- About Us
- Chess Improvement
- Chess Puzzles
- Chess Research
- College Chess
- General News
- Home
- Major Tournaments
- News
- Polgar Events
- Privacy Policy
- Scholastic Chess
- SPICE / Webster
- Susan’s Personal Blog
- Track your order
- USA Chess
- Videos
- Women’s Chess
- Contact Us
- Daily News
- My Account
- Terms & Conditions
- Privacy Policy
Topalov is the best I think.
1. Fischer
2. Kasparov
3. Spassky
4. Karpov
5. Anand
6. Kramnik
7. Topalov
8. Ponomariov
9. Khalifman
10. Kasimdzhanov
Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov, Spassky, Topalov, Kramnik, Anand, Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov, Khalifman.
Kasparov
Karpov
Kramnik
Spassky
Fischer
Can’t compare them heads up, so I rank them in order of how successful they’ve been as champion.
I only put Spassky so low because I’m considering the years of his title reign. If I included his performance in 1964-1969, he’d rank higher.
Fischer is on bottom because his title reign was a complete bust. Zero games played.
The other 5 have never World Champions at all (so far at least), and should be ignored.
Where is Petrosian!
1. Kasparov
2. Karpov
3. Fischer
4. Spassky
5. Kramnik
6. Anand
7. Topalov
8. – 10. Khalifman
8. – 10. Ponomariov
8. – 10. Kasimdzhanov
Fischer and Kasparov
Karpov Kasparov Fisher Spassky Kramnik Anand .. .. .. last place s for Topalov
Kramnik a world champ? More like a chump…
After the battle of WaterLOO that ends tomorrow we will know who is the next WC (water closet).
My classement is not only based on the chessboard, but also on the personnality in the life of the world champions…
1 Spassky
2 Tal
3 Anand
4 kasparov
5 karpov
6 smislov
7 Topalov
8 Kramnik
9 Fischer
10 Botwitnik
1 – Fischer
2 – Kasparov
3 – Spassky
4 – Anand
5 – Karpov
6 – Kramnik
7 – Topalov
8 – Kasimdzhanov
9 – Ponomariov
10 – Khalifman
Thinking about their results before and after being World Champions:
1. Kasparov
2. Karpov
3. Fischer
4. Spassky
5. Anand
6. Topalov
7. Kramnik
8. Ponomariov
9. Khalifman
10. Kasimdzhanov
it must be bobby fischer.
Top 5 All-Time
1. Fischer
2. Morphy
3. Kasparov
4. Steinitz
5. Alekhine
Kasparov
Daylight
Karpov
Fischer
Spassky
Kramnik
Topalov
Anand
Ponomariov
Khalifman
Kasimdzhanov
OK, I know The question at hand is “How do they Rank”
However I don’t feel qualified to seriously evaluate them All. Just To say here that Fischer for me is first and foremost My Favorite.
I am old enough to remember just learning to play the game, taught to me by my grandfather at age 7, when Bobby won his 1st US Chess Championship. Following his ascendant career became an inspiration for me and my interest in the game. My chess books are all still in ‘English Notation’ including his 60 Memorable Games. All of which were played before he became a World Champion. Whatever his demons were off the board he Illuminated the game once he was on it.
This is the Player I choose to remember.
Kasparov is far above all the others.
Also, when talking about who are the players most deserving of the title: Kramnik >> Topalov.
Kasparov is obviously up there, but I’m both surprised and not-surprised by all the high rankings of Fischer. It’s too bad we’ll never see a Fischer – Kasparov match. They could have both played in their prime as well..
How can you list Ponomariov, Khalifman, Kasimdzhanov or even Anand with a straight face? Susan did you post this? Do you agree that the four above can ever be listed among the World Champaign’s?! They are nothing, they are a bad FIDE joke. (they would still womp me)
1. Kasparov
2. Fischer
3. Karpov
4. Anand
5. Kramnik
6. Spassky
7. Others
1. Fischer
2. Kasparov
3. Karpov
4. Kramnik
5. Spassky
6. Topalov
7. Anand
The others were never world champions by any valid measure.
#6 & 7 weren’t really, either, but they were strong enough that they might have been.
