Strongest player never to become champion?

Main

Date: 05 Apr 2006 17:23:27
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Strongest player never to become champion?

I've asked before.

Right now I list the following:

1. Korchnoi
2. shall
3. Schlecter
4. Rubinstein
5. Nimzovich

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 02 May 2006 19:01:12
From: gnohmon
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

David Richerby wrote:
http://www.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=199510SSSSSTS103368000000111000000000024610100
>
> Here are the top twenty, plus the players that Ray and Taylor have
> mentioned. Note that the ratings are Sonas's, not FIDE's. I've
> highlighted the non-champions. (Some may wish to include Anand in
> that class.)
>
> Rank Name Avg rating Period
> --------------------------------------
> 1 Kasparov 2863 1986-95
> 2 Lasker 2847 1893-1902
> 3 Karpov 2821 1985-94
> 4 Capablanca 2813 1919-28
> 5 Fischer 2810 1964-73
> 6 Botvinnik 2810 1940-49
> 7 Anand 2805 1995-2004
> 8 Alekhine 2804 1926-35
> 9 Kramnik 2798 1994-2003
> --> 10 Ivanchuk 2781 1989-98
> 11 Smyslov 2776 1050-59
> --> 12 Korchnoi 2773 1973-82
> --> 13 Pillsbury 2773 1896-1905
> --> 14 oczy 2772 1900-09
> --> 15 Tarrasch 2766 1890-99
> 16 Petrosian 2766 1959-68
> 17 Steinitz 2763 1883-92
> 18 Tal 2763 1958-67
> --> 19 Keres 2761 1954-63
> 20 Spassky 2759 1962-71
> --> 21 Bronstein 2758 1949-58
>
> --> 23 Rubinstein 2756 1906-15
> --> 24 Reshevsky 2749 1947-56
>
> --> 27 Schlechter 2743 1902-11
>
> --> 31 Geller 2740 1960-69
>
> --> 34 shall 2737 1910-19
>
> --> 40 Nimzowitsch 2733 1924-33
> 41 Euwe 2731 1934-43
>
> --> 61 Leko 2709 1995-2004
>
> --> 87 Fine 2686 1933-42

The problem with these numbers is that they don't compensate for their
times. Lasker dominated the world, being so far ahead of everybody else
for so many years that one may argue he was the world's most talented
and strongest player ever. (Kasparov's achievements, in much tougher
times, are arguably far beyond even Lasker -- so you see that numbers
don't stop the speculation, since numbers have limited meaning in
themselves. My take on Kasparov is that because his career intersected
with Karpov's both of them reached greater heights than ever seen
before. By this theory, with a few years less difference in age, a
series of Lasker-Capablanca matches would have produced a much stronger
Capablance than this world ever knew.)

Reading this table from that perspective, I was more impressed by
Steinitz than I ever had been before. 2760 in his day and age was
pretty amazing. Remember, he was the first world champion since he
invented the title :-); and his predecessors were immensely talented
but unschooled (by today's standards) -- unschooled because Steinitz
founded the school! By the end of his career, there were a number of
his students who were catching up to him, but earlier, there was
Chigorin. Chigorin, in the perspective of his times, belongs on any
short list of the strongest non-champions. I've studied his games and
will gladly nominate Chigorin.

In the perspective of their times, there's Morphy and Anderssen, and
Laboudonnais and Deschappelle and Philidor, who weren't WC because
Steinitz hadn't invented the title yet. The only one of these whose
games I've studied extensively was Anderssen; he'd be really tough even
today (though he'd need to study some openings). I wish I could play
that well!

Korchnoi goes on my list as well. Consecutive close matches against
Karpov, thrilling play, Great player!

Fischer was only superhuman when he came out of hiding and played the
championship cycle, beating contenders by 6-0. Averaged in to 1964, of
course he's merely in the top 5 ever, understating his special years.

Date: 11 Apr 2006 14:44:54
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

[email protected] wrote:
> Pettigrew said that Fischer could not be shut up.

I am attempting to understand *exactly* what James Pratt
says that Bill Pettigrew of Yorkshire claims happened.

1) "Fischer shouted 'Fuck off!'"

Does that mean that Fischer explicitly said 'Fuck off!' in
English, not another expression in another language (such
as Russian, which could have been understood more easily
by Geller), in a loud enough voice to have been heard by
witnesses (not only by Bill Pettigrew)?

2) "Pettigrew said that Fischer could not be shut up."

