Greatest English Chess Players

[Joshua Gibbs]

I am only including English-born players in my list.

So my ten (with a tentative ranking) would be:
1. Nigel Short (only English player to play a match for the world championship; only player other than Kasparov to defeat the mature Karpov in a match);
2. Michael Adams (multiple Candidate and final of a knockout world championship);
3, Joseph Henry Blackburne (I have to be partisan and he had the best tournament record by far of any English player until the 1970s);
4. Tony Miles (because he made the breakthrough to GM in the modern era, showing the way for others);
5. Jonathan Penrose (our greatest amateur player at a time when English international achievements were otherwise largely a desert);
6. Jon Speelman (multiple Candidate and other performances, creative style, good track record as writer);
7. Howard Staunton (somewhat reluctantly included because of the hyperbole about him);
8. Amos Burn (winner of Cologne 1898 etc.);
9. John Nunn (partly for his writings and analytical work; here Stean and Sadler also score but John's work is also much more voluminous without compromising quality);
10. Michael Stean (I am maybe copping out here but his "Simple Chess" swings it for me).

Where is Luke Macshane? he is an awesome player, beter than all of 3-10 in my opinion.

[Roger de Coverly]

He has a sound methodology and is constantly working on improving the evidence on which his calculations are based.

What I don't think anyone has done is to assume an Elo methodology was available in 1851 in time for the London tournament and then taken it from there, using rules if not from the present day, then the 1970s. Once you get to the 1970s, the system can be calibrated against the actual achieved ratings. As with the current International system, players would have to play a minimum number of games to get a rating. The mathematical and statistical justification for such a system is no worse or no better than Elo's. Fischer and the top players of the 1960s would be the anchors, so that everyone's relative results and thus inferred strength would be measured relative to them.

[MartinCarpenter]

Where is Luke Macshane? he is an awesome player, beter than all of 3-10 in my opinion.

Presumably absent due to having turned amateur before he could really achieve enough concrete things to get into the list. Vastly talented of course, but I don't know if he's ever even hit UK No1, and he might never do so now. See also Sadler in many ways.

Actually, looking at Tim's list its more than playing strength, and turning amateur would logically result in an active 'points' deduction.
(Although it is of course a hugely logical thing for them to have done!).

[Jonathan Bryant]

Where is Luke Macshane? he is an awesome player, beter than all of 3-10 in my opinion.

Presumably absent due to having turned amateur before he could really achieve enough concrete things ...

Actually, looking at Tim's list its more than playing strength ....

Yup. I think we all recognise McShane is super strong. And he would leather just about everybody on the list even when they were at their best if we could magic them together for a match. I wonder if at his peak he would have taken down 1993 vintage Short, even.

Joey was quite right earlier. A lot of the older guys played some shocking chess. Have a look at Burn botching this rook and pawn v rook defence against Salwe for example

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1036054

He got a draw in the end it seems, but only because Salwe botched it too.


The point is if you just use 'objective playing strength' as the criteria then coming up with a top 10 ever becomes a very uninteresting puzzle. Standards improve over time so you end up with just he most recent guys.

The only sensible - and very reasonable - way is to compare the contenders’ achievements against their contemporaries. Burn might have been ordinary by or standards but it was a different story in his own. He, needless to say, didn’t have the advantage of learning rook endings by seeing Dvoretsky point out the mistakes in Salwe - Burn, after all.


For what it’s worth I suspect Luke would have become England #1 for a fair few years had he stuck with chess. But he didn’t so we’ll never know. A shame from our point of view, but it’s easier to turn down high-paying city jobs of other people than for yourself, I imagine.

[MJMcCready]

Where is Luke Macshane? he is an awesome player, beter than all of 3-10 in my opinion.

Presumably absent due to having turned amateur before he could really achieve enough concrete things to get into the list. Vastly talented of course, but I don't know if he's ever even hit UK No1, and he might never do so now. See also Sadler in many ways.

Actually, looking at Tim's list its more than playing strength, and turning amateur would logically result in an active 'points' deduction.
(Although it is of course a hugely logical thing for them to have done!).

He did overtake Adams on the rating list for a brief while about 2 years ago but only by 20 points or so.

Surprised that Yates hasn't appeared on the list so far.

[MJMcCready]

I suppose Mir Sultan Khan is ruled out even though he was a former champion?

[JustinHorton]

Both Yates and Sultan Khan are discussed upthread

[MJMcCready]

oops... .

[Joshua Gibbs]

Yup. I think we all recognise McShane is super strong. And he would leather just about everybody on the list even when they were at their best if we could magic them together for a match. I wonder if at his peak he would have taken down 1993 vintage Short, even.

If everyone realises it why isn't he on the list?

[Jonathan Bryant]

Yup. I think we all recognise McShane is super strong. And he would leather just about everybody on the list even when they were at their best if we could magic them together for a match. I wonder if at his peak he would have taken down 1993 vintage Short, even.

If everyone realises it why isn't he on the list?

Well, you could read the rest of my post for an answer to that.

[Joey Stewart]

Luke Mcshane is a worthy candidate, and it would not be unjustified for anybody to include his name on one of these lists - I think because he is not a full time professional he might be perceived to not be making the most of his talent, but the results he has achieved definitely mark him out as one of the best in the world right now.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... the results he has achieved definitely mark him out as one of the best in the world right now.

Which particular results do you have in mind?

[Joey Stewart]

He has beaten magnus carlsen and vladimir kramnik, both world champions, which is worth a lot. And he won a world junior championships of some sort - people were saying that as one of tony miles great accomplishments and a reason to put him highter

[NickFaulks]

... the results he has achieved definitely mark him out as one of the best in the world right now.

Which particular results do you have in mind?

I was wondering that, perhaps it's the "right now" that tripped me up. I'm a huge McShane fan, but you can't get world class results if you don't play.

[Roger de Coverly]

And he won a world junior championships of some sort

It was the under 10s in 1992, whilst Tony's was in the Under 20.

Luke had class opposition though with the benefit of hindsight. It included Bacrot, Ganguly, Aronian, Grishuk and Vallejo Pons.