Best Player- Never World Champ.
Sort:
I agree with many of the previously mentioned candidates being very worthy of consideration, such as Keres, Korchnoi, and Bronstein especially. And Bronstein did tie the World Champion. Another who did so deserves mention. Probably much stronger than generally given credit for: Carl Schlecter. There were also a couple of contenders who tied with Keres in the WC tournament ... Reuben Fine and Kashdan. And perhaps Reshevsky should get some consideration. Maybe Gata Kamsky. Some players that tend to be overlooked, but won multiple US championships: Walter Browne & Larry Evans. And if we mentions Pillsbury (who is among my favorite two or three players) then must also mention Frank J Marshall, considering his plus record vs Pillsbury and being a US Champ as well.
Why didn't you fit all four of your comments in one comment????
To SMARTATTACK re your comment on Khalifman ... while he was not a long term Champion, it is hard to say he was not strong. Perhaps more inconsistent. For sometime Sophia Polgar held the record Performance Rating for a single tournament, when she won in Rome, being over 2900. However, Khalifman later topped that with a performance rating over 3000. Sorry I cannot recall the event right now.
Someone mentioned Stein. I have heard that said before, that he should be considered for this, and was Soviet Champ a number of times. That does seem to be a strong point to make for him.
- Rubinstein
- Korchnoi
- Pillsbury
- Keres
No
1. korchnoi
2. Keres
3. Rubinstein
4. Pillsbury
ericmittens wrote: Anand.
But Anand is world champ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship
"The most recent championship was the World Chess Championship 2007, won by Viswanathan Anand."
I will admit to a great fondness for both Rubinstein and Korchnoi. I don't know if I'm qualified to pick the best, but those two guys turn me on.
Magnus Carlsen
bobobbob wrote: ericmittens wrote: Anand.
Those tournament championships don't count.
But Anand is world champ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship
"The most recent championship was the World Chess Championship 2007, won by Viswanathan Anand."Those tournament championships don't count.
ericmittens wrote: bobobbob wrote: ericmittens wrote: Anand.
Those tournament championships don't count.
But Anand is world champ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship
"The most recent championship was the World Chess Championship 2007, won by Viswanathan Anand."Those tournament championships don't count.
I also tend to be very sceptical of "world champs" that have gotten the title through the recent fide tournies, such as Khalifman and Kazim. However in Anands case I recognize him as he is also the highest rated player in the world AND has been in the top 3 or 4 for decades now AND has a plus record against Kramnik who he is playing in October for the "world championship". If you dont recognize Anand then who do you recognize as the current World Champion ?
i think we have to omit anand and carlsen from consideration, because they still have the ability to become world champ. anyway, anand is champ, and he won outright, ericmittens.
I think this thread was meant to be about great players who never attained that title, like keres and korchnoi who will NEVER become world champions, because it's physically impossible. In that case, poor Paul Keres is the greatest. I think if the timing had been in his favor, he would have definetely reigned as Champion
dustbowler wrote:
i think we have to omit anand and carlsen from consideration, because they still have the ability to become world champ. anyway, anand is champ, and he won outright, ericmittens.
I think this thread was meant to be about great players who never attained that title, like keres and korchnoi who will NEVER become world champions, because it's physically impossible. In that case, poor Paul Keres is the greatest. I think if the timing had been in his favor, he would have definetely reigned as Champion
Yaaaa..............NO!
Sammy Reshevsky...He did well enough in tournaments but he did not lose matches. Unfortuneately he never made the cut.
Reb wrote: ericmittens wrote: bobobbob wrote: ericmittens wrote: Anand.
Those tournament championships don't count.
But Anand is world champ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship
"The most recent championship was the World Chess Championship 2007, won by Viswanathan Anand."Those tournament championships don't count.
I also tend to be very sceptical of "world champs" that have gotten the title through the recent fide tournies, such as Khalifman and Kazim. However in Anands case I recognize him as he is also the highest rated player in the world AND has been in the top 3 or 4 for decades now AND has a plus record against Kramnik who he is playing in October for the "world championship". If you dont recognize Anand then who do you recognize as the current World Champion ?
Kramnik is the champ until someone beats him in a match. I'm not interested in tournaments deciding world champions. Especially when the top players (anand, kramnik) draw in all their games. That tournament (mexico) came down to who caught morozevich and leko on one of their good/bad days. This is no way to decide a world champion.
Gata Kamsky
Gary Lane
ericmittens wrote:
Kramnik is the champ until someone beats him in a match. I'm not interested in tournaments deciding world champions. Especially when the top players (anand, kramnik) draw in all their games. That tournament (mexico) came down to who caught morozevich and leko on one of their good/bad days. This is no way to decide a world champion.
FIDE is free to devise whatever means it wants to hang the title "World Chess Champion" on someone. They could, for example, take a bunch of chimps, see which one could throw the pieces the farthest, and call him or her --girl chimps can hurl pretty well too -- the champion. The issue is not whether Kramnik is the champion -- Anand is because FIDE says so. The issue is whether the chess community feels like the FIDE title means something. Since Anand is also the highest ranked player in the world -- as was mentioned -- there's not a lot of room to complain that someone else "deserves" the title more. That was not the case when the title was being pinned on players who were nowhere near the top.
I've seen a quote from Mr. Kasparov to the effect that he regrets breaking with FIDE in 1993 precisely because of the mess that ensued. It's really ironic that 15 years later we still have an ad hoc system cooked up to decide who gets to be called "champion."
Rubinshtein lost his mind, finally... As a Morphy!
Nimsowich was been more the theoretic, than the practicer.
Bronshtein was forced to lost his game, and drawn mach, by Soviets!
Keres was forced a lot, too... Are you remember, that he lost Botvinnik: 4-1! at 1946, and he steel be at 2 place! But not alloved to be at 1!..