Which World Chess Champion displayed the highest level of sportsmanship?
Men
William Steinitz, Bohemia – USA 1886-1894
Emanuel Lasker, Germany 1894-1921
Jose Raul Capablanca, Cuba 1921-1927
Alexander Alekhine, Russia – France 1927-1935, 1937-1945
Max Euwe, Netherlands 1935-1937
Mikhail Botvinnik, USSR 1948-1957, 1958-1960, 1961-1963
Vasily Smyslov, USSR 1957-1958
Mikhail Tal, USSR 1960-1961
Tigran Petrosian, USSR 1963-1969
Boris Spassky, USSR 1969-1972
Robert Fischer, USA 1972-1975
Anatoly Karpov, USSR 1975-1985
Garry Kasparov, USSR 1985-2000
Vladimir Kramnik, Russia 2000-
FIDE
Anatoly Karpov, Russia 1993-1998
Alexander Khalifman, Russia 1999
Viswanathan Anand, India 2000
Ruslan Ponomariov, Ukraine 2002
Rustam Kasimdzhanov, Uzbekistan 2004
Veselin Topalov, Bulgaria 2005
Women
Vera Menchik, Britain 1927-1944
Liudmila Rudenko, USSR 1950-1953
Elizaveta Bikova, USSR 1953-1956, 1958-1962
Olga Rubtsova, USSR 1956-1958
Nona Gaprindashvili, USSR 1962-1978
Maya Chiburdanidze, USSR 1978-1991
Jun Xie, China 1991-1996, 1999-2000
Susan Zsuzsa Polgar, Hungary 1996-1999
FIDE
Zhu Chen, China 2001
Antoaneta Stefanova, Bulgaria 2004
Yuhua Xu, China 2006
Source: chess.about.com
Tal (everyone loved him) and Lasker (the very definition of gentelman). Here is an interesting anecdote: Tal was famous for his intelligent and very focused stare, some GM’s were saying to Portish that Tal hypnotized his contenders so they would lose, so Portish decided to use sunglasses when he played against Tal. Instead of being offended (like Karpov and Korchnoi) Tal gave Portish a nice payback: the next time they played he wore some novelty gigantic eyeglasses. Everyone laghed including Portish!
I’d have to say Max Euwe.
Max never wins anthing in any World Chess Champion Chess Poll so that’s why I’m voting for Max.
Not Alekhine, that’s for sure.
I think this question opens a can of worms for everybody to trash the champion they dislike most.
I need to look over more games from this list of players though. Especially Tal. Tal is awesome.
Why exclude Kazimdzanov in the FIDE list ?
I think he has displayed greatest sportsmanship.
Kazimdzanov is without a doubt, errrr, ahem, never mind I forgot what I was going to say…
This is the kind of question where half the people are just going to blindly name their favorite players. I think that to qualify, people should have to name specific acts of sportsmanship.
Tal, for example, was a great and likable guy, but it’s hard to think of any specific acts of sportsmanship that stand out, though.
Steinitz: For being carte blanche to choose his challenger in 1889, and picking the toughest opponent possible, Tchigorin, who had a 3-1 lifetime record against him.
Euwe, for offering an immediate rematch to Alekhine, and for agreeing to let FIDE choose his next challenger if he won.
Kramnik for playing what amounted to a handicap match, with one fewer white, and an unprecedented three straight blacks, after his opponent had behaved unethically.
But #1 would have to be Spassky, who did the same thing only more so. Hung in against an opponent behaving badly, when he could easily have walked out after Game 2 and kept the title, but kept playing for the sake of the match.
I nominate Max Euwe who was a gentleman’s gentleman at and away of the chess board. He gave Alekhine a rematch without delay and without gamesmanship.
Spassky certainly showed a lot of sportsmanship in not walking out of the Fischer match. However, I would still give Euwe the edge for a lifetime of positive contribution to chess.
I know less about the Women’s World Championship history, but I would suspect that Susan Polgar might head that list. Much like Euwe, she is a class act at and away from the board.
Tom D
It was Benko who wore the sun glasses. Euwe, who not only gave the rematch, but was the first champion who was willing to turn things over to FIDE. Spassky, of course. Keres, who wan’t world champion, of course, but lived in the wrong country, and exhibited great composure as the perrenial “second”.
“Tal, for example, was a great and likable guy, but it’s hard to think of any specific acts of sportsmanship that stand out, though.”
How about the very nice way he always treated Fisher? Fisher always made the most uncomfortable comentaries when interacting with people, Tal always took whatever Fisher said (when he said agressive things to him or other) lightly and even joked about it. Even Fisher loved Tal, when the latter got sick and had to be hospitalized during a tournament Fisher was the only GM to visit him! (this speaks volumes also about Fisher’s kind heart). Tal always looked at Fisher with paternal amusement (watch the Fisher documentary on ths blog to see what I mean) Fisher couldn’t help but to smile every time Tal looked at him that way. Here is another amusing anecdote: when Fisher tryied to outsmart Tal by taking his hand and saying “By your hand Misha I see that a young american grandmaster is going to become world champion” Tal inmediatelly quiped “Congratulations Reshevsky!”.
“Tal, for example, was a great and likable guy, but it’s hard to think of any specific acts of sportsmanship that stand out, though.”
How about the very nice way he always treated Fisher? Fisher always made the most uncomfortable comentaries when interacting with people, Tal always took whatever Fisher said (when he said agressive things to him or other) lightly and even joked about it. Even Fisher loved Tal, when the latter got sick and had to be hospitalized during a tournament Fisher was the only GM to visit him! (this speaks volumes also about Fisher’s kind heart). Tal always looked at Fisher with paternal amusement (watch the Fisher documentary on ths blog to see what I mean) Fisher couldn’t help but to smile every time Tal looked at him that way. Here is another amusing anecdote: when Fisher tryied to outsmart Tal by taking his hand and saying “By your hand Misha I see that a young american grandmaster is going to become world champion” Tal inmediatelly quiped “Congratulations Reshevsky!”.
Boris Spassky. He put up with a lot of undignified behavior by Fischer before and during the 1972 match.In the 1972 match with Fischer, before the match even began there was a lot of issues that have been well documented. Fischer arguing over money, playing conditions, not showing up for the drawing for colors….all these were a great insult to the game of chess itself, and to one of its greatest gentleman, Boris Spassky.
Then the match started and Fischer was going to pull out and yet Spassky did not complain. Spassky allowing Game 3 to be played in a private room when he had no moral or legal obligation to do so.
After Fischer was criminally indicted by the U.S. government for violating U.N. sanctions against Yugoslavia by playing there in 1992 a multimillion-dollar exhibition match against Spassy, Boris,
in a poignant letter to President Bush, requested “mercy and charity” for Fischer, whom he describes as “an honest and good-natured man.” Noting that he committed the same “crime” as Fischer, Spassky asks the President, “Put sanctions against me also. Arrest me. And put me in the same cell with Bobby Fischer and give us a chess set.” This is a remarkable example of an enduring friendship that emerged out of competition – all the more remarkable because Fischer, despite Spassky’s glowing assessment of his character, seemingly has become a bitter man who says he hates the United States and even has suggested that the 9/11/01 attacks were justified.
