What I always appreciate about Dojo Talks is that you have 3 master level players who aren't afraid to disagree and share what they think, AND they're not afraid to give each other a hard time. Love it!
Jesse Topalov was #1 in the rankings 3 times, in 2006, 2008, 2010. You keep comparing him to Karpov and Kasparov, but you should compare him to Kramnik and Anand. And in that regard, he was a bit less strong than them, but still boxing in the same category
Props to David for putting Reuben Fine on the list. Chessmetrics says Fine was ranked #1 in the world in late 1940 to early 1941. He definitely should've been above many of those players you guys put at elite despite them never coming close to #1. If you do a part two, please rank Zukertort, Pillsbury, and Reshevsky, all of whom were ranked #1 in the world at some point according to Chessmetrics.
Akiba Rubenstein is so underrated .he has done so much for chess theory and a masterful endgame player in my view if not for world war one he would have become world champion
Absolutely! To my mind he is clearly the best player not to become world champion. I mean, Keres, Bronstein and Fabi have all had the chance to play for the championship, but failed.
I thought Fabi would be at the top of the S tier. Mindblowing to me that he's in A tier. He hit 2850 and drew Magnus in the WC. Literally all he could do better was win ONE game against the GOAT Magnus (which he almost did) and he WOULD have been world champion. If you're one game away from taking the belt from the GOAT, you're cemented in S tier.
After the match Schlechter confided to some people that there was a secret condition, saying that he needed to win the match by a 2-point difference. That's why he went crazy in the last game ( if the story is true), even though he had a lead by 1 point. Perhaps it would have been wiser to make a draw in the last game, and then let Lasker explain to the world how is he still the world champion when he lost the match. Unfortunately for Schlechter he had insanely high moral standards, so this was out of the question for such a person. He agreed before the match that he must win by +2, so he played according to those rules. Of course, I can't prove this story, it is just what I heard from someone who has studied chess history extensively.
What I really want is a "most influential chess players ever" tier list. I want your opinions on questions such as: Is Steinitz the most influential with his strategic theories? Are Tarrasch's writing more important because they brought chess knowledge to the general public? Where does Nimzowitsch fit in all this? How influential was Botvinnik's "scientific" approach to preparing? How important were Geller's theoretical contributions and why did Spassky and Karpov ignore him? How big was Fischer's impact not only in American chess but also in prize funds and tournament conditions? What new did Kasparov bring to the way the game was being played? Is Kramnik's "technical" handling of Kasparov a chess revolution? How much did Anand's computer preparations influence the chess scene? Is Carlsen's "equal but playable middlegame" an epiphany or has it been tried on this level before? And finally: how has AlphaZero and Neural Networks influenced the way top players look at chess?
Some quotes and tidbits about some of these players "My score vs. Paul Petrovich was 0-4, and I had the feeling that if I agreed to his help, it would be Keres fighting at the board and not me.... His chess authority would have put too much pressure on me." - Korchnoi on why he wouldn't pick Paul Keres as his 2nd for his match against Karpov "For pleasure you can read the games collections of Andersson and Chigorin, but for benefit you should study Tarrasch, Keres and Bronstein" - Mikhail Tal "For me, Paul Keres was the last Mohican, the carrier of the best traditions of classical chess and - if I could put it this way - the Pope of chess. Why did he not become the champion? I know it from personal experience that in order to reach the top, a person is thinking solely of the goal, he has to forget everything else in this world, toss aside everything unnecessary - or else you are doomed. How could Keres forget everything else?" - Spassky "So, other moments seem more important. Fischer is much younger and goes forward creatively. He's able to fight in every game, from the very beginning until the end, until the lonely kings - only a few players are able to do that. Of our players, only Korchnoi plays like that." -Tal when writing in a magazine on the Taimanov-Fischer match.
Rubinstein in the first decade or so of the 20th century. After the war he wasn't the same despite sparks of genius. He also invented a lot of chess openings that are still played today. At his best he was one of the most accurate players who ever lived, especially in the end game. Was playing through one of his rook endings that had been criticised by Lasker, but Lasker's suggestion was wrong... Rubinstein played it flawlessly.
The discussion about Topalov is one of the funniest chess dojo moments ever! This time I'm definitly with David. Topalov played a real match, which means he should be at least a contender. He won a (world) championship tournament which is defintily World Champion worthy. Also his peak and stay at the top rankings isnt as short as Jessie thinks. For me this sums up to "World Championship Level"
Rubinstein, brings the style and theory which was emulated later by soviet school of chess - and even now authors give his name whole chapters like "Playing in the Style of Akiba Rubinstein" in Gelfand's book. He set up plenty of ideas in the openings (and they are correct till now as Gelfand said "Most of the modern openings are based on Rubinstein."). Played rook endgames better than anyone, was BEST player in the World for 2 years straight 1912-1914 and 1st-2nd player in 1909-1911. Aww... and he beat Lasker and Capablanca with the same Qc1 move ;) He also had no chance to play vs Lasker due to financial status (he started chess when he was 14 and was from poor Jewish family). While Keres got into top level because he was Estonian... and because he was good during 2nd WW... Also, you could include Johannes Zukertort instead of nice guys...
Maroczy, Pillsbury, Karjakin, Leko are some possible additions. Shirov too maybe (he did beat Kramnik in a qualifier for a WC match against Kasparov). Pruess is right about Ulf Andersson. What's he doing there?
I really liked the list until basically the last pick decision. When i saw Nepo in elite tier i was without words. Nepo played 2 world championship matches, he won 2 candidates tournaments and still he is in the same ranking as Bent Larsen and Ulf Andersson. I hope you have something personal against him, otherwise i cannot really understand the logic behind this.
