click for larger view

Even a beginner knows that White is supposed to be better here--due to the simple fact that bishops are well known to be a little better than knights in the endgame. But to actually convert the position into a win, against a giant like Taimanov, is much easier said than done.

What's required is SKILL, pure raw chess skill. There's been no great breakthroughs made in the age of tablebases to teach us how to win positions like the above diagram--the bottom line is, you need to be able to play the ending with incredible accuracy.

Tablebase has taught us a few tiny nuances, but most of them are merely curiosities (like the ♖♗vs♖ ending) and have very little to do with the reality of actually winning positions that are likely to crop up in actual play.

<sneaky> It is obvious You have done Your homework.

Yes, absolutely. One of the world's Top 10 players at the time, Taimanov, failed to hold that equal-material ending.

Thank You for the question. It does make a person feel good knowing that somebody is interested in his opinion, even if just out of curiosity :-)

As it stands now I don't have a list. Actually You got me thinking of how to go about it. What criterion(s) to use. There is a fairly large number of Masters I like, respect, admire, have learned from. On a list there is usually room for only 10 names. And I'd hate (and feel guilty, too) to kick anybody off the list.

So, I'll embark on a mini-project, and try to construct more than just one set of choices, using different, but equally valid rationale.

Remarkable. >

From one of <SBC>'s pages (http://sbchess.sinfree.net/JosephHB...):

<Adding another piece to the balancing act, chessgames.com member, offramp, mentioned this odd quote (considering Capablanca's renown as an endgame player) from Siegbert Tarrasch:

The following is the list of my "Favourite Chess Masters", and will necessarily be subjective and biased. It is based on personal preferences in terms of style and approach of the players, influence they had on me, admiration and affection I feel for them, even envy.

As You will see the list is somewhat eclectic, a mixed bag of sorts, which is understandable. As they say: there is no accounting for tastes.

The order of names is not etched in stone, it changes occasionally.

1. A.Alekhine

2. Dr.E.Lasker

3. P.Morphy

4. J.R.Capablanca

5. H.N.Pillsbury

6. M.Tchigorin (spelling?)

7. R.J.Fischer

8. M.M.Botvinnik

9. S.Gligoric

10. P.Keres

A few names that should also be there: M.Tal, V.Smyslov, L.Ljubojevic, B.Spassky.

The Discoverers and Innovators. The Pathfinders and Founders. Philosophers and Teachers of the game. Usually people ahead of their time, thanks to who Chess has been growing from it's infancy to where it stands today.

Some of them may not be amongst the games strongest players, but that is not the purpose of this list.

And again, there is too few spots available on the list :-)

1. W.Steinitz

2. A.Nimzowich

3. A.Alekhine

4. A.Rubinstein

5. Dr.S.Tarrasch

6. Dr.E.Lasker

7. R.Reti

8. P.Morphy

9. A.Phillidor

10. M.Botvinnik

A few names that should be there, too: L.Paulsen, S.Tartakower, S.Gligoric, D.Bronstein.

A tough one to put together. One could produce a list of 20 equally deserving players, with another 20 very close by.

You will notice that the list(s) consist of players from about 1855-early 1980s. With exception of Kasparov, there are no other names covering last 20 years of so. The reason is that I stopped following the world of Chess around 1981-82. Came back some 2 years ago, and am still not sufficiently familiar with the players of the period. So I left it alone.

I tried to take into account several pertinent factors:

-- playing Strength as "documented" by results,

-- inherent Quality of play,

-- Longevity in the Elite,

-- Influence the players exerted on others.

It is always difficult to compare the relative merits of players from different eras, regardless of "retro-active" (or is it "retarded") ELO attempts.

The List:

1 - 2. A.Alekhine & Dr.E.Lasker

3 - 4. A.Karpov & G.Kasparov

5. J.R.Capablanca

6. M.Botvinnik

7. V.Smyslov

8. P.Keres

9. R.J.Fischer

10. V.Korchnoi

A few remarks regarding the above list coming up shortly.

Regarding the above list.

1. I simply could not bring myself to separate Alekhine and Lasker ;-)

2. Karpov - Kasparov.

In their games Kasparov's score is somewhat better, his dominance over the contemporaries seems to be a bit more impressive than Karpov's.

On the other hand, Kasparov handled players of, more or less 1 generation. The best players of the '60s and '70s that he faced in the '80s, were all beyond their prime.

Karpov, by comparison, faced the best of the '60s and '70s in the 1970s and dominated them for good 10 years, together with the masters of his own generation. From 1985 till late 1990s he was still the 2nd best. And, of course, he won more tournaments than anybody else.

All this considered I had put the 2 to share 3 -4 place on the list.

3. Bobby Fischer: I've placed him as #9. And it may be arguable.

Fischer's stay in the elite was relatively short compared to others, roughly some 10 years. Again, compared top others he played relatively sparingly. Didn't face nearly as wide range of opponents as others. Was dominant for only 2-3 years. And, unfortunately, after winning the title he was never really the Champion! Otherwise he would have scored higher.

