 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsAnalysisComputerChess Politics ChessKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Chess Forum / General Topics / March 2010Who are the Greats?
Who are the 30 best chess players of all time? f.ck knows. I would have the World Champions plus: Reshevsky Larsen Rubinstein Schlechter Short Chigorin Zuckertort Mason Pillsbury Marshall Junge Keres Kortschnoi Tarrasch and Bogoljuboff Topolov and the young fe-nom- Carslen. > Topolov and the young fe-nom- Carslen. Don't forget Innes, Sloan, and Kingston. What list would be complete without their inclusion. > > Topolov and the young fe-nom- Carslen. > > Don't forget Innes, Sloan, and Kingston. What list would be complete > without their inclusion. Mr Kingston doesn't make claims to greatness. However, we should include the Nearly an IM 2450 Innes. > Who are the 30 best chess players of all time? > f.ck knows. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and > Bogoljuboff Leaving aside current players and pre-Steinitz players, the most obvious alternatives are probably Bronstein and Fine. Various others could get in the list - Nimzowitsch, Geller, Reti, Stein... Of the 15 above, Keres, Korchnoi, Reshevsky, Rubinstein and Tarrasch would probably get into most people's lists. > Who are the 30 best chess players of all time? > I would have the World Champions Are you including only "classic champions," i.e. those who won the title in match play, or also winners of those FIDE free-for-alls: Khalifman, Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov, Topalov? > plus: > Reshevsky No argument there. > Larsen > Rubinstein > Schlechter A bit high for these three, perhaps. > Short A good candidate. Certainly top 50 at least. > Chigorin > Zuckertort Again too high, IMO. > Mason A highly debatable choice. Talented, no doubt, but undisciplined and alcoholic. > Pillsbury > Marshall Can't agree, especially on Marshall. Certainly in the top 75 or 100, but top 30? > Junge Eh? He didn't live long enough to accomplish much. He did co-win (with Alekhine) one important tournament, Prague 1942, but died at age 21 in the closing weeks of WW II. > Keres > Kortschnoi Strongly second the motion. > Tarrasch > and > Bogoljuboff Arguably not in the top 30, but I won't belabor it. Some major omissions, IMO: Bronstein, Geller, Stein, Timman, Polugaevsky, Boleslavsky, Portisch. Also perhaps Ivanchuk, Gelfand, Hübner and Averbakh. Others perhaps not in the top 30 but still better than many of the above: Fine, Kholmov, Gligoric, Taimanov, Kotov, Yusupov, Ribli, Andersson, Vaganian, Hort, Najdorf, Nimzovich. Oh, and where is Morphy? On Mar 10, 5:47 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Mason > > A highly debatable choice. Talented, no doubt, but undisciplined and > alcoholic. I guess that's why we don't see Alexhine's name on this list. > On Mar 10, 5:47 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I guess that's why we don't see Alexhine's name on this list. We don't? Offramp said he was including all the World Champions, and last I checked, Alekhine was a World Champion. On Mar 11, 10:43 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Mar 10, 5:47 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > We don't? Offramp said he was including all the World Champions, and > last I checked, Alekhine was a World Champion. Ah the parser strikes again. > > Mason > > > > A highly debatable choice. Talented, no doubt, but undisciplined and > > > alcoholic. I guess then we shouldn't see Alexhine's name on this list. How's that? I'm suggesting, based on your logic, that Alekhine should not be included even though he was a world champion. What about cigar smokers? They set a bad example too. Shall we drop Lasker? > On Mar 11, 10:43 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Ah the parser strikes again. No, merely noting your obvious mistake. > > > Mason > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > How's that? I'm suggesting, based on your logic, that Alekhine should > not be included even though he was a world champion. You are fallaciously distorting a specific objection into a general rule. You would have a point if Alekhine had done no better than Mason as a chess player, but he clearly did much better, in no small part because, unlike Mason, he was very disciplined. Furthermore, Alekhine seldom if ever was drunk during important games, while Mason sometimes played so plastered he practically passed out at the board, as you can read here: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6168 Furthermore, when it comes to alcoholic indulgence and lack of discipline, Tal was probably worse than two Masons, but one can hardly exclude him from the top 30. > What about cigar > smokers? They set a bad example too. They do? (Bill Clinton notwithstanding) > Shall we drop Lasker? From what height? > On Mar 11, 10:43 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Ah the parser strikes again. . No ! you flat fell into that one Schmo, why not be a man & move on ? I mean, it's not as if it's Taylor's fault you happen to be an ill-educated & petulant boor ... > I guess then we shouldn't see Alexhine's name on this list. > > How's that? I'm suggesting, based on your logic, that Alekhine should > not be included even though he was a world champion. What about cigar > smokers? They set a bad example too. Shall we drop Lasker? Logic ? pls. spare us your fatuous squirmings - y'know, talking to yourself is usually the onset of something dire ..... m. > > On Mar 11, 10:43 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Us? Are you pregnant? Got a mouse in your pocket? Crack open another beer and go watch the telly . > > Logic ? pls. spare us your fatuous squirmings - y'know, talking to > > yourself is usually the onset of something dire ..... . > Us? Are you pregnant? Got a mouse in your pocket? Crack open another > beer and go watch the telly Yes "us" often used in place of the more verbose "everyone else other than thou" .. I'm not "pregnant" but am feeling a little 'creative' & suggest you not start me up to get me started ... Got a hole in yours then - how'd that get there - mmmm ? Actually, I'm polishing off some noyce pinot-noir @ the mo' & I shall be watching some TV later - but your "crack open another" & "telly" diction is just sooo vulgar, ugly & essex-man ! I bet you're the sort of slob that has krust round the rim of your ketchup bottle .. m. > Who are the 30 best chess players of all time? FWIW - "The Complete Chess Addict" (1987 edition) has a list of "The sixty strongest players" based on their FIDE rankings. The top 30 includes the (then) 13 world champions (and "unofficial champion" Morphy), plus Keres Korchnoi/Reshevsky (tied with Spassky) Bronstein Rubinstein/Tarrasch Fine/Pillsbury (tied with Steinitz) Geller (tied with Euwe) Boguljubow/Boleslavsky/Maroczy/Nimzowitsch Sokolov/Yusupov Larsen/Portisch/Stein (equal 30th) > Who are the 30 best chess players of all time? > f.ck knows. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and > Bogoljuboff Bogo was at one point, according to chessmetrics, world number one: http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S01387900000 0111000000000000010100 I can't believe I left out Morphy. Also Fine - he must definitely go in although he is a long way from being my favourite player. Bronstein and Geller also. Carlsen and that old git Topalov; Ivanchuk. Out go Short, Mason, Junge, Schlechter, Marshall, Larsen, Zukertort. I would not include Khalifman, Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov. In MGP 1 Kasparov rated Rubinstein very highly. > Bogo was at one point, according to chessmetrics, world number one:http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S... He certainly had great success circa 1922-1928, though he was rather erratic. > In MGP 1 Kasparov rated Rubinstein very highly. Rubinstein seems a strange case to me. Certainly he played great games, won major tournaments, and had a deep understanding of chess. Still, in playing over his games, I have found an unusually high number of tactical errors that somehow went unpunished by his opponents, and unnoticed by later annotators. Admittedly this was an unsystematic survey, but my impression was that his frequency of error was signficantly higher than for other comparable GMs; he just somehow lucked out and nobody noticed. A careful, extensive, time-consuming comparative analysis of his and others' games would be required to determine if this impression was based on fact or just a skewed, too-small sample. On Mar 11, 8:21 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Bogo was at one point, according to chessmetrics, world number one:http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S... > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > others' games would be required to determine if this impression was > based on fact or just a skewed, too-small sample. Wasn't Rubinstein also known for making occasional bone-headed moves that *were* punished, again, with a frequency that was unusual for a grandmaster of his obvious strength and understanding? I know I read that somewhere, sometime... > On Mar 11, 8:21 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > grandmaster of his obvious strength and understanding? I know I read > that somewhere, sometime... Yes, it's true. For example, he fell into the same opening trap in very similar positions in two games only about 18 months apart. First against Euwe at Bad Kissingen 1928: 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nc3 O-O 7.Rc1 c6 8.Bd3 a6 9.cxd5 exd5 10.O-O Re8 11.Qb3 h6 12. Bf4 Nh5? 13.Nxd5! Winning a pawn, since if 13...cxd5?? 14.Bc7 wins at least a piece. Then, essentially the same thing happened against Alekhine at San Remo 1930: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nc3 O-O 7.Rc1 Re8 8.Qc2 a6 9.cxd5 exd5 10.Bd3 c6 11.O-O Ne4 12.Bf4 f5? 13. Nxd5! > Rubinstein seems a strange case to me. Certainly he played great >games, won major tournaments, and had a deep understanding of chess. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >others' games would be required to determine if this impression was >based on fact or just a skewed, too-small sample. Didn't a current GM (I think it might have been Nunn) make such a systematic survey, but at a tournament level, taking one famous top-class event early in the twentieth century and running a Fritz blunder check on all the games, then comparing the ratio of blunders to games with the results of the same operation on a contemporary event ? It should be possible to perform a similar operation on the mature Rubenstein or most other well-known players using one of huge databases you get with Fritz or Aquarium. In fact, you could rank players by the ratio of blunders per game. For our purposes, how would you define "tactical error" -- one that drops 2 pawns in the evaluation? Or some higher number? Some factors that might screw up the results: a player might blunder more in weak events, or in games subsequent to a well-played loss. Some players might get more accurate in "money" games. And, if the blunder ratio increases with age, you'd have to define a cut-off point so as not to unfairly penalize some players for simply living longer and competing while doing it. > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:21:39 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > to games with the results of the same operation on a contemporary > event ? Carlsbad 1913, I think. And it was Nunn. Richard Forster had a response at Chess Cafe debunking much, if not all, of Nunn's conclusions. For example, Nunn bashed the tournament book author (Vidmar?) for missing things, and then went on to discuss how he used Fritz to analyze the games. Forster commented "Why didn't Vidmar think of that?" > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:21:39 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > to games with the results of the same operation on a contemporary > event ? Yes, British GM