Question by john: Is Kramnik the worst chess champion in history?
Answers and Views:
Answer by David
No. People have that impression for two reasons I think: (1) They object to his style of play and so their judgement is clouded on the issue, and (2) The last two champions (Karpov (1975-1985) and Kasparov (1985-2000)) were so dominant that people had got used to the idea of one player winning tournament after tournament.
Kramnik had to exist in the same era as the greatest player of all-time – Kasparov, whom he beat in a match. Kramnik has been the world champion for the last seven years (and counting). He’s only 31 (a good age for a chess player) so he could still achieve a lot.
The Chessmetrics site (which attempts to evaluate the performance levels of past players) puts Kramnik above Steinitz, Tal, Petrosian, Smyslov and Euwe:
So of the fourteen world champions, Kramnik is about the ninth-best.
Read all the answers in the comments.
What do you think?
chip says
No. Kramnik is an excellent player and deserves what he has accomplished. We all know that Kasparov RULED chess for many years. There are so many more styles of games played now ie. Fischer random, and in any database you check, Kramnik has extremely high scores in them. He is not the strongest, but FAR from the weakest.
tweety says
Very good answers here…
I would also say definitely not.
I'd agree with xun1q the Euwe is probably the weakest of the world champions. He likely only won the title in the first place because of Alekhine's battle with alcohol… and Alekhine easily put Euwe away in their rematch.
Of course, Alekhine only won because Capablanca took their match far too lightly, but there's a good chance that Alekhine would have eventually won the title anyway, especially if Capa would have granted a rematch had he beaten Alekhine in their 1927 match (but this is also questionable… Capa and Alekhine hated each other). Bottom line on Alekhine is, he beat the "chess machine" known as Capablanca when he HAD to, and that's all that counts.
There is no question that Alekhine may have been the hardest working World Champion up to his time.
I'd also agree that Kramnik lacks the aura of a Karpov or Kasparov, or especially a Fischer. However, Kramnik did defeat Kasparov in their head to head title match, and he's not ducking anyone (at least this is my impression of him, although I don't keep up with chess stuff on any kind of a daily basis). And again, he's still relatively young, and has a few more years left to add to his legacy.
I would be cautious in rating any current champion's place in history anyway. Most times, you really have to wait until a player is basically retired before trying to figure out where he ranks in history.
nilo says
No hes not the worst! but hes not the best for me too. My reason is hes not the same players like the past champions that undergo with a lot of elimination rounds like a boxer before becoming a champion.
xun1q says
Nope…and i'm glad he kicked that a$ $ hole Topalov's butt.. And…………Anyone who can beat Kasparov in a championship match, 100% percent deserves it…Look at Fischer, he was afraid to even defend his title. Kramnik has defended his twice already over the last 5 yrs…I'd say the weakest IMO would be Euwe..