Does that mean that Fischer continued making more
defiant or derisive reks toward Geller immediately
after his alleged 'Fuck off!'? If that's the case, then
when did Fischer stop talking and resume the game?

By the way, I have heard of a William Pettigrew who's
seeking a DPhil in history at the University of Oxford.
His dissertation is about the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
(I believe that he's not Bill Pettigrew of Yorkshire.)

> No chess magazine likes to publish swear words
> and hero worship of RJF sells copy.

Has the US media always treated Bobby Fischer with
'hero worship'? Was Ralph Ginzburg's interview with
Bobby Fischer, 'Portrait of a Genius as a Young Chess
Master' (Harpers, January 1962) an example of
'hero worship'? There was a period (1970-72+) when
Bobby Fischer was useful to US propaganda in the
Cold War, and Fischer's 'eccentricities' tended to
be ignored or excused, though not completely,
by the US media. But I doubt that this period of
apparent US media 'sycophancy' accurately represents
the US media's complete coverage of Bobby Fischer.

Since at least 1992, when Bobby Fischer brazenly
defied the US government by playing a chess match
with Boris Spassky in Yugoslavia, there have been some
American journalists who presumably would be eager
to bring more attention to any unflattering incidents
in Bobby Fischer's life. I suspect that there long
has been more demand in the US media ket for
negative stories than for positive stories about Fischer.

If Bobby Fischer had really said 'Fuck off!' to Geller,
then why apparently has no one except Bill Pettigrew
of Yorkshire, reportedly, made this claim?

--Nick

Date: 09 Apr 2006 15:09:50
From:
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

[email protected] wrote:
> Pettigrew said that Fischer could not be shut up. No chess magazine
> likes to publish swear words and hero worship of RJF sells copy. I wish
> I could find Golobek's account, which I thought was in his history, but
> I was wrong. It may come to hand sometime..

Very interesting. I'm still skeptical, but please let me know if you
find further material on this. Meanwhile, I'll see what I can find.

Date: 09 Apr 2006 18:41:18
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Pettigrew said that Fischer could not be shut up. No chess magazine
> > likes to publish swear words and hero worship of RJF sells copy. I wish
> > I could find Golobek's account, which I thought was in his history, but
> > I was wrong. It may come to hand sometime..
>
> Very interesting. I'm still skeptical, but please let me know if you
> find further material on this. Meanwhile, I'll see what I can find.

I have no trouble believing it. You are born with a mental illness, and his,
having now fully blossomed, gives reason behind the outburst at that time.

Date: 28 Apr 2006 11:24:07
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

>> > Pettigrew said that Fischer could not be shut up. No chess magazine
>> > likes to publish swear words and hero worship of RJF sells copy. I wish
>> > I could find Golobek's account, which I thought was in his history, but
>> > I was wrong. It may come to hand sometime..
>>
>> Very interesting. I'm still skeptical, but please let me know if you
>> find further material on this. Meanwhile, I'll see what I can find.
>
> I have no trouble believing it. You are born with a mental illness, and
> his,
> having now fully blossomed, gives reason behind the outburst at that time.

The same psych textbooks you cite regarding mental illness also have long
dissertations on jealousy of someone who is more successful, which seems
rampant when it comes to Fischer and chess.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 24 Jun 2006 13:09:54
From: Odious
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> > Pettigrew said that Fischer could not be shut up. No chess magazine
>>> > likes to publish swear words and hero worship of RJF sells copy. I
>>> > wish
>>> > I could find Golobek's account, which I thought was in his history,
>>> > but
>>> > I was wrong. It may come to hand sometime..
>>>
>>> Very interesting. I'm still skeptical, but please let me know if you
>>> find further material on this. Meanwhile, I'll see what I can find.
>>
>> I have no trouble believing it. You are born with a mental illness, and
>> his,
>> having now fully blossomed, gives reason behind the outburst at that
>> time.
>
> The same psych textbooks you cite regarding mental illness

What do they say about guys who have to be convinced they are women in order
to achieve sexual climax?

________________________________________________________________
http://www.inraptured.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=465

I don't rate myself but my style as done by Hellen works on me enough to
convince me briefly that I'm female and get me off.
________________________________________________________________

Date: 10 Apr 2006 09:31:41
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

Ken Lovering <[email protected] > wrote:
> You are born with a mental illness

Er, no. Many people become mentally ill as they get older, just as
many people become deaf or blind as they get older.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Erotic Love Game (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a family board game that you can
share with someone special but it's
genuinely erotic!

