It's a largely sterile debate, anyway. There's not really a split match between these top players during this era. Rubinstein was chessmetrically rated in the top three from 1907 to 1914, returning to the top three for a few years in the early 1920s, even after the War had apparently taken toll of his mental health.

Still hard to know how "true" old Chessmetrics lists are. Maroczy is #1 on 30 lists, and Janowski is ranked #1 five months in 1904, but were they really better than Lasker? Rubinstein is #1 four months in 1908, after finishing fourth in two tournaments. Few back then would have ranked Rubinstein ahead of the Lasker that just had won 8-0 in the title match against Marshall. Lasker was by the way ranked #9 when that match was played, Marshall #4.

<I'd say someone dropping out of the competition scene doesn't really have a strong claim to prove they're at the top of the game>

On the day they may have been. Maybe even on the week, or the month...not overall, obviously, but many players were better than Lasker in the games they actually won! Lasker greatness is gauged from his career, but like all careers it had its ups and downs.

There are peak periods when other players shine for periods of time, putting everyone else in the shade, until they return to the pack for whatever reason. It's easy to think of examples in modern chess and in other sports. A number one ranking doesn't mean that the player will win all the time, only that s/he is consistently better over a measurable period of time using consistently applied methodology. In Janowski's case, I don't have a problem - he had a purple patch, and maybe everyone was out of form! Maroczy was immensely strong over significant periods of time.

Chessmetrics tries to quantify what is essentially almost unquantifiable, namely the strength of players over a century ago. So all its lists can be taken with a grain of salt, but as far as I can see it's the only attempt to apply some sort of rigorous methodology to comparing the players of yesteryear.

When were Keres or Korchnoi the best in the world? I would guess Rubinstein had a better claim (though hardly an overwhelming one) between 1909 and 1912 than Keres or Korchnoi ever had.

<They might be right. 65 per cent is enough to make that case...>

How many would vote this to be the most brilliantly beautiful game ever? Every now and then, I replay it and its beauty never ceases to amaze me. To be able to play such a game, and to have dominated the players who got a Title shot or who should have (in Maroczy's case), bespeaks of a master of the topmost caliber, worthy of a World Championship Match.

Akiba Rubinstein beat Frank James Marshall 11 to 9, with 15 draws

Akiba Rubinstein beat Siegbert Tarrasch 8 to 0, with 12 draws

Akiba Rubinstein beat Carl Schlechter 6 to 2, with 13 draws

Akiba Rubinstein beat David Janowski 5 to 3

I don't have any problem in accepting that in his salad days he was the best, if only by a whisker. I also tend to think that Lasker avoided a match with him during these days, even if the motives were purportedly mercenary.

What is striking is that he competed with the very best even while he had an extraordinarily debilitating illness - anthropophobia (not anthrophobia which is fear of flowers) - and still stayed in the upper echelons of world chess until his retirement from competition chess. To me this is beyond amazing, it's miraculous. People with this condition usually hide in rooms, they don't travel around and compete with untrammeled egotists.

I've tried to deeply analyse the games between Rubinstein and the top players, and have recently finished up with his games against Capablanca and Alekhine.

I found the two games with Capablanca that produced results to be fascinating for all sorts of reasons. The 1911 game in San Sebastian - Rubinstein vs Capablanca, 1911 - and the 1928 Berlin game where Capablanca levelled the score - Capablanca vs Rubinstein, 1928 - are IMO worthy of very deep study. Even the mistakes are instructive.

I have tried to do these historic games justice, and checked all the variations I've suggested move by move. If anyone has any comments, observations or criticisms, please express them (on the game pages!).

I would agree he was no worse than #3 in the 1909-1914 time period. You could argue Alekhine took over the #3 spot at St Petersburg and held it until some time between 1924 and 1927.

You're a hard man...

<They didn't play enough to draw any meaningful conclusions.>

If you go by statistics. A close examination of the games is worthwhile.

1. It was the right thing to do! Lasker claimed there would not be enough money at stake, but this is not about money. They should have played if the prize was half a Deutchmark!

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure how you can have no doubt as Rubinstein didn't seem to suffer serious nerves until about the time the War broke out, and afterwards.

I notice that some people thought that Schlechter was substandard opposition, but he all but defeated Lasker in their title match.

If Rubinstein was better than Schlechter, which unless I'm mistaken is the subtext of your comment that Lasker should have played Rubinstein instead of Schlechter, there's no reason why a Rubinstein couldn't have won the World Championship in 1910 or 1911.