Which World Champions in history made the biggest positive impact for the game of chess? List as many as you like.
Which World Champions in history made the biggest negative impact for the game of chess? List as many as you like.
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Definitely Bobby Fischer made the most positive impact. He made chess professional.
I have to say Kasparov made the most negative impact with all his selfish decisions. Chess is still struggling to recover from his selfish decisions. It will take a much longer time for recovery.
I know many people will think just the opposite. But they have to look at this with a more open mind.
Mikhail Tal made the most positive impact.
Garri Kasparov made the most negative impact.
I think I might answer Bobby Fischer for BOTH questions. He was the one behind the big chess boom – the fischer boom in the west and many of those living in the west have him to thank for the number of grandmasters and professionals that are in chess in places like Britain and the U.S.
On the other hand he is also greatly responsible for the great importance of opening preparation today as well as the negative public image of chess players as wackos.
I honestly cannot say that there are any world champions who are really BAD for the game. All the world champions so far have enriched chess.
Hmmm, implying “open-mindness” will support your opinion is a bit unfair, no?
My opinion is that Bobby Fisher did make the most positive impact, but also the most negative at the same time… The first being OTB, the latter off the board. And I guess the whole USSR “monopoly” on world chess after WWII wasn’t all that positive…
BTW… when we are all talking quiz questions… I’m a bit of the “chess oddities” fan… Does anyone happen to have any info on wether there has alreda been composed a position, where most legal moves (by white, for example) are possible?
Greetings from Slovenia
alekhine the most negative. his unwillingness to play capablanca even though he was the obvious challenger meant that the second best remained the champion for some time.
Most positive – Wilhelm Steinitz, most negative – Vladimir Kramnik.
“lantonov said…
Most positive – Wilhelm Steinitz, most negative – Vladimir Kramnik.”
LOL on both counts. Steinitz was the most unpopular man of his day. For the other, beating your favorite player hardly qualifies.
That’s the problem with questions like this. Half the people don’t understand the question and just answer with generic approval or generic disapproval.
POSITIVE
Capablanca
Euwe
Tal
Kasparov
NEUTRAL
Steinitz
Smyslov
Petrosian *
Spassky
Karpov
Kramnik
NEGATIVE
Lasker
Alekhine
Botvinnik
Fischer **
* Positive in Armenia, neutral everywhere else
** Fischer was a great challenger, but a terrible champion
>>Hmmm, implying “open-mindness” will support your opinion is a bit unfair, no?>>
Not unfair, just incredibly lame.
Wait! no, here it is in the dictionary:
open-mindedness adj.: agreeing with the viewpoint of an anonymous person who provides no argument for his position.
There it is, in black and white.
Positive: Susan Polgar, Xie Jun, Boris Spassky, Bobby Fischer
Negative: Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov, Vladimir Kramnik
Boris Spassky is by far the greatest ambassador of chess – a gentleman and man of great respect.
Zsuzsa Polgar and Bobby Fischer made the biggest positive impact for chess.
Bobby Fischer also made the biggest negative impact.
Polgar, Tal, Botvinnik – Positive
Kasparov, Fischer, Kramnik – Negative
From my personal perspective…
Positive: Fischer, Capablanca, Euwe, Spassky. Fischer for raising the awareness of chess in 72, Capablanca for his beautiful games, and Euwe and Spassky for what they have done since
Negative: Fischer, Kasparov, Kramnik. Fischer for what he did after he won, Kasparov for diluting the general chess conciousness while raising conciousness of Kasparov and Kramnik for… well, any number of things that don’t provide a positive image of chess. yes, including making chess a laughing stock with its wc jokes.
I totally agree with lantonov;
Steitnitz has been most likely the world champion whose impact has been most positive.
First, prior to Steitnitz no such title existed. Has been the title useful? Then, it is a main contribution of Steitnitz.
Second, when accepted a match against Zukertort, Steitnitz (as well as Zukertort) showed a way to resolve world championships that has been used with little changes for over a century.
Third, he really introduced new ideas into chess. He was a man who changed chess views during his time. His conception was totally new and constantly raised “admiration” from his rivals (“this little man has shown us all how to play chess”) said a grand master after him.
Fourth, he was a sportsman. He was a gentleman and never ever refused a duel (something that Lasker, Capablanca or Alekhine could not claim) against any rival that he honestly thought could be a match for him (Chigorin, Zukertort, Gunsberg, Lasker… if only Tarrasch would have postponed his studies in 1905).
These are my personal views on the most important person in chess world title, Willhem Steitnitz
And, on the other hand, Kramnik has ever been a disappointment as a world champion.
