Weakest World Champion ?

Topalov, Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov and Khalifman shouldn't even be in the discussion because they weren't "real" world champions, even though Topalov is a very strong player in his own right and is hanging around 2800 FIDE, and therefore would be stronger than many real world champions. However the weakest real world champions would have to be Steinitz, Euwe and Smyslov. 

People that are saying Anand or Carlsen or Kramnik just because they're in the modern era need to realize that you can't speculate how good the old guys would have played if they were alive now and had computers. As of right now, Anand, and Carlsen/Kramnik especially, usually play nearly flawless chess, especially middlegame downwards. Kramnik is starting to slow down, but closer to his peak, and in recent years even, he has been impeccable. And well, Carlsen is the highest rated player of all time and untouchable by anyone not named Fabiano Caruana. 

Let me rephrase you question thusly: Who was the least phenomenally brilliant and awesome world champ? I guess I would say Euwe or Smyslov.

Reb wrote:

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.

getting streaked six games in a row is no couincidense , he only had to beat aging petrosian for the title 

Explain getting streaked 6 in a row ?  Ofcourse Spassky first had to win matches against Korchnoi, Geller and Larsen to get to the " old Petrosian " . The " old Petrosian " must have had plenty of gas left considering he played Fischer in 71 and was the only candidate that managed to slow Fischer down and actually won ONE game from him !  Poor  " aging " Petrosian also managed to win the soviet championship in 1975 and had an equal record against both Kasparov and Karpov .  You really dont know much about chess it seems ... Petrosian was one of the greatest match players ever and was one of the hardest men in the world to defeat . 

Ponomariov.

End of discussion.

idreesarif wrote:

materialistic16 wrote:

Fixing_A_Hole wrote:

materialistic16 wrote:

if strength wise i must say spassky , he was an easy kick aside man 

Wow, your ignorance is frightening.  

getting streaked six games in a row is no couincidense , he only had to beat aging petrosian for the title 

I think you are confusing Spassky with Larsen or Taimanov.

.

Yes.

Speaking of which.

Whoever beat Spassky 6-0?

Must of been a beast, whoever it was. Even Fischer wasn't able to do that!

Ruslan Ponomariov        Peak rating 2764 

Rustam Kasimdzhanov Peak rating 2709

I don't consider any of the of the FIDE paper champions to be World Champions.

"Not counting the FIDE pretenders, I guess Tal,or Smyslov, and they were both great. ;p"

But why rank Tal or Smyslov behind for example Euwe? The latter never won any qualification event and had bad match results against the other top players, like Keres, Capablanca, Bogo etc. Tal was the by far strongest player in the World for a short time, but did score great results now and then also 20 years later. Smyslov won Candidates more than once with a clear margin, played three title matches of which he only lost one, and qualified for a Candidates final when well into his 60s.

Euwe was of course also a great player, but I would never rank him ahead of Tal or Smyslov.

@fablehaft

True.

But Euwe had to keep that horrific '72 Reykjavik match from falling apart. How he managed that, heaven only knows.

Therefore, I refuse to ever rip on him, out of sheer pity.

Even if we counted the FIDE champs, Ponomariov wouldn't be the weakest at all. I mean the guy was talented, he was a chess prodigy (reached GM at 14), reached 2764 and top 10. Now he's obviously getting weaker and weaker, which is weird since he is really young and could even grow. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1007030 A bunch of wins against great players. I honestly think he's one of the most talented players of all time. He might have lost his way at some point, though.

And honestly I don't know why FIDE champs are disregarded like this. I mean Pono had to win mini-matches against Tiviakov, Georgiev, Morozevich, Bareev, Svidler and Ivanchuk.

If you ask Stockfish, it will tell you Steinitz. Euwe is next, Botvinnik is the third weakest WC. Capablanca is the strongest one. 

As a curiosity, Anand said a few days ago in an interview for Spanish newspaper El País that any of the current top players in the world would beat Fischer comfortably. That would change if he had 3 months to "update". 

He also said that with computers you can learn openings in depth in a week of hard work, whereas it took an average of 2 years before computers.

NB: Carlsen and Anand's games were not analysed.

"And honestly I don't know why FIDE champs are disregarded like this. I mean Pono had to win mini-matches against Tiviakov, Georgiev, Morozevich, Bareev, Svidler and Ivanchuk"

Probably because winning a few knockout minimatches but never being a top 5 player, as in the cases of Pono, Khalifman and Kasimdzhanov, is seen as less of an achievement than what Tal, Smyslov etc did. Of all the undisputed World Champions there's only Euwe and Kramnik one might suggest never was the strongest player in the World, but they too probably were for some very short time. At least Kramnik shared first on the rating list twice.

Stockfish and Rybka rate Kramnik as second best (Anand and Carlsen's games not analysed).

Stockfish and Rybka would rank Steinitz as many classes weaker than Leko or even Agdestein, Steinitz is still the many classes greater player though.

One funny thing is that engine analysis seems to suggest that Karpov played better than Kasparov in all the matches Kasparov won against Karpov.

+1 If you play 90% Stockfish number one choice but blunder and lose the game by checkmate in one, the analysis will still say you played better than your opponent.

Fischer also stayed #1 on the list three years after retiring, which he wouldn't have done with the rules of the last decades.

That chart proves my point about how weak Anand was. Didnt become #1 until almost 40. Like I said, he just hung around until the good players retired.