Who is the worst world champion?

Definitely Euwe. The day I see a master of Euwe's 'style' Is the day I've met another lucky FM.

@kindaspongey I think you're confusing Steinitz's contributions to the understanding (of a part) of the game with his (relative) strength when compared to other World Champions... which is the topic in this thread. I say this as none of your replies (or questions) talk about Steinitz's "blindness" to the big hole in his "modern scientific theory", namely the situations and explanations for long term activity (hence not calculated tactics from the start to the end) above static considerations.

You mention Lasker giving credit to Steinitz but you turn the eye to the times Lasker disregards Steinitz's ideas, as in the game in Post #15; Capablanca did the same, as can be seen in the very same post (and highlighted by Kasparov in both cases). When the large majority played following the same theory, those aware of its defects had an edge over those unaware: Lasker remained World Champion over 27 years, and soviet players had an edge over westerners during some 3–4 decades.

Take the following game and try to find something alike in the late XIX Century. Better yet, try to explain it using Steinitz–Tarrasch's teachings only:

Newton was "blind" to general relativity, but does that mean that those who have now learned it are all more skilled as physicists? They have the advantage of textbooks on the subject.

Steinitz was living much of the last half of the 19th century. Have subsequent players had the advantage of being able to read about it?

"You don't have to answer." - Laura Branigan

@kindaspongey Newton wasn't aware of anything disproving his theory. The same can't be said of Steinitz. Whoever refuses to acknowledge hard facts can't be seen as a serious scientist... or chess player.

Let me put it this way: When we evaluate a position we consider, above all, the ways to develop and increase the active play. Due to this, concepts such as material, space, time and pawn structures are subordinated to piece activity. Then –for example– our weakened pawn structure is not a weakness if the rival can't influence our play because of its existence. Steinitz and his followers didn't see it that way, as they believed that allowing weaknesses could always be punished. That's blind faith.

Another case of "blindness" could be seen in Steinitz giving too much value to the center occupation. Yes, it is nice when it restricts the coordination chances for the rival, but not that much when the rival has the chance to coordinate against it and tie-down every single piece of ours into its defense. Well, the "... has the chance..." part didn't exist for Steinitz and followers.

As for the following World Champions owing big to Steinitz, I doubt it. They were aware of Steinitz but didn't follow him to the letter, as you could see in the games I posted. For that matter, Steinitz based his theory on examining Morphy's games (who incidentally never used Steinitz's writings), so it's more probable that they did the same and came to their own conclusions and not the same as Steinitz's.

During most of the last half of the 19th century, was there much of a perception of the theory of Steinitz being disproven?

Is it necessary to “follow him to the letter” in order to have an advantage from what was revealed during much of the last half of the 19th century?

"... It was due to [Morphy's] principles of development that he had, in most cases, at the outset a better development than his opponent. As soon, however, as these principles of Morphy's had become the common property of all chess players it was difficult to wrest an advantage in an open game. ... the next problem with which players were confronted ... was to discover principles upon which close positions could be dealt with. To have discovered such principles, deeper and more numerous as they were than those relating to development in open positions, is due to Steinitz. ..." - Richard Reti (1923)

Anand and Kasparov were computer influenced as world champions? I don't really know where to start with that one. 

I'd probably put that down to him being seriously mentally ill rather than anything to do with his chess abilities. 

Chess is like Rugby but...

Without contact

@kingdaspongey During most of the last half of the 19th century, was there much of a perception of the theory of Steinitz being disproven?

Most? Steinitz's writings were based on Morphy's games (not on his own) and were accepted only by the 1890s. Why? This is the interesting part, regarding this thread: Most of the chess community acknowledged Zukertort as the better chess player in 1882, so when the "inferior" won the match it had to be because of his "theory" and not his skills.

Incidentally, Steinitz's main defenders (Lasker and Tarrasch) followed him in their writings but not in their play: Search for the Sicilian Lasker–Pilnik and the QGD Tarrasch and Semi–Tarrasch. Note that I use "defenders", as there were many "attackers", notably Tschigorin. Reti pointed this out a century ago.

