It amazes me that someone can consistently be the best, even if by a little, in the computer era.
Yeah exactly. Fischer won twenty games in a row against the most elite of the elite that had the full backing of the USSR government and all its resources.
compare that to carlsen who wins his world championship while failing to win even a single classical game against caruana and offering a draw with a substantial advantage with white in the final classical game.
So you're cheering for Nepo I presume?
So you're cheering for Nepo I presume?
I do.
But those science and training make it more difficult for geniuses of our era to stand head and shoulders above their contemporaries. I doubt Kenenisa Bekele could repeat Paavo Nurmi's crazy feats, but I don't think that means he's worse. I don't think Nurmi could if he was living nowadays, either.
An example being Morphy beating bums.
An example being Morphy beating bums.
Even if that was the case, it isn't related to my point.
Winning tournaments with a point or two isn’t bad when the tournaments are short and only have elite players. For example Fischer didn’t play many such tournaments. The Candidates 1962 and Santa Monica 1966 were the strongest tournaments he played, finishing 4th and 2nd, but then he did get better around 1970 when he won his final tournament with a margin of 3.5 points (even if that was over 23 rounds with many participants far from the elite).
It’s tough to compare anyone just with Fischer’s and Kasparov’s best results, but Carlsen for example won six very strong tournaments in a row 2018-19. The streak ended with a lost playoff for first place. In the old days that would have been a first place but as with title matches it is now no longer enough to share first but one must also win the playoff. So on the whole I think it is harsh on Carlsen to say that he hasn’t dominated. He has been #1 for a dozen years and has a 56 point lead on the rating list. As for the title matches, he has only won seven games in them (and lost two) but then that is no different from Fischer’s score in his only title match (except that he also lost a third game by not turning up).
As for weakest World Champion in the greatness sense, I think most would vote Euwe
Aside from comparisons with other World Champions (a very subjective matter), Max Euwe was absolutely a great chess player. Study some of his games or read one of his books. You can still learn a lot from him today.
Morphy beat bums and everyone else. He beat the unofficial world champion Adolph Anderssen 8-3 while playing extremely while ill the first two games (doctor and Anderssen confirmed--which were a draw and a loss). Then he beat Anderssen 5-1 in an informal King's Gambit only match that was played just for fun. He literally tried to track down and play all of the best players in Europe and beat everyone by large margins. He didn't avoid anyone. In his "serious” games, he played very precisely, even by engine standards of today. As I said before, most of the games that are analyzed to measure his playing skill are from simuls, informal games, and blindfolds, as well as a ton of odds matches. He would routinely blitz out all of his moves and wouldn't try very hard because honestly he didn't have to.
Try including all of Magnus' blindfold and simul games to his database, and make those the vast majority of known games, and I'm sure the computers would say he didn't play super well either.
Objectively speaking Steinitz, because he was the 1st champion and players got better over time...
@fabelhaft... That's Fischer's score in 21 games (well, 20, really, since he didn't play in one of them). Carlsen has played in 45 WCC games. To say that Carlsen has won as many as Fischer is kind of silly. Also, I do believe that in competitive play, the most number of games Carlsen has won in a row is six. He did go 125 games without a loss, but the vast majority of those, as you know, were draws. Finally, in January of 1973, Fischer's rating was 120 points higher than second place Karpov. That is a ton.
“That's Fischer's score in 21 games (well, 20, really, since he didn't play in one of them). Carlsen has played in 45 WCC games. To say that Carlsen has won as many as Fischer is kind of silly”
Well, he did win and lose as many title match games as Fischer, in 45 instead of 20 played, so it goes both ways. Fischer won more and lost more. Chess is more drawish nowadays.
“the most number of games Carlsen has won in a row is six”
Euwe probably won more in a row than Carlsen, then it’s another matter how important that is. No one wins many games in a row today.
“He did go 125 games without a loss, but the vast majority of those, as you know, were draws”
Still, around a third of the games were wins and most of the opponents were top ten.
“Finally, in January of 1973, Fischer's rating was 120 points higher than second place Karpov”
Indeed. Carlsen has never had more than an 82 Elo lead. He is playing a bit more than Fischer did in 1973 and onwards though :-)
Steinitz. There weren't a lot of big international chess tournaments in his day, very few professional chess players, no regularized structure for producing world championship challengers, so he had to scrounge up whatever matches he could vs anyone who could find a backer to put up a prize. Still he struggled with financial insolvency because there wasn't sufficient interest and money in chess at the time.
Not all of his opponents would have been considered top contenders for the championship and he often struggled to beat them. Also, he was sometimes more concerned with playing according to the principles he was inventing than he was in finding the best move in any position, resulting in weaker play.
Finally, he couldn't get a match with Tarrasch, who was widely considered the world's #1 player, so he had to settle for a match vs Tarrash's top pupil, Lasker, who beat him soundly.
Euwe is most likely #2 on the list but you can't fault him for that. He was a strong GM (before there were official GMs) but Alekhine chose to play him because he wouldn't be much of a threat. Unfortunately for Alekhine, not taking your opponent seriously and consuming too much alcohol is a poor way to prepare for a world championship chess match.
In "Lasker's Manuel of Chess." written by Emanuel Lasker him self. Which I personally own a copy of.
He devotes pages upon pages to the Great contribution Steinitz's Chess theories and forumulations made to the game.
Guilty he so soundly beat him in the World Championship Match.
Steinitz. There weren't a lot of big international chess tournaments in his day, very few professional chess players, no regularized structure for producing world championship challengers, so he had to scrounge up whatever matches he could vs anyone who could find a backer to put up a prize. Still he struggled with financial insolvency because there wasn't sufficient interest and money in chess at the time.
Not all of his opponents would have been considered top contenders for the championship and he often struggled to beat them. Also, he was sometimes more concerned with playing according to the principles he was inventing than he was in finding the best move in any position, resulting in weaker play.
Finally, he couldn't get a match with Tarrasch, who was widely considered the world's #1 player, so he had to settle for a match vs Tarrash's top pupil, Lasker, who beat him soundly.
Steinitz? He won every match he played for 32 years, 25 games in a row against top players of the time, never avoided the strongest opposition and even played Chigorin twice. He was 50 when the World Championship was founded and he won against Zukertort. He played six title matches in ten years even if he then was past his peak, and lost the title only to 33 years younger Lasker. According to Chessmetrics he had a bigger distance to #2 than Fischer, while Tarrasch never was #1. It is possible Tarrasch was better around 1890, but then was 28 and Steinitz in the mid 50s.
Euwe
http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PeakList.asp
After all Alekhine chose to play Euwe because he thought him harmless. Alekhine did win the revanche match.
Really? I assumed we were in the strongest Era 🤔