< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
|Oct-08-18|| ||keypusher: <Howard: Najdorf may have been a palpable underdog, but he almost certainly would have done better than Euwe did !>|
That's not much of an argument. Probably anyone in the top 100 in the world would have done better than +1-13=6. If you reran that tournament a dozen times I'd bet you'd Euwe himself wouldn't score that badly again.
<Inviting him, at any rate, would have at least ensured an even number of players--a rather crucial element in a round-robin.>
That's a much better argument.
|Oct-08-18|| ||Sally Simpson: ***
Najdorf was not going to get invited after this two years earlier.
Najdorf vs Botvinnik, 1946 (see some of the comments)
Log this with the rest of the conspiracy theories revolving around the FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948)
It starts off with the Russians murdering Alekhine.
Fine being bribed not to go.
Keres told to take a dive.
Smyslov told not to beat Botvinnik (4 draws and a lost).
Euwe's opening notebook stolen and returned after the event.
No dirt on Reshevsky which in itself is very suspicious.
(In 1948 the Cleveland Indians beat the Boston Braves to win the World Series. I do not have any proof but I'm 99% sure the Russians fixed that as well.)
|Oct-09-18|| ||FSR: <Count Wedgemore> I'd prefer to wait to see where to place Carlsen, but certainly he would rank highly. He is almost surely the "strongest player of all time," but that does not necessarily make him the "greatest of all time." The legendary players of the past didn't have the benefit of computer programs, huge databases, highly developed chess theory, endgame tablebases, frequent super-tournaments where they could hone their skills against other world-class players, etc., etc.|
As for the greatest non-world champion since there have been world champions (e.g. since Steinitz), I don't know the answer, but the KIRK players whom commenters have suggested (Korchnoi, Ivanchuk, Rubinstein, and Keres) are extremely strong contenders. I'll leave it to others to argue what the order of them should be.
|Oct-09-18|| ||fabelhaft: I don't see Ivanchuk as a serious contender for greatest player never to be World Champion. Korchnoi's result were different level for a very long time. He didn't just win the whole candidates series a couple of times, but was an inch from winning a title match against Karpov. He was also the second best player in the world for many years. When he was 58 years old he was #5, only 5 Elo from a top three spot.|
Ivanchuk scored some great results, but in spite of participating in lots of cycles he never made it past the Candidates quarter finals. When the Candidates were a tournament in 2013 he lost five games on time and didn't do too well.
If Topalov wouldn't count as World Champion he would be a better candidate. He was #1 longer than Anand and Kramnik, but I guess he counts as World Champion.
|Oct-09-18|| ||keypusher: < Sally Simpson: ***
Najdorf was not going to get invited after this two years earlier.>
That’s one of Bronstein’s many libels on Botvinnik. I wish people would stop repeating it.
|Oct-09-18|| ||keypusher: Anyway, it’s FSR’s page, but as far as I know the topic is greatest non-champ, not rehearsing tired conspiracy theories for the millionth time.|
|Oct-09-18|| ||Sally Simpson: ***
" I wish people would stop repeating it."
But you just did. :)
Agree Ivanchuk failed in the Candidates but he did get to the final of the Game Collection: 2002 FIDE World Chess Championship. (thank you Penguincw)
I know Ponomariov does not have the same following or P.R. as Ivanchuk. Perhaps if Ivanchuk had won it then due to him being very popular with everyone then the FIDE W.C. title might have had a bit more clout and recognition.
|Oct-09-18|| ||Howard: When Ponomariov won the "world championship", it was probably the biggest fluke in FIDE history.|
|Oct-09-18|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Howard,
Shame Ivanchuk did not win it.