Listed by how dominating they were as champion; I think this is also close to actual playing strength order:
Fischer
Kasparov
Karpov
Spassky
These are the sole champions and they were all dominant during at least part of their time as champions.
The others were not sole champions and were not dominant over all others.
1. Karpov
2. Kasparov
3. Fischer
4. Kramnik
5. Spassky
6-7. Anand
6-7. Topalov
Khalifman, Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov were true world champions, but I can not compare them with the others.
I see three well defined categories here. The first one is the GENUINE World Champions, players with proven superiority over their contemporaries and who deservedly won their titles:
1. Kasparov
2. Fischer
3. Karpov
4. Spassky
The term “World Champion” is too large for the rest of the players, in my opinion. Still, the second group is for those who are remarkably strong GMs superior, who became “WCH” for some not convinging reasons:
5. Topalov
6. Anand
7. Kramnik
And the rest are part of a group where not even themselves believe they should have EVER been called World Champion – players of the big mass who “won” the title in tournaments with no credibility. No offense intended, but it is just the truth. They are absolutely not a reference of their era. “World Champions” by accident.
8. Ponomariov
9. Kasimdzhanov
10. Khalifman
So it´s easy now – I can just agree with Mr. Renzo (thanks).
Jürgen
Would the majority of top champions be considered “attackers” or “defenders”?
Just curious
1. fischer was definitely the greatest chess player. he did it all on his own. no computer help and no outside grandmaster help. he was really a super chess player.
2+ then I like gentlemen. those who were good for chess. those who were great sportsmen. I have to include, Anand, Spassky and Kramnik. these are definitely gentlemen of high character.
I have to rank Karpov as the lowest of the low. he never won a title. he stole it from fischer without playing a move. then he held korchnoi’s family hostage. that has to be the lowest of the low. much lower even than topalov.
next we have to look at kasparov. he was a very selfish man. did a lot of damage to chess. he was only for himself. he has some good results because of computer assistance and the assistance of many grandmasters. had he played on his own he would never have done so well. but he did defeat karpov. which was good. finally got rid of him. but only to get selfish gary.
so the only ones worthy of being ranked are fischer, spassky, anand, and kramnik.
Morphy
Fischer
Kasparov
Capablanca
Lasker
Alekhine
Steinitz
Karpov
Kramnik
Spassky
My top 10 in order of having what it takes.
1. Kasparov
2. Fischer
3. Karpov
4. Kramnik
5. Anand
6. Topalov
7. Spassky
8. Ponomariov
9. Khalifman
10. Khasimdzhanov
Well, this is easy:
1)Kasparov
2)Karpov
3)Kramnik
4)Fischer
5)Spassky
and let’s not spoil the title of the World Champion by applying it to the winners of FIDE lotteries.
Fischer
Kasparov
Spassky
Karpov
There has been no legitimate world champion since Kasparov.
And as for the 10 best ever, I would say they are:
1)Kasparov
2)Kramnik
3)Botvinnik
4)Capablanca
5)Alekhine
6)Steinitz
7)Lasker
8)Petrosian
9)Kramnik
10)Morphy
Oops, #2 on the preovous list of mine is Karpov, not Kramnik, of course.
“Rank your champions!”
Why would I want to do that?
The top three have to be Fischer, Kasparov and Karpov. Fischer’s reign at the top was brief, but at the time he defeated Spassky, the gap between him and the next-best player was enormous.
Kasparov had a very long run as the world’s best player. For much of that time, Karpov was a clear #2, but the fact is that he never beat Kasparov in a match.
So I’d rank Kasparov and Fischer as tied for #1, and Karpov #3.
It is almost insulting to these three great players to be on the same list with the likes of Kasimdzhanov, Ponomariov and Khalifman, all of whom were “champions” only briefly, and got there only by winning a single tournament—often with several of the world’s best players absent.
Kramnik’s style has been compared to Karpov’s, but he has never dominated the way Karpov did.
Anand has played near-top chess for many years, but his actual reign as “champion” was, like the other FIDE KO winners, very brief.
Because Topalov is the most recent of these, he is toughest to rank. I would put him above most of the FIDE KO winners, simply because the tournament he had to win was a much stiffer challenge.