Dude i would have put him in the pretender section. His two championship matches were a joke. I would argue Ding deserves the contender section, and Nepo couldn't win his match against him. He never crossed 2800 rating (unlike MVL, So, and other people who don't deserve to be on this list). He has won the russian championship only once (!!!) Outside his wins in the candidates, his best results are winning the aeroflot open. An Open tournament that was won by Fedoseev, Najer, Kovalev, and other second tier player
Great discussion, I love the emotional exchanges between David and Jesse. I watched it through to see where you would put Nakamura. I had him placed as an Elite as well. Definitely has calculation skills off the charts, but consistency seems lacking at times. He could have replaced Ding in the world championship match but for his loss in his last candidates match to Ding. I rooted for Radjabov during the candidates tournament because many chess comentators had him pegged to finish last prior to the tournament, hence he was the underdog. And all that Nakamura could muster against Radjabov was to split their two matches. Radjabov finished ahead of Nakamura in the final standings (due to tiebreak criteria).
7:20 Chigorin got 2nd place in Hastings 95 ahead of Steinitz and Lasker. 1st place winner, Pillsbury, definitely deserves his place in the chart too. He probably was best player in the world before his death
I think Jesse was completely wrong about the "why" Hikaru is doing well in the last two years. He chalks it up to misused talent, I think he's better than he ever has been for all the reasons Hikaru himself cites that he plays well today. If anything, with Magnus out of the picture, I think Hikaru has the highest chance of anyone currently to become world champion in the next two or three cycles
Where's Nigel Short? He played a world championship match so he deserves at least elite, right? I think that shows why Jesse's harsher opinions on some of them are right - there are so many who'd get into these tiers but aren't on the list.
There are definitely many elite players not on this list and maybe a couple contenders; we couldn't cover many more players than this in a single episode. Others have pointed out Leko and Karjakin as players who tied world championship matches. But we did talk about a lot of great players :)
@@chesscomdpruess yes and well done for sticking up for Topalov - I was totally with you and your frustrations at that point. The point of my comment was not to say 'why no Short?' - he got a mention after all with leko etc. - but to suggest that's why you needed to be a bit tougher on some earlier players. Good job though, was genuinely interesting
Shirov qualified for a match against Kasparov that didn't happen. However, Kasparov has a 16-0 record against him so "Elite" sounds more correct than contender. Polgar is the female GOAT, head and shoulders above the competition in that category. While she was extremely strong, her overall level would match that of Ulf Andersson.
Bent Larsen was number 3 in the world at his peek and he won three Interzonal chess tournaments (What would be similar to winning three Chess World Cups today). I think he is somewhat underrated because that he lost some famous games to Spassky and Fisher.
Idk fabi is definitively the strongest player on this list and it’s not even close. I think being one of only 3 players to reach 2850 is already world champion level
That and winning the Sinquefield Cup in 2014 with the highest average elo rating with the highest tournament performance ever I think should be enough to be considered world championship level
Geller would have been also an interesting choice. If you look at his scores against world champions, players like Andersson and Nimzo look kind of pale in this pool.
Zuckertort, Janowski, Bogoljubov, Shirov, Leko, Gelfand, Karjakin. It is weird to have a "contender" tier and not include the actual contenders. Janowski and Bogoljubov are probably pretenders but the rest deserve a rating. As does Geller
Despite toiletgate it's hard to not put him up there on WC level due to his rating performances alone. Jesse seems to be a bit emotional in his assesments tbh
I really enjoy these talks, keep up the banter. Here is a constructive criticism fellas: sparring David, the other two suffer from recency bias and American bias. Ranking Fabi over Korchnoi is the most hilarious thing ever!
putting Caruana in contender is such a weird choice, David was completely right with his reasoning. If anything Fabi deserved to *win* the classical portion of the match, he was better in a large number of game... yet Kostya acted as if he only managed to draw Carlsen due to the short length of the match. Very weird assessment.
Well the match was very close and Fabi is obviously an amazing player, but it doesn't seem like Fabi deserved to win...he had a serious advantage in one game (Game 8), while Magnus was much closer to winning in Game 1 and of course Magnus gave up great winning chances in Game 12 simply to force the tiebreak. If it was a longer match Magnus would of course press (and likely win) that game. Still an incredible match! Fabi def did not *only* draw because of the short distance. -Kostya
While that was an entertaining discussion, I question the list of names given the exclusion of a few who played in world championship matches (e.g. Leko and Karjakin).
Great list! I would switch Fine and Nimzo (Fine has plus scores against Lasker, Botvinnik, and Alekhine), and Pillsbury could be included either of the top 2 sections. Regarding Topalov, Champion tier was clearly merited - pretty sure he was rated number 1 on more occasions than both Anand and Kramnik, and he gave them both a very difficult match. Inconsistent, but when he was hot he was burning hot.
Perhaps Fine should be higher, here is what I found in wiki: Publicly, Fine stated that he could not interrupt work on his doctoral dissertation in psychology. Negotiations over the tournament had been protracted, and for a long time it was unclear whether this World Championship event would in fact take place. Fine wrote that he didn't want to spend many months preparing and then see the tournament cancelled. However, it has also been suggested that Fine declined to play because he suspected there would be collaboration among the three Soviet participants to ensure that one of them won the championship. In the August 2004 issue of Chess Life, for example, Larry Evans gave his recollection that "Fine told me he didn't want to waste three months of his life watching Russians throw games to each other."
Steinitz challenged Dr. Tarrasch when steinitz was world champion, but Tarrasch was too busy with his medical practice to cross the Atlantic to play the match.
The name of the category is a bit misleading. "World champion level" what does it mean ? Because Max Euwe was world champion, but if Fabi, Rubinstein and Kortchnoi were not "world champion level" then neither was Euwe...
