Easily Akiba Rubenstein!
His games are chess as art.
The lines are subtle almost whimsical.
None of that will make a bit of sense until you replay a few of his games.
Easily Akiba Rubenstein!
His games are chess as art.
The lines are subtle almost whimsical.
None of that will make a bit of sense until you replay a few of his games.
Kasparov, then Fischer followed by Karpov and Tal.
Korchnoi was interesting also. Todays players are boring with their computer like moves. No risk taking and no brilliancies for some time. I guess all the brilliant moves have already been made by the above GM's.
"Todays players are boring with their computer like moves. No risk taking and no brilliancies for some time"
Spassky and Tal are probably my two favourites for playing very creative chess and also being sympathetic individuals. That being said, I think the chess of their time often is considered to have been more exciting than it sometimes was, both have 170 draws in 15 moves or less, while Carlsen has 0 such games the last 14 years (except for a couple of last round blitz games in matches that were already decided).
I think there are lots of brilliancies played, it's just that the games the 2750+ guys play against each other are on such a high level that it is more difficult to win with dubious sacrifices and too big risks. So the events with only top players always risk some London style games, where everything is very even and balanced throughout, and it could be more fun for the spectators. But I think it would be possible to make a list of a dozen pretty brilliancies played by for example the "boring" Carlsen just over the last years.
How about Morphy? He was a prodigy, though he and Fischer disappeared from the chess world with the same problems (They thought they would get killed or poisoned!?).
I play the variation I do in the Two Knights because of Nezhmetdinov.
It's a Modern Benoni game of his that inspired everyone's most loved player, Tal, to take up that opening. The rest is history!
I admire Spassky for his ability to play classically d4 and e4 openings. Korchnoi has said it is important for a chessplayer to be learning new things, and I take the grand old man at his word! (His games collection is maybe the greatest by a super-hero GM ever written.)
Who don't I care for? Steinitz, Lasker, Botvinnik, Kasparov...all greats; but I don't understand their games at all or they just leave me cold.
Kasparov is just too heavily influenced by computers, which is one huge reason that the only currently active GM I like is Gelfand.