Date: 10 Apr 2006 14:57:33
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

Dave,

Mental illness is not something you can "catch" like a cold.
Losing your eyesight or going death, as you get older is also genetic,
unless it was due to your environment. It's not something that you acquire
from outside your own body.
And, in those cases, both the eyesight and hearing, is lost gradually in
almost all cases.

My Mother was bipolar and there were no syptoms when she was young, however,
as she aged (25-35) the illness came on and got worse as the years went by.
You are either born or not born with the propensity to acquire the illness
later in life, as it is in your genes.

Fischer's father was mentally ill. In fact, Fischer wasn't Bobby's father.
It was someone else, whose name escapes me. He was mentally ill. He was
known to carry a bar of soap in his pocket, so he could wash his hands when
he felt he had touched something dirty. He also was known to wear his
pajamas under his clothes. I never knew this until last night, when I
happened to catch a one hour documentary on Fischer.

It's like alcoholism...........some of us can drink all we want, so long as
we don't drink too much at one time that we overdose, and we will never
become an alcoholic. Others are born with the genes that prevents them from
escaping alcoholism if they acquire a lifestyle of heavy drinking.

Ken

And just as the illness of alcoholism is slow in progressing, so is mental
illness in many cases. My mother was known to have huge temper tantrums,
long before her illness was diagnosed. And, those outburts were unlike her
the great majority of the time.

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:zQB*[email protected]...
> Ken Lovering <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You are born with a mental illness
>
> Er, no. Many people become mentally ill as they get older, just as
> many people become deaf or blind as they get older.
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Erotic Love Game (TM): it's
like
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a family board game that you
can
> share with someone special but
it's
> genuinely erotic!

Date: 28 Apr 2006 11:24:51
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

> Dave,
>
> Mental illness is not something you can "catch" like a cold.

Incorrect. Psych reports have "Axis IV: Stressors."

Many psychiatric ailments are brought on by external factors.

PTSD is one.

Date: 11 Apr 2006 10:49:16
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

Ken Lovering <[email protected] > wrote:
> Losing your eyesight or going death, as you get older is also
> genetic, unless it was due to your environment.

That `unless it was due to your environment' is as big a get out as
claiming that all the squares on the chessboard are white, except for
the black ones.

> You are either born or not born with the propensity to acquire the
> illness later in life, as it is in your genes.

Exactly. However, there is a world of a difference between `been born
with an increased likelihood of X' and `being born with X'. For
example, height is also controlled to some extent by genetics but we
don't claim that somebody is `born tall'. They were born with the
genes that gave them the potential to become tall and then lived in an
environment that allowed this potential to be fulfilled.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Flammable Chocolate Windows (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a graphical user interface
that's made of chocolate but it burns
really easily!

Date: 28 Apr 2006 11:25:15
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

>> Losing your eyesight or going death, as you get older is also
>> genetic, unless it was due to your environment.
>
> That `unless it was due to your environment' is as big a get out as
> claiming that all the squares on the chessboard are white, except for
> the black ones.

How is someone born with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder? (PTSD)

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 09 Apr 2006 13:35:10
From:
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

Pettigrew said that Fischer could not be shut up. No chess magazine
likes to publish swear words and hero worship of RJF sells copy. I wish
I could find Golobek's account, which I thought was in his history, but
I was wrong. It may come to hand sometime..

Date: 09 Apr 2006 07:21:57
From:
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

[email protected] wrote:
> 1 Keres
> 2 Rubinstein
> 3 Korchnoi
> 4 Bronstein
> 5 Reshevsky

A very plausible list.

> With regards to the Fine-v-Fischer games quoted, these were blitz games
> (5 minute bashes) for relaxation. See 'My 60 Memorable Games',
> pp.277-79 calls them skittles. Wade/O'Connell call it Manhattan CC
> celebration.
>
> As to the Geller-v-Fischer game at Palma, I am told by an eye witness -
> Yorkshire's Bill Pettigrew - that the Russian offered an early draw, at
> move seven, and Fischer shouted "Fuck Off!"

Seriously? This differs from the report in the 2/1971 Chess Life &
Review, page 69. GM Larry Evans, Fischer's second at the Interzonal,
wrote:

"The mighty Russian tried to secure his lead by offering a draw on
move 7. 'Too early,' smiled Fischer, who was thirsty for points after 5
rounds without a win."

Pettigrew's claim runs counter to Fischer's long-standing reputation
of proper behavior at the board. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it
seems that if Fischer had actually *shouted* an obscenity, it would
have received more notice from chess journalists, especially Evans, who
was there with Fischer.