Spassky is the toughest of the group to judge. He did make it through a traditional candidates cycle, but Fischer obliterated him, and he was never able to return to his earlier level.
With that in mind:
1. (tie) Fischer/Kasparov
3. Karpov
4. Kramnik
5. Spassky
6. Anand
7. Topalov
8. Khalifman
9. Ponomariov
10. Kasmidzhanov
1 Kasparov
2 Karpov
3 Fischer
4 Spassky and kramnik
The others don’t count for me, I STRONGLY agree that they should be ignored as champions.
However, my favourites are Karpov, Petrosian and Kramnik.
1. Fischer
2. Kasparov
3. Karpov
4. Spassky
5. Kramnik
The rest in my opinion were never World Champions in tradition from Steintiz to Kramnik so do not count.
Here is how I rank them though:
Anand
Topalov
Kasimdzhanov
Ponomariov
Khalifman
1. Kasparov
2. Karpov
3. Spassky
4. Fischer
…
5. Anand
6. Kramnik
7. Topalov
1. Kasparov
2. Karpov
3. Fischer
4. Anand
5. Kramnik
6. Spassky
7. Topalov
8-10. the accidental “champions”
Anand & Kramnik are super-GMs, and belong in this list. Not sure about Topalov.
1. Kasparov
2. Karpov
3. Fischer
4. Spassky
5. Topalov
6. Anand
7. Khalifman
8. Kasimzhanov
9. Ponomariov
…
99. Kramnik
As for making the biggest money making purse in the history of chess, I believe a match between Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov, would draw the largest audience for a chess match right around the world.
If promoted like a Don King Championship Boxing Match, with sponsors and pay per view broadcasts on the Internet and TV screens around the world, with a big ticket event publicity program, and lead ups and giveaways of autographed chess boards, followed by live game action and DVD’s analysis by the players themselves. This monumental event could draw close to a $100 Million dollars, with a guarantee to each player of $10 Million for appearing and $5 Million for Winning. With $5 Million to the host city, for their chess organizations and PR support. A city the size of New York City or New Orleans the home of Paul Morphy. I have no doubt, this would be the biggest ticket draw on the planet Earth. It would be just as big, as if the ‘Beatles’ were still alive and willing to play one gigantic spectacular multi-media ‘live’ show event.
It would be a money down success for the chess world either way.
i wonder about the ranking of Mr. Fischer here around, if he would have not born in the US, but, let’s say in hmmm, Switzerland?
be honest!
Fisher, Kasparov, Karpov, Spassky, Topalov, Kramnik, Khalifman, N/a the others. Fisher did more for chess than anyone. K-K just about a tie- great champions. Spassy next- true champion. Kappy and Tappy close to a tie- semi champions. Khalifman next not-so champion. The other two- non-champion champions
Category 1
1. Fischer – Kasparov
3. Karpov – Kramnik
5. Spassky
————————————–
Category 2
1. Anand – Topalov
3. Ponomariov – Khalifman – Kasimdzhanov
1. Kasparov
2. Karpov
3. Fischer
4. Spassky
5. Kramnik
6. Topalov
7. Anand
8. Ponomariov
9. Khalifman
10. Kasimdzhanov
Though it’s fair to say 1 or 2 could be switched around depending on your taste. Fischer is 3 because he never proved what a champion he could be.
Why since 1970?
7 names from my top-10 list are former ones.
Kasparov
Karpov
Fischer
Kramnik
Toilet Bowl
Anand
Spassky
Pony-man, Khalifragilisticexpialidocious, Kazoo — who cares?
i wonder about the ranking of Mr. Fischer here around, if he would have not born in the US, but, let’s say in hmmm, Switzerland?
Oh, come on. Kasparov wrote that no other world champion ever has been as far above his contemporaries as Fischer was. There’s no way he can rank lower than third (which is where I put him).
1. Kasparov
2. Karpov
3. Fischer
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
1. Fischer
2. Kasparov
3. Kramnik
4. Karpov
5. Spassky
6. Anand
7. Topalov
8. Ponomariov
9. Khalifman
10. Kasimdzhanov
1.Fischer
2.Fischer
3.Fischer
4.Fischer
5.Fischer
6.Fischer
7.Fischer
8.Fischer
9.Fischer
10.Fischer
marc shephard’s analysis is right on: Kasparov and Fischer were the strongest, but it is unfortunately impossible to evaluate them against each other. Read marc’s commentary: he said what I wanted, but better.
