Who Were The True World Chess Champions? | Dojo Talks

[@williamdalton9178]

Interesting discussion as always. Just one thought to add: it seems to me it's not only 'legalists' who regard Ding as the current champion but many (if not most) 'classicalists' as well; FIDE itself describes Ding as the 17th world champion, reflecting the common view that their own tournaments from 1993-2005 were not 'real' world championships; Kasparov has said that the present situation is akin to 1975 and not 1993 - that is, the incumbent refuses to defend the title, so it's forfeit. To many people (myself included) this makes Ding the clear and undisputed world champion, and I don't consider that a legalistic position but a fairly traditional sporting one.

[@synesthetically]

Is that Philidor peeking out on the thumbnail? Hahaha

[@ChessWithMouselip]

Yes! Make a Dojo Talk on Morphy!

[@abcsorensen]

Kostya is right about the lineage. Chess and boxing have a lineal champion.

[@TimSeltzer]

Jesse's mic seems to keep cutting out for a second or two....

[@joeldick6871]

In previous videos too. He has to find a solution to this problem, going forward.

[@jimmyfuckthechainofcommand4332]

In the unofficial lineage, Kasparov acknowledges La Bourdonnais, Staunton, Anderssen and Morphy in My Great Predecessors. He analyzes wins from everyone of them and for Anderssen and Morphy multiple games. Kasparov thinks really highly of those last 2 and for good reason. I personally also like Staunton the least of those 4, but I think he is deserving of the spot historically.

[@joeldick6871]

At the 0:30:00 minute mark, Jesse says that if we would have to include every player who briefly hit #1, this list would explode. That doesn't sound like such a bad idea. Actually, come to think of it, the reason why matches were so important before Elo started being used is that nobody really knew who the world #1 was. Some other player could have an amazing run in elite tournaments, but unless he faced the current champion head-to-head, there was no real way of saying that he was definitely better. But after Elo was adopted by FIDE, there's no reason to have those matches anymore. We could just say that the world #1 is the champion, with the caveat that they have to hold the position for a certain minimum period or that they have to surpass the previous title holder by a certain margin before they are recognized as eclipsing him.

[@Opferschach]

Who was and who wasn't a world champion is actually a fundamental question: If you were not a world champion, your games are not studied in the Chess Dojo program. My solution to this would be to include some of the classics produced my non-world champions, such as Rotlewi vs Rubinstein (1907), Polugaevsky vs. Nezhmetdinov (1958), and Caruana vs. Aronian (2014). Some of the best games ever played were not played by or against any of the world champions, but they are just as known and just as well annotated, too. Then the question becomes far less consequantual, and people can agree to disagree.

[@user-kh6xl4yg1j]

Very good suggestion! Great games have a value regardless of who played them.

[@orwbarcelona01]

Fischer was world champion till 1975, not 1974. The candidates matches were held in 1974 and Fischer abdicated and Karpov was crowned in April 1975.

[@fundhund62]

Also, Steinitz won the title in 1886, not 1866.

[@davidfranklin5426]

Kostya’s position seems to be “I respect the lineage… except when I don’t.” That reasoning doesn’t work for me - with one semi-exception. The semi-exception is the situation created by Kasparov after 1992, because he challenged the legitimacy of FIDE while being the overwhelmingly best player - AND played matches against legitimate rivals in a more or less well-managed cycle, while FIDE held a bunch of lame KOs. Under those unique circumstances, I was willing to take the lineage away from FIDE. (Whether reunification happened in 2005, 2006, or 2007 is a hard question.) The current situation is NOT an exception, however. To me, Ding is the current WC. Why? Simple: Carlsen didn’t break with FIDE the way Kasparov did; he abdicated. Like Fischer in 1975. He’s still the best player, of course, as Fischer probably was in ‘75, but that’s not the same as being WC. End of discussion - unless and until Carlsen organizes a rival cycle.

[@milindhindocha4420]

I agree with your overall Statement but fischer being the best player in 75' is highly dubitable as fischer hadn't played in 3 years and karpov was in his prime. Read kasparov's my great precessors part 4,he clearly says one of the reasons fischer didnt compete was because

[@milindhindocha4420]

Because fischer saw karpov as a very tough opponent, not someone he can easily crush. Kasparov also said karpov would have good chances against fischer

[@ranlit7717]

And this sound reasoning is why David fkin Pruess is a complete moron, a Magnus fanboy who completely lost his mind

[@NoOne-so7jt]

Since Jesse is a philosopher, I would've liked to see him discuss this issue from a philosophical perspective. Authority is derived from the recognition given to it by the people. Therefore, the answer to the question "who is world chess champion" depends on what authority the person asking the question acknowledges. The parameters of that authority is a social construct that achieves power through subservience by the masses.