Korchnoi was a top-10 player for 30 years (longer than Keres), a top-5 player for at least 15 years, and played in 2 WC matches (3 if you count 1974), while Keres played in none. All while battling geopolitical forces arguably as tough as those Keres faced, forging a unique counterattacking style, and remaining very strong into his old age. I love Rubinstein, Keres, and Bronstein - but in my opinion Korchnoi undoubtedly has THE best argument for being the greatest player never to be WC. Absolutely crazy not to put him top tier.
Keres was a top 10 player for 40 years. And for many years he was ahead of Korchnoi, even in the 60s. Furthermore, I think Keres has a favorable score against Korchnoi. And I think he has more tournament wins than Korchnoi. On the other hand, I think that after Fischer left, the 70s were a somewhat strange decade, the Smyslovs, Botvinniks and Keres were no longer there, the latter died. Then Spassky and Petrosian lowered their level, and Tal was no longer the Tal of the 60s. I think Korchnoi, on the other hand, maintained his level and only had Karpov's competition in those years. Still, I think that in this tier, they should be at the same level.
When it comes to Fabi drawing the match against Magnus, one should also keep in mind another statistic - Fabi didn't win a single game against Magnus between 2015 and 2023.
Nepo should be ranked as contender. I would define contender as someone who would or should play a world championship title with the champion. Nepo won two candidates BACK TO BACK to earn the right to be the "contender" for the title of world champion. He lost both of them so that is why he is only a contender rather than higher but how can you not say he is a contender?
In my opinion, with all respect to the great Ulf Andersson, players like Pillsbury, Geller, Polugaevsky, Beliavsky, Shirov, and Morozevich are all more deserving of a place on this list. And I'm with Jesse. Topalov was ranked too highly.
Ivanchuk and Rubinstein belong in the top spot. Rubinstein and Capablanca never had a match because Rubinstein couldn't raise the money for it. And Jesse's point that his record wasn't great isn't the best argument against it. Rubinstein's best chess seemed to have just begun starting when the war interrupted it. Ivanchuk is a genius. Full stop. Judit Polgar said it, others too. And there's never really been someone quite like him. Someone who could bully Kasparov and other world champs. And his emotions aren't the only reason his record isn't the best. You criticize Schlechter for being a draw machine, but don't praise Ivanchuk for always playing for a win. He was uncompromising at his height. Also, Jesse should stop using autism as a catch-all diagnosis. It could be Ivanchuk is on the spectrum, but his eccentricities and nervousness could stem from other things as well.
For those interested in Ulf Andersson: he was out of the top 20 throughout the 1970s. He had his best years from the beginning of 1983 up to the middle of 1984 when he was 4-5 in the world. After that he fell of the top 10. He had a brief return at the end of the 80s at no 9 and then never again. Great player but David is right, he just doesn't belong here.
Schlechter was ahead in the last game against Lasker and was unlucky to say the least with the outbreak of WW1 costed hes live due to starvation in 1918.
54:35 Did they change the picture afterwards or something?! I think the picture is actually Ulf Andersson, just as a "young" men. Also to be fair. Ulf at some point was 3rd in the world! (Only behind Kasparov and Karpov)
Ulf never was #3 in official rankings. You are probably thinking as some weird alternative ranking, not official elo. Just as David said, Timman was always better
I look forward to your discussions with interest. In this case, I disagree with many things. Korchnoi played two world championship matches and one final candidates match. All with Karpov, who was then superior to everyone. Bronstein only appeared in the match for 1 season. Chigorin and Tarrasch should be higher. Tarrasch had excellent tournament success, and it was from Tarrasch that everyone learned Steinitz’s positional theory. I believe that Fine was part of the elite, although I am not American. Topalov was weaker than Korchnoi.
Very entertaining as always. For those of you wanting to see Larsen at his best, check out his brilliancy against Petrosian from (I think) the Piatagorsky Cup. There is also a fantastic game of Anderson`s where he absolutely crushes Karpov with Black. There may well be better picks for the list but both were supremely strong. Larsen perhaps lacked discipline whilst Anderson lacked ambition. Were either better than players like Portisch or Geller?
Larsen was maybe better than Portisch but not Geller. Andersson doesn't belong in this conversation. Geller does and it is weird not to include the guy who basically was the top opening theoretician for 20+ years and had a winning record against world champions.
How close was Britain's Nigel Short to making this list ? He won the candidates tournament, beating Karpov and Timman along the way. Kasparov obviously proved to be too strong but he should have got four wins against him instead of just the one that he did.
Chucky played Ponomariov for the title. Shirov famously beat Kramnik in a match to play Kasparov and reached the FIDE-inal against Ananad. Also consider the quality of his games. Take off Ulf and put on Shirov. And move down Schlechter, move up Korchnoi and Rubinstein.
I fully agree with David’s reasoning to put Fabi in World Champion Level. It was the same thought Kostya shared earlier in the video as well. If Magnus never graced the chess world with his dominance, we’d be in the Fabi era instead. He’s the next world champion if Magnus doesn’t want it again.
Yeah I was expecting Fabi to be easy WC level and was astonished when he was just considered a contender. The question is "best players who were never WC" and he's definitely one of the best, with a truly exceptional peak rating, and drawing prime Magnus. I found the "reasoning" from the others a little bizarre, Kostya saying "well drawing one game doesn't mean anything, and drawing a 12 game match is basically the same thing", and Jesse's shitlibbery at not wanting to credit Fabi for drawing the match because then they'd have to credit the un-personed Karjakin because he also drew Magnus.
We are calling botvinnik world champion. He didn't beat previous world champion. He lost the title multiple times but got the luxury of an auto rematch. Not questioning his ability, but if botvinnik is considered WC why not Ding? It's not his fault that magnus doesn't want to play.
Levon should be higher. He has won two chess world cups. For some reason he couldn't perform at the candidates but he still is the 4th highest rated player in history.
What are you guys talking about? That IS Ulf Andersson on the photo. Also, David again is completely wrong. He was a top player for many years (esp. in the 70s and 80s), he was a fixure in top tournaments (and won many) and was really hard to beat, even by world champions. And he indeed had a unique and influential playing style.