1. Kasparov
2. Karpov: They are here because each dominated chess for such a long time.
3. Fischer
4. Kramnik: A recurring pattern with the top two?
5. Anand – I do not know if he is “better” than Topalov, but he has also been a contender at higher levels for longer.
6. Topalov: Once he started being phenomenal, he’s been phenomenal!
7. Spassky: Perhaps does not deserve such a low ranking, but I cannot see placing his work above the others.
8-10: the other FIDE knockout champions: Ponomariov, Khalifman, and Kasimdzhanov. I am no expert, but it seems that Pono has a great deal of promise, Khalifman has not quite delivered, and it’s too early to decipher Kasim.
In general, it’s hard to compare winners from the knock-outs with match winners. Despire my placement of Anand, I would always privilege those who won through a match.
Fischer, retired undefeated.
Even Kramnik beat Kasparov.
To the guy rating Kramnik #99 and Kasparov #1:
Who beat whom?
#1 FISCHER, taking into account that what he achieved is unparalleled in Chess history.
#2 KASPAROV, taking into account that he broke the “boring wall” Karpov
#3 KRAMNIK, taking into account that he was able to beat the highest rated player ever in a match.
#4 KARPOV, taking into account his many tournament victories
#5 SPASSKY, maybe brilliant, but colourless
#6-#10
ANAND, TOPALOV, PONOMARIOV, KHALIFMAN, KSIMDZHANOV, they are no real World Champions for me. They won a Knock Out, ok, they won a WC Tournament, ok, but they never kicked the reigning champ off the throne in a match.
I agree with Mr. Renzo too, well said!
My ranking would be this:
1. Kasparov
2. Fischer
3. Karpov
4. Spassky
That’s from your list. If I had a choice…1. Tal !!
Of those competing Now…1. Topalov 2. Anand 3. Kramnik
Of the women for World Champion
1. Judit Polgar !!!!
she is exciting to watch…I like the underdog.
1. Khalifman
2. Ponomariov
3. Kasmidzhanov
4. Fisher
The rest were not real world champions. To the person who said “Fisher retired undefeated” this is shameful of him because he yellowed out of his fight against Karpov, are you telling us that if Kasparov would have never defended his title he would have been even better? You people need to learn to think…
I wish to apologise for my last comments. I admit that I only wanted to be insulting, and that these comments were not made in good faith.
Against sorry.
I barely even recognize the final 8? Isn’t Mr. Robert J. Fischer still the World Chess Champion??!?!All other phoneys who want to try and pretend to own the title in the name of FIDE are welcome to try and defend it against him, but good luck in speaking with the Champion in arranging a match, unless you are Spassky. It also seems fishy that Mrs. Polgar would suspiciously choose to NOT post any Champion’s picture from the pre-FIDE era, which I find to be quite obnoxious of her, given that nobody other than Euwe had really beaten Alekhine (or Capablanca or Lasker, etc for that matter) in match-play, as means of reclaiming the title after their deaths by the WWII era. To say that a Champion should be decided by a tournament and not match result, and basically run by a guy like Botvinnik is ridiculous, but hey, what else does Susie’s bosses’ rules committees have to offer for us!? It’s no wonder that the chess world appears as a laughingstock to outsiiders when our GMs let them get away with this crap.
1. Kasmidzhanov
2. Khalifman
3. Ponomariov
The rest you can put them in whatever order you want, I dont care. This 3 are the true champions! FIDE said so and like it or not YOU (chess enthusiasts and GM’s) have elected FIDE over and over again, so deal with the results! (every game has the government it deserves).