4. The Paul Morphy dilemma.

I've included him amongst my own favourites, and amongst the most influential ones, but not here. He certainly was powerful in terms of dominance over his contemporaries, and in quality of play.

But:

-- We have too small sample of his games,

-- Covering too short span of time,

-- There didn't seem to be too much in terms of the opposition, with some 2-3 exceptions.

-- When his games are analyzed it is very hard to tell what the case was:

a) was he too strong

b) opponents too weak

c) or both!

As far as I'm aware, we do not encounter this kind of a problem with any other master. Somehow it feels as if Morphy is outside of the category of Time, Strength/Quality.

As for the list, one can either place him 1st by far, or else take him of the list and keep in a category of his own, which is what I did.

Thank You.

1. When I was done, and the text was posted, I noticed a glaring omission there; T.V.Petrosian! Somehow I completely forgot about him. He would also be among my "Favourite" players.

I didn't feel like re-working the whole thing, so I left it alone. But, Petrosian would "replace" Korchnoi and be there in 7-10 group, with Smyslov, Keres and Fischer.

2. Unlike with the first 2 lists, in the 3rd one I forgot to add a few "also eligibles". There would be quite a few of them, but I'll limit it to:

Reshevsky, Bronstein, Tal, Steinitz.

My “Favourites List” is also based on style/s preference, ease of understanding, approach to the game, etc.

The order changes occasionally.

1. Jose Capablanca
2. Bobby Fischer
3. Anatoly Karpov
4. Boris Spassky
5. Mikhail Botvinnik
6. Leonid Stein
7. Mikhail Tal
8. Vasily Smyslov
9. Paul Keres
10. Akiba Rubinstein

My favourite modern player is Anand, closely followed by Kramnik.

Steinitz was undoubtedly the supreme innovator of the game. He dominated late 19th century in terms of practical results and chess theory. Tarrasch was great too, but I don’t know all that much about the earlier “greats”, e.g. Tchigorin and others. My early hero was Morphy, but he was so far ahead of his time that an assessment of him in relation to the players who followed doesn’t seem right.

As for the “best” (and it’s entirely subjective at that), I agree with your assessment of Karpov and Kasparov (you would have to be a fool not to). I tend to think of them as one “entity”, given that their rivalry was the closest (and greatest) in history. For me, they occupy the top two slots. Fischer is 3rd. He dominated his opposition like no one else (esp. 1970-72). The greatest “Challenger” the chess world has ever seen? I think so. A Champion by word and deed? Obviously not. But he certainly could have been if he was as stable as his peers. By not defending his Title, however, his legend and aura of invincibility remains intact (except for the 1992 “match”, which I don’t remember – I was only six at the time!). Next are Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Spassky, Petrosian, Tal and Smyslov. Keres also deserves a spot, perhaps equal with Tal or Smyslov. Stein was a great player, but died very young; he would certainly have given Karpov and Korchnoi a run for their money in the 70’s and 80’s, that’s for sure. He won the Soviet Championship three times in brilliant style. As for Lasker, I’m not well enough informed about him to make a subjective judgement; I only studied some of his endgames at school a few years ago (and incidentally learnt a lot in the process).

2. Tal, 44 years
3. Korchnoi, 49
4. Portisch, 43
5. Polugaevsky, 46
6. Spassky, 43
7. Petrosian, 51

When Kasparov won ten super tournaments in a row his strongest opponents were all younger than him (January 2000 list):

The type of musings we endeavored here are usually not of much practical use, other than that of an intellectual exercise.

But interesting nonetheless.

Also, from time to time, they remind us of the uninterrupted, continuous progress of our game. of it worthy protagonists and their exploits. It renews and strengthens our respect and appreciation for their achievements.

Of course the data You presented is accurate and valid. but not quite complete. Also, it lends itself to variety of interpretations.

For example:

In case of Karpov, 3 of the names You listed were still in their prime in the '70s

-- Polugaevsky

-- Portisch

-- and Korchnoi

the others somewhat below it. Of the players of the "same" older generation one could also add the likes of Larsen, Geller, Gligoric, Hort. All of them still formidable opponents in the 1970s. Karpov dominated them.

But there was more. A number of outstanding players of Karpov's own generation who appeared and grew at the same time, mid-'70s to mid-'80:

-- Belliavsky ,

-- Vaganjan ,

-- Ljubojevic

-- Adorjan

-- Szax

-- Ribly

-- Miles

-- Timman

-- Mecking.

A.Karpov was way ahead of them, too.

In the 1990s he faced the same opposition as Kasparov, and was 12 years older in relation to them than Kasparov was. Yet he still was ahead of them just as much as Kasparov.

Kasparov, on the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, faced the players from Your 1st list in the 1980s when they were all well beyond their prime. He did play the masters of Karpov's generation, mentioned above, throughout the 1980s, with as much frequency and success as Karpov did.