I know who he is. Look at the other names we discussed on this episode! He's an outlier as far as how close to the top he was compared to the other names. The only two you could argue as having similar position in the world elite would be Chigorin and Nimzo, and Chigorin had two world championship matches going for him. For me to be completely wrong, you'd have to have 5+ players on our list who were inferior to Ulf.
@@chesscomdpruess You mean other names like Fine? When asked why he would be considered, all you manage to say is: he won AVRO 1938 (not even clear first) and that he was "a pretty good player". At least Andersson won a lot of top tournaments. You can't have Fine be included based on that and then throw shade on the guy that won a lot more.
Andersson was #4-5 for one and a half year and also had six months as #9. The rest of his career he was outside of the top 10. These are official rating lists, stop looking at chessmetrics for modern players. He was good, maybe even great, but he simply does not belong in this conversation.
Topalov had a great longlivety and was a some point ranked nr 1, and won that tournament so WC is not unfair. Compering him to Anand and Kramnik, he should be ranked lowered though. I think Naka should be a pretender. He had been raited 2-3 i the world couple of times but never the guy you said hes clear the nr 2. And his resuoltes aginst Carlsen is awfull, compaird to Aronion and Caruana vs Carlsen.
48:01 The birth of S-tier might be 1972. (Same year as Fischer became champion). That year Mercedes Benz made their first S-class automobile (sonderklasse), now known as the super-class or special class. S-tier cars are both luxurious and fast. Next best Mercedes E-class is only elite in style and comfort, but not a sports car. A-class is sporty, but small.
Pruess is clearly correct and Kraai clearly wrong about Topalov. Jesse cites Chessmetrics, which stopped tabulating in early 2005, right beforeTopalov ascended to clear #1. Topalov was co-equal to Anand and Kramnik for many years and the clear #1. The Anand and Kramnik matches vs Topalov were back-and-forth and competitive. Not even a question Topalov is top tier on this list. Jesse is just being Skip Bayless here, instigating unfounded controversy.
The most talented player I think is Tal He played like it was fun and still won the world championship against the most responsible player ever being Botvinnik
Nepo won the candidates tournament twice, during a time of chess boom and highest theoretical level of play, thanks to A.I. Making him NOT a contender is quite a stretch. He lost first game against Magnus in a game that lasted over 100 turns. Then he was exhausted and tried to win by force. Come on guys.
With all due respect I believe you underestimate Larsen. His attacking style was a flaw when facing top tier player but he was an incredible player. Didn't deserve to be in the same tier as Nimzo and Schlechter
What I always appreciate about Dojo Talks is that you have 3 master level players who aren't afraid to disagree and share what they think, AND they're not afraid to give each other a hard time. Love it!
Please never stop the tierlist/ ranking format! Watching the disscusion and all the banter between you 3 is immensly intersting and entertaining!!!
David just going off on Ulf for the rest of the video is so good, I love the passion.
Jesse Topalov was #1 in the rankings 3 times, in 2006, 2008, 2010. You keep comparing him to Karpov and Kasparov, but you should compare him to Kramnik and Anand. And in that regard, he was a bit less strong than them, but still boxing in the same category
“Ding is a contender” - Jesse is very cheeky 😂
Props to David for putting Reuben Fine on the list. Chessmetrics says Fine was ranked #1 in the world in late 1940 to early 1941. He definitely should've been above many of those players you guys put at elite despite them never coming close to #1. If you do a part two, please rank Zukertort, Pillsbury, and Reshevsky, all of whom were ranked #1 in the world at some point according to Chessmetrics.
Akiba Rubenstein is so underrated .he has done so much for chess theory and a masterful endgame player in my view if not for world war one he would have become world champion
Agree ! Did video on him
Absolutely! To my mind he is clearly the best player not to become world champion.
I mean, Keres, Bronstein and Fabi have all had the chance to play for the championship, but failed.
I thought Fabi would be at the top of the S tier. Mindblowing to me that he's in A tier. He hit 2850 and drew Magnus in the WC. Literally all he could do better was win ONE game against the GOAT Magnus (which he almost did) and he WOULD have been world champion. If you're one game away from taking the belt from the GOAT, you're cemented in S tier.
I agree, and his greatest achievement imo is the 2014 sinquefield cup. Starting 7-0-0 against that field of competition is mind boggling.
After the match Schlechter confided to some people that there was a secret condition, saying that he needed to win the match by a 2-point difference. That's why he went crazy in the last game ( if the story is true), even though he had a lead by 1 point. Perhaps it would have been wiser to make a draw in the last game, and then let Lasker explain to the world how is he still the world champion when he lost the match. Unfortunately for Schlechter he had insanely high moral standards, so this was out of the question for such a person. He agreed before the match that he must win by +2, so he played according to those rules.
Of course, I can't prove this story, it is just what I heard from someone who has studied chess history extensively.
That's a wild story-- a secret condition in a world championship match! Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
As Kostya said, Jesse's riffs on chess history are highly entertaining
Not mentioning Leko is insane. He was one game away from the title in his match against kramnik in 2004.
Where is Reshevsky boss?!? Or Pilsbury? great video debate. Cheers
What I really want is a "most influential chess players ever" tier list.
I want your opinions on questions such as: Is Steinitz the most influential with his strategic theories? Are Tarrasch's writing more important because they brought chess knowledge to the general public? Where does Nimzowitsch fit in all this? How influential was Botvinnik's "scientific" approach to preparing? How important were Geller's theoretical contributions and why did Spassky and Karpov ignore him? How big was Fischer's impact not only in American chess but also in prize funds and tournament conditions? What new did Kasparov bring to the way the game was being played? Is Kramnik's "technical" handling of Kasparov a chess revolution? How much did Anand's computer preparations influence the chess scene? Is Carlsen's "equal but playable middlegame" an epiphany or has it been tried on this level before? And finally: how has AlphaZero and Neural Networks influenced the way top players look at chess?