The most exciting chess
1. Tal
2. Topalov
3. Fischer
4. Kasparov
1. Fischer Capablanca
2. Kasparov Alekhine Lasker
3. Karpov Botvinnik Steinitz
4. Spassky Petrosian Tal
5. Kramnik Euwe Smyslov
—–
6. Anand
7. Topalov
8. Ponomariov
9. Kahlifman
10. Kazimdzhanov
Kasparov
Fischer
Karpov
Kramnik
Spassky
Topalov
**
Anand
Kasimdzhanov
Ponomariov
Khalifman
Kazimdzhanov is the undisputed all time champion. His performance is unparaleled in chess history. Next is the increadible Kahlifman, one of the most famous and exciting players of all time (he is the most popular with the people). And finally Pomonariov the great, Who can forget his sparlking personality and his amazing games? These 3 are a breed apart!
By their actions in 1985 and 1993, FIDE lost all moral authority to control title from 1993 until 2005. Khalifman, Anand, Pono, and Kasim therefore not champions. Similarly Kramnik loses all moral authority to be called Champion after 2002 for refusing to give Kasparov an acceptable means to qualify to become his challenger. Therefore,though far from perfect, San Luis has to be recognised as legit enough to call Topalov Champion.
Therefore:
1.Kasparov
2.Fischer
3.Karpov
4.Kramnik
5.Topalov
6.Spassky
Top 3 miles above bottom 3 who are about even.
Top 10 players of all time:
1.Kasparov
2.Fischer
3.Capablanca
4.Lasker
5.Alekhine
6.Karpov
7.Botvinnik
8.Morphy
9.Steinitz
10.Korchnoi
1. Karpov (underestimated by many)
2. Kasparov
3. Fischer
4. Kramnik
5. Spassky
6. Anand
7. Topalov (despite the ugly recent events)
The rest (Ponomariov, Khalifman and Kasimdzhanov) cannot be considered world champions. No way. These became champions due to FIDE’s fault.
I agree with the posting that calls for a Fischer/Kasparov match. That would do wonders for the chess world and would easily command the money that was suggested. Woohoo! I get excited just thinking about it.
I think that a 3 way match between Ponomariov, Khalifman and Kasimdzhanov would be much more exciting than a Kasparov-Fisher match. Most people do not even remember who Fisher was and Kasparov was never well known. The 3 way match would be the chess event of the 21 first century!!!
Here is a better idea: how about a fisticuff match (“chess boxing”) between the “pale marvel” Nigel Short and “battered child” Kamsky? Wouldn’t that be exciting?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Karpov is #1 because I said so. The other posters are wrong because they are not me.
Though not on the list…
PAUL MORPHY!
Considering that he beat the best Europe had to offer, and that he was SO FAR AHEAD of his competition, he is, by far, the greatest Chess player (Considering the times in which he lived and context…please note this)
that ever played.
Fishcer (though a disgusting person) must be #2.
Kasparov
Capablanca
Lasker
Karpov
and, of course, the greatest Women’s World Champion…
GM Susan Polgar!
I agree. Paul Morphy.
Why stick to the last 20 years?
Morphy was light years ahead of Andersson and Mr.Staunton was too afraid to play him.
Why were Europeans so afraid of little Paul Morphy?
Because Morphy was the best ever….absolute agreement with anon.
Every present day IM will beat Morphy
Of course any present day IM would beat Morphy.
I mean only that he was the best as COMPARED TO ALL LIVING PLAYERS IN THE 1850′ AND 1860’S.
Place him within historical context. You can’t compare Morphy with a modern player. You can only fairly compare him to the best the world had to offer DURING HIS LIFETIME.
Geez, it’s commonsense.
Jose Raul Capablanca
Probably the first world champion that played in the level of what we call today a grandmaster, first one to deploy succesfully and repeatedly some strategic ideas, such as “prophylaxis”
Alexander Alekhine
The first true child of the “hypermodern” school, he really was a milestone for the development of the game
Michael Moisievich Bothvinik
The Soviet scientific school initiator, a great teacher of the game, though he was extremely helped by the regime
Vasily Smyslov
A strategist, an expert of endings, the definition of the term “gentleman”
Michael Tal
The most exciting to watch, he was the equivalent of a ferrari on the chessboard, a funny guy with great sense of humour, a heavy smoker and drinker who took life as it really is: a joke
Tigran Petrosian
King of defense, the most solid player of all times, his trademark being the “exchange sacrifice that never loses”
Boris Spassky
The first trully universal player and one of the most pleasant guys you can meet
Robert James Fischer
His eccentricity and the fact that he was from the United States made him a legend, he’s probably the main reason that chess is still played western than vienna
Anatoli Karpov
The definition of universality, his positional expertise being unparalleled in history, he was another regime-supported champion though
Gary Kasparov
The strongest player of all times, now proven to be a great historian as well, a real gem despite his arrogance at times
To the above we must add Mr. Bondarevsky if not for anything else, just for the fact that he was the one to establish the King’s Indian Defense.. Also Mr Lev Poluaevsky, probably the greatest opening theoretician of all times and last but not least Mr. Victor Korchnoi who is like the Hungarian Football team of the 50s, and the Dutch one of the 70s.. He should have been a world champion!!
