Yes, it's an excellent book. The best thing about Chernev's books is the enthusiasm and delight he shows in fine chess games. He's like a wine connoisseur opening a bottle of his favourite vintage to share with you.
In an age where a lot of books now show a lot of rather soulless engine lines, his style of chess book is a refreshing change.
”So... what do you think of the list?”
I think Steinitz often is underrated on these lists. I fail to see how for example Nimzo and Bronstein were greater. Steinitz won every match he played for more than 30 years, won a bunch of title matches in his 50s, won 25 games in a row against top players of the time, etc.
I’d have had Lasker first on the list in the 1970s. Capa was great, but he won one title match, against a Lasker that was 53 years old and out of shape. In New York 1924 and Moscow 1925 Capa finished behind 56-57 year old Lasker, to later lose the title match against Alekhine fairly clearly. Not enough for first place on my list, no matter how talented he was.
Players like Keres, Tarrasch, Zukertort and Morphy might all merit being included rather than at least Nimzo. In 1976 one might even already consider Karpov, and Korchnoi can’t have been far away from it either, but maybe not a given until a couple of years later.
Steinitz is only mentioned in passing in Chernev´s book and does not appear in the index of players. Interesting.
Would Carlsen make the list if it was made today? If so, on what place?
This is very entertaining and instructive book! But it was written is 1976 when Chernev was over 70, so it doesn't cover the modern era in chess at all. Nonetheless, a great read
This is very entertaining and instructive book! But it was written is 1976 when Chernev was over 70, so it doesn't cover the modern era in chess at all. Nonetheless, a great read
So... what do you think of the list? And how would the list of GOATs look if the time stopped today?
Does greatest mean best player in an absolute sense, or best player in terms of dominating contemporaries? Because those are two very different lists.
Does greatest mean best player in an absolute sense, or best player in terms of dominating contemporaries? Because those are two very different lists.
Chernev was unashamedly personal in his taste and his ranking.
”Would Carlsen make the list if it was made today”
Well, at least he sure did more than Nimzo and Bronstein… I think he is on his 14th year as #1, with five won title matches, 40-45 top tournaments won etc. I’d place him top three already today at 32 years old. The difference between Carlsen’s achievements and those of for example Petrosian, who is 6th on Chernev’s list, is huge.
Does greatest mean best player in an absolute sense, or best player in terms of dominating contemporaries? Because those are two very different lists.
I take it for granted that it is about greatest and not playing strength, difficult to support Nimzo or Lasker playing better chess than for example Karpov in 1976.
Does greatest mean best player in an absolute sense, or best player in terms of dominating contemporaries? Because those are two very different lists.
I take it for granted that it is about greatest and not playing strength, difficult to support Nimzo or Lasker playing better chess than for example Karpov in 1976.
In that case, here's my top 10, grouped into 1-5 and 6-10. But within each group I've listed players alphabetically: I don't have the knowledge to meaningfully be more specific. I left Morphy off because his career was so short.
Capablanca
Carlsen
Fischer
Kasparov
Steinitz
Alekhine
Anand
Botvinnik
Karpov
Lasker
Chernev didn´t have access to this but it surely reinforces his appreciation of Capa.
Some strange things on that video. Like Polugaevsky being the clearly best player in the world 1975-80, and Carlsen being behind quite a few players including Gelfand, Kramnik and Anand 2017-18. Gelfand played a bunch of Grand Prix events in 2017, finishing 21st of the 24 participants (Hou Yifan was 17th). Then he finished 48-68th in Isle of Man, won by Carlsen. Did he really play better than the World Champion? It sure didn’t show in his results at least.
Also strange to see Pillsbury far ahead of Lasker in 1899-1900 when Lasker finished light years ahead of Pillsbury in the tournaments they played. Also Schlechter ahead of Lasker around then feels strange. And Rubinstein well ahead of Lasker most of the fifteen years 1911-26. It feels like Lasker is a bit underestimated comparing his actual results with those of Capa and Rubinstein.
@fabelhaft What can I say?Things tend to get strange once one introduces numbers....
Schlechter came pretty darn close to beating Lasker in their WC match ...
If that chart is based on accuracy, as determined by CAPS or something similar, it wouldn't be surprising to see Lasker rated a bit "low", since he sometimes aimed for positions that were uncomfotable for his opponents rather than what was objectively best.
Does greatest mean best player in an absolute sense, or best player in terms of dominating contemporaries? Because those are two very different lists.
I take it for granted that it is about greatest and not playing strength, difficult to support Nimzo or Lasker playing better chess than for example Karpov in 1976.
That´s a bit like saying that Ascari wouldn´t have outrun Stewart in 1973...
The origin of this wonderful book by the late Irving Chernev was a list he had compiled of the twelve greatest chess players of all time. The time stopped in the early seventies (the first edition of the book was published in -76). In ascending order this is Chernev´s list:
12. Nimzowitsch
11. Rubinstein
10. Bronstein
9. Spassky
8. Smyslov
7. Tal
6. Petrosian
5. Botvinnik
4. Fischer
3. Lasker
2. Alekhine
1. Capablanca
Since Chernev by writing his book explained his reasoning this list has to be one of the most thoroughly motivated and I´m not the one to say that he´d got it wrong, but we´re all entitled to our own opinions. So... what do you think of the list? And how would the list of GOATs look if the time stopped today?
BTW The book is available online as pdf if you don´t have it.