World Chess Champions

Following is a list of the world chess champions and their career percentage :

Steinitz  67%

Lasker  65.4%

Capablanca  72.2%

Alekhine  72.6 %

Euwe 66.8%

Botvinnik 66.4%

Smyslov  61.3%

Tal  65%

Petrosian  64%

Spassky  61.5 %

Fischer  72.5%

Karpov  64.9%

Kasparov 69.4%

Kramnik  62.4%

Anand  62.7%

Whats interesting about this list is that only 3 of the champions were over 70% and these 3 are usually mentioned when "greatest ever" is the topic.  Lasker's % doesnt show him in a very good light in this list imo and certainly Kramnik's doesnt either with him being in the last 3 .  What do you think ?

That they all weren't great by world standards earlier in their career.

I think it means the top players play on a more or less similar level

Of course there is some overlap so the losses on one player would go into the win % of another.   and this does leave out draws and a player's propensity to draw, given their particular style.

A question:This percentage is a winning percentage?What about draws?If this is a winning percentage there is one percentage in my opinion that doesn't reflect the reality.It is Fischer's percentage (i know how much you admire Fischer-i also do..) but he stopped chess at his best shape and only at 29 years old.History had prove that chess players who are growing older became more weak and their performances decreased..So if Fischer have continued and after 40 years old i am almost sure that he wont have this 72,5%,prove that at the 1992 match with Spassky he was in a good shape-but the quality of his game couldn't reach this of 1972..(but this is an hypothesis about his percentage anyway..)

And another question:Why Capablanca's percentage is so 'low',as he lost only 35 games in his career?I am sure that if we have considered and blitz games Capa would be first by far..

At old times,chess was not common like nowadays,also there was no computers. everybody can examining the the old matches anymore.therefore, i think the last championships r more important n valuable.for example Kaspa's percentage is nearly 70%, n i think this point is bigger than Fischer's point.

And an interesting subject is this: Tal was a great attacker n his winning matches were more fantastic. He was sacrificing his knights n bishops, he was attacking at every turn, he was playing very fast.If Petrosian was a great defender player and bingo! Both of them have a same point : nearly 65% WHICH BETTER?

Do these figures reflect tournament and match play only, or are simuls and exhibitions part of the analysis, too?

Well, hard not to see that a stat is seriously flawed if it rates Euwe above Lasker, Botvinnik and Karpov...

What isn't reflected here are quality of opposition, and most significantly, length of career... if Karpov wanted to protect his win % he wouldn't be playing on, nearing 60, with a lowly 2650 rating ;) ... ditto Lasker who remained a strong player, but not an unbeatable player, into his 60s.

Fischer spent his teenage years winning US championships like other people eat potato chips... 8 or 9 of them, starting when he was what, 14? Fischer even went undefeated undrawn 11-0 in the 63 tournament  Impressive, yes, certainly, it's like pitching a perfect game ...  but in the Minor Leagues World Series.... Kasparov never even outright won the USSR championship as a teenager -- he merely tied for first twice. So the win % is nothing like Fischer's there, but consider Kasparov was pitching in the Majors. It's a double-edged situation. Kasparov loses a few more games than Fischer, sure, but facing the absolute highest quality opposition from early on is part of what lets Garry develop so rapidly he wins the World Championship at 22 years old; it takes Fischer until he's nearly 30. Put Fischer in Russia, facing Russian opponents and god only knows how he'd have progressed. And, if Fischer had lost a bit more as a youngster instead of getting to pound on Larry Evans, Arthur Bisguier, and the Byrne brothers, he might have developed a better pespective on losing, too, which would have served him greatly. A different upbringing and Fischer might have had a career (and a win %) a lot more like Kasparov's measely 69%-- we'll never know.

Alekhine's top of the list performance is a shock to me. But he was a great player without a doubt. He tarnished his image IMO ducking Capablanca for a decade... no doubt his win percentage comes down a bit if he'd played Capa, or top flight opposition, in his last decade.

What exactly is the sample you are using to come up with the percentages? Total games played as of when? Tournament play? Tournaments and match play? If it's from a database, it's important to note how extensive the sample is.

There are some aspects to consider re discussions like this, including:

1) Top-flight players today play far more meaningful chess (tournament and match play) than their pre-WWII counterparts.

2) Kasparov and Karpov's percentages -- as a measure of 20-year-plus tournament careers at the apex of their sport -- will always be more meaningful than Fischer's. In this particular discussion, longevity is a key criterion for merit, I think. Fischer's habit of going on self-imposed exiles doesn't impress me so much in this aspect.

