REGARDING the playing strength of a defending Chess Champion and his Challenger, historically, they have always been very strong players.
Caveat: The Chess Champion and his Challenger are not necessarily the strongest players in the world.
For example, in my discussion above, I mentioned Max Euwe beating Alekhine in their 1935 World Championship match. I believe that had Alekhine played more seriously, Euwe would have lost.
In addition, I think he also would have lost in a match with Capablanca or Keres at this time. Therefore (with apologies to Euwe’s fans many of whom naturally would disagree with me), he was not the best chess player in the world even though he was World Champion at this time.
Regarding Botvinnik, he may not have always been the best chess player in the world during parts of his reign as World Champion; and he himself opined that he was merely “first among equals”.
Ditto for Tal. I believe that in the middle of his short reign, had he played a match with say Keres, he would have lost. Ditto for Kramnik. I believe he was weaker than Kasparov during his reign.
On with the discussion. In most high-level international tournaments with many players, there almost always will be players of considerably weaker strength (‘bunnies’), and players that are quite strong (‘tigers’).
In the past before World War 2, there were more bunnies in high level international tournaments with many players. Today there are less. Now reduce the number of players. It’s possible that many tigers will disappear, but then so will most of the bunnies. In top level international tournaments starting in the 1890s, the trend is that the lesser the number of players, the more tigers there are proportionately. Eventually, you’d end up with only tigers, whether in pre-WW 2 tournaments or today’s tournaments.
Example: Take St. Petersburg 1914. This single tournament was split into two distinct stages, which is quite confusing. For easier comprehensibility and for purposes of this discussion, I will explain it in the following manner.
You had what essentially was a tournament one. The result was:
1. Capablanca * ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 =8
2. Lasker ½ * ½ ½ ½ 0 1 ½ 1 1 1 =6½
3. Tarrasch ½ ½ * ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 0 1 =6½
4. Alekhine 0 ½ ½ * 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 =6
5. Marshall ½ ½ ½ 0 * 1 ½ ½ 1 1 ½ =6
6. Bernstein 0 1 0 ½ 0 * ½ ½ ½ 1 1 =5
7. Rubinstein ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ * ½ ½ 1 1 =5
8. Nimzowitsch 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ * 0 ½ 1 =4
9. Blackburne 0 0 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 * 0 1 =3½
10. Janowski 0 0 1 ½ 0 0 0 ½ 1 * ½ =3½
11. Gunsberg 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 0 ½ * =1
I’d classify the last three – Blackburne, Janowski, and Gunsberg – as bunnies, as these players by then had in my opinion considerably fallen in their playing strength by this time. (I think most of their fans would agree with me.)
The top five then played what essentially was a tournament two. The results of tournament one was carried over for the final score. The result was:
1 Lasker ** ½1 11 1½ 11 =7 (6½ carried over from tournament one for a total of 13½, thus winning the tournament over all)
2 Capablanca ½0 ** ½1 10 11 =5 (8 carried over from tournament one for a total of 13, thus placing second over all)
3 Alekhine 00 ½0 ** 11 1½ =4 (6 carried over from tournament one for a total of 10, thus placing third over all)
4 Tarrasch 0½ 01 00 ** 0½ =2 (6½ carried over from tournament one for a total of 8½, thus placing fourth over all)
5 Marshall 00 00 0½ 1½ ** =2 (6 carried over from tournament one for a total of 8, thus placing fifth over all)
In tournament one with many players there were three bunnies. There were eight out of eleven or 73% tigers.
In tournament two, six players from tournament one were dropped. Three of them were tigers (Bernstein, Rubinstein, and Nimzowitsch). However, all three bunnies were also dropped (Blackburne, Janowski, and Gunsberg). Thus, in tournament two, there are no bunnies at all. As mentioned above, in top level international tournaments starting in the 1890s, the trend is that the lesser the number of players, the more tigers there are proportionately. They are 100% tigers in tournament two. This field, in my opinion, is as strong as the World Championship Candidates 2026. (I even think that with Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine around, none of the participants in the World Championship Candidates 2026 would have won.)
Still reduce the field to only two players, as in World Championship matches. You’d always have strong tigers at that particular point in time. (This does not mean that later in time, one or both of the competitors will fall out of form, or that they are the strongest players in the world. Nevertheless historically, they have always been very strong players.) (Send comments and suggestions to mabuhibisaya2017@gmail.com)/PN