Max Euwe was very modest.
Why exclude Veselin Topalov from the list of FIDE champions? Not that, he has behaved very sportingly ? But he was a genuine FIDE champion . And till the time he was champion, I considered him to be the more credible champion.
>>How about the very nice way he always treated Fisher? Fisher always made the most uncomfortable comentaries when interacting with people, Tal always took whatever Fisher said (when he said agressive things to him or other) lightly and even joked about it.
>>
Yeah, Tal was sportingly discrete when talking about Fischer. Though there are plenty of bad things you could say about Bobby, Tal never said them himself. Even when Tal was falling over drunk, people tried to get him to bash Bobby and couldn’t.
>>
Even Fisher loved Tal, when the latter got sick and had to be hospitalized during a tournament Fisher was the only GM to visit him! (this speaks volumes also about Fisher’s kind heart).
>>
Some people have suggested (perhaps half truthfully) that Fischer, suspicious of tricks, wanted to go and make sure Tal was really sick. But let’s give Bobby credit here and say that that one time at least he did something out of the goodness of his heart.
>>
Here is another amusing anecdote: when Fisher tryied to outsmart Tal by taking his hand and saying “By your hand Misha I see that a young american grandmaster is going to become world champion” Tal inmediatelly quiped “Congratulations Reshevsky!”.
>>
I heard that story differently. The way I heard it, when Fischer said that, Tal turned to William Lombardy (who happened to be standing next to him), and said “Congratulations, Billy! So you’re my successor!”
I wonder if Morphy was so silent on the Staunton story because there was so little to tell.
Morphy DID want a match with Staunton, yes, and Staunton did lead him on with false promises, but how big a deal was it to Morphy, anyway? Probably nobody regarded Staunton as the best in the world, by that time, after Anderssen won London 1851, and after Staunton lost a match to von der Lasa in 1853. Harrwitz and Anderssen (who Morphy did play) were much more formidable opponents than the aging Staunton.
Saying that somebody is a class act is too vague. Everybody thinks that about their favorite player. Let’s name specific acts of sportsmanship.
Here’s one I’d forgotten about Euwe. Granting postponements without question whenever Alekhine was too drunk to play. I’d heard that Alekhine wore a tuxedo in Euwe’s honor at the closing ceremony of that match.
Even for Fischer, who was a jerk most of the time, one incident does spring to mind. Everyone knows the story about how he lost a game to Unzicker over a touch move blunder. There are always angry Fischer fans who complain every time the rules apply to Bobby, and one of them wrote to Larry Evans a few years ago about that incident. How come that mean old Unzicker made Bobby move the pawn instead of letting him slide? He’s much too good a player to have to obey touch move rule, yada, yada, yada.
Evans got the story right. Unzicker didn’t make Fischer do anything. Fischer did the right thing of his own accord, and moved the pawn, even though nobody but he and Unzicker had seen the touch, and Unzicker could never have made a claim stick if Bobby had denied it.
Contrast that with Matulovic who took a move **back** in an Interzonal, in front of several witnesses, and got away with it.
Do you know WHY Fischer hates the US? This has been forgotten over the years.
All of Fischer’s tax evasion problems today stem from the fact that he stopped paying taxes in the 70’s. A lot of people know that, but few remember *why* he stopped paying taxes.
He stopped because he lost his lawsuit against Brad Darrach for writing Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest of the World. Fischer sued him, not for slander or defamation or anything like that. He didn’t deny a word in the book. He sued for breach of promise. Darrach had promised he wouldn’t write a book.
Fischer lost the suit and swore he wouldn’t pay another penny in income tax until he got justice in that case. This was actually published in Chess Life & Review, though nobody knew then how far it would go.
Hello All,
For sportsmanship, for his unique ability to play chess and act as a true gentleman (read his letters), for offering and defeating the best in the world during his chess career, my vote also goes to the FIRST “chess champion of the world…”
Paul Morphy.
He was the essence of a southern gentleman and everyone that played him (especially Adolph Andersson) stated as much.
Steinitz was not the first world champ. Morphy was.
My vote for the greatest women’s world champ, well, for all that she has done for our beloved game, it is…
Susan Polgar (and I am not merely saying this because she has a wonderful blog!)
Cheers!
Tim Harris
I agree with Tim.
Morphy was a gentleman. But he wasn’t a World Champion. He not only didn’t claim to be, he disagreed when other people called him that. He didn’t want to be thought of as a chess pro.
There’s absolutely no way to consider Morphy the first World Champion. The first *Official* World Champion was Steinitz. And if you want to talk unofficial, they go back a lot farther than Morphy, with people like Deschapelles, Anderssen, Ruy Lopez, Salvio, Greco, and of course, the most dominant player of all time: Philidor.
Morphy isn’t the first World Champion, he’s just the first player that Americans care about.
Lasker for 27 years..he made himself available to play chess..a CHESS GAINT
Susan Polgar..the THIRD QUEEN OF CHESS ..she also makes herself available to play chess..and still is a CHESS GAINT
My vote for the greatest women’s world champ, well, for all that she has done for our beloved game, it is…
Then you’re voting on the wrong question. The question isn’t who is “great”, it’s who displayed the highest level of sportsmaship
>Lasker for 27 years..he made himself available to play chess..a CHESS GAINT
>
Actually, Lasker was one whose sportsmanship was frequently questioned. People thought he didn’t defend the title enough. They thought he ducked Tarrach for years, his 1911 negotiations with Capablanca broke up over a clause that would have required Capablanca to win by 2 points to take the title (shades of Fischer), and many people think that there was a similar clause in the Schlechter match. There are a lot of shadows over Lasker’s career.
We can argue about how serious those things are, but it’s hard to think of any specific examples of high sportsmanship from him. Saying that he made himself available to play is vague, nebulous and basically untrue. He was actually out of sight for years at a time.
>>
Susan Polgar..the THIRD QUEEN OF CHESS ..she also makes herself available to play chess..and still is a CHESS GAINT
>>
Third? What does that mean? Well, she is likable and talented and great and all that, but again, the question is about who displayed a high level of sportsmanship, not who do you happen to like for whatever reason. I like Smyslov, but as far as sportsmanship goes, there are no particularly good or bad incidents that come to mind to tell about him. He doesn’t make trouble, but that’s the way everyone should be, it’s not something extra.
There aren’t that many opportunities to go above and beyond the call of duty in chess. Examples of poor sportsmanship are much easier to find.
I agree with that Morphy was the most sportmanlike. Morphy was considered the best living player during his European tour and domination of the 1st American Chess Congress.
I think it just hurts the Eurocentric ego that Paul Morphy (a frail American) traveled to Europe, beat the best players alive, and was received (upon returning to the U.S.) as the champion of the world.
It is history. You can call the sky green but guess what…it’s still blue.
So, you can call Morphy what you will, but he was still the first world champion.
>>It is history. You can call the sky green but guess what…it’s still blue.
