17 Oct 07
I once found a British Chess Magazine from 1972 in the cupboard of my chess club (maybe DragonFire or Tapestry can see if it is still there!) which had a picture of Leonid Stein on the front with the caption "The Next World Champion?". I'd never heard of him before and I later discovered that he died of a heart attack a year later. I don't think he would have quite made it to World Champion anyway because of course Karpov was on the rise then and probably would have beaten him (or anyone else) by 1975.
Stein's games are worth looking at though:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=20234
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by Fat LadyThe question asked for the greatest player who was never world champion. That immediately excludes Capablanca, Alekhine and Lasker. They were world champions so it is no surprise that they were stronger than someone who never was! On the other hand, Reti beat them all at various times, contributed a great deal to the theory and literature of chess and played some very pretty games. We don't know what he might have achieved (not world champion probably) due to his early death. For me he is one of the greats, maybe the greatest who never became world champion. Pillsbury is certainly another candidate.
That's an interesting choice, I never really thought of him as being a possible World Championship candidate, Capablanca, Alekhine and Lasker were much better than him for just about his entire career and I'd rate Rubinstein as a better player as well.
How about Harry Pillsbury, he doesn't seem to get talked about much nowadays (maybe it's different in America), but I reckon he would have been World Champion for years if it wasn't for Lasker.
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by KeplerYes, but if there are three or four active players clearly better than someone, then I think it is difficult to make a case that that player was the greatest never to become World Champion. It is a good point about his contributions to theory, though personally I hold actual playing ability in my greater esteem.
The question asked for the greatest player who was never world champion. That immediately excludes Capablanca, Alekhine and Lasker. They were world champions so it is no surprise that they were stronger than someone who never was! On the other hand, Reti beat them all at various times, contributed a great deal to the theory and literature of chess and played ...[text shortened]... , maybe the greatest who never became world champion. Pillsbury is certainly another candidate.
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by Kunsoono Keres never won it, and he is regarded as the greatest to never win it...
Uh, problem is that Tal was champion. Keres too I think.
the only thing that would make him the incorrect answer would be the 'living' part, and I'm pretty sure that Keres has passed...
making him the correct winner.
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by IchibanovTrue, and from what I've read Morphy was regarded as the unofficial world champion of his day. The point is that he wasn't an official world champion, but his play was so far above that of his contemporaries that he was nearly godlike. To me that is the measure of greatness, how strong a player is relative to his contemporaries. This is because it balances out the fact that players from years ago did not have access to the same advances in theory as today's top GM's.
I'd agree with Morphy, but I don't think there was an 'official' world champion that far back. Post-Steinitz, I'm thinking Korchnoi and Keres. Reshevsky might be another possibility.
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by IDAVIDRubinstein or maybe Bronstein.
Although some will say that this is a "point-of-view" type of a question, there is an answer that is universally considered correct by most chess experts. (including myself teehee:>😉
Ok, here we go:
Who was (no longer alive) the greatest player never to win the World Championship?
Who will win Davy Jones chess Challenge part 1!?
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by Maxwell SmartElements of a world chess champion:
To me that is the measure of greatness, how strong a player is relative to his contemporaries. This is because it balances out the fact that players from years ago did not have access to the same advances in theory as today's top GM's.
Dominance; a champion is clearly stronger than his peers.
Creativity; Regardless of the champion’s style of chess, when the champion had to win or wanted to win, the champion could elevate his level of play. To do so requires obviously skill but also creativity.
Charisma Either (1) egotistical eccentric or (2) diplomatic.
A full head of hair. This is why Korchnoi could not win the World Championship title from Karpov; also Kasparov lost his title to Kramnik due to his receding hairline. 😉 Seriously, have you ever seen a picture of a world chess champion without a full head of hair?