> The tournament book
> (Wade/Blackstock) says that Geller played nervously and suffered
> hallucinations; the actual game notes say that Ficsher said something
> that Geller did not hear. Wade in BCM says that G formally offered a
> draw and F's reaction was disconcerting. Golombek, who wrote the report
> in BCM, was not there until Rd. 14.

The Geller-Fischer game was in round 12. Evans continues:

"Flustered, Geller blundered a pawn on move 15. He defended well
after adjournment until an incredible blunder near the end (71 K-N6
draws). The Russian contingent, who had been predicting an easy draw
from the sidelines, left en masse."

Without some further corroboration, I am inclined to be skeptical of
Pettigrew's claim. Fischer was sometimes far less than polite away from
the board, but shouting anything during the actual game, let alone
"Fuck off!", seems highly improbable for him.
I would tend to think that having beaten Fischer the last three times
they had played, Geller expected his draw offer to be accepted,
especially since Fischer had Black. When it was refused, Geller was
irritated and/or flustered, as Evans describes. It is not unusual for a
mistake, such as Geller's 15.c4?, to follow shortly after a draw has
been refused.

> However, elsewhere Harry recounts how Fischer said he would show the
> Russians the error of thewir pusilanious ways adding 'those were not
> the exact words he used.' Levy in CHESS, Dec 70, p.143, simply says
> that F had the better of the adjournment. Sosonko has it, in
> 'Fischer-v-the Russians' that G did not understand foreign languages,
> and 'it was not known what the future world champion said.' (p. 210).
>
> James Pratt (Basingstoke!)

Date: 08 Apr 2006 15:43:14
From:
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

1 Keres
2 Rubinstein
3 Korchnoi
4 Bronstein
5 Reshevsky

With regards to the Fine-v-Fischer games quoted, these were blitz games
(5 minute bashes) for relaxation. See 'My 60 Memorable Games',
pp.277-79 calls them skittles. Wade/O'Connell call it Manhattan CC
celebration.

As to the Geller-v-Fischer game at Palma, I am told by an eye witness -
Yorkshire's Bill Pettigrew - that the Russian offered an early draw, at
move seven, and Fischer shouted "Fuck Off!" The tournament book
(Wade/Blackstock) says that Geller played nervously and suffered
hallucinations; the actual game notes say that Ficsher said something
that Geller did not hear. Wade in BCM says that G formally offered a
draw and F's reaction was disconcerting. Golombek, who wrote the report
in BCM, was not there until Rd. 14.
However, elsewhere Harry recounts how Fischer said he would show the
Russians the error of thewir pusilanious ways adding 'those were not
the exact words he used.' Levy in CHESS, Dec 70, p.143, simply says
that F had the better of the adjournment. Sosonko has it, in
'Fischer-v-the Russians' that G did not understand foreign languages,
and 'it was not known what the future world champion said.' (p. 210).

James Pratt (Basingstoke!)

Date: 06 Apr 2006 06:40:40
From:
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

David Richerby wrote:
> Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Ray Gordon wrote:
> >> Geller was very strong in the opening but weak afterwards
> >
> > Ah, then that explains his lifetime plus scores against Botvinnik,
> > Smyslov, Petrosian, and Fischer. His weak play after the opening
> > must have confused them!
>
> Nah, he just beat them in the opening, silly. What most people don't
> realise is that Geller was `in book' throughout the 79 moves of his
> 1970 game against Smyslov at the Palma Interzonal. And let's not
> forget that he only lost against Fischer in the same tournament
> because there was a typo at move 67 the book that taught Geller how
> to play against the Gruenfeld. The poor man was in tears.

Good one, Dave! LOL!

tk

Date: 06 Apr 2006 06:36:52
From:
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

Claus-J=FCrgen Heigl wrote:
> Note that Lasker avoided a match against Tarrasch during Tarrasch's
> peak.

Claus-Juergen, are you saying that Lasker was ducking Tarrasch? If
so, I respectfully suggest that is a questionable interpretation. As
far as I know, Tarrasch did not issue a formal challenge until 1903. It
was accepted by Lasker, but the match was cancelled when Tarrasch
suffered a skating accident. A pity, but it cannot be considered
Lasker's fault.

> No championship match was played from 1896 to 1907 which is the
> 3rd longest time period where no match was played.

During the years 1901-1906 Lasker was semi-retired from serious chess
competition, working on mathematics, philosophy, his chess magazine,
and other pursuits. I think he would have played a title match if
enough money was offered, but like Fischer he refused to play for
peanuts.