3) Any discussion based on total games played does take away from the significance of match play on one's resume. At the highest level -- in the lineal championship sense -- match play has been the standard to win and retain the title historically. The ability to salvage losing games, to use draws as a psychological weapon (holding serve with black, etc.), and other factors have to be weighed in. Kasparov and Karpov were this close >< in their match play for a decade. It is not a blemish on their careers that they played each other dozens of times and achieved what they did. One's record is going to be closer to level playing 200 games with a prime Karpov than Woody Pushure. ;)

I think an even more interesting examination is the comparison of records against common oppenents, particularly against top-10 or other notable contemporaries. One could make allowances for ages considered in the sample, peak periods (e.g. records during title reigns), etc. I enjoy the Chessmetrics site for its extensive examination of data even if the conclusions it derives -- especiially regarding pre-WWI players -- can be considered somewhat dubious.

That's my grist for the mill.

Russ

 Now I think we're touching on a better perspective.Consider the intense globalization of chess and the readiness of training material which is in itself richly refined.The reality is that the higher percentages are harder to obtain against today's strong new generation. 

The information I use here comes from www.chessgames.com and they give the formula used to calculate percentage. Games from exhibitions or blitz are NOT included in their calculations. I dont know why anyone is so shocked that Euwe's % is better than Botvinnik's , their record was 50% with one another. Also , since Alekhine was clearly better than Euwe its very likely that he would have beaten Botvinnik as well had he lives to play him.

My win percentage here at chess.com is 71%. I guess that means I am not quite as good as Fischer, Capablanca, and Alekhine, but I'm still better than Kasparov, Karpov, Steinitz, etc. Wow, I'm pretty proud of my accomplishment.

 Can always count on Loomis for something silly . 

The same site gives Morphy's percentage as 84.6 % !!   Amazing !

Why is it silly? Because I didn't play the same players as the guys in your list? Well, they didn't play the same players as each other!

Of course, I didn't play the same quality of players as the guys on your list, while you might argue that they all played roughly the same quality of players as each other. But their win percentages are only different by 5-10%, so even a small variation in the quality of their opponents can explain this difference. As one poster already noted, Kasparov cut his teeth in the harsh Russian chess jungle and Fischer beat up on American weakies.

 Well, since Bobby lacked the level of opposition than ANY top Russian faced how in the world did he manage to demolish them all and their entire collective ( including cheating) system?! Just think how MUCH stronger Bobby would have become if he had the advantages that Karpov and Kasparov had?! As for you and your % here on chess com , its quite comical. Perhaps you are the only one that didnt notice that I titled this : WORLD CHAMPIONS ?! Do you really imagine that what % any of us scores here has any bearing at all on what world champions did? Its pretty much anyone who became a world champion faced very stiff opposition along the way and not a bunch of "weakies". I also wouldnt rank Reshevsky as a "weakie" but hey...... you're entitled to your opinion just be aware just how silly it looks.

Reb, if you can't spot something that's dripping with sarcasm, I don't know what we're going to do with you. Of course I don't fancy myself in the company of the World Champions. I was simply extending the logcal flaw in your argument to its absurd extreme. Just a comical way to make a point.

Your original argument is that you can differentiate the World Champions based on their win percentages. To put this in terms you'll understand: HOGWASH. If you want to make some other argument about Bobby's natural talent based on his lack of resources, fine, change the subject.

How many of the games in Bobby's win percentage were against Reshevsky? Not all of them. The fact remains that overall, the players Bobby was facing in America were not as strong as the players Kasparov and Karpov were facing in Russia. Sure, there were some strong Americans, but the win percentage is against the group as a whole, not just a few.

Zing!!

Its useless trying to argue with people who have a hatred for Fischer, his feats are unequalled by ANYONE of any era ! Noone else ever won 20 straight against all GM competition.....maybe they were weakies too though ? Bobby is the only one to win 2 candidates matches with 100 % ~, I guess Larsen and Taimanov were just weakies too though. He is also the only player to win a major tournament with 100 % and yes it was a US Championship of weakies I reckon. However, I bet noone else can win a closed US Championship with 100% and you can put Kramnik, Kasparov, whoever you like in to try against the weakies of the US, even that weakie Reshevsky is no longer around to slow some Russian down...or maybe Topalov or Anand would care to try ?

NMReb: I dont know why anyone is so shocked that Euwe's % is better than Botvinnik's , their record was 50% with one another.

Because Botvinnik is widely regarded as one of the greatest players who ever lived and Euwe, is not, that's why. And if you're having trouble remembering why that is --

Here's a link to the Wiki on the 1948 World Championship, I think it partly (but only partly) explains my "shock" at anyone placing Euwe above (or for that matter equal to) Botvinnik.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_1948

Reb, your reasoning is plagued by drawing global conclusions from small sample groups...  "Botvinnik vs Euwe: the equality" this is only possible in your vacuum dreamworld of 4 decisive game against each other, with Botvinnik's losses coming when he was at the very beginning of his international career. If we use your bizarr-O reasoning, we have to admit Geller's undeniable superiority to Fischer.

This seems like a good time to bump my Karpov vs. Fischer thread... which  attacks your "so and so beat so and so therefore so and so is obviously better" methodology.