47 ( +1 | -1 ) Akiba Rubinstein- the greatest player never toAkiba was the greatest endgame player EVER , one of the greatest opening inovaters,and a true chess genius . so why does he so rarely be mention in the top ten players of all time or any time ?did not the great LASKER dodge playing him as most historians cite . did he not beat lasker , capa , alekhine. only bronstein and paul keres rival him in consideration on greatest to have not won world title . comments , agree , disagree or more elaboration . i appreciate all comments yours bluebabygirl
125 ( +1 | -1 ) Rubinstein...Rubinstein started playing chess relatively late at the age of 16... After developing his skills, he became one of the worlds most dominant players from 1905 to 1911... In 1912 he won tournament after tournament (five in all), and the year was dubbed Rubinstein year in the chess community...
Everyone demanded a match between Rubinstein and Lasker, clearly the only player who was close to Rubinstein in strength... But sadly this match never took place, for what ever reasons, it is still not quite clear... The beginning of deep psychological that turned into a full-fledged mental illness, the appearance of the Cuban chess genius Capablanca, and WWI all combined to dash his championship hopes...
Rubinstein's style formed a bridge between the styles of Steinitz and the players of today... A mastery of openings, a deep understanding of the consequences of different types of pawn structures, and a skill in the endgame that has never been surpassed were all part of his repertoire...
Most notable, however, was his ability to connect the openings he played with the kinds of endgames that could be reached from them... This incredibly deep planning is commonly seen in modern champions of today, but was virtually unheard of in Rubinstein's day...
39 ( +1 | -1 ) RubinsteinThe reason there was no match with Lasker boils down to simply money. Rubinstein didn't have enough financial backing. Rubinstein was a great player but weather or not he would have beaten Lasker is a matter of considerable debate. I think the strongest player never to be World Champion was Sammy Reshevsky closely followed by Bronstein, Keres and Korchnoi.
106 ( +1 | -1 ) replyexcerpt from rubinstein"s chess masterpieces:And be it said for rubinstein that he stands as the greatest end-game player of all time ,if indeed not the most finished master we have known. in fact so profound an impression did his games make with the writer, that in a brief colloquy with Reuben Fine he fentured the thought that the polish master ranked with Capablanca in the sheer artistry of his victories. Mr. Fine not only agreed with this appraisal but indicated his belief that Rubinstein should be placed at the very head of the list !! i would not argue against such an assesment by the late great Reuben Fine !!so if at his peak he was much stronger than LASKER how can anyone deny his place in the top ten of all time ?with the certainty that LASKER is to be placed in the top five of all time !!! not only was he a true chess genius and champion but he was the greatest chess artist ever, who can only be rivaled in artistry by the great capablanca!! Agree, disagree, comments , all responses will be most appreciated !yours bluebabygirl .
67 ( +1 | -1 ) to baselinei must agree with you about RESHEVSKY AND KORCHNOI. only that they place fourth and fifth behind 1 Rubinstein, 2 David Bronstein, 3 the great PAUL KERES ,4 Korchnoi , 5 Sammy Reshevsky!! i feel that none of these players get the recognition that they deserve . each had their own problems preventing them from taking the crown. i feel they all were cheated in some way to prevent their attaining their rightful place in chess history. thank you baseline. all comments are appreciated . yours bluebabygirl . p.s. although Rubinstein is my hero , David Bronstein places a very close second .
27 ( +1 | -1 ) to baseline .from my understanding Lasker made the money demand SO high that he knew Rubinstein would not get the financial backing, this being cited by many chess historians, but i do appreciate your comments and opinions , again i thank you . yours bluebabygirl . .
21 ( +1 | -1 ) Rubinsteinat akibarubinstein.republika.pl/rubinste.zip you can download about 800 games from Akiba Rubinstein.very intresting to analyze
73 ( +1 | -1 ) The greatest endgame player......of all time? I must disagree with you there,babybluegirl. That honor must go to Capablanca,IMHO. Tho I will give Rubenstein his due as the greatest R+P player of all time. You are correct,tho,as to why there never was a Lasker-Rubenstein title match-Akiba could not raise the stakes,either by himself,or from backers,until it was far too late.By then,due to the trauma he suffered in the WW1 years,he had been surpassed by Capablanca as the main contender,and was no longer the force he had once been. It would have been interesting to see a Lasker-Rubenstein match,as it would have been a paradox:Lasker's psyche-out attempts.so successful vs. Marshall and Janowski,would have little effect against the phlegmatic,tho highly strung, Rubenstein.