He was in his peek when defeated Kasparov, but for nearly 4 years he did nothing. Little has he done for the re-unification of the title (refusing twice previously-agreed conditions to reunify it) and at the end of it all, all this stuff concerning cheating while playing in Elista against Topalov.
In 1870’s, 1880’s, 1890’s chess was an art whose rules a little man from Vienna was trying to discover.
In 2000’s, what we are trying to discover is how cheating in chess can be avoided.
That is my personal view
Positive: Steinitz. He was colorful, and he edited a chess magazine.
Negative: Bobby Fischer. He was SUCH an unadmirable figure.
I have another category: Most Geeky Chessplayer. Susan Polgar. (See 9/06 cover of Chess Life.) Who else plays soccer in high heels?
>>Boris Spassky is by far the greatest ambassador of chess – a gentleman and man of great respect.>>
I used to think so until he started signing his name to anti-semitic petitions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/10/wspas10.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/10/ixworld.html
“Negative: Maybe Topalov because of his accusations of cheating. This does the game no good…”
He did the game more damage than anyone except perhaps Fischer. Though to be fair, Topalov doesn’t really count as a World Champion. At least not yet.
>>I totally agree with lantonov;
Since you gave reasons and he didn’t, wouldn’t it be more fair to say he agrees with you?
>>First, prior to Steitnitz no such title existed. Has been the title useful? Then, it is a main contribution of Steitnitz. >>
Creating the world title, and fathering positional play. Check, check.
>>And, on the other hand, Kramnik has ever been a disappointment as a world champion.
He was in his peek when defeated Kasparov, but for nearly 4 years he did nothing. Little has he done for the re-unification of the title (refusing twice previously-agreed conditions to reunify it) and at the end of it all, >>
He signed Prague in 2002. It took FIDE four years and two substitutions to follow through on their end of things. You can hardly blame Kramnik for the failure of the Kasparov-Ponomariov match.
>>all this stuff concerning cheating while playing in Elista against Topalov.>>
Again, no evidence was ever presented, and Topalov admitted he was wrong, had lost his head, and didn’t believe his own charge. You can hardly blame Kramnik for Topalov’s moment of hysteria. These reasons aren’t as good as your Steinitz reasons.
>>In 2000’s, what we are trying to discover is how cheating in chess can be avoided.
That is my personal view >>
If you want to blame anyone for this, blame Botvinnik. He’s the one who was so all-fired keen on having a computer world champion some day, for goodness knows what reason.
For some reason you can afford to be unbiased towards Steinitz, but not towards Kramnik. Your reasons in the one case make perfect sense, your reasons in the other make none at all.
Positive:
Fischer and Spassky, their match was responsible for a big boom in chess in the 70’s (I have to trust my sources, because I wasn’t born in 1972).
Kasparov – He is not only the best player ever, but he has also charisma. He is the greatest ambassador our sport ever had.
Negative:
Fischer – His actions just contribut to the general idea that chess players are crazy.
“Fischer for raising the awareness of chess in 72”
exploding interest in chess, etc.
maybe in the u.s. – i dont think fischer raised the awareness of chess worldwide. sure ppl became aware of HIM – the wonder boy from america to beat the great russians.
over and over the same questions how many more???
“Fischer for raising the awareness of chess in 72”
“maybe in the u.s. – i dont think fischer raised the awareness of chess worldwide. sure ppl became aware of HIM – the wonder boy from america to beat the great russians. “
Of course I meant the US. That is why I prefaced it with “from my perspective”. I was 10 years old in 72 and it had a big impact on me, I remember waiting to see if the newspaper would actually print the moves after each game. How did we live before the internet?! The other big (non-WC) influence on me at the time and a bit before was Paul Keres… for the simple reason that the library had a book of his games I checked out again…and again… and again…
Again:
Most positive: Wilhelm Steinitz
Most negative: Vladimir Kramnik
My opinion was confirmed by the reaction of the pesky anonym.
can anyone tell me why so many negative votes for Kasparov?
Bobby Fischer is the answer to both questions.
Bobby Fischer had the most positive impact because of how the public perceived him before 1972. Chess was virtually obscure in the United States before he came along. After 1972 and prior to 1975 when he refused to play Anatoly Karpov chess was the hottest sport in the United States. Amazing!!
After 1974 Bobby Fischer had the most negative impact of World Champions.
Starting with not playing Anatoly Karpov which was not a big deal because most likely sooner or later the Soviets would have put together a champion who would have been able to beat Bobby Fischer. (It is amazing that singehandedly Bobby Fischer was able to become World Champion even once because the Soviet Union had an army of grandmasters and Fischer had nobody but himself.)
