Lessons from the lost No.1s

Posted on by

The FIDE Elo rating system began in 1971. Elo did a bit of study trying to work the ratings backwards, but the chief scholar in this regard is Jeff Sonas http://chessmetrics.com/cm/. Jeff devised his own rating system, however — using an ‘absentee’ penalty for periods of non-playing. This leads to odd-looking results like Lasker’s repeated plummets and recoveries here:

ChronoGraph-1840-2005.gif

Anyhow, whatever the merits of his system, it has yielded some intriguing results, including a month-by-month tracking of who is the world No.1-rated player. Apart from the world champions, you can see above that Zukertort and Korchnoi both broke the surface at some point, and there are other non-champions in the lists.

  • Kieseritzky
  • von der Lasa
  • Harrwitz
  • duBois
  • Morphy [https://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/lessons-morphy]
  • Paulsen
  • Suhle
  • Kolisch
  • Neumann
  • Gunsberg
  • Zukertort
  • Pillsbury
  • Maròczy
  • Rubinstein [https://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/lessons-rubinstein]
  • Fine
  • Bronstein
  • Reshevsky
  • Korchnoi [https://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/lessons-korchnoi]

Anyhow, with nothing much better to do, I thought I would pull together some instructive games from each player who hadn’t yet had the ‘Lessons from…’ treatment.

    Kieseritzky

    The name of Kieseritzky is known as to most as the loser of one of Anderssen’s brilliancies, and to players of gambits — he gave his name to the main variation of the King’s Gambit and the Boden-Kieseritsky Gambit. He defeated everyone at some point, did well in matches and enjoyed more than one period at the top of the ChessMetrics league table. He also makes an early bid for the largest collection of names.

    von der Lasa

    One of the Berlin ‘Pleiades’ (including
    Paul von Bilguer,
    Ludwig Bledow,
    Wilhelm Hanstein,
    Bernhard Horwitz,
    Carl Mayet and
    Carl Schorn). No slouch in the name department, von der Lasa was a player of the first rank but never played a formal match or tournament. Yet in series of casual games he outscored Staunton twice and apparently Anderssen too. Not sure ChessMetrics should be including casual games.

    Harrwitz

    Remembered often as Morphy’s first match victim in Europe, Harrwitz was certainly a worthy candidate for a match, even if Morphy made short work of him. The opening he used to defeat Morphy in their first game still bears his name.

    duBois

    An Italian player who rarely left his country, I think he crept to the top in the late 1850s by a big score in matches, but it’s not clear.

    Paulsen

    Stereotyped as the first great master of defence, he was also a fine attacking player. And of course, to win the game, eventually the defender must become the attacker.

    Suhle

    Suhle’s brief appearance among the No.1s seems to arise from his demolition of his fellow Berliner, Paul Hirschfield, in a match, at a time when other top players were relatively inactive.

    von Kolisch

    von Kolisch abandoned chess for the pursuit of money, at which he turned out to be equally adept.

    Neumann

    Another Berliner, his great achievement was a storming performance at Dundee.

    Zukertort

    Zukertort contested the World Championship more than once, at great cost to his health. His own ‘Immortal’ is a real gem:

    Gunsberg

    Gunsberg’s reign at the top of the lists was just one month! But no fluke — he contested a close match with Steinitz in 1890, losing 4-6. Steinitz’ famous stubbornness in accepting the gambit pawn and hanging on for dear life may have made the score a little generous.

    Pillsbury

    Pillsbury’s name is more familiar than many on this list, and he has given his name to opening variations. His dazzling triumph at Hastings in 1895 make him the next great American conqueror; his short life the next tragedy.

    Maròczy

    Maròczy played chess at the top level at the turn of the century, took some time off, then returned as strong as ever. He edged out Pillsbury at Monte Carlo in 1902.

    Bogoljubow

    The burly Bogo is often regarded as being a punchbag and figleaf while Alekhin was ducking Capablanca’s challenge. We’ll never know what would have happened if Capa had ever come up with the same amount of prize money he demanded from Alekhin (following the stock market crash, this was a big ask), but while Bogoljubow wasn’t a match for Alekhin, he was no pushover, and had a couple of months at the top of the Chessmetrics lists. His legacy is strongly defended in a couple of recent books by Bogdanovich.

    Fine

    Fine gave up chess for psychoanalysis — ‘a loss for chess and at best a draw for psychoanalysis’, someone quipped. The war years interfered with his career but he could beat anybody on the day and had a plus score against Botvinnik:

    Bronstein

    The ‘co-World Champion’ and possibly the world’s grumpiest loser was the author of some fine and charming books, in which it is straightforward and a pleasure to find instructive moments. This is a bravura attacking game:

    Reshevsky

    Reshevsky is notable for his early promise and his longevity in the top ranks of chess, despite his amateur status in the modern era (he was an accountant). However, some of his best years coincided with war, and he never was able to break through to be a challenger in the 1950s — possibly because of collusion between Soviet players at Zurich 1953, at about which time he tops the Chessmetrics rating list. He qualified for the Candidates’ for the last and sixth time in 1967.