If all of the Former World Champions ever were to compete who would be the best and reason why.

StinkingHyena

There was a paper that compared world champions at their best against computer play, then applied a statistical model for match results. Long story short all the modern players since Fischer plus Lasker and I think Botvinnik (maybe Petrosian) were disgustingly close. Like the player with better sleep, more prepared or an empty bladder would win. The other champions Capa, Alekhine, etc, were a step behind. That being said, Botvinnik was probably the hardest worker, Lasker the coolest under pressure, Kasparov the most competitive, Fischer the most confident. The world will never know how many licks it takes to get to the center of that tootsie pop.

autobunny

42

StinkingHyena
kindaspongey wrote:

Chessmetrics December 1928: José Capablanca-2805. Alexander Alekhine-2801, Aron Nimzowitsch-2766, Efim Bogoljubow-2755, Max Euwe-2734, Milan Vidmar Sr-2715, Akiba Rubinstein-2707, Saviely Tartakower-2686, Rudolf Spielmann-2667, Richard Réti-2661, Frank Marshall-2656, Friedrich Sämisch-2648, Emanuel Lasker-2643

http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/SingleMonth.asp?Params=192510SSSSS3S000000192812111000000000000010100

Chessmetrics January 1935: Alexander Alekhine-2798, Max Euwe-2751, Salo Flohr-2739, Efim Bogoljubow-2719 Isaac Kashdan-2707, Andor Lilienthal-2702, Samuel Reshevsky-2680, Arnold Denker-2677, Vasja Pirc-2670, Mir Sultan Khan-2662, Mikhail Botvinnik-2659, Esteban Canal-2645, Ossip Bernstein-2644, Gideon Ståhlberg-2641, Rudolf Spielmann-2640, Emanuel Lasker-2638, Géza Maróczy-2636, José Capablanca-2632

http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/SingleMonth.asp?Params=193010SSSSS3S000000193501111000000000000010100

I believe this one is much better than chessmetrics and was the one I was referring to.

https://content.iospress.com/articles/icga-journal/icg0012

Homsar
Karpov hasn’t gotten the mention he deserves. I think he would be a serious contender since he had such an ability to grind his opponents down. He’s also one of my favorites so I’m gonna go with him.
gingerninja2003

Carlsen just because he has been able to exploit the benefits of the computer generation the most.

Despite this Anand is my favorite player (currently; it changes all the time). He has basically mirrored Fischer's achievement's in the sense that he was the first non-Russian World chess champion (in terms of winning it in a classical match) in 33 years . India had a relatively small chess at the time of his rise to being a super-GM (like the USA in the mid 1900s). And, he had the balls to defend his world chess championship unlike a certain American world chess champion. 

bong711

Kasparov would be a runaway winner with few rounds remaining. Nobody plays Super GM tournaments or (Champions Tournament) like him. 

camter

If all these old time guys had foreseen the modern machines, they would have been more careful, and not made speculative moves.

bong711
camter wrote:

If all these old time guys had foreseen the modern machines, they would have been more careful, and not made speculative moves.

That makes Capablanca even greater. His duel with Tal would be very interesting.

AlFiziro
play 4 a win u have 2 play 4 a loss

 

camter

Marshall tried that and got done by Capa. What would Reti have to say? He rightly said Capa was a machine type modern man.

AlisonHart

This thread is kind of the equivalent of "my dad could beat up your dad".........I have my favorite players, you have yours, and it's basically impossible to know if prime Borris Spassky could defeat prime Paul Morphy. Partly it depends on the circumstances of the match - whether they'll get time to train, access to engines, seconds of their choosing (or ours) etc. But it's like that stupid show that used to be on the "History" Channel where you get a guy in a pirate suit, a guy in a Samurai suit, and 2 idiots with a pile of swords and a ballistic dummy. You're not really "solving" the question of whether the average English privateer would defeat the average Japanese aristocrat; you're just assembling a pile of data, comparing it in the vaguest possible terms, and declaring the winner based on favoritism.

hitthepin

Didn’t chess.com make an article series about this?

camter
hitthepin wrote:

Didn’t chess.com make an article series about this?

Almost certainly. There are only about 100 threads on the site about this well-loved topic, so Chess.com would have at least one.  

Donirtha

Did OP just point bias towards America?

 

Shame.

kaspariano

 

If all the chess world champions were to compete in a tournament, who will win it would be a matter of who has the best luck at the time among them.  Of course, more recent champions will have an edge in term of chess theory knowledge, but I don't think that is too decisive.   

kindaspongey
hitthepin wrote:

Didn’t chess.com make an article series about this?

Carlsen-2961 Kramnik-2868 Kasparov-2816 Fischer-2775 Anand-2759 Karpov-2698 Capablanca-2664 Tal-2636 Spassky-2619 Smyslov-2618 Botvinnik-2602 Euwe-2547 Alekhine-2547 Petrosian-2543 Lasker-2498 Morphy-2409 Steinitz-2323
https://www.chess.com/article/view/who-was-the-best-world-chess-champion-in-history

StinkingHyena
kindaspongey wrote:
hitthepin wrote:

Didn’t chess.com make an article series about this?

Carlsen-2961 Kramnik-2868 Kasparov-2816 Fischer-2775 Anand-2759 Karpov-2698 Capablanca-2664 Tal-2636 Spassky-2619 Smyslov-2618 Botvinnik-2602 Euwe-2547 Alekhine-2547 Petrosian-2543 Lasker-2498 Morphy-2409 Steinitz-2323
https://www.chess.com/article/view/who-was-the-best-world-chess-champion-in-history

Seems like that method has some holes, for example wouldnt you want to see the champions best year or years not the entire period (Tals best years performance wise were not when he was world champion). Also should the moves be normalized to a certain ply? CAPS is ok I guess, but from personal experience I take it with a grain of salt. Sure, you might argue that Carlsen is the best ever, but Fischer beating a circa 1988 Karpov? Or Capablancs beating Botvinnik?