55 ( +1 | -1 ) re- to myway316you did not state why you thought capa was greatest endgame player also you ignored comment that Reuben Fine made in above statement . i would not be so quick to refute MR. FINE , whose knowledge of chess and these two players was quite extensive. Reuben Fine stated he would place Rubinstein at the very top of the list !!!!!however you did admit that he was the greatest R+P player of all time . but i do invite your response and also thank you very much for your previous reply. my name is BLUEBABYGIRL , NOT , BABY BLUE GIRL !!!!!!!
27 ( +1 | -1 ) sorry,bluebabygirl......my bad! As for my belief that Capa was the best endgame player of all time,I invite you to read Capablanca's 60 Best Endings,edited by Chernev,if you haven't already. I don't know how he did it,but he made it look so darn easy! Now,here's a little teaser:who was considered to be the best in Q+P endgames?
43 ( +1 | -1 ) re- to myway316i have read book on capa by chernev. he made it look so easy because he was a true chess genius also.i never mean to discredit Capablanca in anyway. as for my guess who was best at Q+P endgames just a guess but either LASKER OR MAROCZY????I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR REPLY . please never think i would ever ever disrespect CAPABLANCA"S genius ,record or fame . yours bluebabygirl
36 ( +1 | -1 ) right,bluebabygirlit was Maroczy.Nor am I disrespecting Rubenstein's memory. As a matter of fact,he's one of the players I base my own playing style on,along with Capa. 75% of my chess study time hass been on the endgame alone,since I consider it to be the most important,and the most neglected,area of the game. The 2 vol. set John Donaldson did on Akiba's games is among the most used in my library.
87 ( +1 | -1 ) re- to myway316thanks again for info on AKIBA'S games by John Donaldson, i was not aware of this book. i will most certainly try to get it .my guess Lasker or Maroczy comes from my memory of both being fabulous endgame players themselves. Maroczy and Charousek were hungarian both knew each other well and played quite a few games together. they also collaborated on a weekly chess review inthe Magyar language in 1896. and Charousek edited the PESTI HIRLAP chess column until his death . also Charousek has been compared with Morphy, even by some to be Morphy's superior!!!! however i think in theirgames with each other MARCOZY was lightly ahead. sorry i got off track we were talking of Rubinstein of which neither Maroczy or Charousek can compare !!!!!!!!! yours bluebabygirl
27 ( +1 | -1 ) myway316Lasker didn't psyche-out people in the modern sense. He looked at their games and tried to steer the game into a position his opponet didn't like and felt uncomfortable.
Capablanca is on record as saying that Lasker was his equal in endgame play.
57 ( +1 | -1 ) re- to baselineits my understanding that Rubinstein is considered by most chess historians and a great many of us regular players as the greatest endgame player, with Capa , Lasker and Maroczy in that order . i was not aware of capablanca ever admitting anybody as his EQUAL !!!! LOL !!! HOWEVER MANY GRANDMASTERS DO NOT CITE HIM AS THE GREATEST PLAYER EVER NOR THE GREATEST ENDGAME PLAYER EVER. this is not to detract from his fame or status . he never admitted it of alekhine so why would he admit it of LASKER ??THANKS FOR YOUR REPLY AND HOPE YOU RESPOND TO THIS COMMENT . yours bluebabygirl .
65 ( +1 | -1 ) bluebabygirl"The Rating of Chessplayers: Past & Present" Arpad E. Elo @ Arco 1978 gives the ratings of strongest players never to be World Champ based on their best 5 year avg. as:
obviously alot has happened since 1978 and modern players would take over most of the spots on the above list But, its interesting that people forget what a strong player Reshevsky was in his prime.
35 ( +1 | -1 ) re- to baselinebah !!! that list must be rubbish to place geller ahead of RUBINSTEIN OR TO EVEN PUT Mecking on it . to put MECKING ON IT and leave CARL SCHLECHTER OFF , NOT TO MENTION TARRASCH !! COME ON NOW . AND PORTISCH ON IT AND NOT PUT REUBEN FINE ON IT . WHAT A FARCE. sorry i got carried away . but i think my point was made . thanks and i await your or anybody's reply. yours bluebabygirl .