Is it necessary to “follow him to the letter” in order to have an advantage from what was revealed during much of the last half of the 19th century?

Once more: They praised the terms and concepts coined by Steinitz because their utility when writing articles and books understandable by any beginner (as still happens today). But, over the board, they didn't follow Steinitz but Morphy, Tschigorin, and maybe Staunton in closed positions.

Lasker wasn't understood in his time because –hey– he didn't play like Steinitz, reason why Lasker crushed Steinitz in both matches. Capablanca was easier to follow because of his naturality which, again, is something not attributable to Steinitz. Tschigorin's ideas were the basis of Alekhine's play. No World Champion's style has been related directly or indirectly to Steinitz's.

Why do you believe that?

"... It was due to [Morphy's] principles of development that he had, in most cases, at the outset a better development than his opponent. As soon, however, as these principles of Morphy's had become the common property of all chess players it was difficult to wrest an advantage in an open game. ... the next problem with which players were confronted ... was to discover principles upon which close positions could be dealt with. To have discovered such principles, deeper and more numerous as they were than those relating to development in open positions, is due to Steinitz. ..." - Richard Reti (1923)

Perhaps because many hoped that chess could continue to be played the way Morphy had played? Again, during most of the last half of the 19th century, was there much of a perception of the theory of Steinitz being disproven?

Nicator65 wrote: ... there were many "attackers", notably Tschigorin. ...

What happened in his matches against Steinitz?

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=53815

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=53817

Again, during most of the last half of the 19th century, was there much of a perception of the theory of Steinitz being disproven?

Nicator65 wrote: ... Lasker crushed Steinitz in both matches. ....

You are referring to 1894 and 1896-7 (with Steinitz in his late fifties)? Even at that late point, did Lasker declare the theory of Steinitz to have been disproven?

Nicator65 wrote: ... No World Champion's style has been related directly or indirectly to Steinitz's.

Again, have subsequent (to Steinitz) players had the advantage of being able to read about much of the last half of the 19th century?

"You don't have to answer." - Laura Branigan

Unsubscribe 

DANG SON

If you've ever read anything about Fischer's life, you'll know that very sadly he was dogged by mental illness for most of his life. Fortunately nowadays things are much better understood and less stigmatised. If you reverse your cause and effect, you'll understand my point as to why Fischer played so little competitive chess after Reykjavik. 

Botvinnick. Won 2 of his World Championships by drawing the match, and 2 by losing and then using the Champions unfair right to a rematch. As soon as they changed the rules so he had no right to a rematch, he lost the title again and never won it after that.

@Kindaspongey: Probably my English is that bad that you can't get the message: Not everyone agreed with Steinitz's theory and those who said they did behave differently over the board.

Thing is that the terminology used by Steinitz was easy to understand for most beginners, so it has been used ever since (although with different meanings). Then, it seems you're confusing the importance of Steinitz's teaching methodology (for beginners mostly) with its influence at high levels of practice.

"... Generally considered to be the world's strongest player from around 1870 to the early 1890s, Steinitz was ..." - IM Craig Pritchett (2011)

"... Steinitz ... started out as an all-out attacking player, as it was common at the time, but then went on to change his approach toward chess and became very positional. Positional, at that time, was very shocking to the rest of the chessplayers, and they actually considered his new way - his new style of playing as cowardly and controversial. It was only, later, his successor on the world champion's throne, Emanuel Lasker, who acknowledged the influence and the impact of the concepts Steinitz introduced. ..." - IM Anna Rudolf (2018)

https://www.chess.com/video/player/games-that-changed-chess-history-part-4

"... The analytical work of Steinitz extends over thirty years and is very valuable. In the Field, in the Tribune, in his publication International Chess Magazine and in his book Modern Chess Instructor, one may find his penetrating and profound analysis. ..." - Emanuel Lasker (~1925)

"... the next problem with which players were confronted ... was to discover principles upon which close positions could be dealt with. To have discovered such principles, deeper and more numerous as they were than those relating to development in open positions, is due to Steinitz. ..." - Richard Reti (1923)

Of course, chess has progressed since Steinitz. Has it progressed since Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, etc.?