> The other two time
> periods involved the two World wars. 1908 when the match finally was
> played Tarrasch was already on the decline being only #5 in playing
> strength.
>=20
> Claus-Juergen

Date: 06 Apr 2006 05:56:13
From:
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

Ray Gordon wrote:
> >> Right now I list the following:
> >>
> >> 1. Korchnoi
> >> 2. shall
> >> 3. Schlecter
> >> 4. Rubinstein
> >> 5. Nimzovich
> >
> > Korchnoi is good, but the rest don't belong anywhere near so high,
> > especially shall. How could you put him at #2, yet omit Tarrasch,
> > who beat him in a match +8 -1 =8 in 1905?
> > A few I would suggest as superior to all but Korchnoi would include
> > Keres, Reshevsky, Bronstein, and Geller.
> > For what it's worth, Nathan Divinsky attempted some all-time
> > mathematical rankings based on "best 10-year strengths." Here's where
> > he puts your top five:
> >
> > 9. Korchnoi (behind Kasparov, Fischer, Karpov, Capablanca, Botvinnik,
> > Lasker, Spassky, and Bronstein).
> > 66. shall
> > 63. Schlechter
> > 52. Rubinstein
> > 57. Nimzovitch
> >
> > I don't entirely agree with Divinsky, but you can see he definitely
> > disagrees with your choices.
>
> I listed the five players I believe whose main weakness was that their
> brilliance didn't come out over the board as much as it should have.

But you claim to be listing the five *_strongest players_* other than
world champions. *_Strong play_* can only be judged by how it "comes
out over the board." To claim to know the extent it "should have" but
did not is absurd.

> Schlecter was one game away from winning it all against Lasker.

Agreed, but the rest of his career did not indicate equality with
Lasker. And if being "one game away from winning it all" is your
criterion, then your list should include Bronstein and Leko.

> Rubinstein has as many or more openings named after him as Tarrasch.

*_Strong play_* is not determined by the number of openings named
after one. And if inventing openings is your criterion, then Louis
Paulsen should be your #1.

> shall designed the shall Attack

See above note.

> and played for the world title himself.

And was crushed +0 -8 =7.

> Losing one match 1-8 doesn't mean anything.

It means that during the match the guy who scored 8 played better,
i.e. was a *_stronger player_*, than the guy who scored 1. Over his
career, shall had losing scores against Winawer, Tarrasch,
Teichmann, Lasker, oczy, Rubinstein, Nimzovitch, Tartakower,
Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe, Torre, and Sultan Khan. Not a good
recommendation for him as "strongest player never to become champion."

> Nimzovich was a bit neurotic over the board and far better as a
> theoretician. With any practical skills he'd have been a champion as well.

But "practical skill" is what *_strong play_* requires.

> Bronstein definitely belongs on the list, but the others don't convince me.
> Geller was very strong in the opening but weak afterwards

Ah, then that explains his lifetime plus scores against Botvinnik,
Smyslov, Petrosian, and Fischer. His weak play after the opening must
have confused them!

> I'd list Reuben Fine before Sammy Reshevsky (Fischer slaughtered Reshevsky,

Hmmm ... Reshevsky had an even score (+2 -2 =7) in his match with
Fischer when Fischer suddenly quit. This is a "slaughter," but shall
losing 8-1 to Tarrasch "doesn't mean anything"?

> while Fine played for the title in 1948),

What title was that? Fine started withdrawing from chess after 1945.
The only serious chess he played in 1948 was a cable match with Ossip
Bernstein (two draws), and a tournament in New York, both in December.
No title was involved in either event.
If you mean the 1948 World Championship tournament, Fine did not play
in that, while Reshevsky did.

> and wouldn't list Keres in my top 100.

That is very hard to understand; most authorities put him in or near
the top 20. BTW, he had a lifetime plus score against your #1 Korchnoi
(+4 -1 =12).

Date: 06 Apr 2006 14:27:25
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ray Gordon wrote:
>> Geller was very strong in the opening but weak afterwards
>
> Ah, then that explains his lifetime plus scores against Botvinnik,
> Smyslov, Petrosian, and Fischer. His weak play after the opening
> must have confused them!

Nah, he just beat them in the opening, silly. What most people don't
realise is that Geller was `in book' throughout the 79 moves of his
1970 game against Smyslov at the Palma Interzonal. And let's not
forget that he only lost against Fischer in the same tournament
because there was a typo at move 67 the book that taught Geller how
to play against the Gruenfeld. The poor man was in tears.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Carnivorous Sushi (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ raw fish but it eats flesh!

