Indeed, with so many GM and even 2700...it's an ocean of "strong" players?!?

That's the way Spassky played when he was in shape

The implication is that chess has somehow got better because they play more quickly etc but no. If anything the time controls, and the use of "shoot outs" and other gimicky stuff, means that chess has declined overall.> Well Richard, in my very particular opinion since Steinitz to Fischer the resources were totally different to the time being (nowadays). So my Power Ranking continues being (just my top five):

1.- Alexander Alekhine

2.- Robert Fischer

3.- Emmanuel Lasker

4.- José Raúl Capablanca

I looked at 38. Re7!?, not seeing the clever pin 38. ...Qb6, which holds.>

I went for 39.Qh8 allowing black to delay with

39.Qh8? Qc5+ 40.Ne3 Qxe3+ 41.Rxe3 Nxe3

click for larger view

5.- Wilhelm Steinitz >>

I disagree, I simply think the whole idea of "progress" in any way is flawed. (But that is all a complex question. In chess, there is a limit to 'theoretical advances' and that limit is human memory...for example).

But another point arises. I wouldn't put chess players in such hierarchical list. I would make a map. In fact such map of chess players in time would be highly dynamic, changing constantly, and it would be multidimensional. In fact it would change in a single day. This because a human being is more alert at certain times of the day and so on and some people work better in the morning and so on. And also over a longer time. To "compute" some kind of accurate relative ability would take probably thousands of hours of (probably useless) study of chess players...

In one sense Botvinnik, for example might be considered the greatest player due to his ability and his attitude to chess leading up to 1948. And indeed his spirited come back to defeat Tal convincingly in 1962. But then even with those two, over time, we have to factor in age, Tal's illnesses and his attitude to chess and so on.

Also, looking at Lasker, as another example, by the time he played Capablanca he was rather depressed and wanted to resign the title and take the money. Also, because he feared he would enter old age in poverty as Steinitz did, he made sure that against Schlecter he was sure to win if the match was drawn at (the number of games it was drawn at, although surely a drawn match isn't a won match!). Schlecter, sadly and ironically, generous in defeat in a really interesting match with dynamic play by both players, died of starvation after WWI when the Allies punished Germany. Lasker also was not very well to do in his old age....

If the rule had been, say, that the defender of the WC had to win. That would mean that Schlecter would have been World Champion and may have gone on, encouraged by such a result, to play many great matches...So even the conditions of the matches, the time a match is played in (I mean what year or era and many many other factors) affect these evaluations.

I see it as a dynamic. The main point is to see where each player can teach us or to enjoy their better games. And in fact that extends to players of all ranks. We can learn from all reasonable chess games.

Then one has to be wary of Alekhine as he used various psychological tricks to defeat his opponents, as to some extent Tal did. That is seen in his match with Bogoljubov where he was mostly worse but pressured B. when he was in time trouble (to which he was prone) then played rather dubious attacks that worked when B. was low after, in one case taking a draw in a won position...

But these are only some of the factors.
Another is Fischer's rather short career as World Champion (and of course he never player Kasparov or Karpov so how would that have gone?)...Alekhine never gave a return match to Capablanca. Rules in that respect have changed. But Rubinstein never got an opportunity for a World Championship match, Reshevsky had to learn a profession and was somewhat sidelined from chess so that even in 1948 he perhaps played below what he might have had things gone differently.

So there are no vertical lists for me. There are just a lot of very clever players playing interesting games. And some of the most fascinating are by players we have not heard of in many cases, or players we don't hear so much about. In fact there are thousands of fascinating draws and interesting games neglected because the player or players aren't "famous".

page 234 of the 'Siegen Olympiad' by Keene & Levy. From a Korchnoi interview at the end of the Olympiad.

"It is also entertaining that the organisers had accepted Fischer for this encounter. [the threads game - If Fischer had won he would have got the first board prize, instead Spassky got the gold medal, Fischer silver, Larsen the bronze.]

Obviously, because of this, they only offered one [extra] prize for the the best result at first board and knowing the fetish that the American grand master has for his wardrobe they decided to present the winner (of the first board prize) with a suit. [along with the gold medal]

Spassky will obviously have to alter the suit to fit his own measurements."

Asked if he thought Fischer would play in the Interzonal Korchnoi replied:

"...I think that they [the Americans] will persuade somebody to relinquish his place."

As we know Benko stepped down to let Bobby play in the Interzonal and the rest is history.

(but the idea came from Korchnoi! - sadly no. The idea of Benko dropping out to let Bobby in was discussed in the July 1970 Chess L & R page 370. The 1970 Chess Olympiad finished late September.)

Here, playing on the fumes of his championship run, he steamrolls Fischer.