Chess "doppelgangers": Carslen = Capablanca, but what about the rest?

It has become increasingly clear the Magnus Carlsen is essentially Capablanca reincarnated (prodigy, level headed, endgame magician, arguably somewhat lazy in the openings, etc.), but what about the other players?  Here are my suggestions:

Kasparov = Alekhine

This one is mainly because of personality and style - both came across at times as somewhat egomaniacal, and both sported a highly aggressive, ultra-creative, analytically demanding style of play that often completely overwhelmed their opponents.

Topalov = Bogojubov

Topalov and Bogojubov are/were both known for their optimistic and highly tactical style, and they each have one spectacular tournament result to their credit: Topalov in San Luis 2005, Bogojubov in Moscow 1925.  However, the main similarity between these two is that they both have lost a large number of very famous games.  To wit:

Alekhine - Bogojubov, Hastings 1922

Reti - Bogojubov, New York 1924

Marshall - Bogojubov, New York 1924

Karpov - Topalov, Linares 1994

Topalov - Shirov, Linares 1998

Kasparov - Topalov, Wijk ann Zee 1999

Kamsky = Reshevsky

Like Carlsen/Capablanca, Kamsky and Reshevsky were both child prodigies, but again the similarities go deeper.  First off, after emigrating to America from the east, both retired from chess after their first initial stint as a child/teenager, only to return again at a later age.  Secondly, they both were ultimately overshadowed in their own country by an idiosyncratic tactical genius (Fischer for Reshevsky, Nakamura for Kamsky).  Thirdly, and most interestingly, they have eerily similar styles - they're both tough, resourceful, highly tenacious fighters who revel(ed) in difficult positions.

Leko = Schlechter

Both drawing masters, and both came within an ace of winning their 1910/2004 World Championship matches (both led by a point going into the final game, only to lose and - fittingly enough - draw the match):

Lasker - Schlechter, Berlin 1910

Kramnik - Leko, Brissago, 2004

Shirov = Spielmann

This is fairly obvious, but once again there's more to the analogy than just both being masters of sacrificial attacks - they also were very strong endgame players and much more well rounded than their reputations might at first suggest. Spielmann in particular had a large number of tournament successes in the 20's to go along with his numerous brilliancy prizes.

Ivanchuk = Nimzowitch

This one really is due to two factors - both are/were eccentrically inventive geniuses who played second fiddle to quasi-countrymen (Kasparov and Alekhine), and both have/had an occasional tendency to collapse in spectacular ways, such as Nimzo's famous "Why must I lose to this idiot" outburst and Chucky's all-too-easy to relate to game below:

Ivanchuk - Caruana, Reggio Emilia 2012

Sokolov = Eliskases

OK, you may be wondering who either of these two are, but they share something fairly remarkable in common, namely having managed, in spite of their relative obscurity, to have beaten three different world champions in tournament play at classical time controls.  In Sokolov's case, his victims include Kasparov, Kramnik and Anand, wheras Eliskases managed to upset Capablanca, Euwe, and even Fischer:

***
Anyhow, that's my list - can anyone come up with any other chess "doppelgangers"?

- GB

Karpov = Petrosian

Risk averse WC's, considered excellent but not especially ineresting players, defended title, later lost title

Yup, but given that Petrosian and Karpov's eras overlap significantly, I couldn't quite treat them as being from entirely different historical epochs.

To me, Karpov is part of a line of "pragmatic" players that begins in earnest with Steinitz/Lasker and extends through, say, Aronian.

Well at least Topalov wasn't a slimy Nazi collaborator like Bogolyjubov, no matter how crappy a person he might be otherwise.

I guess Fischer = Morphy was too obvious? Both were WCHs who retired immediately after winning the title (yeah I know Morphy played a few more casual games afterwards) and then went off the deep end, although Morphy wasn't an anti-Semitic sociopathic shirthead. 

Karpov and Petrosian are only boring to people who don't appreciate the finer things in life, or at least chess. Or more likely to people who haven't played over any games by either player and are just parroting someone else's erroneous opinion. 

No i saw Karpov games, but seriously im not using symbolic but most often i fall asleep, even so i want to learn. Ofc by accident even KArpov sometimes played interesting games. Well im not parroting anyone, but i might havent seen enough games of him.

Larsen=Soltis

They both make chess books fun to learn and exciting. Adding learning with humor.

Wesley So=Wolfgang Unzicker

Both players are "giant killers"

Oh i almost forgot,

Andy Clifton=Omar Cayenne

Both are the same person and amazingly very strong chess player/s.

Cheparinov = Bardeleben

Bardeleben walked out on Steinitz's combimation.

cheparinov refused to shake Short's hand.

Bad manners. Bad sports. Shame on them.

Or, you understand very little- whatever comes second.

I'm not familiar with the details of Cheparinov's snub, but I do feel that Bardeleben was to some degree shafted by some of the more dubious 20th century chess "historians" in their search for a colorful story.

Edward Winter's article (http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/steinitzvonbardeleben.html) helps clear up a number of misconceptions about the incident.

BYP = NN

Georgethe1st=TBYP

both are super trained coaches.

I don't agree that Karpov's games are boring. I think people were used to comparing Kasparov to Karpov, and the two were labeled as being the extreme opposite of each other. If Kasparov was aggressive, then Karpov must be defensive. If Kasparov's games were exciting, then Karpov's games must be dull and boring. There are mere stereotypes. The problem is that these stereotypes live on till now, and they are not correct. If it was another Petrosian who faced Karpov instead of Kasparov in the epic match, would the way people look at Karpov change?

Studying Karpov's games are not easy. There are times when he likes to make some queer moves that nobody (including chess engines) cannot understand and ultimately won the game. Whether the game was won due to that particular move or not, nobody knows. Nobody can tell whether the move was accurate or not. Did he see something that even chess engines cannot? Or was it simply an inaccuracy on his part? Even super GM like Kramnik is unable to understand some of Karpov's moves (look up Kramnik's interview somewhere on the internet). Botvinnik himself was unable to understand Karpov's chess and regarded Karpov as being untalented. Regardless, Karpov crushed everybody on sight at his peak, and Garry Kasparov never have an easy win against Karpov even now.

Here are some relevant quotes:

I can't play with you because I don't understand the way you play or your train of thought.  -   Boris Spassky

The boy doesn't have a clue about chess, and there's no future at all for him in this profession.  -  Mikhail Botvinnik

I still remember Botvinnik's reaction to each of my games, right from the opening moves. At first he would express amazement, then annoyance, and, finally irritation. - Anatoly Karpov

If they had played 150 games at full strength, they would be in a lunatic asylum by now.  - (on Kasparov & Karpov, 1987)  -  Boris Spassky

im not saying its a waste of time. i said i wanted to study karpovs games but i felt asleep. Still its my taste to me he is boring.

anyway i can never tell when people troll or are serious. 

Karpov is a genius

ofc he is a genius. but i still find his games tremendiously boring. I mean its obvious you dont become world champion as an idiot or mediocre intelligent person

Good book of annotations on Karpovs games?

Keres - Aronian

Both will always be on the "best player to never become wc" list

Tartakower-Nakamura

Both too "speculative" to reach theit true potential.

[edit] btw, I'm a great fan of both Aronian and Naka, they just have the misfortune to peak in the Carlsen era....

I like the Tartakower = Nakamura idea: both play(ed) joke openings and are/were extremely clever and unconvential tacticians.  Tartakower had funnier tweets, though. :)