So, you can call Morphy what you will, but he was still the first world champion.
>>
Well, as you say, you can call the sky green, but that doesn’t make it true. The fact is that Morphy never held an official title and he was not the first person in history to be the strongest player in the world.
To say that he was the best in the world in his day, therefore he was the first world champion is a total non-sequitor. Like saying 2+2=Purple. Saying he must be World Champion because Europeans don’t like that idea is a simple ad hominem circumstantial fallacy.
Try to explain it logically, and you’ll see what I mean. For example, try to explain why nobody was World Champion before him. Try to explain why Morphy was World Champion and Philidor wasn’t. Try to explain in what event Morphy won the title and in what event he lost it. Try to explain how it’s possible to hold a title without knowing it.
You’re makng a sentimental statement, but it’s a disservice to truth to state it as a factual one.
As you say, you can call the sky green, but no matter how much you wish it was, that doesn’t make it true. I’m more curious though as to why you think Morphy was the first champion than why you think he was champion at all. It’s not really something as simple as nationalism, is it? (He was the first American to be the best, and therefore the first one that mattered). Was Fischer the second champion then, or was that Pillsbury?
Morphy was a gentleman. But he wasn’t a World Champion. He not only didn’t claim to be, he disagreed when other people called him that. He didn’t want to be thought of as a chess pro.
There’s absolutely no way to consider Morphy the first World Champion.
Oh please.
I can understand not calling him the first, but don’t pretend there isn’t a damn good argument that he was the first.
He beat all the great champions of europe. Actually, he destroyed them!
Obviously there wasn’t an official champion tournament then and he had no official predecessor to beat, but I don’t think anyone could objectively claim there was anyone alive at the time who could challange him as the best player.
Look at it this way. If (god forbid) Kramnik died suddenly and then FIDE folded and no there is no world champion predecessor and no offical group. Then suddenly I come and kick Topalov, Anand, Kasporav and eveyrone else’s butts in high profile matches. Would anyone doubt I was the legitimate world champion?
>>Of course, the answer is Susan Polgar!
I do not know much about the other women champions,
>>
LOL, well if you pick the only one you know, by default, that’s kind of damning with faint praise, isn’t it? Can’t you actually think of something good to say about her? I mean no offense, but what was meant as a compliment almost sounds vaguely insulting.
The fact is that Morphy never held an official title
The problem here is that “official” is a matter of reputation.
If people don’t respect a tournament or organization then their title isn’t “official” in any real sesne.
Anyone can create an orginization and give out titles. That doesn’t mean anything.
So the question is really a matter of reputation.
Morphy was thus, undoubtably, a world champion.
but was he the first? I’d say no, but it is really a matter of definitions here. One could make the argument that Morphy was the first “unofficial” player who utterly dominated the world of mad queens chess. One could argue against that too.
But I don’t see any reason to believe Steinitz was a more “official” champion than Morphy (or pre-Morphy people for that matter) merely because he played a match that was billed as a world championship.
Let us keep in mind that the match wasn’t “official” in the sense morst people are using it here anyway. There was no official chess body that oversaw the match.
The only thing that makes it stand out really is that it was a single match instead of tournament or just one player defeating everyone else.
>>I can understand not calling him the first, but don’t pretend there isn’t a damn good argument that he was the first.
>>
I’m not only “pretending” it, I’m demonstrating it. I hope you’re not too blinded by nationalism to see that. I mean seriously. You’re comitting an undistributed middle fallacy here by saying that since two things are both good, they must be the same thing. Like saying cake is good, and ice cream is good, therefore cake is ice cream.
If you want to honor the man, say only true things about him. That’s what he would have done.
Being the best and being the champion are both good things, but they’re not the same thing. The first is an opinion, the second isn’t. Granted, the opinion that Morphy was best is almost impossible to deny, but it’s still an opinion. If he had played in what was explicitly called a championship match, and lost it, then he would not be the champion, despite being the best. I think you can see the difference.
The opinion is that he was the best in his day. I doubt anyone has a contrary opinion. But the truth is that he never held a world championship title, and in fact, there was none for him to win. Saying he was the champion because he would have been if there was one is silly. It’s like saying he was the Mongolian Champion, because he surely would have been if he’d moved to Mongolia.
The truth, that Morphy was far and away the greatest player of his day, is certainly good enough. Why should we embellish it with falsehoods? That’s like saying the truth isn’t good enough. Well, why isn’t it good enough? It sounds pretty good to me.
>>
I can understand not calling him the first, but don’t pretend there isn’t a damn good argument that he was the first.
>>
I’m curious, do you consider Morphy to be the First US Champion too, on the grounds that C.H. Stanley, his predecessor, wasn’t good enough to have counted?
We’re redefining words in a bizarre way here. To me “first” is a statement about time, and means “the one that comes before all the others”. To you “first” is a statement of power, and means “the most dominant”. I think we should stick to definitions that everyone will understand.
>>Obviously there wasn’t an official champion tournament then and he had no official predecessor to beat, but I don’t think anyone could objectively claim there was anyone alive at the time who could challange him as the best player.
>>
Exactly. There was no championship. Therefore he couldn’t have won it. In the same way, it would be dishonest to say that the Braves were World Series Champions in 1994, on the grounds that, okay, there was no championship, but if there had been, they would have won.
Why isn’t it good enough to just say the truth; that Morphy was far and away the best player of his day?
>>
Look at it this way. If (god forbid) Kramnik died suddenly and then FIDE folded and no there is no world champion predecessor and no offical group. Then suddenly I come and kick Topalov, Anand, Kasporav and eveyrone else’s butts in high profile matches. Would anyone doubt I was the legitimate world champion?
>>
I don’t think ANYONE would call you the first champion. Your criteria here is that anyone who doesn’t beat their predecessor is the first, but Botvinnik isn’t called the 1st, he’s called the 6th.
By your criteria, EVERYONE before Steinitz was the first. Morphy was the first, and Philidor was the first, and Greco was the first, and Anderssen was the first, etc. Because none of them beat their predecessors.
If you won all those matches, nobody would doubt you were the best… Well, that’s not true. Look at all the poor sportsmanship online these days, you can always find partisans these days trying some tortured line of reasoning to argue that the winner didn’t really win and the loser didn’t really lose. But granted, nobody with any sense would doubt you were the best in that case.
But why did you play these matches? Was it to pick a new champion? If so, then yeah, most people would probably salute that. If they were played just for fun, and you said explicitly that you WEREN’T the champion, I doubt anyone would say “Screw you, you’re the champion whether you like it or not.”
Take Morphy again. When he retired, people moved on. Mackenzie won American Congresses, and was generally recognized as US Champion. Probably almost every American believed that Morphy could have won those tournaments if he’d wanted to. But he didn’t want to. Therefore he wasn’t the champion. Champion doesn’t mean “the best” it means “person who won a championship event”. And the best doesn’t always win. How boring the game would be if they did.
I don’t know enough of the women’s champions to say, but I think, for the men, Euwe and Spassky would be near the top.