Wow!! Great questions!!! Thanks for asking! We owe you some episodes :)
@chesscomdpruess I wrote this before listening to the whole podcast. Entire videos dedicated to Shirov and Naka are also amazing ideas!
Nepo should be a contender! I mean he has won 2 Candidates back to back. Tell me who else has done that.
if the match was closer between him and magnus he would definitely be a contender
Exactly right you are.
@@junomoon6337it was close until he got his soul ripped from his body in game 6.
@@junomoon6337 Agreed. And he still has time. He is still at his peak!
@@meekaboi yea but he still lost by like 3 or 4 games
Literally better than watching undisputed on espn. How reasonable you all are, yet how unreasonable you all view each other, is amazing.
Some quotes and tidbits about some of these players
"My score vs. Paul Petrovich was 0-4, and I had the feeling that if I agreed to his help, it would be Keres fighting at the board and not me.... His chess authority would have put too much pressure on me." - Korchnoi on why he wouldn't pick Paul Keres as his 2nd for his match against Karpov
"For pleasure you can read the games collections of Andersson and Chigorin, but for benefit you should study Tarrasch, Keres and Bronstein" - Mikhail Tal
"For me, Paul Keres was the last Mohican, the carrier of the best traditions of classical chess and - if I could put it this way - the Pope of chess. Why did he not become the champion? I know it from personal experience that in order to reach the top, a person is thinking solely of the goal, he has to forget everything else in this world, toss aside everything unnecessary - or else you are doomed. How could Keres forget everything else?" - Spassky
"So, other moments seem more important. Fischer is much younger and goes forward creatively. He's able to fight in every game, from the very beginning until the end, until the lonely kings - only a few players are able to do that. Of our players, only Korchnoi plays like that." -Tal when writing in a magazine on the Taimanov-Fischer match.
Rubinstein in the first decade or so of the 20th century. After the war he wasn't the same despite sparks of genius. He also invented a lot of chess openings that are still played today. At his best he was one of the most accurate players who ever lived, especially in the end game. Was playing through one of his rook endings that had been criticised by Lasker, but Lasker's suggestion was wrong... Rubinstein played it flawlessly.
The discussion about Topalov is one of the funniest chess dojo moments ever! This time I'm definitly with David. Topalov played a real match, which means he should be at least a contender. He won a (world) championship tournament which is defintily World Champion worthy. Also his peak and stay at the top rankings isnt as short as Jessie thinks. For me this sums up to "World Championship Level"
Nobody viewed Topalov as a champion much like Ding is a paper champion now when it's clear he can't hold it together to be top 2 in the world.
Rubinstein, brings the style and theory which was emulated later by soviet school of chess - and even now authors give his name whole chapters like "Playing in the Style of Akiba Rubinstein" in Gelfand's book. He set up plenty of ideas in the openings (and they are correct till now as Gelfand said "Most of the modern openings are based on Rubinstein."). Played rook endgames better than anyone, was BEST player in the World for 2 years straight 1912-1914 and 1st-2nd player in 1909-1911. Aww... and he beat Lasker and Capablanca with the same Qc1 move ;) He also had no chance to play vs Lasker due to financial status (he started chess when he was 14 and was from poor Jewish family).
While Keres got into top level because he was Estonian... and because he was good during 2nd WW...
Also, you could include Johannes Zukertort instead of nice guys...
That Qc1 move was so sweet both times :)
Have missed you gents. Thanks for the podcast!
Maroczy, Pillsbury, Karjakin, Leko are some possible additions. Shirov too maybe (he did beat Kramnik in a qualifier for a WC match against Kasparov). Pruess is right about Ulf Andersson. What's he doing there?
I really liked the list until basically the last pick decision. When i saw Nepo in elite tier i was without words. Nepo played 2 world championship matches, he won 2 candidates tournaments and still he is in the same ranking as Bent Larsen and Ulf Andersson. I hope you have something personal against him, otherwise i cannot really understand the logic behind this.
Dude i would have put him in the pretender section. His two championship matches were a joke. I would argue Ding deserves the contender section, and Nepo couldn't win his match against him. He never crossed 2800 rating (unlike MVL, So, and other people who don't deserve to be on this list). He has won the russian championship only once (!!!) Outside his wins in the candidates, his best results are winning the aeroflot open. An Open tournament that was won by Fedoseev, Najer, Kovalev, and other second tier player
@@felbas4224
He has crossed 2800 tho
@@felbas4224If Nepo is pretender what is Hikaru never done anythin.
@@Minerva6699 when?
Thank you ChessDojo!🔥
Great discussion, I love the emotional exchanges between David and Jesse.
I watched it through to see where you would put Nakamura. I had him placed as an Elite as well. Definitely has calculation skills off the charts, but consistency seems lacking at times. He could have replaced Ding in the world championship match but for his loss in his last candidates match to Ding.
I rooted for Radjabov during the candidates tournament because many chess comentators had him pegged to finish last prior to the tournament, hence he was the underdog. And all that Nakamura could muster against Radjabov was to split their two matches. Radjabov finished ahead of Nakamura in the final standings (due to tiebreak criteria).
7:20 Chigorin got 2nd place in Hastings 95 ahead of Steinitz and Lasker. 1st place winner, Pillsbury, definitely deserves his place in the chart too. He probably was best player in the world before his death
I think Jesse was completely wrong about the "why" Hikaru is doing well in the last two years. He chalks it up to misused talent, I think he's better than he ever has been for all the reasons Hikaru himself cites that he plays well today. If anything, with Magnus out of the picture, I think Hikaru has the highest chance of anyone currently to become world champion in the next two or three cycles
Where's Nigel Short? He played a world championship match so he deserves at least elite, right?
