The 64

Oohh lovely I'll check that out, thank you.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/square-signatures 

Yeah, I had a similar idea earlier too (as have many others). My forum topic has a subtle twist though: it is not only "significant" players, but also encompassed is the justification for their designated square. Perhaps this will be of interest for posters in this forum too; deciding the most "significant" players is surely controversial and subjective, but my started topic has more to do with the reasoning behind the selections - rather than the selections themselves.

Also, the list in post #1 is not bad, but I notice most of these players are not contemporary players (Yes I see names like Carlsen, I said MOST are not contemporary players: a lot of the names are "classical players"). 

Post #1 should include more contemporary strong players (like Hikaru Nakamura for example). The "classic" players of old we're surely strong, but I think many forget how strong GMs are in today's computer age too.

Petroff, Alapin, Blackburne, Bogoljuvob, Poleiro, Nezhmetdinov, Bird, Greco, Koltanowski, Tarrasch... you missed many!

Pd: It's Zukertort, not Zuckertort.

I know, but there's only 64 places. Who is removed?

Tarrasch is on there.

I am a worm. Forgive me, Johann.

Nice twist! Yes I like that. I'll check that out.

In terms of Contemporary vs Classical players, I've tried to spread the players out over modern history. To use Nakamura as an example, a strong exciting GM who does a lot for chess off the board, he was on earlier lists, but Ulf Andersson, one of the strongest GMs of his time and an important chess analyst, took his place in a later revision. As I've said, there's only 64 places, and it's hard! I found I run out of squares real fast! But my list in post 1 is my no means complete. It's a work in progress.

LaBourdonnais, Maroczy, Flohr, Timman... aren't that relevant.

It's Marshall, not Marshal. It's Réti not Reti. Glígoric not Gligoric.

Also you missed Taimanov!!

Anyway good list

Hmmmm, yeah, maybe adjust the list with more contemporary players? They've got to be so much stronger in this computer age...