Date: 06 Apr 2006 13:58:06
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

Ray Gordon wrote:
> Right now I list the following:
>
> 1. Korchnoi
> 2. shall
> 3. Schlecter
> 4. Rubinstein
> 5. Nimzovich

My list is:

1. Harry Pillsbury 2799
2. Vassily Ivanchuk 2790
3. Victor Korchnoi 2789
4. Siegbert Tarrasch 2788
5. Geza oczy 2786

This list is based on peak average rating measured in Elo during 5 year
spans derived from chessmetrics.com.
http://www.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=186020SSSSS5S000000000000111000000000000010100

Another list could be based on comparison of playing strength versus
contemporary chess masters. Although chess world championship titles
were recognized only after 1886 I included Zuckertort because he was
involved in a match for the title. I mixed a gut feeling of position and
duration:

1. Johannes Zuckertort: 4.5 Years #1 from 1878 to 1882
2. Geza oczy: 2.5 years #1 from 1904 to 1907
3. Akiba Rubinstein: 1.8 years #1 from 1912 to 1914, 4 years #2
4. Siegbert Tarrasch: 7 years #2 behind Lasker, 2 years #2 behind
oczy, peaked almost #1 in 1906
5. Victor Korchnoi: 7.7 years #2 behind Karpov
6. Harry Pillsbury: 1.3 years #1 from 1903 to 1904, 2 years #2

http://www.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Sumy.asp?Params=186020SSSSS5S000000000000111000000000000010100

Note that Lasker avoided a match against Tarrasch during Tarrasch's
peak. No championship match was played from 1896 to 1907 which is the
3rd longest time period where no match was played. The other two time
periods involved the two World wars. 1908 when the match finally was
played Tarrasch was already on the decline being only #5 in playing
strength.

Claus-Juergen

Date: 05 Apr 2006 15:14:27
From:
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

Ray Gordon wrote:
> I've asked before.
>
> Right now I list the following:
>
> 1. Korchnoi
> 2. shall
> 3. Schlecter
> 4. Rubinstein
> 5. Nimzovich

Korchnoi is good, but the rest don't belong anywhere near so high,
especially shall. How could you put him at #2, yet omit Tarrasch,
who beat him in a match +8 -1 =8 in 1905?
A few I would suggest as superior to all but Korchnoi would include
Keres, Reshevsky, Bronstein, and Geller.
For what it's worth, Nathan Divinsky attempted some all-time
mathematical rankings based on "best 10-year strengths." Here's where
he puts your top five:

9. Korchnoi (behind Kasparov, Fischer, Karpov, Capablanca, Botvinnik,
Lasker, Spassky, and Bronstein).
66. shall
63. Schlechter
52. Rubinstein
57. Nimzovitch

I don't entirely agree with Divinsky, but you can see he definitely
disagrees with your choices.

Date: 06 Apr 2006 06:23:38
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

>> Right now I list the following:
>>
>> 1. Korchnoi
>> 2. shall
>> 3. Schlecter
>> 4. Rubinstein
>> 5. Nimzovich
>
> Korchnoi is good, but the rest don't belong anywhere near so high,
> especially shall. How could you put him at #2, yet omit Tarrasch,
> who beat him in a match +8 -1 =8 in 1905?
> A few I would suggest as superior to all but Korchnoi would include
> Keres, Reshevsky, Bronstein, and Geller.
> For what it's worth, Nathan Divinsky attempted some all-time
> mathematical rankings based on "best 10-year strengths." Here's where
> he puts your top five:
>
> 9. Korchnoi (behind Kasparov, Fischer, Karpov, Capablanca, Botvinnik,
> Lasker, Spassky, and Bronstein).
> 66. shall
> 63. Schlechter
> 52. Rubinstein
> 57. Nimzovitch
>
> I don't entirely agree with Divinsky, but you can see he definitely
> disagrees with your choices.

I listed the five players I believe whose main weakness was that their
brilliance didn't come out over the board as much as it should have.

Schlecter was one game away from winning it all against Lasker.

Rubinstein has as many or more openings named after him as Tarrasch.

shall designed the shall Attack and played for the world title
himself. Losing one match 1-8 doesn't mean anything.

Nimzovich was a bit neurotic over the board and far better as a
theoretician. With any practical skills he'd have been a champion as well.