I think that shows why Jesse's harsher opinions on some of them are right - there are so many who'd get into these tiers but aren't on the list.
Definitely. Short beat both Karpov and Timman in matches on the way to winning the 90s Candidate Tournament before the PCA breakaway.
There are definitely many elite players not on this list and maybe a couple contenders; we couldn't cover many more players than this in a single episode. Others have pointed out Leko and Karjakin as players who tied world championship matches. But we did talk about a lot of great players :)
@@chesscomdpruess yes and well done for sticking up for Topalov - I was totally with you and your frustrations at that point.
The point of my comment was not to say 'why no Short?' - he got a mention after all with leko etc. - but to suggest that's why you needed to be a bit tougher on some earlier players. Good job though, was genuinely interesting
@@framebadger Aha, I see!
I would love to see Shirov, Morozevic and Judit Polgar. They all inspired me to play wreckless, sometimes unorthodox attacking chess
Shirov qualified for a match against Kasparov that didn't happen. However, Kasparov has a 16-0 record against him so "Elite" sounds more correct than contender.
Polgar is the female GOAT, head and shoulders above the competition in that category. While she was extremely strong, her overall level would match that of Ulf Andersson.
Shirov and Morozevic Elite, Polgar pretender.
Bent Larsen was number 3 in the world at his peek and he won three Interzonal chess tournaments (What would be similar to winning three Chess World Cups today). I think he is somewhat underrated because that he lost some famous games to Spassky and Fisher.
Idk fabi is definitively the strongest player on this list and it’s not even close.
I think being one of only 3 players to reach 2850 is already world champion level
That and winning the Sinquefield Cup in 2014 with the highest average elo rating with the highest tournament performance ever I think should be enough to be considered world championship level
Geller would have been also an interesting choice. If you look at his scores against world champions, players like Andersson and Nimzo look kind of pale in this pool.
Great discussion! List should include Reshevsky, but not a big deal. I read somewhere that Botvinnik was afraid of him in the 50's.
Come on... Botvinnik was never afraid of Reshevsky
@@liorlapid1735Fischer thought Reshevsky would have beat Botvinnik in the 50s
1:21:30 "Imagine there hadn't been Carlsen" would make Korchnoi S-tier (imagine there hadn't been Karpov)
You can't have a list like this without Svidler! That dude has some amazing games against many of the greatest players of the past 25 years.
Where the hell is Johannes Zukertort? The reason he's not here had better be that he was unofficial champion while Steinitz was gone.
Zuckertort, Janowski, Bogoljubov, Shirov, Leko, Gelfand, Karjakin. It is weird to have a "contender" tier and not include the actual contenders. Janowski and Bogoljubov are probably pretenders but the rest deserve a rating. As does Geller
@1:10:00 Dude, Topalov won a tournament in which *KRAMNIK* was not present. Kramnik still had a legitimate claim to the title.
Topalov conversation was fantastic..
Despite toiletgate it's hard to not put him up there on WC level due to his rating performances alone. Jesse seems to be a bit emotional in his assesments tbh
Don’t let aagaard see topolav in the thumbnail 😂
I really enjoy these talks, keep up the banter. Here is a constructive criticism fellas: sparring David, the other two suffer from recency bias and American bias.
Ranking Fabi over Korchnoi is the most hilarious thing ever!
Reshevsky should be on the list!
putting Caruana in contender is such a weird choice, David was completely right with his reasoning. If anything Fabi deserved to *win* the classical portion of the match, he was better in a large number of game... yet Kostya acted as if he only managed to draw Carlsen due to the short length of the match. Very weird assessment.
Well the match was very close and Fabi is obviously an amazing player, but it doesn't seem like Fabi deserved to win...he had a serious advantage in one game (Game 8), while Magnus was much closer to winning in Game 1 and of course Magnus gave up great winning chances in Game 12 simply to force the tiebreak. If it was a longer match Magnus would of course press (and likely win) that game. Still an incredible match! Fabi def did not *only* draw because of the short distance. -Kostya
@@ChessDojo I agree Fabi didn't deserve to win the classical portion, but he definitely deserved the S-tier ^^
Very interesting Video! I love that historic story time
While that was an entertaining discussion, I question the list of names given the exclusion of a few who played in world championship matches (e.g. Leko and Karjakin).
Great list! I would switch Fine and Nimzo (Fine has plus scores against Lasker, Botvinnik, and Alekhine), and Pillsbury could be included either of the top 2 sections. Regarding Topalov, Champion tier was clearly merited - pretty sure he was rated number 1 on more occasions than both Anand and Kramnik, and he gave them both a very difficult match. Inconsistent, but when he was hot he was burning hot.
How can you put Fine and not Reshevsky?
Perhaps Fine should be higher, here is what I found in wiki: Publicly, Fine stated that he could not interrupt work on his doctoral dissertation in psychology. Negotiations over the tournament had been protracted, and for a long time it was unclear whether this World Championship event would in fact take place. Fine wrote that he didn't want to spend many months preparing and then see the tournament cancelled. However, it has also been suggested that Fine declined to play because he suspected there would be collaboration among the three Soviet participants to ensure that one of them won the championship. In the August 2004 issue of Chess Life, for example, Larry Evans gave his recollection that "Fine told me he didn't want to waste three months of his life watching Russians throw games to each other."
You say players 'NEVER' to become world champion. What's to stop Fabi becoming world champion? Entirely possible.
Well yes of course! But at the time of recording he hasn't done it yet, and is already good enough to be on the list!
Topalov was a world champion in San Luis Argentina, 2005!
But his chess career went down the 🚽 after that.
@@musicalneptunian Ok, but he was champion. This is a list of great players, but never champions.
Steinitz challenged Dr. Tarrasch when steinitz was world champion, but Tarrasch was too busy with his medical practice to cross the Atlantic to play the match.