John Nunn did it with Carlsbad 1911 in "John Nunn's Chess Puzzle Book" (London, 1999). As Neil Brennen has noted here, Nunn was rebutted by Swiss IM Richard Forster in a May 1999 article at ChessCafe.com, "Jewels from Carlsbad 1911." I liked Forster's rebuttal so much that I included it in the anthology "Heroic Tales: The Best of ChessCafe.com 1996-2001" (Russell Enterprises, 2002). Nunn's book was recently reprinted. Does anyone know if he addressed Forster's objections in the new edition? While I tend to agree with Nunn that today's GMs make fewer errors than those of a century ago, some of his logic leads to highly debatable conclusions. For example, the average rating Nunn computes for the players at Carlsbad 1911 gives the winner, Teichmann, a top- ten player for about 20 years, a TPR of just 2300. Yet this was the best result of Teichmann's career. The 2300 TPR cannot be reconciled with the 5-year peak rating Dr. Elo calculated for Teichmann, 2570. Either Nunn's numbers are too low, or Dr. Elo is high by about 400 points, at least. That seems an /awfully/ large discrepancy. > It should be possible to perform a similar operation on the mature > Rubenstein or most other well-known players using one of huge > databases you get with Fritz or Aquarium. In fact, you could rank > players by the ratio of blunders per game. As I recall, such a study was carried out on the world champs recently. Don't know if anyone has tried it for a larger group. > For our purposes, how would you define "tactical error" -- one that > drops 2 pawns in the evaluation? Or some higher number? Mike, I don't recall all the errors I found, so I can't give you a hard-and-fast definition. I'll try to go back and find some, and post them here. I mentioned a couple in my review of Donaldson & Minev's bio of Rubinstein here: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review573.pdf See the games Belsitzman-Rubinstein and Rubinstein-Granas. >> For our purposes, how would you define "tactical error" -- one that >> drops 2 pawns in the evaluation? Or some higher number? > Mike, I don't recall all the errors I found, so I can't give you a >hard-and-fast definition. I'll try to go back and find some, and post [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >See the games Belsitzman-Rubinstein and Rubinstein-Granas. Just for grins, I'm running a blunder check with a 2.5 pawn setting on Rubinstein's games from Ostend, 1907. If the results are interesting, I might run a similar process on a larger set of games overnight. (BTW, I quickly discovered you want to first *extract* the set of games to a new database before firing up the blunder check -- otherwise, you spend way too much time on database maintenance rather than analysis.) > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:31:27 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > otherwise, you spend way too much time on database maintenance rather > than analysis.) I have a problem with rating players on blunder-checking. Current players use a style which makes both blundering and brilliancy less common. I find this in my own games as well; the only games I tend to have without blunders are boring draws when my opponent is white and never tries to make anything happen. I am presumably just as strong in my open games with attacking players, but my games have many more blunders. In other words, a game without blunders is not necessarily a sign of a game between better players. Jerry Spinrad On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:03:34 -0800 (PST), "jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu" <jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu> wrote: >> Just for grins, I'm running a blunder check with a 2.5 pawn setting on >> Rubinstein's games from Ostend, 1907. If the results are interesting, >> I might run a similar process on a larger set of games overnight. >> (BTW, I quickly discovered you want to first *extract* the set of >> games to a new database before firing up the blunder check -- >> otherwise, you spend way too much time on database maintenance rather >> than analysis.) >I have a problem with rating players on blunder-checking. Current >players use a style which makes both blundering and brilliancy less [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >blunders. In other words, a game without blunders is not necessarily a >sign of a game between better players. >Jerry Spinrad I agree with this. If both play so as never to let the position get "out of control", as it were, there will be fewer blunders, even though the games may lack substance. On the other hand, when a player scores well against top opposition, it's reasonable to assume many of the games reached a certain level of complication. FWIW Department: In Rubinstein's games from Ostend, 1907, he blundered seven times out of the 28 games in the database, and his opponents blundered 10. Was this good or bad? Who knows? I think I'll run one on a Fischer tournament and see how it compares. To come up with this number, (1 ) I ignored blunders of the sort where it didn't really matter. E.g, when it led to being down 10 pawns and the correct move was only down 7, or where one player passed up a mate in ten and instead only got an 8 pawn edge. (2) Blunder threshold set to 2.5 pawns (3) Time per game set to 3 minutes on Deep Rybka running under Fritz 11 on a fairly fast desktop with 12 Gig of RAM. It kept all 8 logical processors pretty much pegged. > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:03:34 -0800 (PST), > "jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu" <jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > 11 on a fairly fast desktop with 12 Gig of RAM. It kept all 8 > logical processors pretty much pegged. In which seven games did you find blunders by Rubinstein, Mike? > In which seven games did you find blunders by Rubinstein, Mike? Actually, it was six games, one of 'em being a two-fer. Blackburne-Rubinstein (move 45) ZnoskoBorovsky-Rubinstein (move 20) -- this was