Bronstein definitely belongs on the list, but the others don't convince me.
Geller was very strong in the opening but weak afterwards (I should know as
my play is modeled after his).

I'd list Reuben Fine before Sammy Reshevsky (Fischer slaughtered Reshevsky,
while Fine played for the title in 1948), and wouldn't list Keres in my top
100.

Not sure if he has held the title in the "WWF era" of chess, but Leko seems
poised to join this group.

Date: 06 Apr 2006 13:23:51
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>> For what it's worth, Nathan Divinsky attempted some all-time
>> mathematical rankings based on "best 10-year strengths." Here's where
>> he puts your top five:

Jeff Sonas has done a similar thing. His equivalent table is at

http://www.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=199510SSSSSTS103368000000111000000000024610100

Here are the top twenty, plus the players that Ray and Taylor have
mentioned. Note that the ratings are Sonas's, not FIDE's. I've
highlighted the non-champions. (Some may wish to include Anand in
that class.)

Rank Name Avg rating Period
--------------------------------------
1 Kasparov 2863 1986-95
2 Lasker 2847 1893-1902
3 Karpov 2821 1985-94
4 Capablanca 2813 1919-28
5 Fischer 2810 1964-73
6 Botvinnik 2810 1940-49
7 Anand 2805 1995-2004
8 Alekhine 2804 1926-35
9 Kramnik 2798 1994-2003
-- > 10 Ivanchuk 2781 1989-98
11 Smyslov 2776 1050-59
-- > 12 Korchnoi 2773 1973-82
-- > 13 Pillsbury 2773 1896-1905
-- > 14 oczy 2772 1900-09
-- > 15 Tarrasch 2766 1890-99
16 Petrosian 2766 1959-68
17 Steinitz 2763 1883-92
18 Tal 2763 1958-67
-- > 19 Keres 2761 1954-63
20 Spassky 2759 1962-71
-- > 21 Bronstein 2758 1949-58

-- > 23 Rubinstein 2756 1906-15
-- > 24 Reshevsky 2749 1947-56

-- > 27 Schlechter 2743 1902-11

-- > 31 Geller 2740 1960-69

-- > 34 shall 2737 1910-19

-- > 40 Nimzowitsch 2733 1924-33
41 Euwe 2731 1934-43

-- > 61 Leko 2709 1995-2004

-- > 87 Fine 2686 1933-42

> Nimzovich was a bit neurotic over the board and far better as a
> theoretician. With any practical skills he'd have been a champion
> as well.

I'm not neurotic and a hopeless theoretician. But if I had `any
practical skills', I'd have been World Champion, too.

> I'd list Reuben Fine before Sammy Reshevsky (Fischer slaughtered
> Reshevsky, while Fine played for the title in 1948),

Actually, Reshevsky's record against Fischer was pretty good. Stats
from chessgames.com, removing exhibition and blitz games.

Fischer-Fine: +3-0=0 (100%)
Fischer-Reshevsky: +8-4=13 (58%)

> and wouldn't list Keres in my top 100.

Why not?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Impossible Unholy Widget (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a thingy but it's also a crime
against nature and it can't exist!

Date: 07 Apr 2006 23:12:00
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

Thanks for the website! I always thought Lasker would scare the pants off of
Kasparov :)

