how it went, moment by moment, move by move. i may be able to research, and see who won (let's say) a boxing match from 1912. But not follow it blow-for-blow.  Not the way we can with chess, at least.

That, I believe, is the beauty of chess. It is truely immortal.

You're correct...  I took on the task of posting this "list" of Fischer's, not because that I thought that it was the quintessential record at that time (1964) of the best, greatest, or whatever, of players of all time, but because of the name Fischer, and to look into the games and personalities of the players of the past.

This list was published in a chess magazine - ChessWorld.  Now, there would have been hundreds of such lists from other professionals, amateurs, spectators and the like, dealing with the same topic, but they weren't asked/published - because they weren't Fischer. 

I see many posts now, all over, on "Who's The Greatest of All Time", "Who Are The Top Now", "Who Is This", "Who Was That" and so forth, and they ALL differ somewhat.  And as Varelse1 mentioned, it's WHO was left off this list and WHY that would also make interesting discussion and give insight into Fischer's mind-set as well as the chess scene back then.

My list:

Morphy

Tal

Capablanca

Kasparov

Fischer

Why is Max Euwe never on anyone's list lol

Yeah, it's terrible.  Didn't he include Staunton but leave out Lasker? lol

Maxie has always been underrated...no doubt about it. 

I agree (mDawson) Euwe is absent from the lists. And Max Euwe, like Reshevsky, devoted much of his time to his profession instead of chess. Euwe was a champion and he displayed the qualities of a great strategist and theoretician.  He was also a great tournament organizer and FIDE President.  I think the problem is when you have to pick just 10 Top Players, Euwe just isn't on most people's minds.  And the big question IS why?