12 ( +1 | -1 ) Teenage Tantrum?from where I sit Professor Elo makes a much more convincing agrument.
p.s. Fine is number 5 on that list! :o)
20 ( +1 | -1 ) re- to baselinesorry i did not have my glasses on . i did not see FINE on list but how about others i cited huh ?? not tantrum just enthusiasm . however i am quite sure carl schlecter and tarrasch are not on that list . nor is Tchigorin !!!!
88 ( +1 | -1 ) your right they are not on the listElo gives their best 5 year ratings as:
Tarrasch 2610 Schlecter 2600 Tchigorin 2600
Its interesting that Tarrasch was offered a match with Steinitz before Lasker but declined because he didn't want to travel and be away from his medical practice for as long as the match would take. He also declined a match with Lasker stating that Lasker was unproven. Tarrasch would have most certainly defeated a 56 year old Steintz who was already in decline. Tarrasch knew Lasker as an improvished university student who had to Tarrasch's mind just earned his master's title not all that long ago but I would guess he was aware of Lasker's improvement after moving to England and just didn't see any advantage to his prestige in playing a match with Lasker. Lasker ofcourse jumped at the chance to meet Steintz.
30 ( +1 | -1 ) TO BASELINETARRASCH WAS NEVER EVER A THREAT TO LASKER NOT EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!HOWEVER SCHLECTER NOW THATS A DIFFERENT STORY AND OF COURSE TCHIGORIN WAS NEVER EVER A THREAT TO LASKER . HOWEVER BOTH TARRASCH AND TCHIGORIN WERE AT ONE TIME ABLE TO BEAT STEINTZ. JUST MY OPINION. YOURS BLUEBABYGIRL
42 ( +1 | -1 ) Tchigorin had two chancesTchigorin played two matchs with Steintz and couldn't beat him!
An 1896 match between Tarrasch and Lasker would have been a much more interesting event than Lasker vs Steintz! Lasker was the superior tactician and he had a more profound understanding of the theories Steintz had labored so hard and long to prove to the chess world.
Rubinstein was on the other hand an artist! and you can't give art a rating.
77 ( +1 | -1 ) TO BASELINEvery well said about Rubinstein i will definitely remember and use that one!!!!!!!!!!!!! if thats your original line . the one about Rubinstein then you should patent it !!!!!! way cool !! i most certainly agree , hurrah hurrah hurrah . sorry really must corral my enthusiasm . as for your statement about an 1896 match between LASKER and TARRASCH . LASKER would have crushed him like a BUG!!!!!! just my opinion . again i thank you veri informative and very well said ---- especially statement about RUBINSTEIN . maybe you are some great analyst or chess writer ???? yours bluebabygirl -- rubinstein was an artist and you can't give art a rating. cool except rating maybe MASTERPIECE WHICH AKIBA PRODUCED SO MANY OF //
24 ( +1 | -1 ) just a lover of the gameI have always found the lives of the great players interesting. Like Albert Einsteins introduction to "Emanuel Lasker: The Life of a Chess Master" by Dr. J.Hannak of how he was more often the listener during their many discussions.
25 ( +1 | -1 ) The best ever?I dont think so.I prefer Karl Schlehter - he wasn't worst endgame player and he also gived a great contribution in opening theory. And how he realized so many great strategic plans in his games. Even Lasker cuoldn't win him in his match.
I have 753 of his games in my db, his record +277 -108 =368
his lifetime record against Lasker was: +2 -5 =12
against Rubinstein is record was +2 -6 =13
against Tarrasch +5 -7 =27
against Pillsbury +2 -8 =9
the man was truly awesome?!
72 ( +1 | -1 ) baselineAgainst pilsbury Schlehter played most of his games before he reached a peak (I mean period during 1900-1912). Against Lasker during that period he lost only two games one in 1900 second on their match on 1910 and won two games in 1904 and 1910. Against Rubinshtein he played most of his games after that period (most of them during the world war, when he had a problems with health). Against Tarash according to my information he's result was +6 -7 =27 and he could get even but in tournament in Ostende in 1907 but there when he had advatnage he offered a draw when he saw that Tarrash felt badly (it eas the reason why Tarrash took 1-st place instead of Schlehter).
