REGARDING the “strongest player” in the world…
I have always deemed the “strongest player” could and can be two persons, based on chess strength in matches and tournaments.
First is the strongest match player (not counting mini matches of less than eight games). Second is the strongest tournament player. The two may be the same person (for examples as Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov were in their heydays), but they can also be two different persons.
Example 1
I believe (with apologies to Lasker fans many of whom naturally would disagree with me) that Capablanca from 1916 onwards would have great chances of beating Lasker in a match, and he did so in their World Championship 1921, without loss of a single game; but on the other hand, Lasker would have better chances of placing ahead of Capa in tournaments.
In fact, Lasker’s psychologically provocative, counterpunching, present-your-opponent-problems style was more suited to tournaments than Capa’s always-find-the-best-move style, which in many occasions did not present games with many problems for his opponents, which in turn often led to many draws.
Lasker, in other words, in my opinion, did not waste much effort to always find the best move; he would rather play moves that he thought would unsettle his opponent.
I have read Lasker’s Manual of Chess which I much admired, and my gut feeling is that with Lasker, it was so. (Aside from being a fan of Capablanca and Alekhine, I am also a Lasker fan.) It worked. This led to more wins in tournaments, but did not always work in matches. Capa convincingly beat him in their match.
Lasker also got into serious trouble against Carl Schlechter in their 1910 World Championship match, yet he always placed ahead of Schlechter in all seven tournaments they both participated in.
(In my opinion, Lasker was genuinely lucky in his world championship match with Schlechter in escaping with a tie in the end, again with apologies to Lasker fans many of whom naturally would disagree with me. For details, see Bridgeburner/Twinlark’s and my analyses, based mainly on the computer, of the games of this match.)
Example 2
Alekhine (strangely in my opinion) was a much stronger match player than he was a tournament player. He only lost a single match in his adult life as far as I know, his world championship match with Euwe.
And he did not seem to have taken the match seriously. According to marcusantoinerome’s post: From Fine’s book A Passion for Chess (Lessons from My Games) regarding the 1935 Warsaw Chess Olympiad… “There were two sensations in the tournament. One was the fantastically brilliant play of Paul Keres, then a complete unknown from Estonia… The other was… world champion Alekhine.
“He began by arriving at the border without a passport. When he was asked for one, he replied: ‘I am Alekhine, chess champion of the world. I have a cat called Chess.’
After this episode was straightened out, Alekhine came to the tournament and went through most of his games in a state of mild inebriation. Most remarkably, his play did not seem to be affected, though his eccentricities did cost him the world championship in the match with Euwe a few months later.)
I believe that from 1925, wherein he began to peak, onwards he would have had great chances of beating Lasker in a match (with apologies to Lasker fans many of whom naturally would disagree with me).
Example 3
Tal in my opinion was a much better tournament than match player. (I think most of Tal’s fans would agree with me.)
In short, for any given time, the strongest match player may not be the strongest tournament player; and the strongest tournament player may not be the strongest match player. (To be continued)/PN