You’re comitting an undistributed middle fallacy here by saying that since two things are both good, they must be the same thing. Like saying cake is good, and ice cream is good, therefore cake is ice cream.
Rather than me committing a middle fallacy you are just committing a straw man fallacy.
Being the best and being the champion are both good things, but they’re not the same thing. The first is an opinion, the second isn’t.
Both are opinions. There is no objective world champion. There is only inter-subjective world champions. Morphy fits the criteria as well as Lasker.
But the truth is that he never held a world championship title, and in fact, there was none for him to win. Saying he was the champion because he would have been if there was one is silly.
I’d say the idea that saying you have to have a title to be considerd a world champion is silly. A title is a good way to cement inter-subjective opinion, but it isn’t some definitive objective proof of anything.
If you are DEFINING “world champion” as “a person holding a title stating world champaion by an organization” then okay, but that is YOUR definition, not an inherent definitino to the word itself.
Plus, your definition ends up being a bit problamatic when it encounters something like the FIDE/Kasporav split.
Why should we embellish it with falsehoods?
Calm yourself down a second dude.
The majority of the chess world regards Morphy and Andersson and the others as world champions. They are listed in things like wikipedia as “unofficial world champaions’ but they are still listed as world champions.
Your claim that there was never a world champaion before Steinitz declared his match as a world championshipo match (by what power did he have to do that anyway?) is simply not a widely held belief.
I doubt anyone would say “Screw you, you’re the champion whether you like it or not.”
People have done such a thing plenty of times in history…
Take Morphy again. When he retired, people moved on.
Actually, Steintz specifically waited till after Morphy’s death to declare a match the “world championship match” because he recognized Morphy as such a champion that it wouldn’t make sense to have a world champion match that didn’t include him.
Champion doesn’t mean “the best” it means “person who won a championship event”.
Ah, here seems to be the crux of the problem.
You are wrong. Champion does not mean “person who has won a championship event” per se. It simply doesn’t, look it up in a dictionary.
Again, remember that the majoiryt of people talk about Morphy and other precusors as “world champions.”
To use an analogy, lets say we are talking about sprinters.
Who is the world champion sprinter?
One could make a case that whoever has most recently won the Olympic gold medal is or one could argue its whoever won the most recent international event. These would be world champions by basis of winning an event.
However, one could just as easily and just as legitimately (if not MORE legitimately) claim that whoever holds the world record, whether in the olympics or not, is the true world champion.
Sports operate in different ways and Chess has recently worked in one way to determine a “world champion” in the general public’s eye. Does that mean its the only way a world champion can be declared? Hardly.
And for that matter, lets not forget that chess has been changing up its methods recently. Was Topalov a world champion?
Even barring the Kramnik classical title, he never played a match against the former champion which was long the way to decide teh world champion.
Instead he won a round robin tournament (which is basically saying he was “the best,”).
Spassky (for his behaviour during the Fischer match, and their 1992 rematch), and Tal.
When speaking of the sportmanship of the world champions, surprisingly, none seems to mention the first world champion that came to my mind: Vassily Smyslov.
A far as i know, he never misbehaved. Always a gentlemen, always polite, true sportsman, dedicated to the game and STILL a great ambassador of chess.
Shared second place goes to Spassky and my fellow dutchie Euwe.
My vote goes to Euwe. A perfect gentleman. He was also the best FIDE President ever, and saved the 1972 Spassky-Fischer Match.
I agree with Graeme about Lasker and Morphy. Interesting story about the Fischer lawsuit, Graeme!
Tal is a bit of a strange one.
I didn’t think is was very sporting of him to help Karpov so extensively in the somewhat scandalous 1978 WC Match against Korchnoi.
And his contribution to the Soviet ‘think tank’ against Fischer in 1972 seemed somewhat more than necessary – see Plietsky.
And if Tal was so popular, why did none of the other players at Curacao 1962, not even his fellow Balt, Keres, visit him in hospital?
Tal was also a drunkard.
With the Tal stories, Benko is correct, not Portisch; and William Lombardy is correct, not Reshevsky.
Spassky blotted his copybook with his unethical distraction tactics against Korchnoi in the 1977/8 Candidates Final Match.
He also didn’t try hard in very many games, which isn’t very sporting to the public.
I see the myth that Euwe ‘offered an immediate rematch to Alekhine’ is still very much alive. He did not. I personally heard Euwe say in a radio interview in 1972 that a rematch clause was written into the contract for the 1935 match. Euwe had no choice unless he was going to break this contract.
Spassky
Nationalism was not what I was talking about. I am not applying 21st century defintions to the world that Morphy lived in.
He was the greatest (and this is my opinion, here) natural talent (considering the competition that he played against) in the history of chess.
No. There was no “official” sanctioning body to bestow the title of “World Champion” upon anyone when Morphy toured Europe. So, you’re saying, Anon, that there was no world champion, just “the best player” in the world? However, in the court of public opinion, in both Europe and America, Morphy was not only considered the greatest player of his day but also the “chess champion of the world.”
This is a rather silly comparison. In today’s world, one can be the “World Champ” and not necessarily the “best” player for “best” is quite subjective and means different things to different people.
When Morphy’s contemporaries began calling him “Champion of the World” what other criteria could they use except the one that they did use, that is, one who has defeated those other chess players considered, at the time, the best players in the world. Hence, the phrase “world champion.”
Now, regarding nationalism, well, Steinitz became a U.S. citizen while he held the title “World Champion.” So, was he an “American” world champion?
This simple notice appeared in the December 1888 issue of The International Chess Magazine: ” On the 23d ult. Mr. Steinitz was sworn in as a citizen of the United States. The Veteran Mr. Perrin was his sponsor to testify to Mr. Steinitz’s having resided for five years in the State of New York.”
Thus, no longer should we Americans regard Steinitz as a foreign champion. He joins Bobby Fischer as a world champion from the United States.
Or, do you desire to argue as to who is “more” of an American. Those by birth or naturalization? I’m not arguing this point.
Morphy was a world champion that reigned prior to Steinitz.
In answering the original question about sportsmanship, again, in my opinion, Morphy showed the most courtesy and sportsmanlike conduct toward his opponents (he even paid for Andersson’s travel expenses incurred coming to play him), he never tried to embarass his opponents, and the list could go on.
If we, today, had World Champions that befitted themselves in the manner that Paul Morphy did, oh, what accolades would be heaped upon him (or her).
Again, the King of sportsmanship goes to the first World Champion:
Morphy.
Respectfully,
Tim Harris
Michiel,
Smyslov?
Have you not read the story in Korchnoi’s ‘Chess is my life’?
Smyslov was supposed to be one of the 8 participants in the 1964 Soviet Zonal competing for 4 qualifying places for the 1964 Interzonal. But through his contacts with high up people, he engineered a free pass for himself into the Interzonal, leaving the other 7 to compete for 3 places.
Max Euwe by far was the fairest of them all.
grame said…Lasker for 27 years…etc..