[@ChessJourneyman]

Which is why there is ELO.

[@Bullimicporkupine]

not adding ding would be straight out disrespectful.

[@travistucker4067]

Another great video ChessDojo! Can y'all do a list of world champions or top players 2nd's? Would be cool to learn about who was helping them prep.

[@ChessWithMouselip]

Is it just my computer or does Jesse's mic cut-off for a moment every once in awhile?

[@A8r9t]

Interesting podcast, as usual! I wanna hear Jesse more, love the Jesse-Kostya dynamic duo thing

[@ElderScrollsVINews]

Please do the dojo talk on Morphy, it would be interesting and incredible ❤❤❤

[@Eidenhoek]

Define what you mean by "World Champion", and support why that definition has more merit than others. *Then* discuss who is the champion at what time. If there's dispute over the ideal definition of champion, then...it's kind of a pointless debate.

[@thorsthunder2670]

Kostya, if you want people to complain, Jesse has created a fullproof winning formula. Step 1: Select a top player (e.g. Fischer, Magnus, Ivanchuk) Step 2: Diagnose them with something (e.g. Autism, other various neurodivergencies ) Step 3. Blame the actions of the player on your diagnosis (e.g. Fischer's brilliance and downfall were because of neurodivergence, Magnus is on a downwards mental spiral) Bonus points if you imply autism gives you chess superpowers (e.g. Ivanchuk's calculation)

[@timothyryan3031]

Yeah, his take on Fischer was a really bad one. I'm neurodiverse and anti-racist. Neurodivergencies do NOT make you bigoted, that's a person's own shitty choice. It's their choice to remain ignorant. His neurodivergencies made him sensitive to things like noises (a malady which I also suffer). His views toward Jews and women were just terrible attitudes, let's stop this trend of explaining away CHARACTER deficiencies as mental illness, please, it's both harmful to the discussion around mental illness AND completely removes morality and free agency from the discussion. I also don't like this revisionism that Fischer's anti-Semitism was only something he took a dive into at the END of his life, when he "went crazy". No, it was well-documented in his younger years. It's right there on his Wikipedia page. Friends of his said he admired Hitler in his 20s. He was a hateful person, AND he had some mental health issues. They're two different things, and people REALLY need to stop conflating the two. (I personally suspect what he had going on later was more along the lines of paranoid schizophrenia than just "neurodivergencies", but I am NOT a psychiatrist and don't believe in armchair-diagnosing people, so I will say that with the disclaimer that since I am not a professional, my opinion here counts for exactly nothing). No, I'm not calling for us to "cancel" Fischer (how do you even cancel a dead person?), I've read My 60 Memorable Games and it's a BRILLIANT book (I can't state that enough...it's some of the most mind-blowing chess analysis I've ever seen in a book, I was honestly glad I know descriptive notation so that I was able to read it). When he only talked about chess, he was a super-genius. Other than that, we shouldn't celebrate him as a man.

[@Evan-gl3vp]

Treating Magnus as if he's still world champion rewards the defending champ for not playing the match.

[@ChessJourneyman]

He is obviously the best. Those two fumbled and stumbled over each other all the way to the paper crown. Ding was supposedly world No.2 and couldn't cope with the pressure, literally had to constantly go hide in the toilet to calm his anxiety attacks. And what did he do after winning the crown? Said something along the lines it will take so much work to perform as a champion. He failed in his first tour so hard that he immediately tucked his tail and ran back home to hide under a rock from the public eye and expectations. While Ding is hiding, Magnus continues to rise to the challenge when he finds something new to achieve.

[@Evan-gl3vp]

@@ChessJourneyman Magnus being the strongest player doesn't change what I said. Why defend your championship if people will automatically crown you if you refuse to play?

[@ChessJourneyman]

True. He is so much more consistent and better that he has nothing left to prove. Ding is hiding under a rock so he doesn't have to perform at a level of a champion, meanwhile, Magnus is bored finding new challenges for himself. Goes 9-0 and announces he'll be on an adopting spree beforehand - Ding can't handle the pressure, let alone add more pressure to amuse himself.

[@roqsteady5290]

@@ChessJourneymanso what? Winning the world championship is the criteria for being world champion, not being able to handle pressure or anything else.

