There always seems to be a "best in the world" in chess

submitted by FlippyKing from self.Chess

I don't know if this is always true, but it seems like through a lot of chess history there has been a best player in the world who was noticeably better than everyone else, till the next best comes along.

Right now Magnus is really better than any of his competitors and has been for a number of years. You would think with the access to so much information that things would level off.

I thought that was the case when the post-Kasparov era started. Between the short-lived competing organizations, and the high turn-over of champions, I thought we had entered a new era. As close as they were, Kasparov was better than Karpov. Fischer was better the the rest for a few years, before his inner demons won. I can't really say Botvinnik was better than everyone else just because I don't think a lot of chess in the Soviet era was on the up-and-up. Before that there may be some room for debate. I do think Alekhine was best in the world for a while, and Capablanca was perhaps even during a bit of Alekhine's reign.

Beyond those it gets murkier. Rubinstein, Schlecter, and Tarrasch may have been best in the world for short periods of time, all during Lasker's reign.

I guess I'm asking just in general: what does this group think about the notion of a "best in the world", if there generally really has been one most of the time, and will there always be one? (but mostly I'm just trying to make conversation, and I don't know how to post a puzzle or can't think of a video or a game worth sharing to talk about)

all 4 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Here's an idea to continue the conversation on chess... Post content related to the game - the history, documentaries, movies, songs, etc. along with your review on them. Also images: memes, political chess memes, sexy chess photos (no porn), glam shots, organic shots, whatever you thing is beautiful and worth sharing about chess.

The banner I composited for /s/PoliticalAnalysis/ includes a chessboard globe image I found online. There's one with text. and one without text.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Here's an infographic on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2DHpW79w0Y

[–]FlippyKing[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

that is really cool, thanks for sharing it. I feel like I'd have to watch it, pause it, compare it to the record of who was playing who at the time to really understand in detail the dynamic at work in the graphic. What stood out to me is that Rubinstein and Schleter do not appear to jump up over anyone the way I thought based on things I read. I'm surprised Andersen was never up over the top, I thought he was best for a while. What the graph shows in the Botvinnik era makes sense to me, especially Smyslov and Tal. Tal's performance on that graph is nice to see, how his use of the "sham sacrifice" and psychology early on worked so well, and then when players caught on how he adjusted and climbed back up near the top.

I could watch it over and over for little details, like looking for Smsylov in the 80s when he found some ideas in the Cambridge Springs. Also, I want to look over Najdorf's games because he was way up there for a while.

Thanks for sharing that!

[–]Tiwaking 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Magnus Carlsen is the best and most versatile chess player of all time. Its actually his versatility that makes him the best player ever, but in terms of raw talent the best player was probably José Raúl Capablanca, Paul Morphy, or Mir Sultan Khan. Mikhail Tal and Bobby Fischer were probably the best Human chess players ever, that is: Chess players from the era before computers. Gary Kasparov is most certainly the greatest living player though.