Just think of the arguments we have missed with people saying Ivanchuk should not be listed as one of the strongest players never to be World Champion because he was once World Champion.
|Oct-09-18|| ||Howard: But, if Ivanchuk had beaten Ponom, the former would not have been a legit WC, in my view.|
Ivanchuk, by the way, turns 50 next year!
|Oct-10-18|| ||FSR: <Howard> Why single out Ponomariov? Don't you think that Khalifman and Kasimdzhanov are also joke world champions?|
|Oct-10-18|| ||Howard: Oh, I couldn't agree more !|
|Oct-10-18|| ||Tiggler: <FSR>: <He is almost surely the "strongest player of all time," but that does not necessarily make him the "greatest of all time.">|
Bravo for pointing out this distinction. the expression <"greatest of all time."> includes not only playing strength, but also context, duration of the career at the top, and overall contribution to the development of chess. These are some of the reasons I rate Botvinnik very highly. Also why we have to wait before assessing Carlsen fairly.
|Oct-11-18|| ||Howard: Fischer's name also comes readily to mind. Should the fact that he quit chess after 1972 (his 1992 "match" didn't account for much, in my view), plus the disgraceful way he forfeited his title, affect his standing as one of the "greatest" players of all time.|
Personally, I think the answer is yes.
|Oct-11-18|| ||Tiggler: <Howard> No question: dereliction of duty. Illness is the excuse, but it hardly cuts it for me because he used the same instability to his advantage in gaining the title.|
|Oct-11-18|| ||Count Wedgemore: <Tigger> I agree, but when measuring greatness, one important factor is what you yourself mentioned in an earlier post: <overall contribution to the development of chess.>, and in that regard Fischer, perhaps more than any other World Champion, contributed significantly to the development and the professionalization of chess. |
The "Fischer boom" was a remarkable phenomenon, and it didn't just manifest in the US, but in other countries as well, like Western Europe. Higher prize money and better playing conditions for players were also a result of Fischer's efforts, thanks to his demands and insistence of better treatment of chess professionals.
And then there's his many inventions, like the Fischer Clock, with increment time control, Fischer Random, etc. That should be noted, too.
|Oct-11-18|| ||perfidious: Hadn't been for Fischer--whatever one makes of his idiosyncrasies--as the <Count> notes, without his adamantine stance on improved playing conditions and prize funds for top players, chess would have been the worse off.|
|Oct-12-18|| ||Tiggler: < in that regard Fischer, perhaps more than any other World Champion, contributed significantly to the development and the professionalization of chess. >|
Compared to Botvinnik? What a load of crap!
|Oct-12-18|| ||HeMateMe: Fischer often made an ass of himself but--he did bring Western money and attention to the world of chess. Who else could have commanded a $5M joint purse for a match between two chess retires, he and Boris Spassky, in 1992?|
|Oct-12-18|| ||Check It Out: Regarding Ponomariov, Khalifman, and Kasimdzhanov being considered “joke world champions”:|
I agree they aren’t a part of the succession of undisputed world champions (and neither is Topalov, for that matter, but he is frequently left off this list).
But all they did to be so derogatorily labeled is WIN the event they were in! They bear the brunt of the chess world’s ire when really it is Kasparov and FIDE who should be blamed.
Give Pono, Khalif and Kasim a break. All they did was win.
|Oct-12-18|| ||john barleycorn: <Check It Out> agreed on all points.|
|Oct-12-18|| ||nok: All classical world champions are joke champions, because the process instated by Steinitz is flawed. Soviet champion, now that was a real title.|
Also, Pono, Kasim and Khalif have prioritized activities like coaching/seconding over playing, and with great success. Their understanding of the game is second to none.
|Oct-12-18|| ||john barleycorn: <Tiggler: ...
Compared to Botvinnik? What a load of crap!>
Yeah, doing a time comsuming methodological match preparation a la Botvinnik for month's and playing for the World Title at a max of 6000 US $.
|Oct-28-18|| ||FSR: I finally renewed my membership, so anyone who wants to talk to me can now do so at my forum.|
|Oct-29-18|| ||diceman: <Retireborn:
I find it difficult to look past Korchnoi and Keres.>
While I'm a big Keres fan, I would go with Korchnoi because he spilled over into today's generation.
(should Caruana win the current match
it would be another World Champion he's beaten)
Things rarely discussed:
1) Who was active at the time.
It's relatively easy to understand
Keres/Korchnoi when you look at
the legends of chess, who were active, and in their prime.
2) The process.
Look at Magnus, he "tied" a Candidates
tournament, and was sitting across the
board from Anand.
That's a lot different vs Interzonals,
individual matches, then sitting across from the World Champion.
Not to mention, things like blitz deciding matches vs classical games.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·