Weakest World Champion ?

There is always much discussion over who was the strongest of the world chess champions and each of us has our own favorites. I would like to ask who do you think was the weakest champion?  I will first cast my own vote for Max Euwe.

I read the postings by NM Reb and MattHelfst and was pondering the two separate ideas contained within conjunctively. Something clicked in my head such a when a piece to a puzzle fall into place.

Whoever was World Champion at the time was, by definition, objectively the strongest player in the world at that time (whether that's actually true or not is more subjective and can only be demonstrated with inconclusive and circumstantial evidence).  Comparing WCs against each other is practically impossible. For example, Max Euwe - if he were the weakest WC, then where does that put Alekhine whom he beat? Alekhine came back and beat Euwe, of course, but at the time when Euwe won the WC, he was better than Alekhine, for whatever reason... or we could say, quite accurately, that Alekhine was weaker than Euwe.  If we were to take different data and collate it (manipulate it, perhaps) we might find that Tal or Smyslov would show up rather poorly.  But the idea that stuck in my head was that by pure objective strength, the weakest WC was undoubtedly Wilhelm Steinitz, by mere virtue of the fact that he was the first.  People like to claim that older masters were disadvantaged due to the developmental stages of chess theory and the older the master, the more disadvantaged.  To some degree this must be true, but I'm not convinced it's the conclusive difference.

There are, indeed, more younger players reaching master level today than in any other time period. This coincides with the computer age.  Is that necessarily a cause/effect?  In days of old, Morphy, Capablanca, Reshevsky (to name a few of the most recognizable) were also of master strength at young ages without computers. I would submit that the size of the pool of players, as well as the amount of leisure time available to devote oneself to studying chess and the exposure to high level games speaks volumes. Singling out computers as a main cause denies both natural talent and industry to some degree. Bigger databases don't make better players and computers tend to be as much a crutch as a tool. I'm not in the least convinced of the computers' direct role in chess improvement.

If we've learned nothing else through the scientific study of chess players, it's been demonstrated that the main difference between masters and amateurs is pattern recognition.  Several studies have shown this and I don't know of anything or anyone who has been able to disprove this.  So, if this is an acceptable concept, then it all falls into place.  The difference between being a good, better or best player, at least in part, must include pattern recognition.  But pattern recognition alone isn't enough, of course, as one must understand what those patterns mean and how to proceed.

Masters of old had very little opportunity to amass a personal database of recognizable patterns, first because of the relative paucity of high level games and second, because such patterns had never been introduced. Many of the patterns we take for granted today were discovered on the fly by these great masters. Now, this begs the question of what constitutes greater strength: remembering patterns or creating such patterns. In this light, Steinitz might have been the strongest WC. It also brings into question the often-considered-unimpeachable value of the advancement of chess theory.  This isn't to say that such advancement isn't important, but rather that it's importance may be over-stated.

Computers, it seems to me, are given too much credit. Programs, algorithms and databases are indeed super-strong today but that doesn't mean people using them are by association also strong.  Indirectly, I think computers have helped in that players who use them as tools to learn can amass a greater number of patterns in a shorter period of time and players already at the highest levels can more easily keep abreast of the latest innovations and fine-tune their own game.  But, the logical conclusion of thinking that players today owe their success to computers would be that without computers, they wouldn't be successful.  I can't buy that.

The predominant opinion of the time was that Max Euwe only won because Alekhine was always drunk. After the latter got his rematch, he came back sober and thumped Max soundly.

Spassky would be my second choice.

theriverman wrote: Difference between a rich man and a poor man is,  Money

Now the weakest master could have been the strongest inventor, of patterns. He never was able to cash in on the patterns, a very loyal man.

1) Question

2) Answer the Question   

3) Question the Answer

4) Find and or allow an original Thought 

I tend to agree with Lasker's sentiment that Chess, above all else, is a fight.  Of course, the accuracy of each move is an important facet but if it were the only facet, Chess would be a slab, not a jewel, and we could just let computers play while we watched.  The fact is that chess is more than that because it does involve people and people, no matter how good they are, bring more to the chess table than their talent and skill - they bring their humanity. It's the complexities of human nature, played out in an arena that demands perfection, that makes Chess a grand game rather than just a game or just a mathematical formula. Whether Alekhine was drinking (an excuse that's been suggested over and over until it's become a truism, but not as clear as most people generally suppose - and possibly a severe disservice to Euwe, who knows?) during his first match with the Dutch champion, while fun to examine, really isn't important. In Chess, as in most things, only the result counts. When Euwe beat Alekhine, the results spoke for themselves. It was a fight and Alekhine wasn't up to it.  One can say that Alekhine got his act together and beat Euwe on his next encounter, making Alekhine the strongest, but that denies the fact that Alekhine never had a rematch with Capablanca (whose excuse was laziness) and may not have even been a contender at all if such a match had occurred previously. So, you see, it's a slippery slope when we start factoring in excuses.

Mr. Wall offered an interesting list from an interesting study. I'm not a computer person and may even have a grudge against them, but I'm not sure a computer is a worthy judge. If no human has ever won or even drawn against the program that evaluated the mistakes, then it's opinion may have some clout, but if such a program lost even 1 game (or had possibly even drawn with white?), it's proven that it's quite fallible in determining the best move in all situations. And, even if it were such a judge, I'd have to wonder which games by which players had been examined. I tend to think it's not so simple nor cut and dry.  But it's interesting nonetheless.

Lets ask Kramnik!

 http://www.kramnik.com/eng/interviews/getinterview.aspx?id=61

Oh, and Euwe was not the only amateur world champion.  Lasker was a math professor, capablanca worked for the cuban government, botvinnik was an engineer.

That is an excellent interview with Kramnik. He's very insightful.

I'm glad to learn that Lasker, Capablanca and Botvinnik never played for money.

I think we need to clarify what attributes make someone the "weakest" or "strongest" world champion.

 Inventiveness?  Brute force analytical power or speed? How dominant they were against other top players of their time?  How long they were able to keep their title?  Are we only looking at how good they were in their prime, or achievments over the course of their lifetime?  Does it matter whether they chose to play aggressive, but possibly risky attacking lines and achieved many captivating victories, but also lost more often than some of the more careful champions?

 When you can give me some clear guidlines as to what makes someone the "weakest" champion, I'll be happy offer my opinion.

P.S.  There are also some super strong GMs out there such as Korchnoi that never held the title, who some of us may consider greater than certain people who did.

 Oh they played for money, but chess was not their sole source of income...or even their main source.

"they played for money"

Then they weren't amateurs.