[@mohan9465]

ok all three of u guys got it wrong...kasparov wanted to play anand for championship in 2000 but anand refused due to dubious agreements nd played fide worldchampionship in year 2000 nd kramnik was offered it chance nd kramnik agreed to it

[@davidblue819]

Re: Staunton, I don't think you get to lose to a man, say that doesn't count, get a return match, make it one all, and then when you're even say that now it's real and you're the boss. At least you have to win best of three, which Staunton did not do.

[@chesscomdpruess]

I believe on wikip i read that he traveled back to France for a third match but got pneumonia and postponed it... and then it was never played.

[@kev_mclernon_family_channe4745]

Did you guys rap a out the whole FIDE bs leading to Kasparov forming a new league. ? And in a way if not for FIDE bs, there may have been a challenger along the Karpov-Kasparov decade. Short was a favorite of mine and a segment maybe on the almost champs. Like Ivanchuk. Oh great also Topalov. Was not big at the time but Smylov Anyway you guys rock!!

[@Dragonnox]

Would be interested in a podcast discussing your favourite women's world champions too.

[@amitbikramroy25]

You should have added fide world champions as well. If you add staunton, why not topalov,khaliffman & ponomariov?

[@juyifan7933]

Thats the entire point of the video, maybe you could watch a little before commenting

[@framebadger]

I don't really understand what you even mean by tennis in this video! You mean their ranking system? Which had Andy Murray as 1 when Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were all going...it's really impressive that he got to number 1 with those players around but he was clearly the 4th best and not in the top 3. Has anyone tried to figure out a lineal chess champion (like the boxing one)? There aren't enough long matches between two players to get anything meaningfully different to what you have here, but what if you said that if the champ has a period of losing (say) 3 games against any other player, that player becomes champ? And if someone retires/dies, there is no champ until there is consensus that one player is the clear best.

[@blueguitarist]

Paul keres replaces botvinniks reign without Soviet influence for sure.

[@Robert1RTG]

in 1935 Botvinnik and Flohr scored 13/19 points tied for first and at the age of 66 Lasker scored 12.5/19 and Botvinnik said a phenomenal achievement by the ageing ex-World Champion

[@cabalgandocontradicciones8303]

19:00 the problem with the Chess WCs is the prima donnas that have been through history too coward or too stubborn to agree on participating in WCs when and how some reasonable rules doesn’t fit them. The Chess WC should be like any other sport: specific rules that everybody knows and expects and a tournament that is repeated periodically (every 2/4 years let’s say) with whatever price is stablished at that time. It is absurd what we have had to suffered with players keeping the title during a long time when they have not proved over the board that they deserve it (I.e. Casablanca should have a longer WC)

[@kev_mclernon_family_channe4745]

Also Preuss was bang on after Kasparov-Anand. Yes FIDE was a train wreck for most of existence especially during the K-K’s fight. Wow you covered a lot of the infamous FIDE bs.

[@joeldick6871]

Staunton didn't become (even the unofficial) World Champion in 1840. La Bourdonnais died in 1840, but Staunton didn't ascend to the widely-recognized world's greatest player until 1843 with his (second - he lost the first) match against St. Amant. I won't dispute 1851 as Anderssen's Annus Mirabilis, with his victory in London. Even so, Anderssen's greatest success in those years was in tournaments, not matches, and in those days, tournaments weren't really a thing. "Championships" were decided with matches. But okay. Morphy beating Anderssen in 1858, okay. But Morphy didn't hold the "title" until 1866 because he stopped playing publically after that. The title reverted to Anderssen in 1859. And that lasted until 1866 when Steinitz took the title from Anderssen.

[@user-kh6xl4yg1j]

This list makes sense. Glad Morphy gets his due.

[@shouldersofgiants4649]

Absolutely agree with Kostya @ 25:28 If Chess wants to succeed as a professional sport, it needs to modernize. This whole "world champion gets to keep the title and wait for a challenger to face in the cycle's final" is utter non-sense (and really unfair)

[@kev_mclernon_family_channe4745]

Kramnik definitely made Kasparov blink. Lol.

[@joeldick6871]

You have to add Philidor (and if you wish, Deschapelles) before Labourdonnais.

[@theemptyatom]

Good List

[@davidblue819]

I question the timing. Specifically, when did Capablanca become world champion? When he won a match against Lasker, or before then, when Lasker refused to play him and laid down the title of world champion?

[@chesscomdpruess]

Hard to say exactly. When they eventually played their match, Lasker actually insisted on playing it as challenger, handing over the title to Capa in advance of the match. Yet another gray area.