I bet you live alone…
Lasker was a Fair and loved Chess Giant… and who cares if you dont like it
Maybe I should have said that Susan is the First Queen of Chess
there is no WE can argue just you …waffle
OK, if USA claims Steinitz:
“William Steinitz, Bohemia – USA 1886-1894”
Then at least edit this one too:
“Robert Fischer, USA – Iceland 1972-1975”
Lasker..In 1894 he became the second World Chess Champion by defeating Steinitz with 10 wins, 4 draws and 5 losses.
He maintained this title for 27 years, the longest unbroken tenure of any officially recognized World Champion of chess.
His great tournament wins include London (1899), St Petersburg (1896 and 1914), New York (1924).
In 1921, he lost the title to Capablanca. He had already offered to resign to him a year before, but Capablanca wanted to beat Lasker in a match.
In 1933, Lasker and his wife Martha Kohn had to leave Germany because of the Nazis. They went to England, and, after a subsequent short stay in the USSR, they settled in New York.
Lasker is noted for his “psychological” method of play in which he considered the subjective qualities of his opponent in addition to the objective requirements of his position on the board. Richard Réti even speculated that Lasker would sometimes knowingly choose inferior moves if he knew they would make his opponent uncomfortable, although Lasker himself denied this. But, for example, in one famous game against Capablanca (St. Petersburg 1914) which he needed to win at all costs, Lasker chose an opening that is considered to be relatively harmless — but only if the opponent is prepared to mix things up in his own turn. Capablanca, inclined by the tournament situation to play it safe, failed to take active measures and so justified Lasker’s strategy. Lasker won the game. The game was a micro-cosm of Lasker’s style; he invested little study in the opening, was temendously resourceful in the middlegame and he played the endgame at the highest level. Indeed, even when Lasker was in his late 60s, Capablanca considered him the most dangerous player around in any single game.
One of Lasker’s most famous games is Lasker – Bauer, Amsterdam, 1889, in which he sacrificed both bishops in a maneuver later repeated in a number of games. Some opening variations are named after him, for example Lasker’s Defense (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 O-O 6.Nf3 h6 7.Bh4 Ne4) to the Queen’s Gambit. In 1895, he introduced a line that effectively ended the popular Evans Gambit in tournament play (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 d6 7.0-0 Bb6 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Qxd8+ Nxd8 10.Nxe5 Be6). Lasker’s line curbs White’s aggressive intentions, and according to Reuben Fine, the resulting simplified position “is psychologically depressing for the gambit player…
E.LASKER..CHESS GAINT..
Susan Polgar.. Chess Champion.
Founder, Polgar Chess Center
Mention the name “Polgar” to any chess player, and you’re bound to see a gleam of recognition, and perhaps envy, in their eye.
Susan Polgar is the oldest of three Hungarian sisters (Judit and Sofia are both highly ranked players) who have revolutionized the world of chess, blazing a path for women as career players and upholding a level of talent and professionalism as the world looks to them as the female faces of the game. Susan, who holds the highly-esteemed title of Grandmaster, the first woman ever to do so, has taken her chess-playing prowess and notoriety and used it to promote and teach New Yorkers about the game with the Polgar Chess Center in Queens.
The 4-time Women’s World Chess Champion got an early start, winning tournaments as early as age 4, and by age 15 was the highest ranking female chess player in the world (a title she still maintains). Her victories are quite staggering in stature and scope, ranging from Olympic wins to awards for Best Chess Column and Chess Educator of the Year. Whether you know what the Ruy Lopez is or not, her Center will have you, providing a welcoming, encouraging atmosphere for newcomers as well as more seasoned players, and by spreading the word about this centuries-old game, Polgar is helping infuse new life into it.
THE THIRD QUEEN OF CHESS
Dear Anon,
I am merely citing what is a historica fact. Steinitz became an American citizen and defended his title as the citizen of the U.S. I am not saying that the “U.S. claims Steinitz.”
I do not believe this to be true.
In fact, I don’t think most people even realize this is a fact.
However, many of todays chess IM’s and some GM’s (i.e. Kamsky and Susan Polgar) were born in another country but are now Americans. Kamsky, for example, is listed in both the FIDE and USCF rating lists as an American.
Again, I only stated what is historically accurate, that is, Steinitz became a citizen of the USA and defended his World Title as a citizen of this nation.
I, personally, don’t care which country “claims” him. Though he called himself “American” (ever read any of his letters or writings?), it’s up to you to decide. Not me.
No need to “edit” anything about Fischer. He was a U.S. citizen when he won the world title. He is now a citizen of Iceland and, should he ever play professionally again, should not be considered a representative of the U.S. because he is now a citizen of Iceland.
However, I do see your point. I respect it.
Sincerely,
Tim Harris
Dear Anon,
I forgot to mention: Being a Professor of History, I can say, for what it’s worth, that when you read such phrases as:
“William Steinitz, Bohemia – USA 1886-1894”
Keep something in mind: During the Progressive Era in American history (i.e. late 1890’s), the concept of what constituted being an “American” is NOT the same as it is today!
Due to many Americans’ irrational fear of foreign born people, it was far more likely that those printing such headlines about Steintiz either “forgot” to mention that he was an American citizen or were too ignorant to know.
Times have changed. If Steinitz were alive today and took the same citizenship oath that he took back then, well, he would be considered (and listed) as an “American.”
The 19th century was, literally, a different intellectual climate. Don’t impose contemporary standards and definitions (i.e. of “citizenship”) upon the 19th century. If you do, then the true original meaning is lost.
Enough of this, though. We’re far off the original topic. I’m happy to discuss via Email with anyone as I enjoy a good, civil, intellectual debate.
Very Respectfully,
Tim Harris
Antoaneta Stefanova, Bulgaria 2004
>>
I do not believe this to be true.
In fact, I don’t think most people even realize this is a fact.
>>
Both of those are true statements. Nevertheless, Steinitz was an American citizen. Whether or not the press played it up (they may not have, since Steinitz was very unpopular for having killed the Romantic style) is irrelevant.
He hadn’t completed the citizenship process in 1886, granted, but he had long before he lost his title. If you don’t believe it, then contact the US Chess Hall of Fame, and ask them what he’s doing there.
The reference to Bohemia is more fuzzy than the reference to USA. Bohemia wasn’t a nation, he should be listed as Austria-Hungary/USA.
>>
I’d say the idea that saying you have to have a title to be considerd a world champion is silly. A title is a good way to cement inter-subjective opinion, but it isn’t some definitive objective proof of anything.
>>
That’s because you want the term to be a generic term of approval, rather than to have any specific meaning.
What would you say then, to a Russian in 1972, who said that Spassky was still World Champion? Because, as you say yourself, champion doesn’t mean winning a championship, it means being considered great. Spassky was just off form in that match.
I take it then, that you’d disagree with this person’s specific opinion, but agree with him in principle that just because Spassky lost a championship match doesn’t mean he lost the title?
It just seems like there are plenty of terms of personal approval already, without having to co-opt a word that already has a different meaning and change it.
Let me say what I think you’re trying to say. That Morphy was the first “chess celebrity”. Someone who was not only the best player in the world, but who was also fairly well known to the non-chessplaying public.