The name of the category is a bit misleading. "World champion level" what does it mean ? Because Max Euwe was world champion, but if Fabi, Rubinstein and Kortchnoi were not "world champion level" then neither was Euwe...
Korchnoi was a top-10 player for 30 years (longer than Keres), a top-5 player for at least 15 years, and played in 2 WC matches (3 if you count 1974), while Keres played in none. All while battling geopolitical forces arguably as tough as those Keres faced, forging a unique counterattacking style, and remaining very strong into his old age. I love Rubinstein, Keres, and Bronstein - but in my opinion Korchnoi undoubtedly has THE best argument for being the greatest player never to be WC. Absolutely crazy not to put him top tier.
Keres was a top 10 player for 40 years. And for many years he was ahead of Korchnoi, even in the 60s. Furthermore, I think Keres has a favorable score against Korchnoi. And I think he has more tournament wins than Korchnoi.
On the other hand, I think that after Fischer left, the 70s were a somewhat strange decade, the Smyslovs, Botvinniks and Keres were no longer there, the latter died.
Then Spassky and Petrosian lowered their level, and Tal was no longer the Tal of the 60s.
I think Korchnoi, on the other hand, maintained his level and only had Karpov's competition in those years.
Still, I think that in this tier, they should be at the same level.
When it comes to Fabi drawing the match against Magnus, one should also keep in mind another statistic - Fabi didn't win a single game against Magnus between 2015 and 2023.
Nepo should be ranked as contender. I would define contender as someone who would or should play a world championship title with the champion. Nepo won two candidates BACK TO BACK to earn the right to be the "contender" for the title of world champion. He lost both of them so that is why he is only a contender rather than higher but how can you not say he is a contender?
In my opinion, with all respect to the great Ulf Andersson, players like Pillsbury, Geller, Polugaevsky, Beliavsky, Shirov, and Morozevich are all more deserving of a place on this list.
And I'm with Jesse. Topalov was ranked too highly.
Akiba belongs right at the top. I mostly agree with the rest.
1:16:43 Jesse, we're waiting for the list of most talented Chess players dude!
You guys also skipped Maroczy.
Keres' games are some of the most brilliantly aesthetic imo
Ivanchuk and Rubinstein belong in the top spot. Rubinstein and Capablanca never had a match because Rubinstein couldn't raise the money for it. And Jesse's point that his record wasn't great isn't the best argument against it. Rubinstein's best chess seemed to have just begun starting when the war interrupted it. Ivanchuk is a genius. Full stop. Judit Polgar said it, others too. And there's never really been someone quite like him. Someone who could bully Kasparov and other world champs. And his emotions aren't the only reason his record isn't the best. You criticize Schlechter for being a draw machine, but don't praise Ivanchuk for always playing for a win. He was uncompromising at his height. Also, Jesse should stop using autism as a catch-all diagnosis. It could be Ivanchuk is on the spectrum, but his eccentricities and nervousness could stem from other things as well.
For those interested in Ulf Andersson: he was out of the top 20 throughout the 1970s. He had his best years from the beginning of 1983 up to the middle of 1984 when he was 4-5 in the world. After that he fell of the top 10. He had a brief return at the end of the 80s at no 9 and then never again.
Great player but David is right, he just doesn't belong here.
Man was also allergic to winning and holding onto queens. He would trade them by move 10 and then grind an endgame for 300 moves.
Fabi
Aronian
Nepo
Naka
Korch
Topalov
Keres
Chuky
Akiba
Timman
Bronstein
Fine
Andersson
Tarrasch
Larsen
Nimzo
Chigorin
Schlechter
After making these types of videos, with what face do they show up to play a tournament or teach their students?
Schlechter was ahead in the last game against Lasker and was unlucky to say the least with the outbreak of WW1 costed hes live due to starvation in 1918.
Having Fine and Andersson but not Leko is unserious. And I agree Korchnoi should be at the top.
Why is Philidor not in the list?
Pillsbury needs to be here.
54:35 Did they change the picture afterwards or something?! I think the picture is actually Ulf Andersson, just as a "young" men.
Also to be fair. Ulf at some point was 3rd in the world! (Only behind Kasparov and Karpov)
Yup! I think they put "corrected photo" as part of the chapter list, as well.
Ulf never was #3 in official rankings. You are probably thinking as some weird alternative ranking, not official elo. Just as David said, Timman was always better
I look forward to your discussions with interest.
In this case, I disagree with many things.
Korchnoi played two world championship matches and one final candidates match. All with Karpov, who was then superior to everyone.
Bronstein only appeared in the match for 1 season.
Chigorin and Tarrasch should be higher.
Tarrasch had excellent tournament success, and it was from Tarrasch that everyone learned Steinitz’s positional theory.
I believe that Fine was part of the elite, although I am not American.
Topalov was weaker than Korchnoi.
According to you guys is Anand 3 times world champion? (Excluding David)
Very entertaining as always. For those of you wanting to see Larsen at his best, check out his brilliancy against Petrosian from (I think) the Piatagorsky Cup.
There is also a fantastic game of Anderson`s where he absolutely crushes Karpov with Black. There may well be better picks for the list but both were supremely strong. Larsen perhaps lacked discipline whilst Anderson lacked ambition. Were either better than players like Portisch or Geller?
Larsen was maybe better than Portisch but not Geller. Andersson doesn't belong in this conversation. Geller does and it is weird not to include the guy who basically was the top opening theoretician for 20+ years and had a winning record against world champions.
David's distaste toward Ulf's inclusion on the list is hilarious.
How close was Britain's Nigel Short to making this list ? He won the candidates tournament, beating Karpov and Timman along the way. Kasparov obviously proved to be too strong but he should have got four wins against him instead of just the one that he did.
