Left to Right and Top to Bottom:
1. Wilhelm Steinitz (top row)
2. Emanuel Lasker
3. Jose Raul Capablanca
4. Alexander Alekhine
5. Max Euwe
6. Mikhail Botvinnik
7. Vasily Smyslov (middle row)
8. Mikhail Tal
9. Tigran Petrosian
10. Boris Spassky
11. Robert James Fischer
12. Anatoly Karpov
13. Garry Kasparov (bottom row)
14. Alexander Khalifman
15. Vladimir Kramnik
16. Viswanathan Anand
17. Ruslan Ponomariov
18. Rustam Kasimdzhanov
19. Veselin Topalov
These are the “official” world chess champions
Who is your favorite among them?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
My favorites (and ignroing their politics):
1 Fischer
After Bobby, in no particular order:
Lasker
Smyslov
Tal
Capablanca
Alekhine
I’m honestly not familiar enough with the recent champions’ games to make a decision about them.
Favorites are had to pick but Alekine has to be one. Fischer wrote that Alekine’s whole style of play was a mistake. Mine is rather like that as well, I suppose. Also I must include Kramnik as well for the quote: Chess is so deep that I am simply lost…Likewise…JK
I have to say that it just looks strange to see KO winners like Khalifman, Pono and Kasim, up there with Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov. It seems to me you’re talking about two very different classes of chess players.
Tolya always was my big hero. I learned to play chess when he was winning every tournament he participated.
I like alekhine and fischer (not his politics) better than the rest for two reasons:
1. They both overcame great difficulties to become world champions.
– Fischer by himself overcame the soviet domination of chess. You have to read My Great Predecessors 4 to understand the level of preparation the soviets made to defeat Fischer. In fact they recruited every GM in the country to study Fischer.
– Alekhine defeated Capablance who had not lost a single game in 6 years. It is a great tribute to Alekhine’s confidence and spirit that he believed in himself.
2. Both their styles of play were revolutionary.
– Alekhine (according to Kasparov) was the pioneer of modern chess i.e. sound strategy with flexiblity to take advantage of any tactical opportunities. This was of course taken to new levels with Kasparov.
– Fischer to this day remains one of the few world champions who could play almost every position well.
Honorary mentions:
– Botvinnik
– Tal
– Anand
Regards.
Bobby Fischer
” In fact they recruited every GM in the country to study Fischer. “
yeah, “recruited”. I’m sure they had the choice of saying no…
” Fischer to this day remains one of the few world champions who could play almost every position well. “
I disagree. He played terrible against the French most of his career. He also was terrible against certain lines of the sicilian. Lets not forget the kings gambit.
in response to anonymous:
-yeah, “recruited”. I’m sure they had the choice of saying no..
you are right from a technial standpoint. My point was merely to state that no other world champion had to overcome such odds to be champion.
– I disagree. He played terrible against the French most of his career. He also was terrible against certain lines of the sicilian. Lets not forget the kings gambit.
Again technically you are right. He also played positions where everything was based on tactics terribly (the kind where Tal excelled).
My point is that compared to other world champions he was more universal. He played closed positions and open positions with equal ease.
No other world champion balanced more positions well.
We all more or less agree that if it came down to grand final elimination match play between the great chess champions, all in their prime, with each preparing on an equal footing, it would ultimately boil down to (in no particular order):
Kasparov, Lasker, Alekhine, Fischer, and Capablanca.
And maybe…just maybe Karpov
And then…it would truly be a match for eternity…
I want to post about a great person off the board. Look at the work Karpov has does with UNICEF and how he worries about the iodine deficient children in the world.
Those type of moves will be memorable in my mind just as much as 1. e4.
Everybody seems to have forgotten about how powerful a player Tigran Petrosian was in his heyday.
Kramnik has never been the world champion!!
he only won a match against Kasparov
which himself was not the world chamion in the time!
Yes, its a mistake to include Kramnik among official champions.
To anonymous, “Fischer played terrible against certain lines of the Sicilian”. I totally disagree. Bobby Fischer revolutionized Sicilian play especially the cutting edge Najdorf. He probably had the greatest influence on the chess world with playing for the win with Black, either with Sicilian, Grunfeld, or KID. “Lets not forget the kings gambit”. Maybe you are talking about when Bobby was in his teen years, while I agree The French was not Bobby’s cup of tea, Fischer demonstrated a keen tactical and attacking play in almost every opening from Kings Indian Attack, English, occasional d4, to Caro Kahn, Nimzo Indian, and even the occasional e5 vs Ruy Lopez.
Kramnik was and is a World Champion. Kasparov’s secession from Fide made no difference as everybody accepted him as the World Champion at the time.
Kramnik is one of my favourites. His book of games is marvellous. Magnus Carlsen mentioned how impressed he was by it and how much he had learned from it.