marginal, since he was busted anyway Suechting-Rubinstein (move 49 and move 54) Rubinstein-Swiderski (move 31) Teichmann-Rubinstein (move 64) Rubinstein-Cohn (move 29) -- again,marginal--his move got +3 instead of +6.5 > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:05:00 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Rubinstein-Cohn (move 29) -- again,marginal--his move got +3 instead > of +6.5 Mike, I've gone over the first three games with Fritz8, just to get a different engine's perspective. I did not set a hard-and-fast 2.50 differential as the blunder criterion. Rather, I was looking for moves that changed a thoeretical win to a loss or draw, or a draw to a loss, or that would have made a big difference in the degree of practical, human ease or difficulty, whatever the engine's evaluation. Here's what I came up with: > Blackburne-Rubinstein (move 45) Blackburne,Joseph Henry - Rubinstein,Akiba [C77], Ostende-B Ostende (1), 1907: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 a6 5.Ba4 Be7 6.d3 d6 7.Nd5 b5 8.Bb3 Na5 9.Nxe7 Qxe7 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Nd2 0–0 13.Qh5 Kh7 14.h4 Nxb3 15.axb3 Qe7 16.Qe2 f5 17.exf5 Bxf5 18.Nf1 Qf6 19.Ng3 Bg6 20.Ne4 Qe7 21.Qe3 Rf7 22.h5 Bf5 23.Ng3 d5 24.f3 Qb4+ 25.Qd2 Qd4 26.0–0–0 a5 27.Ne2 Qb6 28.d4 a4 29.b4 e4 30.fxe4 Bxe4 31.Ng3 c6 32.Nxe4 dxe4 33.Qe3 Re8 34.Rh4 Rfe7 35.Rf1 Qd8 36.Rf5 Rd7 37.Rxe4 Rxe4 38.Qxe4 Rxd4 39.Qe1 Qd6 40.c3 Rf4 41.Rxf4 Qxf4+ 42.Qd2 Qg5 43.Qxg5 hxg5 44.Kd2 g6 45.h6 g4 46.Ke3 Kxh6 47.Kf4 g3 48.Ke4 Kg5 49.Ke5 Kg4 50.Ke4 Kg5 51.Ke5 Kg4 ½–½ I agree 45…g4?? was bad, and White should have been able to win then with 46.g3! (instead of 46.Ke3?) 46…Kxh6 47.Kd3 Kg5 48.c4! bxc4+ 49.Kxc4 Kf5 50.Kc5 Ke4 51.Kxc6 Kf3 52.b5 etc. However, I’d put Rubinstein’s real mistake earlier: 42…Qg5?, by which Black went into a theoretically lost king-and-pawn ending. Instead 42…Qg4 would have kept the queens on the board and the position even. After 43.Qxg5 hxg5 44.Kd2 there’s no way Black can stop a decisive penetration by White’s king on one wing or the other, e.g. 44...Kh6 45.g4 g6 46.hxg6 Kxg6 47.Kd3 Kf7 48.Kd4 Ke6 49.Kc5 Kd7 50.c4 bxc4 51.Kxc4 Kd6 52.Kd4 Kd7 53.Kc5 Kc7 54.b5 cxb5 55.Kxb5, or 47...Kf6 48.Ke4 Ke6 49.Kd4 Kd6 (if 49...Kd7 50.Ke5) 50.c4 etc. as before. It’s interesting that both players seemed to be avoiding a queen endgame. Instead of 45.h6?!, Blackburne should have been able to force a won queen ending by 45.hxg6+ Kxg6 46.Kd3 Kf5 47.Kd4 Kg4 48.Kc5 Kg3 49.Kxc6 Kxg2 50.Kxb5 g4 51.Kxa4 g3 52.b5 Kf3 53.b6 g2 54.b7 g1Q 55.b8Q, and with queen and two connected passed pawns vs. queen, one tends to think White should win. Even if Rubinstein had played 45…Kxh6! instead of 45…g4??, White might still have been able to get a winning queen ending, albeit one less advantageous and more difficult than in the previous paragraph: 45...Kxh6 46.g4 Kg7 47.Kd3 Kf6 48.Kd4 Ke6 49.Kc5 Ke5 (49...Kd7 50.c4 etc.) 50.Kxc6 Kf4 51.Kxb5 Kxg4 52.Kxa4 Kf5 53.b5 Ke6 54.b6 Kd7 55.Kb5 g4 56.Ka6 g3 57.b7 g2 58.b8Q g1Q, and we have basically the same situation as above, but with Black still having a g-pawn. Reuben Fine wrote that Rubinstein was most comfortable with rooks and bishops, and less so with queens, which combine both powers. That dislike of queens seems evident here. Rubinstein was just lucky that Blackburne couldn’t figure out the win. > ZnoskoBorovsky-Rubinstein (move 20) -- this was marginal, since he was busted anyway. Znosko Borovsky,Eugene - Rubinstein,Akiba [C48], Ostende-B Ostende (14), 1907: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 a6 5.Bxc6 dxc6 6.Nxe5 Nxe4 7.Nxe4 Qd4 8.0–0 Qxe5 9.Re1 Be6 10.d4 Qf5 11.Bg5 Bd6 12.g4 Qg6 13.f4 f5 14.Nxd6+ cxd6 15.d5 0–0 16.Rxe6 Qf7 17.Qe2 fxg4 18.Qxg4 cxd5 19.Rae1 Rac8 20.Qg2 Qf5 21.Bh6 Rc7 22.Re7 Rf7 23.Re8+ Rf8 24.R1e7 Qf6 25.Qxd5+ Kh8 26.Rxf8+ Qxf8 27.Rxc7 1–0 A real debacle for Rubinstein. Fritz says 13…f5?? was the big goof, preferring 13…0-0. True, that loses a piece immediately to 14.f5, but after 14…Bxf5 15.gxf5 Qxf5 Black has two pawns and some positional compensation, and is certainly in better shape than he ended up after 13…f5, down a piece with no compensation. A difference of about +1.60 vs. +3.85, says Fritz. In terms of practical chances, this is a more critical difference than the +3.90 vs. +6.60 it sees for 20…Kh8 vs. 20… Qf5. > Suechting-Rubinstein (move 49 and move 54) Suechting,Hugo - Rubinstein,Akiba [C01], Ostende-B Ostende (16), 1907: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Bd3 c5 4.c3 dxe4 5.Bxe4 Nf6 6.Bf3 Nc6 7.dxc5 Qxd1+ 8.Bxd1 Bxc5 9.Nf3 0–0 10.Bc2 e5 11.Bg5 Ng4 12.0–0 h6 13.Bc1 f5 14.b4 Bb6 15.Ba3 Rf6 16.Nfd2 e4 17.Nc4 Bc7 18.h3 Nge5 19.Nbd2 Be6 20.Bb3 Rd8 21.Rad1 b5 22.Nxe5 Nxe5 23.Bb2 Nd3 24.Ba1 Be5 25.Bxe6+ Rxe6 26.Nb3 Rc8 27.Nd4 Bxd4 28.cxd4 Rc2 29.a3 Ra6 30.d5 Rxa3 31.Bd4 Kf7 32.d6 Ke6 33.Bxg7 h5 34.Bf8 Raa2 35.Ra1 Rxa1 36.Rxa1 Rc1+ 37.Rxc1 Nxc1 38.Kf1 Kd7 39.Bh6 Nd3 40.Bd2 Kxd6 41.Ke2 Kd5 42.f3 Ne5 43.fxe4+ Kxe4 44.Bc3 Ng6 45.Bd2 a6 46.Bc3 Nf4+ 47.Kf2 Nd5 48.Be1 Ne3 49.Bd2 Nd5 50.Be1 Ne7 51.Kg3 Ng6 52.Kf2 Kf4 53.Bc3 Ke4 54.Ke2 Nf4+ 55.Kf2 Kd3 56.Be5 Nd5 57.Bd6 Kc4 58.Kg3 Nxb4 59.Kh4 Nc2 60.Kxh5 b4 61.Bf4 a5 62.g4 fxg4 63.hxg4 Nd4 64.Kg6 a4 65.Kf6 a3 66.Bc1 Ne2 0–1 Fritz jumps on 20…Rd8, preferring 20...b5!, when after, say, 21.Ne3 Bxb3 22.axb3 Rd8 23.Rad1 [if 23.Nb1? f4! 24.Ng4 Nxg4 25.hxg4 e3! 26.c4 (not 26.fxe3 ?? 26...fxe3 27.Ra2 Bh2+) 26…Nd4 and wins] 23...Nd3 with a terrific positional superiorty. The game ended up in a similar line anyway, but 20…Rd8 before 21…b5 was inexact, because White could have forestalled any of the above with his own b-pawn advance, 21.b5!. I don’t see 49…Ne3 or 54…Nf4+ as any kind of mistake. It looks like Rubinstein was just repeating moves a bit to gain clock time. Some engines, when part-way through a repetitive sequence, seem to assume that threefold repetition will occur, and so rate the position a draw, when in fact repetition can be avoided and the game still won. That’s what Fritz does here, saying that if White plays 50.Be1 the evaluation is +0.00. But then after 50.Be1 is actually played, it immediately changes to -4.75. The same thing happens at move 54. Granted, Rubinstein probably did not find the fastest win, but it does not appear that he ever let the win slip. I'll try to look at the other games later. >> <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> wrote: >> > In which seven games did you find blunders by Rubinstein, Mike? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> Rubinstein-Cohn (move 29) -- again,marginal--his move got +3 instead >> of +6.5 > Mike, I've gone over the first three games with Fritz8, just to get >a different engine's perspective. I did not set a hard-and-fast 2.50 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >human ease or difficulty, whatever the engine's evaluation. Here's >what I came up with: I was screening for simple tactical blunders. I don't disagree with your approach, but it requires some human insight and judgment and is more suited to evaluating individual games, rather than a large basket of them. Admittedly, I did a little of that when I ignored "blunders" when either side was more than about 3 pawns down. I'll check your post out in more detail later today. > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:34:55 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > insight and judgment and is more suited to evaluating individual > games, rather than a large basket of them. Right, Mike. I understand your approach, and was not dismissing it. It's very helpful for screening a large number of games and locating potential critical errors, and I appreciate your doing that. I'm just trying to add another engine's opinion, and fine-tune the analysis some. > I dont see 49
Ne3 or 54
Nf4+ as any kind of mistake. It looks like >Rubinstein was just repeating moves a bit to gain clock time. Yeah, that's a real defect in the naive way I was screening for blunders. A repetition where the original position can be regained may get counted as a blunder, whereas nothing is really lost. > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:05:00 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Rubinstein-Cohn (move 29) -- again,marginal--his move got +3 instead > of +6.5 To look at the latter three games: > Rubinstein-Swiderski (move 31) Rubinstein,Akiba - Swiderski,Rudolf [D61], Ostende-B Ostende (19), 1907: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Nf3 0–0 7.Qc2 dxc4 8.Bxc4 c5 9.Rd1 cxd4 10.exd4 a6 11.0–0 b5 12.Bb3 Bb7 13.Ne5 Nb6 14.Rfe1 Nfd5 15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.Bxe7 Nxe7 17.Re3 Rc8 18.Qd3 Qd6 19.Rh3 Ng6 20.Nxg6 hxg6 21.Rh4 Bd5 22.Qh3 f6 23.Rh8+ Kf7 24.Rxf8+ Rxf8 25.Rc1 Bxb3 26.Qxb3 Rd8 27.a4 b4 28.Rc4 a5 29.g3 g5 30.Rc5 Qxd4 31.Rxa5 Qe4 32.Ra7+ Kg6 33.Rc7 Qe1+ 34.Kg2 Rd2 35.Qf3 Rd1 0–1 31.Rxa5?? was indeed a mistake, but it seems to have been played as the seemingly logical follow-up to 30.Rc5?, which was the real loser, simply dropping a pawn needlessly. I’d guess Rubinstein did not notice the unanswerable threats created by 31…Qe4! when trying to calculate the consequences of 30.Rc5. Instead, with 30.Qf3 White could have maintained equality. Also OK, it appears, were 30.h3, Qc2, Qd1, Qd3, and Qe3. > Teichmann-Rubinstein (move 64) Teichmann,Richard - Rubinstein,Akiba [D61], Ostende-B Ostende (26), 1907: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nf3 0–0 7.Qc2 c5 8.Rd1 Qa5 9.Bd3 Re8 10.0–0 cxd4 11.exd4 dxc4 12.Bxc4 Nf8 13.Ne5 Bd7 14.Qd2 Rac8 15.Bb3 Qa6 16.Rfe1 Bc6 17.Nxc6 bxc6 18.Qe2 Qxe2 19.Rxe2 Nd5 20.Ne4 Bxg5 21.Nxg5 Nf6 22.Rc2 Red8 23.Nf3 N6d7 24.Rdc1 Nb8 25.Ba4 Rd6 26.b4 a6 27.Kf1 Rc7 28.a3 Nfd7 29.Ke2 Kf8 30.Ne5 Rxd4 31.Nxc6 Nxc6 32.Rxc6 Rxc6 33.Rxc6 a5 34.Ke3 e5 35.Rc8+ Ke7 36.Rc7 axb4 37.axb4 f5 38.h4 Re4+ 39.Kd3 Rxb4 40.Rxd7+ Ke6 41.Ra7 Rxh4 42.Ra6+ Ke7 43.Bb3 Rd4+ 44.Ke3 Re4+ 45.Kf3 Rf4+ 46.Kg3 Rg4+ 47.Kh3 Rb4 48.Ba2 Rb2 49.f3 Rd2 50.Bb1 g6 51.Kg3 Rd7 52.Ba2 Kf8 53.Re6 Re7 54.Rc6 e4 55.Kf4 exf3 56.gxf3 Kg7 57.Be6 Ra7 58.Bd5 Re7 59.Kg5 Rd7 60.Bc4 Re7 61.Rd6 Rc7 62.Bd5 Re7 63.Rd8 h6+ 64.Kf4 Re1 65.Rd7+ Kh8 66.Bc4 Rc1 67.Rc7 Re1 68.Bf7 Kg7 69.Be8+ Kf6 70.Rc6+ 1–0 64…Re1?? was indeed a turkey. Perhaps Black might have held by simply shifting his king back and forth between h7 and g7. Boring and passive, but it puts the onus on White to find a winning breakthrough. The error that put Black in such a difficult defensive posture came well before that, though: 23…N6d7. After 24.Rdc1 Nb8 he ended up with both his knights dismally stuck on the back rank. Instead, with 23...Ng6 24.Rdc1 Ne7 25.Ba4 Nfd5 26.a3 (not 26.Bxc6?? Nb4-+) 26...Rd6 Black would still be on the defensive, but his knights would be better much posted than in the game, and it looks like White would have a tough time finding a decisive breakthrough. > Rubinstein-Cohn (move 29) – again marginal--his move got +3 instead of +6.5. Rubinstein,Akiba - Cohn,Wilhelm [D32], Ostende-B Ostende (29), 1907: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.c4 e6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bf4 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Bb4 8.e3 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 Nf6 11.Bb5+ Bd7 12.Qe5+ Kf8 13.Bd3 Bc6 14.0–0 Qe7 15.Qd4 Nh5 16.Rfe1 f6 17.h3 Kf7 18.Bh2 g6 19.e4 Rhe8 20.Re2 dxe4 21.Bc4+ Kg7 22.g4 Rad8 23.Qe3 b5 24.Bb3 Qb7 25.gxh5 Rd3 26.h6+ Kh8 27.Qf4 Rf3 28.Qd6 Qc8 29.Re3 Qf5 30.Qxc6 Qg5+ 31.Bg3 Rd8 32.Rxf3 exf3 33.Rd1 1–0 Fritz sees about the same difference, +7.24 for 29.Rd1, instead of +3.78 for the text move 29.Re3. But both win, so I would not consider this a blunder. I think Rubinstein missed an earlier chance for a decisive material gain, though, with 20.exd5!. Then after the forced 20…Qxe1+ 21.Rxe1 Rxe1+ 22.Bf1, Black has nothing, e.g. 22…Bd7 (or 22...Bb5 23.c4) 23.Qb4 b6 24.c4 Rae8 25.g4 Ng7 26.Qa3 a5 27.Qd6, which Fritz evaluates at +4.26. In contrast, the text move 20.Re2 rates only +1.12. >In Rubinstein's games from Ostend, 1907, he blundered seven times out >of the 28 games in the database, and his opponents blundered 10. Was >this good or