Chucky played Ponomariov for the title. Shirov famously beat Kramnik in a match to play Kasparov and reached the FIDE-inal against Ananad. Also consider the quality of his games. Take off Ulf and put on Shirov. And move down Schlechter, move up Korchnoi and Rubinstein.
Korchnoi an Rubinstein could be up there with Keres and Bronstein, and how is Pillsbury not on the list? The banter was very entertaining.
Topalov was a math error. 2 S's and 1 B makes 1+1+3= 5, which averages out to 5/3 or closest to A tier.
I fully agree with David’s reasoning to put Fabi in World Champion Level. It was the same thought Kostya shared earlier in the video as well. If Magnus never graced the chess world with his dominance, we’d be in the Fabi era instead. He’s the next world champion if Magnus doesn’t want it again.
Yeah I was expecting Fabi to be easy WC level and was astonished when he was just considered a contender. The question is "best players who were never WC" and he's definitely one of the best, with a truly exceptional peak rating, and drawing prime Magnus. I found the "reasoning" from the others a little bizarre, Kostya saying "well drawing one game doesn't mean anything, and drawing a 12 game match is basically the same thing", and Jesse's shitlibbery at not wanting to credit Fabi for drawing the match because then they'd have to credit the un-personed Karjakin because he also drew Magnus.
We are calling botvinnik world champion. He didn't beat previous world champion. He lost the title multiple times but got the luxury of an auto rematch. Not questioning his ability, but if botvinnik is considered WC why not Ding? It's not his fault that magnus doesn't want to play.
Rubinstein, Schlecter, Bronstein, and Korchnoi in no particular order. Let's see who you choose.
Not that they are particularly world champ level but honorable mentions should have been Shirov Khalifman Ponomariov & Grischuk
Timman and not Short? And where is Samuel Reshevsky?
Levon should be higher. He has won two chess world cups. For some reason he couldn't perform at the candidates but he still is the 4th highest rated player in history.
Find someone who loves you as much as Preuss hated on Ulf!
They said it was a wrong picture of Ulf, but it sure looks like a young Ulf to me.
@@kwhd559 fixed in post-production editing for youtube. on twitch it was a picture of Adolf Anderssen.
What are you guys talking about? That IS Ulf Andersson on the photo.
Also, David again is completely wrong. He was a top player for many years (esp. in the 70s and 80s), he was a fixure in top tournaments (and won many) and was really hard to beat, even by world champions. And he indeed had a unique and influential playing style.
Lol we had the wrong photo up on the stream 😂
I know who he is. Look at the other names we discussed on this episode! He's an outlier as far as how close to the top he was compared to the other names. The only two you could argue as having similar position in the world elite would be Chigorin and Nimzo, and Chigorin had two world championship matches going for him. For me to be completely wrong, you'd have to have 5+ players on our list who were inferior to Ulf.
@@chesscomdpruess You mean other names like Fine? When asked why he would be considered, all you manage to say is: he won AVRO 1938 (not even clear first) and that he was "a pretty good player". At least Andersson won a lot of top tournaments. You can't have Fine be included based on that and then throw shade on the guy that won a lot more.
Andersson was #4-5 for one and a half year and also had six months as #9. The rest of his career he was outside of the top 10. These are official rating lists, stop looking at chessmetrics for modern players.
He was good, maybe even great, but he simply does not belong in this conversation.
Topalov had a great longlivety and was a some point ranked nr 1, and won that tournament so WC is not unfair. Compering him to Anand and Kramnik, he should be ranked lowered though. I think Naka should be a pretender. He had been raited 2-3 i the world couple of times but never the guy you said hes clear the nr 2. And his resuoltes aginst Carlsen is awfull, compaird to Aronion and Caruana vs Carlsen.
Jesse is right. Yudovich and Kotov made Chigorin. If you read their book, it's clearly a hagiography.
Enjoyed this immensely. 👍
Fabi is at the world champion level. Topalov wasn’t.
48:01 The birth of S-tier might be 1972. (Same year as Fischer became champion). That year Mercedes Benz made their first S-class automobile (sonderklasse), now known as the super-class or special class. S-tier cars are both luxurious and fast. Next best Mercedes E-class is only elite in style and comfort, but not a sports car. A-class is sporty, but small.
The mechanical Turk should be in there. Also Philidor I guess?
Rule for this episode was nobody before Steinitz, as there were no official world champions before then.
@@chesscomdpruess still want the mechanical Turk in :(
Pruess is clearly correct and Kraai clearly wrong about Topalov. Jesse cites Chessmetrics, which stopped tabulating in early 2005, right beforeTopalov ascended to clear #1. Topalov was co-equal to Anand and Kramnik for many years and the clear #1. The Anand and Kramnik matches vs Topalov were back-and-forth and competitive. Not even a question Topalov is top tier on this list. Jesse is just being Skip Bayless here, instigating unfounded controversy.
The most talented player I think is Tal
He played like it was fun and still won the world championship against the most responsible player ever being Botvinnik
Rubinstein and Ivanchuk for me. Shirov maybe deserves a mention but his match up with Kasparov was just very bad for him.
At first I was confused why Ding wasn't on the list, and then I realized...
Reshevsky, Leko, Pillsbury belong on this list
Nepo won the candidates tournament twice, during a time of chess boom and highest theoretical level of play, thanks to A.I. Making him NOT a contender is quite a stretch. He lost first game against Magnus in a game that lasted over 100 turns. Then he was exhausted and tried to win by force. Come on guys.
With all due respect I believe you underestimate Larsen. His attacking style was a flaw when facing top tier player but he was an incredible player. Didn't deserve to be in the same tier as Nimzo and Schlechter
Watching Pruess rank chess players triggers PTSD from D&D slowly disintegrating any sense GoT had over the course of the final four seasons.
Me as sweed was hyped seeing Ulf on the list, then the disepointment...