After 1992 the combination of Fischer’s anti United States comments and his anti Jewish comments hurt chess a lot. It would have been much much better if Bobby Fischer had just played Spassky in 1992 and made public comments only about chess. (It would have been better still if Bobby Fischer could have found a way to play Spassky in 1992 at a site friendly to the United States and to Spassky away from Yugoslavia.)
Positive: Paul Morphy
Negative: Bobby Fischer
I’ll speak from a U.S. perspective, only because I would not be able to speak from any other national perspective, and others are already contributing enough about the international scene.
Fischer’s rise to become world champion created a huge surge in chess interest in the U.S. that can still be felt over 30 years later. It got me playing as I followed the Fischer-Spassky match in the Yugoslavian press. (I was out of the country at the time.) His impact as World Champion, however, was not positive, and I’ll leave the negative side of the question at that.
The strongest positive impact in the U.S. by a world champion would be that of Susan Polgar for her long-standing interest in developing chess talent in the U.S., and her current interest in rehabilitating the USCF.
I would further praise Susan for her repeated pleas for civility and dignity both at the board and in other aspects of life. Ironically, her blog is not immune to sometimes caustic and vitriolic contributions from readers, which is also indicative of her fairness.
There are different ways one can look at the question. Contributions to Chess theory and practice, Contributions to the promotion of the game, Contribution via coaching, mentoring and in the evolution and growth of good players, and so on.
I’d vote for Anand. Coming from India, I’m a big fan of his. But, there’s probably more to it.
1) He is a fine sportsperson, and a great ambassador of the game and the country. He definitely negates the “nerd” image of the chess players and makes it more amiable to people.
2) His direct and indirect contribution to the growth of the game in the country has produced 14 more GMs. It is hard for the west to understand what it means to a country of a billion people of no GMs before he came around. One of them is the 2nd best women’s player. And two more are among the top 30 – 35 players in the world.
Unfortunately, I’m not very familiar with the personalities of the past champions. So, I’m going by the image of the the super elite players of the last 15 – 20 years.
That’s an impact, a real impact. The western world cannot even fathom that. It is like someone said, “It’s news if 1000s die in India, 100 in Iraq, 10 in England and 1 in the US”.
Fischer didn’t have this impact. Importing GMs will not equate to “creating an impact”. Kasparov or no Kasparov, the erstwhile Soviet Union would have produced the similar quality of Chess players.
3) He is not far removed from the realities of the society. He was and is continuously involved with helping out the needy. Thus having an impact to the society as a whole and not just to the chess community alone.
My vote goes to Viswanathan Anand.
Positive: Bobby Fischer for the greatest chess boom outside of Russia in the early 70’s.
Positive: Mikhail Botvinnik for bringing chess from the Romantic Era into the Technical Era.
Negative: Garry Kasparov by FAR had the biggest negative impact on chess as a champion. That will be his legacy, unfortunately. I suppose this walks hand in hand with him trying to reinvent himself in the political arena…for shame.
Negative: All those FIDE WCC Tournament Champions – Kasim, Topy…
Some would list Kramnik as a negative but that is a stylistic opinion. I think he has shown to be one of the most skilled match players in the history of the game. I would give him a pass and rate him neutral.
Positive: Paul Morphy
Negative: Bobby Fischer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Morphy wasn’t a World Champion.
Yes. Morphy was considered the “Chess Champion of the World.”
Most negative: Fischer…for being the most unashamed rascist in our sport.
Positive: Kramnick…for unifying the championship.
Yes. Morphy was considered the “Chess Champion of the World.”
No, he was considered the best player in the world. He held no titles, played in only one tournament in his life, and played mostly skittles games and private matches for stakes. He resisted bitterly the idea that he was a chess professional in any sense of the word, and would not have accepted a championship title if it were given to him.
Wrong. Morphy was considered the Chess Champion of the World.
“On April 14, 1859, during a banquet at the London Chess Club in honor of Paul Morphy, club president Augustus Mongredien proposed a toast to “the champion of the chess world.” When Morphy returned to the United States following his triumphs in Europe, American chess fans in Boston and New York feted him as “the chess champion of the world.”
On both sides of the Atlantic, leading chess personalities stated that Morphy was either champion of the chess world or chess champion of the world.
Quoted from:
http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessHistory/salute/conceptWorldChampion.php
Anyway,
Most Positive: Morphy
Most negative: Fischer
if you don’t agree that Morphy was the “Chess Champion of the World,” then that is fine. I think I can state my opinion…after all, it’s merely an opinion just like everyone on this blog.