bad? Who knows? I think I'll run one on a Fischer >tournament and see how it compares. >To come up with this number, >(1 ) I ignored blunders of the sort where it didn't really matter. >E.g, when it led to being down 10 pawns and the correct move was only >down 7, or where one player passed up a mate in ten and instead only >got an 8 pawn edge. >(2) Blunder threshold set to 2.5 pawns >(3) Time per game set to 3 minutes on Deep Rybka running under Fritz >11 on a fairly fast desktop with 12 Gig of RAM. It kept all 8 >logical processors pretty much pegged. With same parameters on Fischer's 20 games from Portoroz, 1958: Fischer blundered twice and his opponents blundered 3 times: Fischer-Rossetto, Benko-Fischer (marginal, Fischer blundered when down 2.5) [BTW: The game Fischer-Bronstein, as recorded in the Fritz database, contained a transcription error which made it look as if Fischer left his Queen en prise on move 36 and Bronstein didn't see it. I checked Muller's book to make sure this didn't happen.] The Portoroz games included some short draws (but the average game length in both sets was virtually identical) as people manouvered for qualifying slots, and it was eight rounds shorter. Still, on the surface at least, the Fischer of Portoroz (and his opposition there) blundered significantly less often than the Rubinstein of Ostend and his opponents. Of course, Spinrad's observation needs to be considered. > The Portoroz games included some short draws (but the average game > length in both sets was virtually identical) [...] Qualifying tournaments are different from regular tournaments in which top players fight for the top positions, perhaps for the first position. A comparison of a strong non-qualifying tournament (like the candidate tournament) and a qualifying tournament would be interesting. However one needs to remember that the candidate tournament has stronger players. Wlod >> The Portoroz games included some short draws (but the average game >> length in both sets was virtually identical) [...] [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Wlod Agreed. The reasons I looked at Portoroz: the length was comparable, it included a mix of world-class and second-tier players and it was quite early in the trajectory of Fischer's career. But you're right, the fact that it was a qualifying tournament and the top "x" places were the real prizes was a significant difference. > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:21:39 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Nunn was rebutted by Swiss IM Richard Forster in a May 1999 article at > ChessCafe.com, "Jewels from Carlsbad 1911." John Watson, on the other hand, says "I feel that his is a brilliant analysis of this longstanding question, and easily the best solution ever offered." (see http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/jwatsonbkrev82.html). I liked Forster's rebuttal > so much that I included it in the anthology "Heroic Tales: The Best of > ChessCafe.com 1996-2001" (Russell Enterprises, 2002). Nunn's book was > recently reprinted. Does anyone know if he addressed Forster's > objections in the new edition? The new edition was reviewed at Chess Cafe (http://www.chesscafe.com/ text/review677.pdf), but the review doesn't answer your question as far as I can see. I'd be interested to read Forster's rebuttal, but couldn't find it online. > While I tend to agree with Nunn that today's GMs make fewer errors > than those of a century ago, some of his logic leads to highly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Either Nunn's numbers are too low, or Dr. Elo is high by about 400 > points, at least. That seems an /awfully/ large discrepancy. I think Nunn's point is that if a 1999 player played as well as Teichmann did at Carlsbad 1911, he could expect a tournament rating of about 2300. > > Yes, British GM John Nunn did it with Carlsbad 1911 in "John Nunn's > > Chess Puzzle Book" (London, 1999). As Neil Brennen has noted here, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > analysis of this longstanding question, and easily the best solution > ever offered." (seehttp://www.chess.co.uk/twic/jwatsonbkrev82.html). Thanks, I'll have a look at that. > I'd be interested to read Forster's rebuttal, but couldn't find it > online. When Forster left ChessCafe, he took all his columns with him, and so they are not in the online archives. As far as I know, the book I edited is the only place it's now in publication: http://shop.chesscafe.com/item.asp?PID=256 On Mar 11, 12:31 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Didn't a current GM (I think it might have been Nunn) make such a > > systematic survey, but at a tournament level, taking one famous [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > recently reprinted. Does anyone know if he addressed Forster's > objections in the new edition? John Nunn knows. > While I tend to agree with Nunn that today's GMs make fewer errors > than those of a century ago, some of his logic leads to highly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Either Nunn's numbers are too low, or Dr. Elo is high by about 400 > points, at least. That seems an /awfully/ large discrepancy. A quick search located a book review at the chess cafe which very briefly described the process JN followed. Going only by this review: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/nunnquiz.txt ...it would seem that Dr. Elo may well have blundered. Here is a quote from the relevant text: "The blunders thrown up by Fritz were **so awful** that I looked at a considerable number of complete games 'by hand', wondering if the Fritz results really reflected the general standard of play. They did." As you can see, the attempt to mischaracterize this process as cheating by just using a Fritz blundercheck and then laying on the lash to those old timers who had no access to computers, is more than a bit lame. > > For our purposes, how would you define "tactical error" -- one that > > drops 2 pawns in the evaluation? Or some