[@davidblue819]

@@chesscomdpruess This could happen again tomorrow. Suppose Magnus Carlsen, whose thinking has become unpredictable, said tomorrow that he had changed his mind and he wanted to be champion after all. And suppose that Ding Liren, who is a very modest man as well as an honorable one, said, OK, let's play a match, and I want to be the challenger.

[@connormonday]

I hope this doesn't come off as rude, but DOJO talks has been a lot of content about things like "who is the best chess player ever?" or "who are the best non-WC players ever?" which is usually just an expression of the three sensei's different criteria for that question, which is subjective and the arguments seem a little contrived. It's nice to see the three masters together and I think if the three of you discussed some current games or old games without engine analysis (like a broadcast, but not necessarily following a live game) you would be offering something that isn't really available on youtube. The thing I love about dojo is the emphasis on non-engine analysis, which you basically can't get anywhere anymore (all broadcasts have engine bars, and all published master analysis is engine checked). I'm much more interested in seeing the different ways the three of you think in the context of a game of chess rather than these sorts of "ESPN First Take" level subjects.

[@jimmyfuckthechainofcommand4332]

They could do more of what you describe, but I think this is also an important part of chess culture. I think the lists are really just representative in most cases, it's really the discussions around them that are important. It will be nice though if they could cover a player and then a game in these types of discussions. That's my ideal, but perhaps that will take too long in one sitting.

[@charliew830]

I have to disagreed with @connormonday. These discussions are some of the most entertaining and enlightening of the ChessDojo's youtube content. I don't think they are contrived at all. Each person has these own viewpoint and is qualified enough to discuss it responsively. I very much enjoy seeing the 3 of them together talking about anything chess related.

[@chesscomdpruess]

This is the one show we do that is like this talk-show style, and it is intended to be something people can listen to while on the go, without any visuals-- "a podcast" as people seem to now call audio. Because of that, this is one place for us not to go in depth on games and moves and analysis. But we do, overall, spend way more time discussing games than these other subjects.

[@chesscomdpruess]

oh, and, no worries about coming off as rude. we appreciate the feedback, and you are always friendly and constructive.

[@rwsmith7638]

It's hard to figure those years where people were denied matches for any kind of reason. Wasn't Alekhine sequestered in Portugal and didn't get invited to defend his title for political reasons? PS: I REALLY wish that they would go back to longer matches in Classical style but I don't think that is going to happen. I hate a match decided on a Blitz playoff.

[@lasker1895]

What about Alexander Khalifman in 1999?

[@lasker1895]

As soon as I type, he mentions him. lol.

[@aleksapopovic9704]

i agree with kostya on basically everything

[@yzfool6639]

Me too. His boxing example is relevant since it allows us to ignore both corrupt organizing bodies and competitors who duck the top players. The line of champions is clear. To be the champ, beat the lineal champ in a match, or become the world's number one if they duck the match. I am also certain that matches cannot be the only way to weed out legitimate competitors. Styles make matches, as they do in boxing. You need to be able to beat all of the top players and only a round-robin among the top players at some point does this. So, the 1948 tournament gave us a true World Champion in Botvinnik. Ironically, such a tournament system rules out the later Botvinnik advantage where you get a year to prepare for one player after you lose to them. There is a reason Botvinnik wouldn't compete for the title after his loss to Petrosian. Botvinnik wasn't allowed a year to simply prepare for Petrosion after that as he had previously. He had to beat Petosian's peers as well, and he couldn't beat them, so Botvinnik retired.

[@kyleboon11]

I think boxing is a better comparison than tennis. There’s been multiple federations with various unification fights over the years

[@kdub1242]

Okay, I found this interesting video many months too late, but I can justify chiming in now because I have a genius solution to all of this. Simply adopt the Mr. Olympia model from bodybuilding: All the top players oil up and flex onstage in a pose-off for the title. You're welcome.

[@papalegba6796]

David got a tan, been outdoors way too much for a chess player. As for world champs, mechanical Turk my guy, he like Deep Blue but made of clockwork & dwarves.

[@francoispitre6292]

I feel Karpov deserves an asterix for the ways the Soviets handled both match vs Korchnoi ! They held Korchnoi familly hostage !! How in the world conditions like this can be accepted as ok ?

