World Chess Champions

Reb, I have no hatred for Fischer the chess player. I do have a keen eye for bogus logic. Fischer may well be the greatest chess talent that ever lived, he may well be the most accomplished chess player that ever lived. But none of that is indicated by the win percentage that you quote in your first post.

In your most recent post you're arguing against things no one ever stated. No one ever claimed Kasparov would win a US Closed Championship with a perfect score. No one ever said the players he faced in candidates matches were weak players. Fischer's win percentage is only 3 percent higher than Kasparov's. So only 3 percent of his games have to be against weaker competition to account for that difference.

 Botvinnik used his "position" in chess to hurt any possible challengers, Bronstein and Keres come to mind but I am sure there were others. He also did NOT want to play a match against Euwe after the death of Alekhine and again used his position to bring about the tournament that was held to find a new world champion after Alekhine's death. Read Kasparov's books on his great predecessors, he mentions all these things. Kasparov also mentions the "cheating" that Fischer accused the USSR federation of and defends those who cheated by saying they had no choice but to do as ordered or else they wouldnt get to go next time.

Its useless trying to argue with people who have a hatred for Fischer...

You misunderstand... it's not a hatred for Fischer at all, at least not on my part. It's a disgust at your intellectual dishonesty, your empty sophistry in trying to pump and hype a record that IS great on it's own terms. Fischer does not actually benefit from your hysterical cheerleading. You are pushing me toward disliking Fischer's chess (which is absurd) by your smarmy cherry-picking of stats to inflate Fischer into some god whose record outshines all others.  He's up at the top of the mountain with a very select list of individuals -- but to suggest, as you have, that his record somehow clearly outshines say Kasparov... really? clearly? BS.  You've mentioned Fischer's wonderful records, his unequalled accomplishments... but of course you don't mention Kasparov's or Karpov's because then you'd see that your idol has to share the spotlight a bit, and you don't mention Fischer's horrible record -- the one record of his I hope we never see equalled, Fischer is the only World Champion who never had the guts to defend his title even once. And that big black mark of shame, casts Fischer down from the likes of Kasparov -- clearly, unequivocally, and forever.

Botvinnik used his "position" in chess to hurt any possible challengers, Bronstein and Keres come to mind but I am sure there were others. He also did NOT want to play a match against Euwe after the death of Alekhine and again used his position to bring about the tournament that was held to find a new world champion after Alekhine's death.

Oh the absurdity... so it was Botvinnik's "position" in the 1948 World Championship that saw Euwe clubbed like a baby seal? Thanks for explaining.  Did you look at the scores? What, was Reshevsky in on it too?! That old bastard. I always knew he was a closet commie. 

Kasparov has his own bones to pick with Botvinnik, because Botvinnik's chosen one was the pure-slav pure soviet Karpov, not the Armenian Jew Garry Weinstein aka Kasparov. Everyone here seems to think Kasparov had the Russian chess establishment behind him, that is _far_ from the case. Even then I'd like to read what he has to say about the 1948 championship.  I don't want to get my history lessons from you, Reb... your comments don't seem particularly objective. 

 Fischer is my idol and becuse of him and Spassky I was drawn into chess so forgive me if I dont also point out the accomplishments of other greats such as Karpov and Kasparov , I also do not deny their greatness. Fischer chose not to defend his title for his own reasons, while I hate that he chose to quit at the peak of his career I also dont know exactly his reasons for deciding to stop playing chess. As for it being an unforgiveable black mark against him that means he cant be ranked with Kasparov and Karpov, because they did, is ridiculous. Karpov did nothing to try and help Korchnois family inside the USSR after Korchnoi's defection, not even try to speak to the "authorities" about their plight, but maybe Korchnoi has just been lying? Then there is the incident with Polgar in which Kasparov openly cheats and takes back a move caught on camera! How many world champions would do such a thing? According to Pal Benko Fischer actually believed that if he played and beat Karpov his life would be in danger. While this just seems like ridiculous paranoia to you and me , and most people, IF Fischer really believed that then I would say he had an excellent reason to leave chess myself. What Fischer did for chess and all those who follow was he raised the standard of the conditions they play under as well as increased the prize funds they play for. Kasparov and Karpov didnt do this, Fischer did but Kasparov, Karpov and all the others benefit from Fischer doing this for chess . What did Kasparov do? He split from fide and founded his own professional organization and caused a split in the chess world. Then chess begane to look like wrestling with more than one world champion. When Spassky and Petrosian played their match in 1969 the winner ( Spassky) got a few thousand dollars.... now they play for hundreds of thousands........thanks to whom? FISCHER  

It seems strange to lump all these champions together with any expectation that statistics, longevity, the holding of a record, or any other thing could determine the greatest among them. There is a context for the achievements of each of them which is not necessarily shared by all. Clearly there are some within the group listed who are elite. I think it's not possible to declare any one of them "the greatest," without subjectivity staining the outcome.