higher number? Two points is a lot. Perhaps the label 'two point blunder' would be more apt-- especially since Fritz may well not distinguish between tactical and positional or strategic errors. > "The blunders thrown up by Fritz were **so awful** that I looked at >a considerable number of complete games 'by hand', wondering if the >Fritz results really reflected the general standard of play. They did." This points to a higher level of contemporary play not based so much on positional understanding or cumulative opening research but tactical accuracy in fairly random positions. To me, it's hard to account for this by the usual explanation that characterizes a rise in playing standards resulting from later players "standing on the shoulders of giants". How, then, to interpret this? One simple explanation is that there are way more players competing today. The top 50 players "bubbling up" to world class out of million player pool are simply more likely to have greater talent, to play better, than the top 50 players from a 10,000 player pool. > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:27:00 -0700 (PDT), The Master > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > to have greater talent, to play better, than the top 50 players from > a 10,000 player pool. A related idea that came off the top of my head was that, say, 100 years ago, perhaps the gap between the very best players and the next few levels on down, was greater than today. Umpteen decades ago you had some very lopsided match scores even between top players, e.g. Morphy +7 -2 =2 over Anderssen, Blackburne getting drubbed by Steinitz 7-0 in 1876 and +6 -0 =4 by Lasker in 1892, Lasker clobbering Janowski +7 -1 =2 in 1909, Marshall getting smoked +8 -1 =8 by Tarrasch in 1905 and +8 -1 =14 by Capablanca in 1909. Even in world Championships there were some very lopsided scores, e.g. Lasker beating Marshall +8 -0 =7 and Janowski +8 -0 =3. Yet all these big losers were among the world’s top ten in their day. This stands in contrast to the very small difference between, say, Botvinnik and his challengers, or between Petrosian and Spassky, Karpov and Kasparov, Kramnik and Topalov etc. A plausible explanation was that this was due to chess knowledge being less widespread in earlier decades, so that the select few who possessed it stood relatively higher above those below them. If so, an expected corollary would be that the earlier top-rank greats would have higher career winning percentages than their later counterparts, derived from facing more relative rabbits per tournament. And the fields of some major 19th- and early 20-century tournaments included patzers who by modern standards had no business being there. One would expect therefore that, say, Steinitz and Lasker would have scored more easy wins than, say, Botvinnik or Spassky, and thus had higher career winning percentages. 19th-century champions would have had a much easier time with the likes of, say, James Mortimer, George Gossip or Samuel Tinsley than latter-day champs would have had with, say, Donner, Alburt, Agdestein, Van der Wiel, Tolush, Kupreichik or Kavalek, all of whom finished last in various events. A rough, preliminary look at the data seems to bear this out somewhat, but not as strongly as I expected. Checking the tournament records of the first eleven World Champions, as presented in “World Chess Champions” (Pergamon, 1981), yields the following figures: Steinitz: 67% Lasker: 75% Capablanca: 75% Alekhine: 77% Euwe: 71% Botvinnik: 73% Smyslov (thru 1979): 65% Tal (thru 1979): 69% Petrosian: 66% Spassky (thru 1979): 68% Fischer: 73% The exceptions of Steinitz and Fischer notwithstanding, there is a rough trend toward lower scores, but it’s much weaker than I expected. So either further research is needed, or the effect of this “rabbit factor” is simply not very great, however plausible it seemed. On Mar 17, 11:08 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:27:00 -0700 (PDT), The Master > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I think that the Steinitz exception comes from his playing very few tournaments until he was no longer the best in the world, at which point he started playing much more frequently. If you look at Steinitz' scores in tournaments between the Anderssen match ant the Lasker match, you won't have many games, but you will have a high win percentage. Fischer's exception is similar; he didn't play past his peak, so his win percentage is abnormally high On Mar 17, 12:47 pm, "jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu" <jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote: > > A rough, preliminary look at the data seems to bear this out > > somewhat, but not as strongly as I expected. Checking the tournament [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Lasker match, you won't have many games, but you will have a high win > percentage. True. From 1862 thru 1894, Steinitz's tournament score, not counting handicap events, was +123 -31 =31, or 75%, i.e. virtually identical to Lasker and Capablanca. From 1895 to 1899 it was +64 -42 =35, just 58%. > Fischer's exception is similar; he didn't play past his > peak, so his win percentage is abnormally high. Again a fair point. Still, I expected more like a double-digit difference between the earlier and later champs, maybe 10-12%. Instead it's more like 5-6%. Even if Fischer had played into his declining years, the overall percentage of the later champs would not have changed that much. The stats I used do not control properly for age. The records I used stop with 1979, but Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian and Spassky all remained active after that to varying degrees, while the records for Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe and Fischer are complete. On the other hand, Capablanca and Alekhine died in middle age. Further tweaking, such as excluding very early- and late-career results, is probably necessary to make this any really valid comparison. On Mar 17, 1:44 