[@averageplayer1995]

Basically everybody in the list except Staunton should be in the list. Staunton is the very big no go. If you go through his chess games history you find out that the guy played basically the same few opponents over and over and in some cases he lost matches against some absolute nobody like Von der Lasa. Also the playing strength of Staunton is BY FAR the lower between all the players on the list, by today standards Staunton would be maximum a 1600 player and a modern 1800 could beat him up really badly. At least Anderssen is a 1900-2000 player and Morphy is master level strength.

[@chesscomdpruess]

Good analysis :)

[@fundhund62]

What utter nonsense. Bobby Fischer had Staunton in his top 10 best players of all time. No current 2000 level player would stand any chance against Staunton, Anderssen, or Morphy.

[@gauravvj1090]

Definitely can't be divisive

[@kev_mclernon_family_channe4745]

Yes Kasparov kramnik rematch.

[@willfranklyn2]

Gotta figure out Jesse’s audio issues. Very frustrating to get lost when his audio cuts out.

[@abcsorensen]

Is chess a sport?

[@timothyryan3031]

Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Botvinnik, Tal, Botvinnik, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand, Carlsen, and Ding. Everyone before Steinitz doesn't officially count - while they might have unofficially been considered the "world champion" in that they were the best player in the world at the time, there was no such formalized thing as a World Chess Championship yet, and thus, no World Champion. They were "champions" by reputation only - they didn't win any match to become champion. FIDE's revolving door of "champions" during the split title years of Kasparov's reign don't count. No disrespect intended to those players, but Kasparov's title was the real one, he wasn't done defending it. FIDE does not (should not) have a monopoly on the game of chess. That's different from what happened with Fischer - Fischer wanted to just take the title and go into hiding (and then show up again 20 years later and say he was "rematching" Spassky for the World Championship, as if time had stood still and a WHOLE generation of new players hadn't come up since then - that was BS). If you want to stay champion, you have to defend the title. Kasparov DID want to defend the title (and did), he just didn't want to do it under FIDE's bureaucracy, which was legit. Not to mention, most of FIDE's "champions" during that time were crowned in comical ways. Knockout tournaments to determine the "World Champion"? That's ridiculous. You become champion by beating the champion, or if they forfeit it. If Fischer, after his beef with FIDE in '75, had done what Kasparov did and continued defending his title independently of FIDE, he would have still been the legit world champion, but you can't just crawl out from under a rock after 20 years and say "I'm still World Champion, and by the way, Spassky, we're rematching". I'm fairly certain Kasparov would have cleaned Fischer's clock in '92 (which he would have promptly blamed on some Russian-Jewish conspiracy of course, anything but losing to a superior player).

[@chesscomdpruess]

Very accurate reasoning. The world championship does not belong solely to FIDE nor to the world champion.

[@Blandge]

The "officially" designation is so utterly stupid. If you are obviously the best player in the world and proved it by annihilating all the other best players for years, including the previously considered world best, you are the world champion. "Officially" or "unofficially" are terms dummies use to exclude people arbitrarily. They followed the exact same path they just didn't use the term "world champion" because it was 150 years ago. This would be like saying the discovery of gravity doesn't count as an "official" scientific epiphany because Newton didn't win the Nobel Prize.

[@jjr6929]

MLB.... baseball calls their championship World Series.... So early chess being just European is ok

[@TheBigGuppy]

In 74 Karpov was a machine. Plus he had the Soviet support system. I'm a product of the Fischer boom who started playing in 72. I don't think Fischer wins a Karpov match in 74 or 75. Posted for the algorithm.

[@TheRebellion-X]

Euwe ses pretty iffy

[@charliew830]

Anderssen and Morphy were clearly number 1 in the world for their time, but not yet the "World Champion". I agree with David on this one.

[@ChessJourneyman]

David said Morphy was 1900 at best 😂😂😂 Would be hilarious bringing Morphy to this era and giving him a month to acclimate and maul David. Magnus has huge respect for Morphy and by all estimates he'd be 2600+ in the current era.

[@mehloser880]

Carlsen has done very little in classical class. Except of a few tmt wins he has not been better even in WCC. His reputation is partly built on beating up on Nepo. He is more interested in rapid/blitz - where he shines ..,.. And the tantrums after losing to Hans shows he knows he cant focus anymore on classical on a regular basis. He is now a Naka with better chess skill and lower communication skill. These 3 jokers sucking up to Magnus is silly

[@ChessDojo]

Tell us you've been following chess for less than 1 year without telling us you've been following chess for less than a year 😂

[@zah936]

3rd like 3rd comment

[@zaftnotameni]

ding even being mentioned in this list is a joke