27 ( +1 | -1 ) SchlecterI've seen little written about Schlechter over the years. All I know about him was that he was a likeable Man who preferred country life and died during the flu epidemic of 1918. He was the author or co-author of some tournament books and he did the last up-date of Von der Lasa's Hansbuch
19 ( +1 | -1 ) but I know moreI have read book about him. I have looked about 250 his games (including all games his match with Lasker) and all I can say that I would be very happy if I can play like him.
79 ( +1 | -1 ) to all thanksmany thanks to all you guys . when i started this thread like my other one , i never dreamed i would get so much info. i am writing it all down !! about Schlechter i do know that he came closest to beating LASKER while lasker was in his prime than anybody ever did !!!!! only CAPA beat him , took the title, when LASKER was no longer in his prime or playing at his best !!! this is not to distract from capa who may have beat LASKER IF LASKER HAD BEEN IN HIS PRIME , YES I DID SAY may. so CARL SCHLECHTER BY THIS VERY FACT DOES DESERVE TO BE MENTIONED , REMEMBER IN MATCH PLAY IN HIS PRIME lasker was virtually unbeatable !! yet SCHLECHTER SHOWED TO GREAT LASKER WHAT A TRUE COMPETITOR COULD DO !! AGAIN THANKS TO ALLL , yours bluebabygirl .
23 ( +1 | -1 ) to allthe original subject of this thread was AKIBA RUBINSTEIN , BEST PLAYER NEVER TO HAVE WON WORLD TITLE , THEN WE WENT TO WAS HE BEST EVER ENDGAME PLAYER . I STILL THINK YES TO BOTH !!!!!!!!!!! yours bluebabygirl
35 ( +1 | -1 ) sorry but.......I think that Schlechter played endgames not worst then Rubinshtein. About his strengh i can't say it too because he didn't play match with Lasker. But I think that Lasker would win him, because Rubinshtein as he said played against opponents pieces not against opponent as Lasker did. And Rubinshtein's style wasn't so universal as Schlechter's.
36 ( +1 | -1 ) Whatabout David Bronstein, he must surely be the player there had been closest to be World Champion, have a look here: www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=946
Best wishes Cairo
28 ( +1 | -1 ) but...you can't compare 23-rd game from Botvinnik-Bronstein match with 10-th game in Lasker- Schlehter match where Shclehter could win, then he could draw easily (and then he would become the third champion) but made blunder like mistake and lost.
14 ( +1 | -1 ) werwolfYou fail to mention the controversy surrounding the Lasker-Schlechter match. There are many unanswered questions about that match.
73 ( +1 | -1 ) One of my FavoritesWhen I did a study on Rubinstein's games, I went into it thinking he was mainly a "let me get to the endgame quickly" type of player. I found most of his openings fairly devoid of life, that is to be expected by me since I have always favored aggressive opening systems, but....
I found his middlegame technique atleast equal to that of the other greats. I was very impressed! I also wondered why he is all but forgotten whenever comentators mention other great players in history?
I soon thanked my Chess coach for encouraging me to take a serious study of his game.
107 ( +1 | -1 ) re-to cairo FROM BLUEBABYGIRLLOOK AT MY FIRST PARAGRAPH WHERE I STARTED THIS THREAD read it all. i stated that only Bronstein and Paul Keres could rival akiba on who was greatest to have never won world title !!! to werewolf Schlecter refused to draw because he had to win by more than one point it was in their match agreement so he tried to win when he could have easily drawn . remember he was THE DRAWING MASTER , thats why LASKER insisted that he win by more than 1 pointc . rather unfair of lasker i think . please correct me if im wrong . im doing this from memory but i read that about 2 years ago somewhere . also to cairo i believe soviet government ordered BRONSTEIN to not win that match , thereby insuring a few more years for their hero BOTVINNIK!!!! AGREE OR DIS AGREE ON THAT ONE . to werewolf again you think that SCHLECTER played endgames not worse than akiba !?!? oh please come on now nobody will believe that statement . thanks to all you guys . you are all great in my book . yours bluebabygirl
18 ( +1 | -1 ) to mercythank you very refreshing and very informative comments . also i agree with you about akiba and i too enjoy all the games you mentioned . great thanks to you !! yours bluebabygirl.