As for the others that you include on those list of yours, i can only laugh
>trandism said…
Thanks, that was wonderful.
1. Kasparov, 2. Karpov, 3. Fischer, 4. Kramnik, 5. Spassky, 6. Anand, 7. Topalov, 8. Ponomariov, 9. Khalifman, 10. Kasimdzhanov
I heard from the owners of Chess Informant in the former Yugoslavia that Fischer in his more sane days was the most exciting player to watch because he NEVER played for a draw. To compare Kasparov to Fischer is interesting, but one must remember they came from different time periods. Also, Kasparov had so many draws in his games with Karpov that the match appears very uneventful. As such, Kasparov still belongs to a younger generation of grandmasters who are more willing to accept a draw so long as it enables them to maintain a high rating (it is interesting that Kasparov’s disciple, Kramnik, is also very successful at the art of drawing, against Leko to defend his title).
Kasparov has done the most to promote chess and his books are excellent. He is an outstanding player but is from a different generation–unfair to compare the two. I like Kasparov’s play much better than Kramnik’s and would say that Topalov plays a little more like Kasparov. The comparisons between Fischer and Topalov are unfair because Topalov does not consistently win like Fischer did. 1. Fischer 2. Kasparov 3. Kramnik (although in terms of style I’d place in 4th or 5th place, but he beat Kasparov in a world championship match, something that Topalov won’t accomplish) 4. Topalov 5. Spassky 6. Karpov (because of his style, less exciting to watch) 7. Ponomariov 8. Anand (the best chessplayer of all time aside from Kasparov and Fischer, but the one with the weakest nerves in the World Championship) Match 9. Kasimdzhanov 10. Kalifman
who cares?
all of your ratings are indeed cute. fischer was a cute player too.
what matters is, tomorrow Topa will wipe off the board with the last muppet chump to ever discgrace the chess world with his presence.
Kasparov, Karpov, Spassky, Fischer, Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Khalifman, Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov
Maybe this is more interesting – top 10 (11 if you include Anand) who never became world champion:
Korchnoi, Keres, (Anand), Tarrasch, Polugaevsky, Ivanchuk, Reshevsky, Portisch, Geller, Rubinstein, Bronstein.
I’m happy enough to post in this topic; however, I couldn’t really find myself interested in spending the time to read all the previous posts, so what’s the point?? Will anyone care about mine? I expect ‘not.
My suggestion for a thread like this is to have software configured that allows for polls; the respondents will rank the champions, and the poll will display a bar-graph, or some such summary.
OK, I’ll go
Capablanca
Kasparov
Lasker
Fischer
Steinitz
Alekhine
Karpov
Tal
Botvinnik
Petrosian
Spassky
Kramnik
Smyslov
Euwe
I am ignoring those various ‘Fide Champions’, since I don’t think that winning one tournament of Rapid Chess should get you included on the above list.
Is anyone reading? I’ll add some personal reasoning:
C’s domination of the rest of the Chess world, for most of his career, as well as major contributions towards theory of play (mostly ending play) cannot be discounted.
K emerged as a dominant force at a time when there were many other ‘dominant forces’; he singlehandedly changed the approach to the game for all players that followed.
L’s 26 years cannot be discounted; if not for some dirty politics (where he spent many years dodging challenges from players who might have beaten him) he could have been ranked higher.
F’s games are amazing, and his style is one that is not likely to be repeated, ever. However, we are talking about just a few peak years.