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:NDt*[email protected]...
> Ray Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Taylor Kingston wrote:
> >> For what it's worth, Nathan Divinsky attempted some all-time
> >> mathematical rankings based on "best 10-year strengths." Here's where
> >> he puts your top five:
>
> Jeff Sonas has done a similar thing. His equivalent table is at
>
>
http://www.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=199510SSSSSTS103368000000111000000000024610100
>
> Here are the top twenty, plus the players that Ray and Taylor have
> mentioned. Note that the ratings are Sonas's, not FIDE's. I've
> highlighted the non-champions. (Some may wish to include Anand in
> that class.)
>
> Rank Name Avg rating Period
> --------------------------------------
> 1 Kasparov 2863 1986-95
> 2 Lasker 2847 1893-1902
> 3 Karpov 2821 1985-94
> 4 Capablanca 2813 1919-28
> 5 Fischer 2810 1964-73
> 6 Botvinnik 2810 1940-49
> 7 Anand 2805 1995-2004
> 8 Alekhine 2804 1926-35
> 9 Kramnik 2798 1994-2003
> --> 10 Ivanchuk 2781 1989-98
> 11 Smyslov 2776 1050-59
> --> 12 Korchnoi 2773 1973-82
> --> 13 Pillsbury 2773 1896-1905
> --> 14 oczy 2772 1900-09
> --> 15 Tarrasch 2766 1890-99
> 16 Petrosian 2766 1959-68
> 17 Steinitz 2763 1883-92
> 18 Tal 2763 1958-67
> --> 19 Keres 2761 1954-63
> 20 Spassky 2759 1962-71
> --> 21 Bronstein 2758 1949-58
>
> --> 23 Rubinstein 2756 1906-15
> --> 24 Reshevsky 2749 1947-56
>
> --> 27 Schlechter 2743 1902-11
>
> --> 31 Geller 2740 1960-69
>
> --> 34 shall 2737 1910-19
>
> --> 40 Nimzowitsch 2733 1924-33
> 41 Euwe 2731 1934-43
>
> --> 61 Leko 2709 1995-2004
>
> --> 87 Fine 2686 1933-42
>
>
> > Nimzovich was a bit neurotic over the board and far better as a
> > theoretician. With any practical skills he'd have been a champion
> > as well.
>
> I'm not neurotic and a hopeless theoretician. But if I had `any
> practical skills', I'd have been World Champion, too.
>
>
> > I'd list Reuben Fine before Sammy Reshevsky (Fischer slaughtered
> > Reshevsky, while Fine played for the title in 1948),
>
>
> Actually, Reshevsky's record against Fischer was pretty good. Stats
> from chessgames.com, removing exhibition and blitz games.
>
> Fischer-Fine: +3-0=0 (100%)
> Fischer-Reshevsky: +8-4=13 (58%)
>
>
> > and wouldn't list Keres in my top 100.
>
> Why not?
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Impossible Unholy Widget (TM):
it's
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a thingy but it's also a
crime
> against nature and it can't
exist!

Date: 06 Apr 2006 14:17:08
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Strongest player never to become champion?

David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ray Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'd list Reuben Fine before Sammy Reshevsky (Fischer slaughtered
>> Reshevsky, while Fine played for the title in 1948),
>
> Actually, Reshevsky's record against Fischer was pretty good. Stats
> from chessgames.com, removing exhibition and blitz games.
>
> Fischer-Fine: +3-0=0 (100%)
> Fischer-Reshevsky: +8-4=13 (58%)

And Fischer's three wins against Fine are the following (admittedly,
well after Fine's peak).

[Event "Ch Manhattan Chess Club, New York, USA"]
[Site "Ch Manhattan Chess Club, New York, USA"]
[Date "1963.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Fine, Reuben"]
[Black "Fischer, Robert James"]
[ECO "E40"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 d5 5. Nge2 dxc4 6. a3 Bd6 7. e4 e5
8. f4 exd4 9. Qxd4 Nc6 10. Qxc4 O-O 11. Be3 Be6 12. Qd3 Na5 13. e5
Bxe5 14. Qb5 Bxc3+ 15. Nxc3 c6 16. Qg5 Bc4 17. Rd1 Qe8 18. Kf2 Bxf1
19. Rhxf1 Nc4 20. Bc5 Ne4+ 21. Nxe4 Qxe4 22. Kg1 f6 23. Qg4 Rf7
24. Rd4 Qe3+ 25. Kh1 Qb3 26. Qe6 Nd2 27. Qd6 Nxf1 28. Qd8+ Rf8 0-1

[Event "New York, USA"]
[Site "New York, USA"]
[Date "1963.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Fine, Reuben"]
[Black "Fischer, Robert James"]
[ECO "B87"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Bb3
b5 8. Qe2 Be7 9. g4 b4 10. Nb1 d5 11. e5 Nfd7 12. Bf4 Qb6 13. Nf3 a5
14. Ba4 O-O 15. Be3 Qc7 16. Bd4 Ba6 17. Qe3 Nc5 18. Bxc5 Bxc5 19. Nd4
Qb6 0-1

[Event "New York, USA"]
[Site "New York, USA"]
[Date "1963.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Fischer, Robert James"]
[Black "Fine, Reuben"]
[ECO "C52"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 7. O-O
dxc3 8. Qb3 Qe7 9. Nxc3 Nf6 10. Nd5 Nxd5 11. exd5 Ne5 12. Nxe5 Qxe5
13. Bb2 Qg5 14. h4 Qxh4 15. Bxg7 Rg8 16. Rfe1+ Kd8 17. Qg3 1-0

Dave.

--
David Richerby Cheese Hat (TM): it's like a hat
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that's made of cheese!