Morphy probably qualifies there. People like Ruy Lopez weren’t really well known outside the King’s Court. Philidor for all his strength, wasn’t a celebrity. Morphy was famous outside chess circles (so famous it killed his law practice), and probably the first chessplayer who was.
But if that’s our definition of World Champion, then it’s a pretty exclusive club. Under that definition, I’d say there have only been four World Champions total: Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, and Kasparov.
>>
Susan, who holds the highly-esteemed title of Grandmaster, the first woman ever to do so,
>>
Actually, no. The first female Grandmaster was Nona Gaprindashvili.
>>THE THIRD QUEEN OF CHESS
Actually, no. Elizabeth Bykova was the 3rd. Susan Polgar was the 8th.
Again with the third.
Definitely Xie Jun …
>>
Due to many Americans’ irrational fear of foreign born people, it was far more likely that those printing such headlines about Steintiz either “forgot” to mention that he was an American citizen or were too ignorant to know.
>>
I think we’re getting confused on separate questions. The question is “Was Steinitz a US Citizen” (he was), not “Was Steinitz generally accepted and loved by Americans.”
He’s listed as USA because of his passport, not whether he would have won a popularity contest.
@the brawlers… ^^
From the given point of view
All A = B
ALL C = B
no one can reason A = C (but it might be…) – but see:
case 1)
A = B
C = B
(then A = C) clear
case 2)
A C > B
(then C > A) clear
case 3)
A > B
C (then A > C) clear
case 4)
A > B
C > B
(then A unequal or equal to C) unclear
case 5)
A C (then A unequal or equal to C) unclear
ehhh – what are you guys talking about? which case fit’s the Morphy problem? or is it Murphy’s problem?
the list of OFFICAL and acclaimed World Chess Champions STARTS with
Wilhelm Steinitz (there is NO doubt about this fact)
the list of the UNCROWNED World Chess champions ENDS with
Frank Morphy (there is also NO doubt about this fact)
So what? for brawling? feel ashamed, both of you – hihihi
Max Euwe was true gentleman as chess player, but as FIDE President he is being coinsidered as controversial by many.
By the way, there is an opinion, not shared wide, about reasons of his insistence in pushing through the Spassky-Fischer match, and the later negotiations to let Karpov and Fischer play the match in violation of FIDE regulations (I mean direct negotiations between them after Karpov was announced the Champion, during which Euwe made propositions which violated the FIDE statute).
There are people who believe that Euwe was driven not (only) by love to chess. He was all about revenge to Russians. When Alekhine died, there was an idea to promote Euwe as an new WC. SOVIET CHESS FEDERATION WAS THE MAIN FORCE aginst this. They were for the match tournament 1948, where Euwe took the last place. Euwe had never forgived Russians this, and did his best to throw them from the throne. And Fischer was the only force he ever had, which was able to to this.
I heard this rumor from one of top Soviet chess functionaries. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the name 🙁
“Let me say what I think you’re trying to say. That Morphy was the first “chess celebrity”.
First, you are incorrect. Don’t attempt “mind reading.” I said what I said because that is precisely what I meant. Morphy was by NO means the first “chess celebrity.”
(and here we go again using 21 century vergage transposed back onto a completely different historical era and people with a completely different world view/”mind set” than we have today) The mere usage of “celebrity” in your post is evidence of your transposing contemporary thinking back onto historical eras that did not, in any way, define that word as we do today. It’s a mistake that students taking “History 101” make often. I see everyday because I’ve been a professor of history for 6 years. However, it’s natural and extremely difficult to overcome. Be that as it may, facts are facts and I’m happy to continue this discussion via Email until I’m 80 years old.
SECOND:
“Someone who was not only the best player in the world, but who was also fairly well known to the non-chessplaying public.”
Well, if one uses the criteria that chess players of the mid-19th century (Andersson, Paulsen, and the rat Staunton who was too cowardly to play Morphy) used to determine why, or why not, to call an individual the “chess champion of the world” (note that I’m using their words and not “World Champion,” as it is a phrase primarily used in the post-Morphy era), then you have admitted that Morphy was considered the Chess Champion of the World by stating that (again apply the criteria that his contmepories used…not what WE USE TODAY).
The criteria by which Morphy’s contemporaries used to determine the “champion of the world” was the sole person that could and did defeat the acknowledged “greatest” players in Europe at the time (i.e. Andersson being #1 since Staunton refused match play against Morphy)…this man was Paul Morphy!
I do not see why it is such a difficult concept to grasp. Morphy is often called the “unofficial” World Champion. Hence, the concept of a “world champion” did exist in the mid 19th century. Why is it now called “unofficial.”
It is because virtually 100% of those writing the multitude of articles about Morphy are transposing onto the past THEIR definition of “World Champion.”
The historical record (i.e. primary source documents such as letters, journals, newspapers, etc) all acknowledged the American Paul Morphy as not just a “chess celebrity” but also, the best in the world and the “chess champion of the world.”
I really respect your opinion. Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy this type of debate. You have your interpretation of history and I have my own. We all do. Each generation does. We just happen to disagree about whether or not Paul Morphy was or was not THE WORLD Chess Champion” prior to Steinitz. I argue that Morphy was and the historical record speaks for itself and I’m not talking about his games…I’m talking about what OTHERS, his opponents for example, called him AFTER they lost to him! What additional evidence do you need?
We can agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with this. It’s called “intellectual discourse.”
At the very LEAST, and I mean the very least…Morphy was AS MUCH of a “World Chamption” as GM Kramnik was BEFORE he unified the title by defeating Topalov.
Lastly, using examples of “champions” such as Greco, Ruy Lopez, etc. cannot be substantiated for ONE IMPORTANT REASON:
There exists no written record of more than 5 or 6 individuals that mentioned any of these people as being the “best” players during their lifetimes. None of them, despite their great contributions to the history of our sport, was EVER (not a single time) referred to as the “chess champion of the world” by ANY contemporary!
One cannot say this about Morphy. Period. Again, facts are stubbor things and this is a historical FACT.
Read your primary sources, if you care to do in-depth research. I’ll take the “pepsi challenge” (ahhh, a flashback to the 1980’s)with anyone on this.
Paul Morphy was considered by his contemporaries as the “chess champion of the world.” Moreover, he had proven his chess ability by being light years ahead of those considered the “best” players in both Europe and America.
Morphy was the Chess Champion of the World upon returning from his European tour. Disagree if you wish. I respect your opinion.
I just disagree with it.
Again, focusing upon sportsmanship…Morphy’s attitude toward each person he played was that of a true gentleman. He “lost with dignity” and won with grace. He didn’t insult opponents that he defeated. He praised them.
He was not only a champion and a gentleman, a man that many contemporary sports figures (in and out of chess) could use as a role model of gentility, he was THE WORLD CHAMPION during his competitive years.
The historical records are there. Just read them. See for yourself what Morphy’s contemporaries called him. Then, do not impose upon the past definitions that WE use today. These were not used then.
I am not by any means the first person to call Paul Morphy a “world champion.” Far from it. His contempories recognized him as such and so do many historians living today.