‘St’ completely revolutionized the theory of the game, and was only defeated by L because of his advanced age; else, I think he would have retained the title for longer. Morphy vs. Steinitz is a match that would have ranked as one of the best ever in Chess history.
I personally love A’s play; he’s my favorite. Still, he prepared specifically for ONE match, won it, and dodged the rematch for the rest of his career. I believe he would have lost a rematch decicively.
Kar is another personal favorite, and his domination for 20 years can not be discounted. I also believe that he ‘deserved’ to win the first match against ‘K’; the trouble was that the rules were stupid; nobody will ever make that mistake again.
There is no doubt that ‘T’ was the best in the world at the time; he also had major influence in all play that followed. However, he only won one match, and could not endure (possibly due to health).
‘B”s ‘100 Selected Games’ is one of the most instructive books ever written. I consider B the best at preparation – however, not at the level of ‘talent’ as others mentioned.
‘P’ was the modern day Nimzovich, and I applaud his style and success. However, if being ranked among his world champion peers, his style of play would just not hold up.
‘Sp’, bless his heart, had good tournament and match results for a limited time. Nobody will ever learn from him.
‘Kr’ put an enormous amount of preparation into winning one match against one player, and succeeded. Even though I personally favor him in the current match, and even though I enjoy his style, I just can’t see ranking him high in history.
‘Sm’ and ‘Ew’ also prepared well to win one match against one player. I applaud them. However, I am not inclined to ‘worship’ them.
Is anyone still reading?? I expect not. Cool.
Dan G.
The last 30 years? That seems to leave out a great deal of chess heritage. A great deal. Well, rook house has a pretty good list. In the 30 year context, only, let us work with it. While I respect their playing strength, personalities, and contributions to chess, Ponomariov, Khalifman, and Kasimdzhanov have not proven themselves as really notable on a long term historical basis compared to the other, classical world champions. It is not only that they were not classical world champions, no one seriously considered them the strongest player in the world. Now that is hardly a vote for a World Champion. Anand and Topalov rank clearly higher, and their long-term playing record reflects this. The case at least can be made that were playing the strongest during a year period or so, and this is not a small accomplishment. Fischer, Kasparov, Spassky, Karpov, and Kramnik have a very good case for being the strongest players in the world. Yes, I know that people can say that Kramnik was not the strongest much in the same way they can say Euwe wasn’t in 1935. They did it in long, hard clasical matches, folks. Kramnik and Spassky were never more than primus inter pares. Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov dominated their areas. This is why, quite politely, that I have problems with the 30 year parameter. There is no comparison between the top 2 and the bottom 3 on rook house’s list. The title of world champion has been devalued in a less severe, but similar way as that of grandmaster. When I think of great, historical important world champions, I would trace the chain back as follows: Kramnik, Kasparov, Fischer, Spassky, Petrosian (In matches, folks), Botvinnik, Euwe, Alekhine, Capablanca, Lasker, Steinitz, Morphy, Andersen, Staunton etc. Tal and Smyslov are, in Russian parlance, “Winter Chess Kings.” Smslov really deserves more-look at his record again Botvinnik over 3 matches. Boy could I go on. The legacy of chess is so rich…
Mr Cat/Dan G:
A really excellent post, which I read after posting mine. I might be a little easier on Smyslov, however, due to the fact that he played 3 matches against what may be the greatest match preparer of all time, Botvinnik. And let us not forget that he tied one of the 3, his first, in 1954, after being down 1/2-3/12 early.
Quite frankly, all, the currency of the title of World Champion has become strange. How do we all compare beating Capablanca over 34 games with wimmin a knockout in Las Vegas? And we want to strengthen the current situation with potentially a rapids match and Armageddon game? Who is trying to fool whom?
Fischer is Switzerland? He probably would have had more support from tiny Switzerland. Forget that he’s American. Remember that the first non-Russian after Euwe in 1935 was Fischer.
“Any present day IM would beat Morphy” In a prepared variation, probably. Particularly if it was forcing. But I remember one modern GM discribing the difference between a GM and an IM. He said, “well first of all, the GM will destroy the IM TACTICALLY. Now imagine that Morphy gets caught up for a year or two on theory. And then imagine that the GM that plays the IM is Morphy. Imagine.
thanks, Churchy baby! Somebody actually read! Maybe, to be fair, I should go back and read some of the other posts, including yours. What are there, something like 100 now?