Bobby Fischer made the greatest positive impact on chess. Countries all over the world including Russia have studied his games. He had genuis ability, the fighting spirit to play for a win to the kings and a professional work ethic preparing for upcoming matches. Fischer raised the bar for chess players earning more money for their sport. He also invented The Fischer chess clock to alleviate endgame time pressure. Besides all his antics and difficult personality to deal with he had something that certain musicians, actors, and celebrities have and that is charisma. A presence to draw the masses in and become interested in not only the star player but the game of chess! Americans that didnt even know how to play the game of chess followed the Spassky Fischer match’s progress! When Fischer won the World Championship more Americans started to play chess than in any other period. Bobby wanted to help the game of chess when he fought for no draws counting and the 1st player to 10 wins in his upcoming match with Karpov. Instead of the old system where a player in the Championship match with a few game lead could basically draw out the remainder of the match thus creating a very dull event. Contrary I also agree Garry Kasparov hurt chess when he left FIDE leaving the mess of a unification for World Champion similar to professional boxing where you have more than one recognized Champion at the same time.
Ok,
after I have read all the opinions and all the very profound arguments, I have to add my view as well:
most positive:
Kramnik, he has the nicest haircut
also positive:
Alekhine, he has the nicest Name
a little positive:
Fischer, he has German roots.
neutral:
Kasparov, he is no communist.
all the others are bad. Bad hairdo (Karpov), wrong nationality (Capablanca) and I could continue the list.
It sucks to read such nonsense to any question, right? Well, then start writing something WITH sense.
😉
The question may be at what time.
In the past, the biggest impact was whomever pushed forward these ideas:
1. Strong queen
2. Castling
3. First pawn move being two squares.
These helped speed up the game tremendously.
Other “impact” people
1. Paul Morphy – showed that game could be played in a different style and manner.
2. Emanuel Lasker – one of the first professionals – his pragmatism in play, match and tournament strategy continue to this day.
3. Jose Capablanca – showed that if one’s technical level was very high, a sound basic strategy was sufficient to overcome all but the very best.
4. Alexander Alekhine – Began the school of thought which didn’t depend on general principles but concrete variations.
5. Mikhail Botvinnik – organized preparation in a “scientific” that is systematic method – unfortunately this regimen needed to be a bit more flexible for different temperaments.
6. Mikhail Tal – showed that being absolutely correct is fine for the notes but over the board, a strong move which puts the opponent into a tough position with the clock ticking shouldn’t be dismissed.
7. Robert Fischer – his single minded drive to be world champion is still one of the most amazing periods in chess. (1967-1972)
For modern players Fischer clearly did the most in terms of better playing circumstances and financial conditions. The top players are treated as stars and are acommodated as such. Fischer’s failing isn’t just the awful things he published and spoke in his later years. It was failure to seize the opportunity. He really could have made Chess a big professional sport world wide. Between 1972 to 1991 (the year the Soviet Union ceased to exist formally) could have been the most exciting period in chess. The soviets would have mounted a huge effort to unseat Fischer and the various tournaments and matches would have been followed around the globe. This would have prevented the rize of Campomanes and later Iluzhmov (sp?).
Definitely Bobby Fischer. I had never played a real game of chess or knew anything about it’s great history until about 2 years ago.
I came across the book “Bobby Fischer Goes To War” at a used book store a couple of years ago and bought it out of curioisty of the rumors and stories I had heard about Fischer.
I read the book from cover to cover several times and was instantly hooked on every aspect of the great game of chess. I now have a library of over 70 chess books, a chess website, and recently played in my first official USCF tournament last January.
….. ALL of this from reading one little book.
As for the negative ….
I would have to say that the “Russian chess machine” as a whole throughout the Cold War years. Their behind the scenes interference:
Influencing thier players to easy draws with each other (conserving themselves for Fischer, Larsen, etc.)
Exerting pressure on their own players to not beat their “golden boys”.
The way they treated Taimonov & Spassky after their defeats to Fischer.
The mental havoc they played with Korchnoi & Kasparov when they were vying for the World Championship title.
The list goes on ……
When Morphy defeated Anderssen in a match in 1858, he was toasted around the world as World Champion. He withdrew from chess and Anderssen became the strongest active player. Steinitz defeated Anderssen in 1866, but in deference to Morphy, it was not called a world championship match. That came only after Morphy died in 1884 when a World Championship match was organized, Steinitz defeating Zukertort to become the first “official” world champion.
so, in short, I think the poster who said Morphy was his/hers choice has a good argument for including him in the list of champions.
