Who is the greatest contributor to chess?

I'm a relatively new member, so forgive me if this topic has been posted before.

I've seen a lot of threads here and elsewhere about who is/was the greatest player of all time. But there have been many figures who were nowhere near the greatest player who nevertheless made fantastic contributions to the game through theory and books.

To me, the world-class players in this category are:

Aaron Nimzovich, Emanuel Lasker, and Jose Capablanca

Among the non-world-class PLAYERS, but still top-notch AUTHORS:

Irving Chernev, Jeremy Silman

What are your thoughts? Who ranks up there as among the great contributors to our game?

Kirsan Ilyumzhinov

Jose Capablanca

This is a GREAT question!

My first thought goes to Nimzovich.

Some of the best theorists today include John Watson, Mark Dvoretsky, John Nunn, Mihail Marin, and Boris Avrukh.

Some of the players who have served as an inspiration for generations include Philidor, Adolph Anderssen, Paul Morphy, Chigorin, Steinitz, Rubinstein, Lasker, Capa, Alekhin, Euwe (both as a player and as an author), Botvinnik, Bronstein, Tal, Fischer, Kasparov and Carlsen. 

I don't know which player has contributed the most to chess.

Howard Staunton (who?) wrote "A Manual of Chess" back in the mid 19th-century that went thru a zillion or so printings. Nowadays he's been pretty much forgotten, although Bobby Fischer held him in very high regard. Nowadays when we think of great contributions to chess Nimzovitch's "My System" Tarrasch's "The Game of Chess" and game collections written by Alekhine, Botvinnik and Fischer come to mind, along with Dr Lasker's "Common Sense In Chess" and "Lasker's Chess Manual" and Capablanca's "Chess Fundamentals" "A Primer of Chess" and "Last Lectures"  to name but a few great players who made great contributions to chess thru their writings IMHO

I don't see Chernev (who I like incidentally) or SIlman (who I've never read) being in the same league as the above writers in their chess contributions, but if you've learned something from them I guess it really doesn't matter, does it?

Then there's a whole different set:

Loyd, Troitsky et al, if you're into that sort of thing.

A case could also be made for wealhy (sometimes non-playing) patrons who made great matches/tournaments possible, late 19th early 20th century?

In the post-Morphy times, I would vote for:

1. Steinitz (rudiments of positional play)

2. Rubinstein (every major opening system has a branch named for him; endgame methods; dynamics)

3. Nimzowitsch (expansion of positional play; prophylaxis; opened the branch of hypermodernism)

4. Botvinnik (deep analyses of a number of opening systems; tournament preparation; The Patriarch of the Soviet School)

5. Boleslavsky (middlegame dynamics; revolutionary approaches in the King's Indian, Ruy Lopez, and Sicilian Defense, among others)

From a theoretical standpoint, I don't think these guys can be topped.

Bill Wall seems to neglect Soviet contributors to chess. One of the most important of these was Nikolai Krylenko, who was in charge of the Soviet chess machine in the 1930s.

He famously called for the creation of brigades of chess players:

"We must finish once and for all with the neutrality of chess. We must condemn once and for all the formula "chess for the sake of chess", like the formula "art for art's sake". We must organize shockbrigades of chess-players, and begin immediate realization of a Five-Year Plan for chess." (Wikipedia)

His impetus helped to create the "Soviet School" of chess.

In reply to NimzoRoy--I purposely made the question a little vague so as to elicit the broadest spectrum of replies.

Certainly the great theoreticians and players you mention stand in the first pantheon of contributors for top-notch players. I included Chernev and Silman, though, because at least tens of thousands have been brought to chess by "Logical Chess" and "The Fireside Book," to say nothing of Chernev's masterful collections of Capablanca's endings and the "Most Instructive Games." Silman, of course, I included because of his brilliant conceptions as to how to present and teach chess to the average player. Who EVER, before him, would have come up with an idea like "The Amateur's Mind" or an endgame manual organized by rating class?

Anyway, as pretty much a dub myself, I confess to a bias toward writers I can actually understand.

Don't forget Lucena, Ruy Lopez, Philidor,... :)

^^ +1 It's hard to see how someone who has attained the title of International Master (Jeremy Silman) can be referred to as "not world class".

I'm also a fan of his teaching through writing because it provides results.

Rex Sinquefield

In reply to learningthemoves:

In saying that Mr. Silman is not world class, I certainly did not mean to disparage his great talents--nor his title--in any way. I simply meant that he's not in that group of players who could reasonably compete, on any given day, for the title of world champion. There are probably only about 20-25 players in the world at any given time who are at that level.

Martin Blume

Nadjorf

Marshall

Keres

Chigorin

Breyer

Nimzowitsch

Have you read SIlman's Complete Endgame Course From Beginner to Master?

Silman knows how to teach in a way where people can "get it".

He doesn't just overwhelm with a bunch of diagrams the beginner finds hard to make sense to him/her.

I think that's why he gets the honor due him for the work he's done to actually help patzers.

Hope that helps it make more sense for you as to why so many credit his work for improving their understanding since you said you weren't sure and were puzzled why so many people happily invest with him to improve their game and get results.

@MSteen: Big difference between being world class and being the world champion. I see the misunderstanding was just due to semantics though after your explanation.

I enjoy reading Silman's work, but I'm not sure that his methods or presentations are at all useful for actually improving. 

Nobody mentioned Fred Reinfeld.... a prolific author, who probably gave a start to more chess players than any other. Wrong generation, I guess.

Soak it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Reinfeld

Bobby Fischer.

His symbolic display of talent raised a new awareness for chess.