But thanks; I remember picking Smyslov to beat Kasparov in their candidates match years back; but what did I know??
Dan G.
(Mr. Cat is my cat!)
Because Kramnik was never WC.
“To the guy rating Kramnik #99 and Kasparov #1:
Who beat whom?”
Great idea, Anonymous 8:48:32pm posting!
Considering Morphy, Anderssen and Staunton as effectively Champions, my list of the 10 strongest non-Champions would be:
1.Korchnoi
2.Rubinstein
3.Anand
4.Keres
5.Von der Lasa
6.Zukertort
7.Tarrasch
8.Reshevsky
9.Bronstein
10.Pillsbury
-100. Lasker’spirit
1.Fischer
2.Kasparov
3.Karpov
4.Spasskij
5.Kramnik
6.Topy
7.Vishi
8.Pono
9.Khalifman
10.Kasim
I have doubs if 6.-10. can be considered as a WC (Oh sorry, WCh).
Very controversial question isn’t it ? 🙂
The first position is a tough fight between Fischer and Kasparov.
1.Fischer
2.Kasparov
3.Karpov
Topalov still has to prove himself. He has the potential to be one of the best… he has showns signs of the drive that Kasparov and Fischer had. But its still raw.
1-2. Fischer and Kasparov.
3-10. The rest.
The four first places are very easy to say:
1. Kasparov
2. Karpov
3. Fischer
4. Spassky
*the others on your list
Morphy owned the chess board, all of the others rent it.
To people with places 1 & 2 occupied by Morphy or Fischer (whatever order): typical self-aggrandizing American nonsense.
Fischer didn’t have the competitive stamina to rival the longevity of Kasparov’s dominance, while Morphy’s present-day incarnation is Emory Tate.
1. Fischer Capablanca
2. Kasparov Alekhine Lasker
3. Karpov Botvinnik Steinitz
4. Spassky Petrosian Tal
5. Kramnik Euwe Smyslov
—–
6. Anand
7. Topalov
8. Ponomariov
9. Kahlifman
10. Kazimdzhanov
Fischer
Karpov
Kasparov
Spassky
Kramnik, unfortunately, must not be added to this list because he won against Kasparov outside the auspices of a unified world chess organization.
All other FIDE champions in recent times do NOT count either (Anand, Topalov, Ponomariov, etc.), due to corruptness in FIDE and the ridiculous formats they’ve held to determine their puppet champion. The winner of the present reunification match is a return to something proper (insofar as the match rules are concerned…although the old format of Interzonals, Candidates Matches, and the longer 24 game world match format would be much preferred). And the winner of this present reunification match, Kramnik or Topalov, will rightfully qualify for this esteemed list of World Chess Champions.
Karpov wins out over Kasparov in my list on the basis of longevity and tournament record (phenomenal is an understatement), and willingness to defend the world title. I believe he has been ridiculed unjustly for the stopped match against Kasparov. Health reason is reasonable enough for the match to have been called off. It was a mistake in the first place to hold the match at a stipulated number of wins to determine champion. Lastly, we must remember, Karpov was ahead of Kasparov at the time it was called off. What “might have been” is only speculation, nothing more.
1-FİSCHER
2-KARPOV
3-KASPAROV
4-kramnik
5-capablanca
6-alekhine
7-botvinnik
>>Oh, come on. Kasparov wrote that no other world champion ever has been as far above his contemporaries as Fischer was.
>>
Well, he’s wrong. If dominance in one’s own time is the yardstick, then Philidor was the greatest. Absolute best in the world for a full 50 years. Nobody else comes close.
>>
Kramnik, unfortunately, must not be added to this list because he won against Kasparov outside the auspices of a unified world chess organization.
>>
People come up with the most bizarre arguments without thinking them through.
By that standard, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, and Euwe are automatically excluded from the list. Are you sure you want to say this?
The question was “greatest” world champion. That term is a bit vague, admittedly, but I doubt anyone would think that “greatest” meant “most bureaucratic”.
Fischer should be at the bottom of any such list, simply because he did absolutely nothing as world champion. All his achievements were before he gained the title.