Hi Optimal Play,

<Doesn't that title better reflect on someone who would have been world champion if only they had been allowed the opportunity?>

After 1948 To get the opportunity to play in a W.C. final you had to earn it. Korchnoi earned that right twice.

Also reflecting on who would have been World Champion I'm thinking when Smyslov, Tal and Petrosian earned the right to play for and take the title from Botvinnik. They were the best players at that time to do so. Geller, Keres and Stein were great players but they failed to seize their opportunity. The three players I mentioned earlier played the better chess at that time.

Yes there was a rule restricting the number of Soviet players being allowed to advance. Take for instance Stein in Stockholm 1962. He should have been allowed in the candidates but was the 4th in placings of the other Soviet players.

But he knew the rule before the start of play, only the top three Soviet were allowed through, In this case Petrosian, Geller and that man Korchnoi. Stein had an opportunity but sadly failed.

<After 1948 To get the opportunity to play in a W.C. final you had to earn it. Korchnoi earned that right twice.>

Yes, that's a valid point. But it seems Korchnoi was the perennial runner-up.

Although Rubinstein didn't go through any formal candidates tournament, he earned the right to challenge Lasker by his performances in 1912.

***

Hi Optimal Play,

Yes, that is problem with Korchnoi, he had more chances than anyone else (Bogoljubov accepted.) and failed, for that we can blame that man Karpov.

One could say the main reason why <'fill in any name here'> did not win the world title was because the current holder was better than them, they were in the wrong era, or they peaked at the wrong time, others played better than them when it really mattered in qualifying for the final. It was simply not to be.

Bronstein appears on a lot of lists. quite rightly so. In later years he (and others) hinted a lot about the political pressure he was under in 1951 and 1953.

In 50 years time we will have new names, perhaps if Caruana gets and fails in a few more finals he will be top choice.

Which brings us nicely back to Korchnoi. If Caruana does succeed in becoming world champion then Korchnoi, who has beaten him, will lead the list of players of who have defeated the most past, present and future World Champions. (though do not quote me, been a while since I checked on that one....I think I'm correct.)

Hi Sally Simpson,

Yes, Bogoljubov is another who came close, and would have been WC except for Alekhine, yet you never hear anyone refer to Bogoljubov as "Greatest chess player never to be world champion".

So many great players didn't become WC for one reason or another.

Which of them has the ill-fated claim to that title "Greatest chess player never to be world champion"?

You make an interesting point regarding the list of players who have defeated the most past, present and future World Champions.

That might be an accurate criteria in judging the quality of the candidates.

As for Korchnoi, he won 13 Candidates matches and scored 15.5-16.5 and 11.5-12.5 in matches against the 20 years younger Karpov, who has a claim as the greatest ever before Kasparov and Carlsen turned up.

Hi perfidious,

You started that thread in 2009 and it went on for 6 pages, I read a lot of the comments, practically every great player in history has been mentioned including the 2010 Nakamura and Carlsen!

As usual the thread got side-tracked a bit. I like this anecdote about Spassky giving a simul.

<"Someone offered a draw after something like five moves, and Spassky accepted, to the astonishment of his opponent.

Spassky commented that this was his opponent's chance to play a game against the great Spassky (i.e., it's an experience of a lifetime for a chess player) but instead he was more concerned with not losing.

He didn't lose, but he sacrificed the experience for a very empty draw.">

Without taking an exact score Korchnoi seems ahead there, close between him and Keres.

I think one would have to choose a player after 1948, before then if you put up the money you could buy your way into a World Championship match and the champion could (as it appears with Alekhine and Capablanca) dodge you.

For another view of Bogo's chances, expressed at the time, see below:

I would put it like this: with Korchnoi one can say that he would have been World Champion if not for Karpov. He was clear #2 for ten years and unfortunate to face a super strong #1 and still came very close to beating him twice.

Both Lasker and Alekhine would have lost their crowns sooner had they had to defend every three years against the most worthy challenger.

It's true that champions did what they wanted
and they chose what was best for them
The worst of all was Capablanca who put a gigantic clause for the time, which made a match directly impossible

Alekhine's drinking problem and overall unhealthy lifestyle would have been brutally exposed in a world where champions had to defend their titles every three year against the <proven> most qualified contender, in a <fair> match.

Lasker would also have been forced out much sooner than actually occurred. Would Lasker still have been a world top ten player for many years after? Sure, as were smyslov, Petrosian, Spassky, Karpov and Anand. Just not world champion.

Proper organization of the chess world 1880-1946 would have given us world champions of shorter reign and more world champions. Standards would have been raised, better match quality. And, no rematch clause for Botvinnik.

I do not know what is
"unhealthy lifestyle."

Alekhine's drinking problems
they were strongly present in the 30s.
Before, if they existed, they did not prevent him from being world champion As stated by Kotov The fight to regain the title kept Alekhine away from his illness
Let us remember the extraordinary way in which it was presented Alekhine for the rematch match with Euwe.
Therefore if we are to suppose .. it would have been better a constant demand for him

heavy drinking, too much red meat, no exercise, being overweight, irregular sleeping schedule, abuse of prescription mediations.

Geller's choice of 3. Nc3 worked nicely. Karpov played the french very rarely and would have doubtless prepared for 3. Nd2 since this was Efim's main weapon. His versatility as a player always astonished me.