19 ( +1 | -1 ) Greatest non-WCI think it's impossible to ignore Geller's claims as he had an overall plus score against the eight world champions with whom he played. A bit like beating them in a simul.
38 ( +1 | -1 ) re; to ughaibuYES GELLER IS A GREAT PLAYER I MUST AGREE!! but those games were mostly tournament games . playing a match is quite different is it not. would he have scored as well playing under match conditions against those great players ?? again i do not want to discredit Geller, after all my dad says he is one of the greats too. yours bluebabygirl . thanks to all replies !!!!!!
36 ( +1 | -1 ) GellerHe won a couple of short matches with Smyslov and lost at least one candidates match with Spassky. There may have been others, I dont know. About the distinction between match and tournament, I dont know if it's really relevent here as we're discussing the results of individual pairings rather than final tournament standings.
With respect to baseline comment: "Capablanca is on saying that Lasker was his equal in endgame play". That statement is absolutely true, you can read that in one of the more respected biographies of Capablanca: "Capablanca" by Vassily Panov. I agree that it was a very rare quote comming from the proud Capa, but it was totaly true.
Second, Lasker had nerves made of iron. Rubinstein, unfortunately, was a very different sort of person. He had weak nerves, became paranoid, it is a very sad story, he suffered a severe nervous breakdown after WWI. But his masterpieces! When he was at his best! I doubt that anyone can measure art. It is a matter of tastes. I will permit me to reproduce the last paragraph of B.F. Winkelman's introduction to "Rubinstein Chess Masterpieces" by Hans Kmoch: "This is the great feature of his play-its great strategic depth. He is never superficial, never cheap or tawdry. He is never seeking merely to win, but always to create a "Work of Art". He never plays to the score or to the weakness of his opponent, but ever to the board and to give us his best".
Why did the your original open answer about if Rubinstein deserved to be considered as the greatest player that never achieved the World Chess Championship derived in a discusion about if Rubinstein were or not the best endgame player of all time? Well, maybe because Rubinstein played a grand total of 1,985 games of which 1,763 were Rook and Pawn endgames. It is difficult to separate totaly one thing from the other.
To finish, I would like to remmember what Tartakower said about Rubinstein: "Rubinstein is the Rook ending of a game of chess begun years ago by the Gods".
Post scriptum: If someone asks me, I can reprint in this post one of the best games in chess History: Akiba Rubinstein- Emmanuel Lasker, St Petersburg, 1909. Totaly commented and computer analysed by Dr. John Nunn. Just in order that you can appreciate how Rubinstein played before the tragic year of 1914.
37 ( +1 | -1 ) MacheideAbout the statistic of Rubinstein's total games and rook ending games: does this come from Chernev's Chess Companion? I've seen some such figures in that book and I won't believe them until I see conformation from another source, the ideal source prabably being the two volume collection of Rubinstein's games and episodes.
You are correct! "The Chess Companion, A merry collection of tales of chess and its players, together with a cornucopia of games, problems, epigrams and advice, topped off with The Greatest Game of Chess Ever Played" by Irving Chernev.
103 ( +1 | -1 ) re; to ughaibu and macheidethanks guys , for all the great info, for confirmation that CAPA actually humbled himself once in admitting LASKER his equal in playing endgame!!! yes im asking please print that game witH Nunn's annnotations , and incidently i cited that very game just yesterday on thread this site (THE BEST GAME)!!yes Rubinstein is also known as the ROOKand PAWN ending (GOD). ALSO HE IS CONSIDERED BY A GREAT MANY TO BE THE ABSOLUTE BEST ENDGAME PLAYER EVER, LEADING BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POSTING THAT HE WAS THE BEST PLAYER NEVER TO HAVE WON WORLD TITLE !! yes those two go together . also i did cite that he was rivaled for this honor only by BRONSTEIN and PAUL KERES !!! and many names were cited after that by others . and as for his being a true chess artist as pointed out by macheide, i will go so far as to say he was the ultimate chess artist!!! SO ,SO, many masterpieces!! again thanks you guys are simply amazing, so much great info. yours bluebabygirl