Top 10 Chessplayers of all time

[JamesMurphy]

I've written a blog post on the top 10 chess players of all time with games and annotations.

http://www.jmblogger.com/wordpress/2010 ... -all-time/

Enjoy... I hope to write more articles so if you like this and have any other suggestions let me know.

[Ben Purton]

The fact you think Carlsen already makes top 10 ahead of say anand

Is a really poor 10th choice. No doubt he has potential to be in top 3 now... maybe even 1 in 20 years.

But youve put his current achievements over the lifetime achievements of anand,topalov,spassky and maybe most of all Lasker and Stein(no sed on this computer- so sed).

Personally carlsen wouldnt make my current top 20 of all time. To me Ivanchuk for example has more claims on an all time list currently. He had probaly the best record V your number 1 selection. Including many big catagory wins throughout the late 80's and 90's.

Ben

[JamesMurphy]

Why did I put Carlsen in at 10? A number of reasons really. 1) He's probably the only young player since the likes of Kasparov that the chess generation can be excited about. 2) I personally believe that he marks the era of a new generation of players brought up on playing strong chess computers from a young age. 3) It's controversial and will hopefully spark debate and discussion which can only be a good thing and was the whole purpose of the post.

Everyone here is entitled to their own opinion regarding who they believe is their top 10 players. I'm clearly missing off the likes of as you say "Ivanchuk, Anand and Kramnik" not to mention, Keres, Larsen, Smyslov, Steinitz, Tarrasch, Philidor, Petrosian to name very few. You can of course name any 10 you want. It's up to you to justify in your mind why and that's what you have done. Mission accomplished!

[Matt Mackenzie]

So James - it is clear that you are a Fischer fan, 'cos you don't include Lasker in your 10

Was WC for a quarter of a century, had what still rank as some of the most amazing achievements EVER by an older player, superb endgame player (as acknowledged by no less than Capa himself) notable writer, analyst and theoretician - and all this despite very much having a non-chess "hinterland" and taking lengthy breaks from actual play.........

What's not to like??

Nimzovich WAS one of the most prominent theoreticians and writers ever - but a top 10 *player*?? No way. Most of the greats of that era slapped him around pretty mercilessly, if truth be told.

Tal would miss the cut too, even if only just in this case. His scores against several other leading players were poor, even taking into account the mitigating factors of his struggles against ill health etc etc......

Carlsen *will* be top ten soon, if not top 3 - but it is presumptious to include him just yet methinks!

My top ten then?? Something like.........

1) Kasparov
2) Fischer - agree with your top two, at any rate
3) Lasker
4) Morphy - simply for being so far ahead of his contemporaries it was embarrassing.....
5) Capablanca
6) Botvinnik
7) Alekhine
8 ) Karpov (would have rated higher a few years back, but he hasn't aged that well)
9) Philidor - see Morphy, only more so
10) Keres - THE best modern player never to become WC, without much doubt. One of the great "what ifs" is how things might have turned out if he had managed to escape with his family to Sweden, as he very nearly did in the 1940s

Bubbling under - Tal, Smyslov, Petrosian, Rubinstein, Korchnoi, Anand, Kramnik, Schlecter in particular......

Comments, anyone??

[Paul McKeown]

1) Kasparov
2) Fischer - agree with your top two, at any rate
3) Lasker
4) Morphy - simply for being so far ahead of his contemporaries it was embarrassing.....
5) Capablanca
6) Botvinnik
7) Alekhine
8 ) Karpov (would have rated higher a few years back, but he hasn't aged that well)
9) Philidor - see Morphy, only more so
10) Keres - THE best modern player never to become WC, without much doubt. One of the great "what ifs" is how things might have turned out if he had managed to escape with his family to Sweden, as he very nearly did in the 1940s

Seems like a good list, not sure about 10, though. I would suggest Steinitz, and I feel that Kortchnoi merits a higher placing than Keres, having directly fought for the WCh and for having played at GM level for longer than anyone else in history. If you're looking for the best of the rest, I would add Pillsbury, Tarrasch, Rubinstein, Fine, Reshevsky, Bronstein, Geller and Stein to the list.

I would perhaps re-order slightly to place Philidor above Morphy, because he really was head, shoulders, body and bo**ocks above the rest, a titan. Wrote the most influential books about chess in all of its history, invented the theory of so many key endgames (e.g. KRB -v- KR for one).

So my list is:
1. Philidor
2. Kasparov
3. Fischer
4. Lasker
5. Morphy
6. Capablanca
7. Botvinnik
8. Alekhine
9. Karpov
10. Steinitz

Best Regards,
Paul McKeown

[Ben Purton]

Stanley Matthews, George Best, Bobby Charlton......


