< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 58 OF 61 ·
|Dec-15-15|| ||Tiggler: <keypusher>: <Most underrated? Maybe Bogoljubov.>|
Maybe Euwe. The only player to beat Alekhine in a match, and still strong in 1948.
But Botvinnik gets my vote for the greatest of all time, apart from Kasparov.
I agree with others here that contributions to theory and methods are equal in importance to playing results. So Botvinnik, Kasparov and Nimzovitch score heavily in that category.
|Dec-15-15|| ||perfidious: <Petrosianic: Yeah, well I've got to help keypusher take the heat.>|
|Dec-15-15|| ||Petrosianic: I would say, however, that chess players can be an odd lot. If you kibitz any top level GM tournament, it's like unless you're THE greatest player who ever lived, they don't care about you at all. Baseball doesn't have that because it's a team sport. One great player isn't enough, you want all you can get. In chess, nobody can be praised without someone (angrily!) insisting that someone else was better. As a result, a lot of players and styles never get so much as looked at. Most people could themselves an enormous favor by taking a player like Bogoljubov or Larsen, or even (God help me!) Janowski, and studying all of their games from a tournament. Just because a player didn't succeed at the very highest level doesn't mean that they don't have things that would benefit a club player enormously. And things that you wouldn't see from the highest players.|
|Dec-15-15|| ||Jim Bartle: I think best player by decade might work better if each starts in the year five, at least since WWII.|
1955-1965: Smyslov (?)
2005-2015: Carlsen (?)
|Dec-15-15|| ||Karposian: <Tiggler: Maybe Euwe. The only player to beat Alekhine in a match, and still strong in 1948.>|
Yes. And keep in mind that Euwe also made major contributions to chess theory, particularly openings.
He wrote over 70 chess books, no other World Champion comes even remotely close to that number. And if we can agree that contributions to theory and methods are equal in importance to playing results, Euwe's achievements in its totality, as a player, author, theoretician, even FIDE president, are incredibly impressive.
|Dec-15-15|| ||Jim Bartle: I sort of screwed over Spassky and Petrosian with that list...|
|Dec-15-15|| ||Petrosianic: If you want to look at some Bogo games, pull ALL of his games from Moscow 1925, and re-play them all, win, lose or draw. Yeah, I know Capablanca was a better player, but never mind. Play them anyway, and look at how he handled players who were maybe not the world champion, but top level players, nevertheless.|
Or, play over all his games from his two Soviet Championships. This isn't generally known, but Bogo has the highest percentage score in Soviet Championship history (80%, although he only played in two of them, and at a time before the Soviet School of Chess really existed). He'll show you how players much stronger than any you're likely to meet on Playchess or ICC can be handled.
|Dec-15-15|| ||Petrosianic: <Jim Bartle: I sort of screwed over Spassky and Petrosian with that list...>|
A much tougher question would be to go year by year. Start at 1970 (the year the Chess Oscar started), and work backwards.
The problem there is that winning a world championship match pretty much ices you as the player of that year, as does winning the Candidates.
So let's just look at years that had neither of those events, and go back to World War II? Who was The Player of These Years?:
I'm not sure about a lot of these off the top of my head. I'd have to give most of them some thought, and do some checking.
|Dec-15-15|| ||Petrosianic: Just to start at the top, The Player of 1967 is surely either Petrosian, Fischer, Spassky or Larsen. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a serious crunching of the numbers showed that it was Larsen.|
|Dec-15-15|| ||Karposian: <Petrosianic: So let's just look at years that had neither of those events, and go back to World War II? Who was The Player of These Years?:|
From the top of my head my suggestions would be:
|Dec-15-15|| ||Petrosianic: Botvinnik didn't play in 1949, did he? For 1946 and 1947, it was probably Botvinnik, though. Keres won the 1947 Soviet Championship (that Botvinnik didn't play in), but I wouldn't go by just one tournament.|
|Dec-15-15|| ||Karposian: <Petrosianic: Botvinnik didn't play in 1949, did he?>|
I'm sure you're right about that. Like I said, it was from the top of my head. So, who do you suggest for 1949? Bronstein, perhaps?
|Dec-15-15|| ||Petrosianic: I'm not really sure. I'm not as familiar with 1940's events as some other decades. I could probably name the nominees. Bronstein, Smyslov, Boleslavsky, Keres, Reshevsky and Najdorf. I think I'd have to seriously study their numbers to know who should be on top.|
|Dec-15-15|| ||plang: Not a whole lot happened in 1949. Strongest tournament was Soviet Championship - Bronstein and Smyslov tied for 1st.|
|Dec-15-15|| ||keypusher: Najdorf is a strong contender for 1946 and 1947 -- he had several strong performances that took him to #2 on Chessmetrics. There was a reason people thought he should be included in the 1948 match-tournament. I think Bronstein or Smyslov get 1949.|
|Dec-15-15|| ||perfidious: <Petrosianic: Botvinnik didn't play in 1949, did he?>|
After winning the title in 1948, Botvinnik played no serious game until he sat down to face Bronstein in 1951.
|Dec-15-15|| ||Jim Bartle: Well, he certainly played thousands of offhand games. We know how much he loved blitz.|
|Dec-15-15|| ||keypusher: Sonas figured out annual winners under his rating system. Under that system, Botvinnik won 1946 and 1948, Stahlberg won 1947, and Smyslov won 1949.|
|Dec-15-15|| ||perfidious: 'Bout as much as Reshevsky loved Fischer.|
|Dec-15-15|| ||keypusher: Link to Sonas: http://en.chessbase.com/post/the-gr...|
|Dec-16-15|| ||Tiggler: The fact that Fischer does not make many lists of "most overrated" just proves how overrated he is.|
|Dec-16-15|| ||nok: <We know how much he loved blitz.> Reminds me of Caruana.|
|Dec-16-15|| ||Lambda: Fischer becomes overrated by people giving him an imaginary career after 1972. "He was amongst the best for a time, burned brilliantly for three years then went out" is not an acceptable narrative for many people.|
|Dec-16-15|| ||keypusher: <Lambda: Fischer becomes overrated by people giving him an imaginary career after 1972. "He was amongst the best for a time, burned brilliantly for three years then went out" is not an acceptable narrative for many people.>|
I left Fischer off the overrated list because too many strong GMs rate him at or near the very top. Ditto with Morphy. Which is a shame, because (aside from regular posting on the Rogoff page) there is no better way to lose friends and alienate people than to say Morphy and Fischer are overrated.
|Dec-16-15|| ||keypusher: E.g. there's a CNN article that crowd-sources questions for Carlsen. Who does he really admire? Who from the past does he really want to play? Fischer and Kasparov. |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 58 OF 61 ·