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Mar 17, 12:47 pm, "jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu" > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Perhaps one factor could be the percentage of games which were matches, in which all games were against one of the very best players in the world, as opposed to tournaments? Certainly it seems like winning percentages in major tournaments were much higher in the old days, but you also had quite a few long matches for players like Steinitz which bring his overall percentage down. Jerry Spinrad > > "The blunders thrown up by Fritz were **so awful** that I looked at > >a considerable number of complete games 'by hand', wondering if the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on positional understanding or cumulative opening research but > tactical accuracy in fairly random positions. I believe you meant a fairly random sample-- not 'random positions' (think of all those nutty problemists who like 'random' chess positions). > To me, it's hard to account for this by the usual explanation that > characterizes a rise in playing standards resulting from later [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to have greater talent, to play better, than the top 50 players from > a 10,000 player pool. I think where Nunn went wrong first was in trying to compare two very different tournaments. While the more recent one included several 2700+ players, the earlier event was far larger (this is relevant to the extent that Nunn went looking for serious errors), had far more rounds (ditto), and included more than a few lesser players. But the size of the ratings pool is perhaps the single largest difference. Certainly every chess player here has noticed that it is far more difficult to win an event or a class prize when there are many more competitors. > Who are the 30 best chess players of all time? Please explain the significance of the completely arbitrary number '30'. It seems to me that the term 'best' is a bit vague. Why not specify if you mean 'strongest', 'most important', 'highest rated at peak' or some other idea such as a player's contributions to theory. One thing you were perfectly clear on was the time frame (i.e. 'all time') and I believe that includes the present, so we might just plop a few recent names onto the list depending on what you mean by 'best'. But if you meant 'strongest' as seen in actual game results then a few of the old favorites will not make the cut. In fact I think what you may be looking for is a list of personal favorites since people in rgc are far from objective when it comes to players' strengths. One of my favorite players is Paul Morphy, because he beat the @#$%^&* out of everyone in fine style-- a unique and pleasing style. But he would be no match for today's very strongest players. I also like the chess games of Samuel Sloan, because he is completely insane and thinks that 1. g4!! begins an opening system on par with say, the queen's gambit. He also beats the stuffing out of the competition (when they don't simply flee in terror). But in truth I reserve the highest appreciation for those select few players who are strategical geniuses, yet whose games are not merely dull and longwinded wood-shifting affairs. I am speaking of course of the 'creme de la creme' of the hypermoderns. > Who are the 30 best chess players of all time? > Kortschnoi > Tarrasch > and > Bogoljuboff GetClub plays like Human So add GetClub Chess to the list aswell. GetClub plays like Humans. You can tell the difference when playing that its a Human or a Computer. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html > > Who are the 30 best chess players of all time? > > Kortschnoi [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > GetClub plays like Humans. You can tell the difference when playing > that its a Human or a Computer. Yes by all means add a chess engine that can't find a mate in three. I recommend in the future GetClub be called the Ostap Bender Club. >> Who are the 30 best chess players of all time? >> Kortschnoi [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html You know, Sanny, I have a philosophy about not using a bozo filter on someone other than a pure spammer, e.g., someone who tries to sell perfume in a chess newsgroup or the like. Games played by your program seem to provide a certain level of amusement for a number of posters, so your posts aren't always entirely out of place. Still, it's just wrong to contaminate threads like this to flog your program. You're making it hard for me to stick to my policy. > Who are the 30 best chess players of all time? > f.ck knows. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and > Bogoljuboff I would have to add Anderssen to the list, as well as Morphy who is mentioned elsewhere. Jerry Spinrad On 11 Mar, 15:05, "jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu" <jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote: > > Who are the 30 best chess players of all time? > > f.ck knows. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Jerry Spinrad How about earlier players like Greco, Philidor, Bourdonnais, Deschapelles, Staunton? Perhaps I overlooked them above but there are some more strong players missing. Maroczy Ossip Bernstein Spielmann Mackenzie Burn On Mar 19, 8:31 pm, "ttw6...@att.net" <ttw6...@att.net> wrote: > Perhaps I overlooked them above but there are some more strong players > missing. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Mackenzie > Burn All fine players to be sure, but IMO they don't qualify for the all- time top 30, which is the bar set by the OP. > > Maroczy > > Ossip Bernstein [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > All fine players to be sure, but IMO they don't qualify for the all- > time top 30, which is the bar set by the OP. Spielmann is sorta close but no cigar. Maroczy, you'd be in a bind if you chose him as in the top 30. Few have ever heard of the other three |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.