It’s OK to disagree. But, read your primary source documents first. I dare say, you have not done this. Do so first, comment second. It’s a nasty habit to comment first about historical figures without reading their letters and what others wrote about them.
Most Respectfully,
Tim Harris
Wilhelm Steinitz was Wilhelm Steinitz, and last but not least he lost his handicap game (a pawn and two moves) with god, driven unsane, destituted and grown lonely in New York …
the U.S. and their national heroes – a never ending story …
PS: with the same “historical” arguments read herein – Adolf Hitler would not have been a german, but an austrian, so why didn’t you and the other fair-minded world bash the austrians for his and his accessaries crimes against humanity?
note: please handle birthplaces and citicenships and deeds and patriotism with historical CARE…
Let me clarify the Steinitz citizenship issue. He became the US citizen in 1888, already being the WC. But later he managed to defend the title, being the US citizen.
Is Susan Polgar American? Yes. Bit it is very hard to give the definite answer, is she the American Women World Chess Champion, or the Hungarian one 😉
“These are the times that try men’s souls…”
–Thomas Paine “The American Crisis” papers.
Dear Vohaul,
“the U.S. and their national heroes – a never ending story …”
You’re correct! A never ending struggle by our greatest leaders (Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt) to defend an ideal…freedom. Heard of it…right???
If it weren’t for President Franklin Roosevelt…Australians might be speaking Japanese right now. Hate us if you wish, the U.S.A. is, as Lincoln so eloquently stated in the Gettysburg Address, “The Last Best Hope for the Earth.”
It was true in 1863 when he gave this speech on the battlefield of Gettysburg. It is even more true today. Yes, we are proud of our heroes. We should be. The world is a better place because of America’s sacrifices during World War I and World War II.
Now…can we stick with chess. I’m happy to carry on a lively Email debate but I don’t think Susan’s blog is appropriate for such a non-chess related subject.
Tim Harris
Regarding 20th century world champion….Tal is my vote for sportsmanship.
Amongst the Women’s World Champions, it is GM Susan Polgar. She is more than fair…she is, and probably will be again, the World Champion.
Tim Harris
Anonymous said…
OK, if USA claims Steinitz:
“William Steinitz, Bohemia – USA 1886-1894”
Then at least edit this one too:
“Robert Fischer, USA – Iceland 1972-1975”
Except Fischer didn’t live in Iceland during that period. Steinitz lived in the USA for most of that period.
Tal, definitively.
All A is B.
All C is B.
Therefore All A is C
is indeed an Undistributed Middle Fallacy. Check it out for yourself before commenting any further.
Which isn’t what I was doing, so irrelevant.
But if that’s our definition of World Champion, then it’s a pretty exclusive club. Under that definition,
I’m not goinna bother responding to the rest of your post cause its clear you are either being inteniontally obtuse or aren’t paying any attention to the substance of what I’ve been saying.
I’ll just leave noting that Morphy was hailed as the world champion of chess. Everyone considered him such at the time. Your are trying to retrospectively declare their declaration false, but you have no actual grounds to do so.
There is no objective case for Steinitz’s match being a “true” world championship match anymore than Morphy versus Andersson. The only difference is that Steinitz declared his to be a world champion match, despite having no authority to do so an ddespite it not being a title match under any official body.
You know, Susan must get a real kick out of reading these posts. She says that she reads them all. It must be, due to the diversity of opinons and heated discourse, a lively form of entertainment!
Thank you, GM Polgar, for allowing us this venue to express our opinions. I know they sometimes go a bit to far and are a bit to opinionated. Yet, this is a statement of your belief that everyone has a right to their opinion.
Again, the mark of sportsmanship and a true world champion. The U.S., no…I say the world, is a better place because of you.
If I ever win the Powerball lottery rest assured that your foundation shall receive a nice donation! Then again…I’ve been trying to win that darn thing for years!:) LOL.
Cheers!
Tim Harris
Dear Lincoln,
You and I agree on this point, that is, that Morphy’s contemporaries DID acknowledge him as the “chess champion of the world.”
Why, in you opinion, is this so hard for others to accept?
I just don’t get it. What do you think?
Respectfully,
Tim Harris
Dear Tim,
Yes, I do read all the posts. This is precisely one of the reasons for this blog. It is a good forum for chess fans to discuss and debate various issues in a respectable manner.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.SusanPolgar.com
dear Tim Harris,
in the lyrics of the Springsteen song “Born in the USA” The Boss give’s a very impressive example of that, what i mean … (maybe it does not suit your taste, but mine!)
sincerly – your Vohaul
BTW – i like the US a lot, i have lot’s of friends there and i visited this great country and it’s great people very often in the past (since Bush is president i declared by oath not to go there – but hopefully the area Bush will end next year ..:)
Dear Vohaul,
I respect your opinion very much. I disagree with it but thank you for posting it. I’m happy that we chess fans have lively and even heated discussions.
It makes our days more exciting and it’s good to take a stance on an issue, believe in it, and stand up for what you believe.
Again, the maxim…it is OK to agree to disagree. No harm in this at all. If everyone though alike, just imagine how boring the world would be!
Many Thanks,
Tim Harris
Paul Morphy was considered by his contemporaries as the “chess champion of the world.” Moreover, he had proven his chess ability by being light years ahead of those considered the “best” players in both Europe and America.
>>
What you’re describing is what Andy Soltis would call “Champion by Acclamation”. He considers Stanley, Morphy and Mackenzie to be US Champion in this way, mainly because they all won events that, though they may not have been specifically designated “US Championships”, were recognized by pretty much everyone as involving the best players in the country.
Like Morphy, things are vague and fuzzy, at times, when we talk about champions like this. Was Mackenzie US Champion until he died? Or until he retired? (Nobody’s quite sure when that was, since he never officially did retire, but he was too ill to play the last year or two.) And should the 4th Congress count as a championship? Soltis doesn’t count it as one because non-Americans played there too, but Lipschutz officially won the title in exactly such an event in 1889. Should the top American at the 4th Congress be considered US Champion? Soltis says no, you may say yes. When we talk about unofficial champions, there is a lot of opinion involved.
Call Morphy an Unofficial World Champion if you like. Many people do. But I’ve never heard anyone call him the FIRST champion before this discussion. I’d just like to keep the Official/Unofficial distinction clear.
>>
Morphy was the Chess Champion of the World upon returning from his European tour. Disagree if you wish. I respect your opinion.
>>
In that case, when did he lose it? When he died? When he retired? Or some other time?
And how do you date Steinitz? Most books date his reign as 1886-1894, but some say 1866-1894, making his match with Anderssen a retroactive championship match. In his last years, Steinitz said that he’d been champion for 28 years, but nobody’s really sure if he claimed that back in 1866. We do know that the match documents for the 1886 match don’t claim either player as champion. But in 1883, when they proposed a toast to the champion of the world, both Steinitz and Zukertort stood up.
Or would you disagree with the 1866 date on the grounds that Morphy was still champion and not Anderssen?
