Main
Date: 04 Feb 2009 11:52:53
From: Offramp
Subject: Unusual "All time top 10"s
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html#5986
The January-February 1964 issue of Chessworld has an article "The 10
Greatest masters in Chess History". They are:
Staunton
Morphy
Steinitz
Chigorin
Tarrasch
Capablanca
Alekhine
Reshevsky
Spassky
Tal
I do not know who in their right minds puts Staunton on any all-time
list - just thinking about any of his games sends me to sleep.
There also seems to be a deliberate slight against Petrosian, His
nearest rival is there, but not Tigran himself.
I also wonder what else Lasker is supposed to do to be considerate an
all time great master. Perhaps he should have learned to reassemble
collapsed Zeppelins while playing in tournaments.

Does anyone know who wrote the article?




 
Date: 04 Feb 2009 11:55:09
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Unusual "All time top 10"s
On Feb 4, 7:52=A0pm, Offramp <alaneobr...@gmail.com > wrote:
> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html#5986
> The January-February 1964 issue of Chessworld has an article "The 10
> Greatest masters in Chess History". They are:
> Staunton
> Morphy
> Steinitz
> Chigorin
> Tarrasch
> Capablanca
> Alekhine
> Reshevsky
> Spassky
> Tal
> I do not know who in their right minds puts Staunton on any all-time
> list - just thinking about any of his games sends me to sleep.
> There also seems to be a deliberate slight against Petrosian, His
> nearest rival is there, but not Tigran himself.
> I also wonder what else Lasker is supposed to do to be considerate an
> all time great master. Perhaps he should have learned to reassemble
> collapsed Zeppelins while playing in tournaments.
>
> Does anyone know who wrote the article?

Gah! I now see it is by Bobby Fischer! The article was famous at the
time for omitting Botvinnik! I thought it was a magazine filler!


  
Date: 04 Feb 2009 21:20:07
From: Marlon
Subject: Re: Unusual "All time top 10"s
He forgot Smyslov and Petrosian too. :)

>Gah! I now see it is by Bobby Fischer! The article was famous at the
>time for omitting Botvinnik! I thought it was a magazine filler!




 
Date: 04 Feb 2009 15:22:16
From: parrthenon@cs.com
Subject: Re: Unusual "All time top 10"s
FISCHER=92S 10 BEST LIST

Bobby=92s opinions about the game have provoked as much controversy as
his exploits over the board. For example, the brouhaha occasioned by
his selection of Morphy, Staunton, Steinitz, Tarrasch, Tchigorin,
Alekhine, Capablanca, Spassky, Tal and Reshevsky as the ten greatest
chess players of all time. This list appeared in the first issue of
the now defunct Chessworld which noted:

"In naming the ten greatest masters in the history of chess, Bobby
(who, in the editor=92s opinion, belongs in the list himself) gives
decisive significance to the quality of their play, not to their
successes and results. This may explain the exclusion from
the list of such players as Lasker, Botvinnik, and others."

That Bobby considered Staunton, for example, as stronger than either
Lasker or Botvinnik, was curious indeed. He justified his choice
saying, "Just because a man was champion for many years doesn=92t mean
that he was a great chessplayer, just as we wouldn=92t necessarily call
a ruler of a country great just because he was in power for a long
time."

A thundering rebuke from the veteran Edward Lasker (not to be confused
with Emanuel, in whose defense he wrote) appeared in the following
issue:

"Fischer has a lot of growing up to do before he can create works of
art like the Ruy Lopez Lasker won from Capablanca (at St. Petersburg
1914) or the game he played with the Black pieces against Alekhine=92s
Queen=92s Gambit in New York 1924. Even Alekhine himself willingly
admitted that in the course of two decades, beginning with the victory
over Steinitz, Lasker had no equal in the art of the endgame...I
predict that, despite his youth, which gives him a tremendous
advantage, Fischer will
never become World Champion."

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 35)



Marlon wrote:
> He forgot Smyslov and Petrosian too. :)
>
> >Gah! I now see it is by Bobby Fischer! The article was famous at the
> >time for omitting Botvinnik! I thought it was a magazine filler!


 
Date: 04 Feb 2009 12:14:44
From:
Subject: Re: Unusual "All time top 10"s
On Feb 4, 2:55=A0pm, Offramp <alaneobr...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 7:52=A0pm, Offramp <alaneobr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html#5986
> > The January-February 1964 issue of Chessworld has an article "The 10
> > Greatest masters in Chess History". They are:
> > Staunton
> > Morphy
> > Steinitz
> > Chigorin
> > Tarrasch
> > Capablanca
> > Alekhine
> > Reshevsky
> > Spassky
> > Tal
> > I do not know who in their right minds puts Staunton on any all-time
> > list - just thinking about any of his games sends me to sleep.

Morphy agreed with you.

> > There also seems to be a deliberate slight against Petrosian, His
> > nearest rival is there, but not Tigran himself.
> > I also wonder what else Lasker is supposed to do to be considerate an
> > all time great master. Perhaps he should have learned to reassemble
> > collapsed Zeppelins while playing in tournaments.
>
> > Does anyone know who wrote the article?
>
> Gah! I now see it is by Bobby Fischer! The article was famous at the
> time for omitting Botvinnik! I thought it was a magazine filler!

Yes, this is the famous Fischer article in the short-lived magazine
Chessworld. I don't think he thought the article through all that
well. Around that time he called Lasker "a coffeehouse player," but
somehow neglected the fact that Lasker was demonstrably superior to
Tarrasch, whom Fischer did put in his top 10. Some years later he
recanted and acknowledged Lasker's greatness.
I don't know why he omitted Botvinnik; perhaps out of anti-Soviet
prejudice. And the inclusion of Spassky seems a bit premature for
1964.
Supposedly Fischer's standard was not necessarily competitive
achievement, but a mysterious "quality." He seemed to consider
Tarrasch's games of a "higher quality" than Lasker's, despite the fact
that Lasker won more often, including a lifetime +18 -5 =3D8 edge over
Tarrasch.