Capablanca, Kasparov, Karpov…
Followed by the man who should have been champion if the world politics didn’t interfere. Paul Keres.
My favourites
The Polgars Sisters!(All 3 not one only,and not only for chess style for chess style,but because their philosophy and their system goes much much over chess.).I’m a “Polgarian mee too.!.
After them:
Geza Maroczy(Hungary)
Emanuel Lasker(Germany)
Michail Tal(Soviet Union)
Vassily Smyslov(Soviet Union)
Tigran Petrosjan(Soviet Union)
Anatoly Karpov(Soviet Union)
Alexiej Shirov(Spain,Lettonia)
Vassily Ivanciuk(Ukraine)
Vishwantan Anand(India)
Zoltan Almasi(Hungary)
Peter Leko(Hungary)
In my Opinion the Next will be(i’m sure about it) Krammnik,but i hope strongly in 2007 Judith Polgar
Women:I Have already told that the Polgar are my favourites,but here is my standings(without Polgar Sisters)
1st Alexandra Kosteniuk(Russia)
2nd Ildiko Madl(Hungary)
3rd Tatjana Konisteva(Russia)
4th Regina Pokorna(Slovakia)
5th Jana Jackova(Czech Republic)
6th Nikoleta Lakos(Hungary)
7th Antonaeta Stefanova(Bulgaria)
8th Kateryna Lahnno(Ukraine)
9th Xie Jun(China)
10th Humpry Koneru(India)
Kasparov, since he is the strongest player the world has seen.
Well, I think Alekhine, Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov, Morphy and maybe Botvinnik are the great ones of history.
-Alekhine defeat Capablanca, something all thinked was impossible.
-Capablanca was a gifted player and defeated everyone with little preparation.
-Fisher crushed his opponents and ended soviet reign in chess.
-Kasparov defeated Karpov and have a n excellent style.
-Morphy like Fischer, crushed his opponents and was unstoppable.
And I think maybe Botvinnik for his ways of preparation and study.
tfk, go to chessgames.com and type in “fischer sicilian” and click on fischer loses. there are many games from 60-71.
Now type in fischer kings gambit. click on fischer loses. (check the wins if you want, but those are against patzers).
repeat with the french…
When those many lesser names and tournament winners are forced into the list of world chess champions, the wcc title is cheapened and devalued.
History will rebuke this kind of bloated view of the wcc list.
Khalifman (and others) earned the title FIDE Champion. Me thinks that efforts to inflate it to the wcc title only besmirch the FIDE Champ title, by implying it is not enuf of an achievement, or that FIDE by itself has low prestige. Khalifman’s achievement was wonderful, and it should proudly stand for what it is instead of trying to pass itself off as something else.
Kramnik is currently the one world chess champ.
Gene_M
My favourites are Karpov, Steinitz, Capablanca and Mikhail Tal.
Karpov, Steinitz and Capablanca are good positional players. Some of their moves appear illogical at first, but further thinking reveals their ingenuity!
Mikhail Tal’s unexpected sacrifices and tactical play sweeps the carpet off his opponent’s feet, often in a surprising way.
Hello,
Indeed every world chess champion is of great interest but I have particular attachments for Kasparov and Petrosian. I’m also grateful for Tal who shown the world a new way to PLAY chess.
Paul…
going back to his analysis 🙂
Speaking about World Champion, you have to cut off Khalifman, Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov….they’re not World Champions!!!! You cannot compare Botvinnik with Kalifman! after Kasparov ther’s only Vladimir Kramnik
The World Chess Championship is dead. (Maybe it can be re-started like it was in 1948.)
There were just too many people working to kill it: from the Soviets to Campomanes to Kasparov to Short to Ilyumzhinov and his gang…
No proper WCC has been organized since the mid-’90s:
– FIDE’s KO-events were too random;
– the ‘classical’ WCC had no proper candidates cycles (except in the very beginning in 1993-95);
– an 8-player round robin (2005, 2007) is not the way to do it (because players other than those at the top of the table may influence the final result);
– 12-game matches like Kramnik-Topalov or Anand-Kramnik are just too short (Candidates finals used to be this short).
Without a proper qualification cycle and a long title match (at least 16 but preferably 20 games) it is worth nothing. Botvinnik, Tal and Petrosian must be turning in their graves…
Kasparov was the last ‘real’ champion (having gone through the interzonal and the candidates and winning long matches against Karpov). After him, Kramnik comes closest as he won in 2000, but as a challenger he was ‘hand-picked’ by the champ like they used to do it before World War 2.
Even Anand’s title is not worth as much as it should: just compare the crosstable of Mexico 2007 with that of The Hague-Moscow 1948, and compare Anand-Kramnik (6.5-4.5) with the long matches of the past (e.g. Tal-Botvinnik, 1960, or Kasparov-Karpov, 1986).