Ohos your lest favorit world chess champion and why?

Ohos your lest favorit world chess champion and why?

I dont really like any of them that much

Botvinnik.

I'm going to ignore all the jokers that FIDE crowned after Kasparov split from them.

Of the "real" world champions, I'll go with Alekhine.  I could never get into his style, I think it was poor form to duck Capablanca's (contractually-obligated) rematch, and his Nazi affiliations are not the type of thing to endear anyone.

Bobby Fischer - He was arrogant beyond normality for a person in his position and racist.  This makes him a bad influence on young aspring players.

Hmm...probably Steinitz since he was the least skilled, although i havent gone through many of his games. Usually with world champions once I go over their games I find something about them to like. I didnt like Petrosian until I went through a collection of his works, now he's one of my favs!

Well, he was the first one, in a time where chess where no where near the standard it has today, so ofcourse he was the least skilled. He is however one of the fathers of todays chess, so I'd give him some due.

Spiffe it wasn't really that simple, both Capablanca and Alekhine where to blame for there not being a return match.

My call is Petrosian. He won against Botvinnik who was well past his prime and a young Spassky. His style of play was uninspiring and he was not a dominant personality for promoting chess.

I would agree with aansel and vote for petrosian as my least favorite

What's everyone have against Petrosian?  IMO, whatever faults Petrosian had can be found to an even greater degree in Karpov.

Petrosian is one of my favorites by far! He had such a unique style that has never really been duplicated by any other top player, and IMO his games were far from boring.

For some reason, I do not like Botvinnik very much. 

Bobby Fischer, for the same reason (more or less) as AMcHarg

ehh.. bobby fischer, i dont know much about him, or anyother masters, but i found in the anti sicillian system that is in the chess mentor demo to be brilliant i mean D5 being the key sqaure....nice

"...probably Steinitz since he was the least skilled..."

I'm not so sure.  Unskilled in then-unknown theory perhaps. But Steinitz, according to Jeff Sonas at any rate, outclassed his competiton more so than any other WC, including Morphy. 

Steinitz lost a match to Anderssen in 1862.  After that, he never lost a single serious match until losing his title to Lasker in 1894. In that same time period of 32 years, he played in 11 tournaments placing first (or tied for first) in 8 and  second in the other 3 (Steintiz had several very long periods during which he didn't play serious chess).  From where I sit, that doesn't signify any lack of skill.

From what I have read on the Alekhine/Capablanca rematch is that Capablanca sent a telegram to Alekhine listing various conditions in a negotiating manner. Alekhine shrewdly used this against Capa as grounds for breach of the terms already set in place and therefore claimed Capa was forfeiting his right to a rematch. It seemed pretty hokey but he got away with it. In those days the champion could pick his challenger if the challenger raised enough money. The champ could set the amount to his liking. I forget the exact amounts but Alekhine said he would play if his challenger raised X amount of money unless it was Capablanca, who had to fork over something like quadruple that amount. Alekhine was a piece of garbage for ducking Capablanca and afterward if the name of Alekhine was mentioned to Capablanca his face was said to turn fuming red. 

@Batgirl

Oh he was absolutely skilled for his time, but any player today with a decent understanding of chess would look at many of his games with raised eyebrows. I had a look at his games some time ago and I wasn't so impressed, I found Lasker to be far more interesting. He was a great innovator in his day, but any Class A or B player these days would have more positional understanding than he did...and that makes his games a bit boring from an educational perspective.

I don't agree with that, I would say that Kasparov ushered in the era of "cyber chess". Also I'm quite partial to Kramnik's games. 

ericmittens,

I understood where you were coming from, but I didn't want it assumed that Steinitz was an unskilled, therefore unworthy, champion.  The positional undestandings we may have today we owe in great part to Steinitz, the pioneer.

Ritchie and Oprah,

I wish you had a shorter name.  I would say players of the 20th century avoided matches more so than players of the 19th century. Look at Lasker, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Fischer, Kasparov, Krammnik... 
Steinitz laid waste to such great players as  Anderssen, Blackburne, Bird, Zukertort, Winawer, Mackenzie, Chigorin and Gunsberg. 
I really can't think of anyone Steinitz avoided. He was supremely confident his his skills.

For fun, here's a blitz game between Henry Bird and the Great Lasker from 1892, just two years before Lasker beat Steinitz and claimed the WC title.

There is no doubt in my mind that Bobby Fischer was a phenominal Chess player, one of the greatest of all time.  In fact; name any World Champion that wasn't?  Seperating Chess ability from personality though, he was a disgusting person and not someone I would ever want at the forefront of the game.  His opinions are more likely to alienate normal people today from Chess than anything else.