>>When Morphy defeated Anderssen in a match in 1858, he was toasted around the world as World Champion.>>
You might want to actually try to find a reference for that. Although everyone knew Morphy was the best in the world, they didn’t really think in terms of titles in those days. Back then, chess was still a gentleman’s game and there was a certain distastefulness about being considered a pro. The only real pros as such were the house pros at the Regence and Simpsons. It was somewhat stigmatized in those days. In later years, Staunton boasted about never having been a pro, much to the amusement of people who remembered him as one from the early 1840’s.
In any case, Morphy would not have considered himself World Champion. With 20/20 hindsight, we can recognize the Morphy-Anderssen match as marking the point at which he proved himself the best, but in real life, it wasn’t a championship match, just a couple of games two guys played in Morphy’s hotel room.
Though surely if there had been a world championship, and if Morphy had deigned to compete for it, he’d have won it.
lantonov’s pesky reply proves Kramnik is a great champion.
Most Americans — outside of organized chess — know only two chess players: Bobby Fischer, and “that Russian guy Bobby Fischer played.”
Thus the problem of chess in America. It has all but faded from the landscape. It is old history, and nothing since has risen to the level of public conciousness with perhaps the exception of the occasional Man/Machine match played by the lastest chess computer and “some guy from Russia.”
>>When Morphy defeated Anderssen in a match in 1858, he was toasted around the world as World Champion.>>
>>>>You might want to actually try to find a reference for that.>>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_chess_championship
And they have further references listed at the bottom…
No contests, Fischer had the most negative impact because he broke the cardinal role of competition…he refused to defend his title and ran away rather than be beaten. Not only was he rightly stripped of his title at that point, he should never be refered to as a champion because he is a coward.
Anonymous made a valid point for Anand considering his contribution in turning India into a Chess powerhouse.
Kirsan is more responsible for reunification than Kramnik. Kramnik was forced to come back to the fold as he was about to become irrelevant after San Luis.
The most positive impact on chess belongs to the Romantics: Morphy, Alekhine, Bronstein, Tal, Kasparov and Topalov. They kept on rescuing Chess from the grip of the Classicists Capablanca, Fischer, Karpov, Kramnik who keep predicting the death of Chess.
FI am ambivalent about Fisher he was like a spoiled self centered child and people caved into his demands. Having said that he did try ti improved playing conditions prize money etc. KArpov is currently doing his bit as a good will chess ambassador and I think he has done more for the game than any other person currently alive. Playing children and sowing the seed that inspires children to be a future champion. Kasparov was different he try to tap into business connections / sponsorship etc improve the professional side of things. Karpov doesn’t get any recognition but when he loses he gets a lot of negative press. He is putting his chess reputation on the line. I doubt you would see many lving champions do that in other sports. Karpov is to be commended.
+ = Fischer, Botvinnik, Alekhine, Euwe, Capablanca, Lasker, Morphy, Tal
– = Fischer, Alekhine, Kasparov, Staunton
= Spassky, Petrosian, Smyslov,
Yes, it is possible to be on both lists!
… an opinion is an opinion … it can not be proven whether it is correct or not – @lantonov – dear friend and chess buff – PLEASE … (EACH official bulding has UTP-5 cables “hidden” in the ceiling …) PLEASE – no more “toilet talk” – it is boring, fruitless and needless
… i’m neither a fan of Kramnik, nor of Topalov (beeing a “fan” is – in my eyes – a quite ridiculous behaviour for an adult …), and finally i do not have any evidences.
True is, Kramnik and Topalov make the money out of that – and frankly spoken, is there any prove, that Kramnik and Topalov do NOT make common cause?
with greetings from germany, and a merry chrismas to all, i won’t meet the rest of the week again and who celebrate christmas at all … :))
lantonov said…
>>My reply shows that my opinion is correct. >>
No, it proves you’re wrong. Every reply you write without even attempting to prove your claim that Chessbase lied is more and more proof that you have no evidence, and so lied yourself.
Ah, the anonymous now appears with some name – Fred.
Well, Fred, I can prove that ChessBase lied. The lies become much more obvious with time as the truth comes out in other media. I usually don’t look in ChessBase now because of those lies but for the sake of finding the latest lie, I looked in there yesterday, and of course:
“Kramnik will play in Mexico City” as a title
and after it some interview with Kirsan in which he doesn’t say anything about the question whether Kramnik will play or not. From what Kirsan says, it appears that Kramnik wants to dig in and play matches with opponents of his choosing. This is the typical way of spreading rumors. The title itself is a biiiiiiig lie.
Uh, and Fred, you’d better ask your father for advice when you try to argue as anonymous with people more mature and knowledgeable than you.
Dear Susan, I think that the most positive impact on chess was made by Fischer ! The most negative by Kramnik (because of too many “draws”) René