Quote:
Originally Posted by damaci
Schlechter, Bronstein, Keres, Charousek, Korchnoi.... in that order. People either do not know about or seriously underestimate the strength of players like Schlechter or Charousek compared to the players of their era. In both of these cases, it was the illness and similar exterior factors that prevented them from having the championship (Schlechter, like Bronstein, actually drew the match against the then reigning champion, Lasker).
Korchnoi is impressive largely because of his longevity and stamina, not his absolute strength. In terms of his chess understanding, in my opinion, he is nowhere close to Schlechter or Bronstein.
Also, people belittling Tal in this thread are simply deluded.
Cheers
Most interesting; while Bronstein (another favourite of mine), redoubtable as he was, didn't seem quite on the level with Keres and Korchnoi in terms of overall accomplishments, neither Schlechter nor Charousek would have occurred to me.
Schlechter's drawn match with Lasker in 1910 was a fine result, but I have a hard time making a case for him as even the fifth-strongest player of his time- besides Lasker himself, how about Tarrasch and Rubinstein, both of whose tourney results were better than Schlechter's?
When it comes to Charousek, it's a pity he didn't live to see his thirtieth birthday, for his style was interesting, but in the end, we're left not with, as I've seen it expressed, what he could have done or might have done, but what he
did done.