See, the problem I have with this is that there are opinions and there are facts. It’s the opinion of many (including me) that Fischer was the best player in the world in 1971. But it’s a fact that Spassky held the championship that entire year. I like to keep those two things separate in my mind instead of trying to blend them into one big opinion-only whole.
>>
You and I agree on this point, that is, that Morphy’s contemporaries DID acknowledge him as the “chess champion of the world.”
>>
I don’t know that he was the first that people said that about. I believe Philidor was described that way too. Possibly Staunton too, at least people recognized him that way for a while. And unofficially, I have no problem recognizing either Philidor or Morphy as champions.
To be champion in any kind of official way, I think you have to accept the honor. Like, I think Susan Polgar got a raw deal from FIDE over the loss of the women’s title, but she’s relinquished her claim to it and moved on. It would be silly for me to say she was still the champion if she said she wasn’t.
You know, I’ve seen other retroactive continuinty like that in other sports. One of the Baseball Hall of Shame books talks about some outrageous number of errors in a World Series, but when you look at the book, they’re actually talking about some championship in the 1880’s. It wasn’t a World Series. But it would have been if they’d had World Series’ then, so that’s close enough for the book.
Dear Chess Fans,
Regarding Paul Morphy, let me just says something that, I hope, we can all agree upon:
He was one of the greatest chess players of his day!
I have my opinion and everyone else has their own. This is good. Yet, I am no longer going to argue this point on Susan’s blog. If anyone wants to have a civil debate with me, then I shall consult the primary sources and, as a good historian should, let them speak for themselves. Just ask me for my email and I shall give it. But, no more here…I’m happy to continue in another venue.
Paul Morphy’s legacy is not in need of defending. His legacy, his genius (considering those he played against and the times in which he lived…please don’t compare him with todays GM’s…of course they would win…they have a century and a half of theory to use and have learned from), his absolute courtesy to his opponenets…this is what I am most interested in.
Fact 2: Paul Morphy was extremely polite and courteous to his opponents. My fundamental argument is that his attitude toward opponents was very “sportsmanlike” and quite honorable.
This is all I’m saying in regards to the original question that began this post.
Regarding whether or not he was a “world champion” can be answered by simply doing basic historical research and reading primary source documentation from, primarily, everyone that played against him.
Morphy was, I hope we at least agree on this…a true Champion! I leave it to you to decide whether he was a chess champion or not.
I am just stating my opinion basued upon the historical evidence. I believe and shall continue to consider him as a World Chess Champion prior to Steinitz.
This isn’t meant to be an insult to anyone. Morphy was, considering the times in which he lived, a chess genius.
I end my debate on Susan’s site here. If you agree with me, then I hope to read your messages. If not, then I’m happy to debate for years via Email.
For now…let us go back to GM Polgar’s original question.
Again, as always, I simply agree to disagree with you. It isn’t bad. But, regarding a private Email debate…I welcome any and all who challenge the claim that Paul Morphy was not the World Champion.
I just want to do this via my Email and not take up any additionla space on GM Susan’s site.
It would not be honorable nor condierate of others.
Respectfully,
Tim Harris
After reading all these comments we see how much these GREAT OLD CHAMPIONS are loved and remembered for all the great games they played with grace and dignity…
In that case, when did he lose it? When he died? When he retired? Or some other time?
And how do you date Steinitz? Most books date his reign as 1886-1894, but some say 1866-1894, making his match with Anderssen a retroactive championship match
I agree things are fuzzy there with Morphy, but he is hardly the only one. When did Fischer stop being world champion? Many would argue that Karpov can’t really be considered the world champion just because he got the FIDE title by default. Things are fuzzy with the FIDE split too of course.
IMO, when you cease to be active you cease to be the world champion… or rather, you lose the right to the tiel once someone else has a legitimate claim. For Morphy, he retired but I say he keeps the crown of world champion till at least 1862 when Andersson wins that london tournement, since that is the first time we could declare a new title holder.
t’s the opinion of many (including me) that Fischer was the best player in the world in 1971. But it’s a fact that Spassky held the championship that entire year. I like to keep those two things separate in my mind instead of trying to blend them into one big opinion-only whole.
Lets be a bit more specific here. Spassky held the FIDE title. Certainly he was FIDE champion.
I’d also say he was world champion until Fischer beats him. Being world champion, for anything, is not about raw ability only it is also about winning. Fischer was the best in the wrold in 1971 but he didn’t become champion till he beat Spassky.
Likewise, Morphy was certainly the best in the world before defeating all the top players in europe, but he doesn’t get to be world champion till he has gone and physically done the act of beating them.
(commenting on a post tens of posts ago) Tal abuse of alcohol and alleged participation on the URRS vs Fisher war is not a reason to consider him less of a gentelman. As for his fellow Russian GM’s who did not visit him in the hospital how can you say this sheds a bad light on HIM? In any case it speaks volumes about the lack of loyalty of the GM’s who did not visit him. I repeat: Tal was loved by all (but if those GM’s did not visit him then they were probably also jealous of him), Even Bobby Fisher loved him! (and that is really a tal order).
Spassky. He was such a class act, even Fischer was impressed.
Spassky, Tal, Euwe and Smyslov and Kramnik. Perhaps in this order too.
I think Mikhail Tal would be the best chess sportsman followed by Boris Spassky and Max Euwe.
I must admit I don’t know all that much about women Chess champions but I have heard one good story about Nona (this one is from Tal’s book – the Life and Games of Mikhail Tal by Mikhail Tal, highly recommended!) where she was in severe time trouble and Tal ‘forgot’ to press his clock and she told him if he did it again she would resign straight away!
To Anonymous 18 Oct 6:30:13 pm:
I think it was my post you were referring to.
Overall, I think Tal was probably a pretty good guy. I was listing some deficiences of him, Spassky and Smyslov to demonstrate why they did not quite come up to the level of Euwe.
I think Tal was loved more for his style of play, than whether he was a gentleman or not; but it is the latter we are talking about here.
Tal was a womaniser as well as a drunkard. I am pretty sure he was married. Surely the way you conduct your private life has some bearing on whether you are a gentleman or not.
In the USSR-Fischer war, all the top Soviet GM’s were required to make a contribution. However, there are various ways of making a ‘contribution’. So GMs like Keres and Smyslov put in a whole lot of wordy stuff which actually said very little. But Tal put in a serious contribution which could have damaged Fischer. Is this a gentlemanly way to pay him back for the hospital visit?
I think the other GMs ‘being jealous of Tal’ story comes from the 1957-9 period of Tal’s successes. Tal’s results at Curacao 1962 were certainly nothing to be jealous of.
It was not only Russian GMs who did not visit Tal; none but Fischer did.
The great gentleman Keres was among those who did not visit him. It’s a strange story. It almost seems like Tal was some sort of an outcast, he must have been unpopular in some way, like Fischer [It was not only Russian GMs that Fischer did not get on with; he also had a stand-up fight with fellow American Benko during this tournament.] Perhaps as two outcasts Tal and Fischer came together.
Benko is still alive – perhaps Susan could interview him to find out more about this story.