One of these arguments you have in the pub usually. Because its doubtful any of these 3 would have the physical fitness to be a premiership star, if anything the fitness difference would be so big they would be unnoticed possibly.

BUT , they were greats and dominated there era....Lasker on this logic is a top 5 player without a doubt.

I do not think "potential" should be included in a great list. You have to take every current player on the logic of, "if they quit tomorrow would they make top 10".

Anand to me would be considered for top 10, as well as Kramnik on the grounds that they are great great players. Like Exotic dancer the horse, he would have won 1-2 gold cups , king georges, if he had not been in the same era as Kauto Star and Denman.

If I had to pick one player of those two, it would be Kramnik. He beat Kasparov in London. The only man to do so in such conditions.

Therefore if Kasparov is number one? Then surely Kramnik makes the top 10 for that feat alone.

Ben

[Paul McKeown]

Ben,

Yes, one of the eternal verities of this barroom favourite. I think my list is compiled with an eye to their all round impact on chess. By that measure Philidor stands head and shoulders above everyone, even Kasparov. And I'm starting to think that I should placed Steinitz much higher. Kasparov refined where Philidor invented.

Regards,
Paul.

[Arshad Ali]

Comments, anyone??

I don't see the point of these classifications. Disagreement is inevitable. For instance I might not place Fischer so high because he didn't make enough of a sustained contribution to the game (as he cut his career short after winning the WC). And regardless of how a serious player rates, say, Rubinstein or Keres, at some stage in his life he is going to study their games carefully. I would certainly not place, say, Nezhmetdinov in any top ten list but his attacking games I find intensely attractive and they add dimension to my understanding of the game. The point is that all such lists direct the spotlight to certain players while leaving others relatively neglected. Maybe the point of these classifications is to provide material for arguments over a pint.

[Ben Purton]

The thing I liked about innovation of chess by Kasparov.

Is everytime he got a line busted, he came back with more and more and more.

That is why every list should have him at number one.

"A snake with a thousand eyes?" I believe was a Tony Miles quote in his 5.5-0.5 loss to him.

Ben

[Paul McKeown]

I don't see the point of these classifications. Disagreement is inevitable. Maybe the point of these classifications is to provide material for arguments over a pint.

Yes. It makes as much sense, really, as asking who was the better geometer, Einstein or Pythagoras. An argument best held after several pints of Old Longwater, or whatever!

[Arshad Ali]

Yes. It makes as much sense, really, as asking who was the better geometer, Einstein or Pythagoras. An argument best held after several pints of Old Longwater, or whatever!

Every player has his favorites. I got hold of Levy's book on Gligoric in the mid-70s and Kmoch's book on Rubinstein a little later. So Gligoric and Rubinstein are among my favorites and shaped my style (to the extent I have one). But I wouldn't place them in any top ten list -- but then again I wouldn't bother making such a list in the first place.

If I had to make a list of favorites (rather than "best" players), mine would include Rubinstein, Capabalanca, Flohr, Smyslov, Karpov, Ulf Andersson. Players whose games I can understand (though of course there are things happening beneath the surface), and whose style tends towards positional play and endgame technique.

[JamesMurphy]

Ahhh a debate has begun... Good!

So James - it is clear that you are a Fischer fan, 'cos you don't include Lasker in your 10

Yes I'm a big Fischer fan. I put him in my top 10 for the pure reason of his unbelievable chess performances at the height of his career. Let's not forget Fischer was the only player to win the US championship with a perfect score of 11-0 no mean feat. After studying many master's games I was more mesmorised and enamoured by the moves of Fischer and Tal than any other player; probably because they were both particularly sharp, but then other more positional players may prefer the likes of Korchnoi or Smyslov - fair enough both exceptional players too.

Lasker would definitely make my top 20...

As far as other criticisms go this list is a definition of "top" chessplayers please note I didn't say "best". By top I'm using other factors besides playing strength, innovation, influence on theory/modern play and . You've all made very good suggestions for other players that could have made it. The unfortunate problem is we can only pick 10!

[IanDavis]

Of the all the possible top ten chess lists you could desire, why ever do people keep on picking this stale one?

La Bourdonnais
Morphy
Capablanca
Alekhine
Reshevsky
Botvinnik
Petrosian
Fischer
Karpov
Kasparov

[Joey Stewart]

It seems that being dead is quite an important factor for getting ones self onto this list - there are plenty of contemporary grand masters worthy of a place.

If you were skilled in the dark arts of necromancy and were able to bring back all those former champions and made them all play in a big tournament, I bet most modern 2700s would give them a good hiding.