lichess.org
Donate

The 12 Best Chess Players of All Time

@ebk1976 said in #57:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, interesting perspective. As I listed these same strengths of Keres, I was basing my ranking more on how close a player was to the title, not how long. However, even based on that I could understand an argument in favor of Keres, as he was clearly an incredible player.

Your article is very interesting, and of course I have always found this discussion interesting. I understand the point, on which you base it, on players who have been close to the title.

So at this point, players like Schlecter, Kamski, Topalov, Karjakin, Nepomniatchi, should be in Taimanov's place.

Schlecter was one game away from being World Champion, and in fact if it hadn't been for the unfair rule of winning by a difference of 2 points, he would have been able to win, as it would have been enough for him to play to a draw in the last game instead of taking a risk to win.

Karjakin had a 1-point lead against Carlsen and was just short of an upset, and Nepomniatchi has played twice in the title match although it wasn't that close and Carlsen was actually far superior.

Kamski, for example, played matches against Karpov and Kasparov for the FIDE and PCA World Championship.

As for Ivanchuck, without disputing his great playing strength, he never came close to contesting the world title, because I don't consider the FIDE world title as the official one, the champion for the majority was still Kasparov who was the successor of Karpov and he in turn of Fischer.

FIDE world champions like Khalifman, Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov should not be considered world champions on the level of Kasparov, Karpov, Anand, Carlsen.

Although, for me, Topalov should also be mentioned as he came very close to winning the title in his match against Kramnik, and in fact during those two years (2005-2006) he proved to be the strongest player in the world. Although for me he was the only legitimate and fair FIDE World Champion, winning a very strong match-tournament for the title in 2005, the only absentee was Kramnik. Not to mention that he played another title match against Anand in 2010.

@ebk1976 said in #57: > Thanks for sharing your thoughts, interesting perspective. As I listed these same strengths of Keres, I was basing my ranking more on how close a player was to the title, not how long. However, even based on that I could understand an argument in favor of Keres, as he was clearly an incredible player. Your article is very interesting, and of course I have always found this discussion interesting. I understand the point, on which you base it, on players who have been close to the title. So at this point, players like Schlecter, Kamski, Topalov, Karjakin, Nepomniatchi, should be in Taimanov's place. Schlecter was one game away from being World Champion, and in fact if it hadn't been for the unfair rule of winning by a difference of 2 points, he would have been able to win, as it would have been enough for him to play to a draw in the last game instead of taking a risk to win. Karjakin had a 1-point lead against Carlsen and was just short of an upset, and Nepomniatchi has played twice in the title match although it wasn't that close and Carlsen was actually far superior. Kamski, for example, played matches against Karpov and Kasparov for the FIDE and PCA World Championship. As for Ivanchuck, without disputing his great playing strength, he never came close to contesting the world title, because I don't consider the FIDE world title as the official one, the champion for the majority was still Kasparov who was the successor of Karpov and he in turn of Fischer. FIDE world champions like Khalifman, Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov should not be considered world champions on the level of Kasparov, Karpov, Anand, Carlsen. Although, for me, Topalov should also be mentioned as he came very close to winning the title in his match against Kramnik, and in fact during those two years (2005-2006) he proved to be the strongest player in the world. Although for me he was the only legitimate and fair FIDE World Champion, winning a very strong match-tournament for the title in 2005, the only absentee was Kramnik. Not to mention that he played another title match against Anand in 2010.

I studied Rubinstein's Chess Masterpieces: 100 Selected Games, by Hans Kmoch, a couple of years ago. It gave me a wonderful appreciation for the genius of the man’s chess. Very entertaining, and equally instructive — especially in rook endgames, for which Akiba was/is renowned. If your study time is limited, and you want to get better at rook endgames (the most common ending), you should look at Rubi’s work. It won’t make you an expert, but you’ll gain a much better “feel” for them. (Same can be said for Capablanca, by the way. Chernev’s classic book on Capa’s best chess endings is great.)

I studied Rubinstein's Chess Masterpieces: 100 Selected Games, by Hans Kmoch, a couple of years ago. It gave me a wonderful appreciation for the genius of the man’s chess. Very entertaining, and equally instructive — especially in rook endgames, for which Akiba was/is renowned. If your study time is limited, and you want to get better at rook endgames (the most common ending), you should look at Rubi’s work. It won’t make you an expert, but you’ll gain a much better “feel” for them. (Same can be said for Capablanca, by the way. Chernev’s classic book on Capa’s best chess endings is great.)

Shirov must be on the list and also Akopian

Shirov must be on the list and also Akopian

@francisco2089 said in #73:

Shirov must be on the list and also Akopian

Akopian is not even close to being here.

@francisco2089 said in #73: > Shirov must be on the list and also Akopian Akopian is not even close to being here.

Harry Nelson Pillsbury doesn't like this list.

Harry Nelson Pillsbury doesn't like this list.

uhhhhh what about gukesh?

uhhhhh what about gukesh?

???????????????? this must be a joke
morphy charousek fischer capablanca

???????????????? this must be a joke morphy charousek fischer capablanca

@Tigerthinksbad
Yusupov only ever reached the semi-final of the candidates, never playing the World Championship match. His peak ranking at the height of his success was no. 3 in the world.
@Eric12340
There have obviously been issues with the world championship. On your point about women and men in the world championship, I fail to understand the point you are making. While in the past it has not been so, today women are free to compete in the open world championship, although of course they still face unique difficulties. Judit Polgar beat 11 world champions in classical or rapid, and played in the candidates tournament twice.
@NimzoFloridian
He was also a great player, with the Nimzo-Indian being one of the most important openings in chess.

@Tigerthinksbad Yusupov only ever reached the semi-final of the candidates, never playing the World Championship match. His peak ranking at the height of his success was no. 3 in the world. @Eric12340 There have obviously been issues with the world championship. On your point about women and men in the world championship, I fail to understand the point you are making. While in the past it has not been so, today women are free to compete in the open world championship, although of course they still face unique difficulties. Judit Polgar beat 11 world champions in classical or rapid, and played in the candidates tournament twice. @NimzoFloridian He was also a great player, with the Nimzo-Indian being one of the most important openings in chess.

@VirtualCoach
Portisch and Geller were also incredible players. I believe it is important to factor in Taimanovs opening work, influence on future generations, and longevity as well.
@PCharlesMorphy
Good points, although the legitimacy of the FIDE Woorld championship could be argued about. While I said earlier I considered how close one was to the title, that was an incomplete statement. I also weighed overall strength, longevity, shaping of the culture, shaping of the chess world, etc.
While all the players you listed could be on this list, it is with Schlecter that I believe I probably should have included him on this list.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment!

@VirtualCoach Portisch and Geller were also incredible players. I believe it is important to factor in Taimanovs opening work, influence on future generations, and longevity as well. @PCharlesMorphy Good points, although the legitimacy of the FIDE Woorld championship could be argued about. While I said earlier I considered how close one was to the title, that was an incomplete statement. I also weighed overall strength, longevity, shaping of the culture, shaping of the chess world, etc. While all the players you listed could be on this list, it is with Schlecter that I believe I probably should have included him on this list. Thanks for the thoughtful comment!