If I had to list the top seven from that list in no particular order they would be:

Kasparov, Fischer, Alekhine, Capablanca, Anand, Steinitz and Lasker.

If I had to add one not there it would be Morphy.

NMReb: Fischer chose not to defend his title for his own reasons, while I hate that he chose to quit at the peak of his career I also dont know exactly his reasons for deciding to stop playing chess. As for it being an unforgiveable black mark against him that means he cant be ranked with Kasparov and Karpov, because they did, is ridiculous.

This is where we disagree. I don't find it ridiculous at all to suggest that it lowers Fischer's achievement when considering his overall career -- lowers it dramatically. 

But it isn't  unforgiveable at all -- I shouldn't suggest that it is, nor should I have said Fischer "lacked the guts" to defend his title, because I don't believe that is true. I put Fischer's withdrawal from chess in the same category as his ravings about the Dirty Jews and the justice of 9/11 and the Russian plots against his life and the "scripted games" between Karpov and Kasparov etc. etc. it all looks a lot like mental illness, and that's not Bobby's fault, that's Bobby's tragedy. Mental illness cut Fischer's career short, and that's a shame... if it hadn't he may well have established himself, firmly, as the greatest of all time. 

As for the money,  Bobby's good fortune was to be an american competing against russians at the height of the cold war... that's just a winning lottery ticket, not some heroic acheivement... if he'd been from Peru or something it'd be a completely different story. And actually by not playing Karpov (US vs.
USSR the rematch!) and disappearing, Fischer left millions on the table and undid some of the good he'd done for chess. Everyone knows, the sequel is where you really cash in.

Reb,

The data are interesting, but a mere fraction of the analysis needed, as others have pointed out.I think there is no question that Fischer is one of the elite, but such statements must be substantiated by asking about more than mere winning percentages.

Lots of people, especially in the US, were brought into chess during Fischer's summit, but any also were turned away by the manifestations of his illness. Many of those who stayed with chess after the Fischer boom, or came in later, found in the game itself sufficient drawing power to merit further interest. I understand and appreciate your love of Fischer. His chess achievements were marvellous; I wish he had played Karpov, as it would have been a terrific match.

Missing Kasimdzhanov,Khalifman and Topalov.

If you're going to count them, you need to include Ponomariov as well.

 I did not include those who became champion through winning knock out tournaments alone as they are "questionable" imo and the opinion of many others. I would have also left Anand out if he hadnt recently beaten Kramnik in a classic match.

My score percentage here at chess.com is 81%... I must be better than all of these world champions!

Of course I'm being facetious, but the reason my claim is silly is the same reason this statistic isn't terribly meaningful -- it's a number devoid of information about my opponents.  Interesting to see as a curio, but not really useful as a means of comparing players.

Thanks for reminding me about Ponomariov.I should agree Khasimdzhanov and Khalifman are perhaps a bit questionable,but still champions.

My dad could beat your dad!

Reb,

Please show us the formula used in solving their individual winning percentage... In that way it will be raliable for us...

Thanks!

Those are important principles that should be more widely shared, except in the case of Anand. Kramnik acknowledged Anand as WCC after Mexico City. That acknowledgment should count for something. The FIDE champions after the 1993 split never had the support of the true champion; Anand did.

 I dont think anyone can question Anand's "credentials" any longer. He has won the WC in 3 different formats now including winning a match against Kramnik, who beat Kasparov. I wonder also if I should make an exception for Topalov since he has more than once been #1 by rating and won the powerful San Luis tournament in convincing fashion. I want to see him beat another champion in a real match though, if he beats Kamsky he will get a shot at Anand and then we will see if he's a champion or not.

If you make an exception for Topalov, you're using ratings as the standard, rather than the much preferred history of matches (checkered though it is). The 1948 Candidates tournament counts because Aljechin was dead. The 2007 Mexico City tournament counts because it was endorsed by the reigning champion, and he participated.

Topalov's performance in San Luis was impressive and inspirational. But, the event was not endorsed by Kramnik until he agreed to the reunification match, which he won despite such antics from the Topalov team as to make Fischer seem calm and rational in comparison. If we admit Topalov's "claim," we legitimize the corruption of FIDE, corruption that continued unabated in the recent Grand Prix fiasco.

 You are right, I cant recognize Topalov until he wins against a champion in match play, for me its the most reliable way to find the strongest player in the world. I prefer the system of candidates matches to determine a challenger who then plays a match against the reigning champion for the title. Tournaments simply arent as reliable imo.

Must respect your view on this issue Reb,but Topalov also holds the 2nd highest ranking ever and this year won in convincing fashion the Bilbao super tournament.