Weakest World Champion ?

Well I think those illegitimate "FIDE" world champions are definitely the weakest. Other than them perhaps Symslov or Euwe. They were all very very strong players, but compared to the other champions not nearly as strong.

if strength wise i must say spassky , he was an easy kick aside man , but reign wise i must regretfully say tal .

Wow, your ignorance is frightening.  

I think it might be helpful to consider how many championships each world champion has won.

Steinitz: 4

Lasker: 6

Capablanca: 1

Alekhine: 4

Euwe: 1

Botvinnik: 5

Smyslov: 1

Tal: 1

Petrosian: 2

Spassky: 1

Fischer: 1

Karpov: 4 (including Fischer's forfeit)   + 3 FIDE championships

Kasparov: 4   + 2 classical championships

Kramink: 1   + 2 classical

Anand: 4   + 1 FIDE

Carlsen: 1 and counting

Of course, the numbers alone don't tell the entire story. I don't think many people would say that Capa or Fischer was the weakest world champion because they only won the title once.

However, based on the numbers I'd say we can eliminate Anand from the discussion.

I think Euwe, as I think quality of chess really boomed after the second world war and the fact he didnt have to play any qualification matches and lost the other match versus the same opponent. But, ''weakest world champion'' is still very strong of course.

Depends on your definition of World Champion.

Let's not forget when the PCA was formed and you had two world champions, PCA and FIDE.

Based on that, it's easy, Khalifman was the weakest World Champion.

If FIDE during the breakup doesn't count, then it's Topalov!

Nothing joking about it.  He was a weak world champion.  He was never the best player in the world during his prime age wise.  He had to hang around and around until Karpov and Kasparov were gone.  He took advantage during a lull in the talent of young players.  He was no different than the other weak tournament "champs" like Khalifman.  He won a tournament then only had to defend his title against other aging chess players.  As soon as Carlsen came on the scene he got smoked.  Just like when he played Kasparov for the title; he got smoked.

Anand couldn't even beat a 50-year old Karpov for the title when given the chance.

If FIDE champions don't count then Topalov was never world champion.

I think Anand is the only World Champion to go many years in a row without winning any tournaments while being World Champion. It's kind of difficult to imagine Lasker or Alekhine playing lots of tournaments for several years without winning any of them, often finishing in the middle of the field. But among the "real" World Champions it ought to be Euwe, even though he is underestimated.

That is "weakest" as in World Champion with least impressive career, since comparing objective playing strength is pointless and unfair to Steinitz et al.

I don't know why I thought Topalov won in 2006.  With that being the case, and you throwing out the FIDE world champions during the breakup, I'd have to say then that the weakest was Fischer.  Anybody else could defend their title in whatever lighting was provided, with spectators watching the game, and not being naive enough to claim the Winawer is busted when the French gave him more fits than any other defense!  (At least when I talk trash about 3 openings in particular, they are ones I regularly beat - King's Gambit with me as Black, Benko and Alekhine with me as White - I don't go around spouting that the Najdorf is bad because it gives me more trouble than any other opening, I bow to the Najdorf - it has me beat!)

So anyway, Fischer is the weakest link!

I dunno... to me that argument sounds like why Fischer is your least favorite WC, not why he was the weakest WC. There have been other champions aside from Fischer who only won the championship once, and were unabke to defend it the second time around. And some of those guys didn't win their first championship nearly as convincingly as Fischer.

That is, assuming that he did reach his prime age-wise when Karpov and Kasparov were still around. But maybe he reached his prime at a later age than most people, after those two were well past theirs? In other words, I'm saying it's possible that Anand didn't peak while Karpov and Kasparov were still around because of purely internal factors, rather than the presence of those two. And after those two were gone, he played objectively better chess, and didn't just seem to play better because of the quality of his opponents.

Not easy to compete with Kasparov and Karpov, the two maybe greatest Champions ever, but Anand did score great results 2007-08. He won Linares both years and World Championships both years quite clearly as well.

So you agree that he lost to a guy that was on life support?  Good.

2007-2008, like I said.  During that lull when the stronger players were mostly older and the young lions hadn't taken over yet.  Anand was a seat warmer for the next generation, nothing more.

Leko and Gelfand got very close to become holders of the "weakest World Champion" title.

Yet it's funny how 3 of those 4 players so far have only won 1 championship.

Yes, Carlsen will probably win more. But until he does, I think it's too early to call him one of the best players ever.