The Keene-Divinsky list

[spacious_mind]

Steve,

PS back to dedicated's. If you and I had to play for the Hiarcs Cup of dedicated computers. And you got to pick first between two computers whose ratings are:

+4 = 2 - 5

Would you pick the plus 4 or minus 5?

Regards,

Ahhh the Geller + life time score Vs Fischer
i think it was +5 -3 =2
hmmm
i would go with the Computer that had a Fischer(Bronstein ) clock option

Regards
Steve

Not trying to give Fischer less than he deserves so Bobby Fischer's Chess Games by Wade and O'Connell I see 4 wins for Fischer

Arghhh I see it. Game 143 is indexed under Efim but was actually a Sidney Geller so Steve is correct +5 - 3 = 2 it is!

Best regards,

now Sidney Geller i can agree was far better then Fischer


We can also look at highest Elo Achieved
Fischer Clocks in at over close to over 2800
Geller never got out of the 2600's i think?

actually Euwe wrote a whole book about this exact subject
"Bobby Fischer-The Greatest?''
he drew no final conclusions but he did consider many players of the past
im looking hard but i dont see him mentioning Geller
Squinting Regards
Steve

Euwe - Geller score is + 1 - 1 = 2 games

Looking at Warriors of the Mind:

Smyslov + 11 = 31 - 7
Petrosian + 6 = 33 - 2
Spassky + 6 = 22 - 9
Keres + 6 = 22 - 7
Tal + 6 = 22 - 6
Korchnoi + 6 = 15 - 12
Polugaevsky + 4 = 19 - 9
Bronstein + 5 = 15 - 5
Taimanov + 7 = 11 - 8
Stein + 7 = 10 - 1
Averbakh + 1 = 13 - 1
Botvinnik + 4 = 5 - 1
Boleslavsky + 3 = 4 - 3
Fischer + 5 = 2 - 3
Karpov + 1 = 5 - 2
Kotov + 3 = 3 - 1
Reshevsky +1 = 3 - 1
Kasparov +0 =3 -1

I mean how can you not take this guy seriously?

Regards
Nick

well im not saying Geller was not a great player
just that he does not deserve to be listed higher then Fischer on any serious list

Giving Geller His Due Regards
Steve

I agree we are trading opinions. Everything is so hard to really compare realistically. In the examples I just gave.

Geller including the two against Euwe has 390 games on the above list.

Fischer after Candidates 1971 but excluding world championship has 97. We would never know what the final results would have been had they both played the world's elite for 390 games.

But it is fun to compare.

Best regards

[Steve B]

I agree we are trading opinions. Everything is so hard to really compare realistically.
But it is fun to compare.

Best regards

Yes always enjoy a good friendly debate with you
Very Best Regards
Steve

[spacious_mind]

Hi Reinfeld,
Yes sorry I keep typing Candidates 66 but it's 62. That is the 10 year reign of Fischer being a serious world elite player 62-72. But becoming a class on his own to me was a shorter period perhaps started around 68 and ended in 72. The incredible period is 71-72.

Regards
Nick

[Reinfeld]

Coming back to this topic (the Fischer v Geller argument), just to annoy Nick, and pile fact upon fact until he is forced to acknowledge his inexplicable, fastidious ways....

Let's just agree that Geller was a great, great player - clearly the best opening theorist among the Soviets (with the possible exception of Furman). Clearly top 10 in the world through the 60s. Botvinnik, a reputable authority, said Geller was number one in the late 60s. So Geller was a great player.

He was also Fischer's natural enemy - both men prided themselves on independent research. With that said, was he greater than Fischer? Can you really pick him over Fischer? I'm with Steve. Don't see it.

OK. Earlier in the thread, Nick said this about Fischer and Geller:

I think the last time they played was in in 67 and Geller beat him.

Nope. The last time they played was at the 1970 Interzonal tournament at Palma de Mallorca, when Fischer was in his championship run. Fischer won beautifully as Black, stopping a win streak by Geller. This is the famous Grunfeld game where Geller offered a draw at move 7. Fischer said, "too early," and outlasted him.

Geller, probably at his peak, came in third in that tournament, behind Fischer and oh yeah, *Larsen.*

Nick also said this regarding Fischer's stats:

6-0 against Taimanov
6-0 against Larsen
5.1/2 -2/12 against Petrosian

Those are all great results. But the Taimanov and Petrosian results are life savers. Take those away then compare his results with the Russians or if you wish keep them in there and compare against the Russians.

To me Spassky profiteered from an era where the best Russians were getting old with one seriously good younger Russian playing highly erratic with Tal. Karpov and Kasparov were not around.

Hey - if you're going to compare Geller to Fischer, you can't cherry-pick. If you say Geller was better than Fischer, you have to agree that Geller was better than SPASSKY. You have to agree that Geller was better than Taimanov and Larsen. But he wasn't.

You have to compare common opponents. You have to compare overall results, not just individual records. Chess is a competitive endeavor. Winning is first. Fischer won *more* than Geller, and Geller couldn't beat the best guys on his own team.

Throughout the Fischer era, Geller *never* won the USSR championship. His best result was probably 1966, when he came in second.

Geller's best-ever international tournament result was the 1962 Stockholm Interzonal, where he finished second, to uh...Fischer. His second-best international result was the 1970 Interzonal, where he tied for second behind...Fischer.

Let's put this another way. If you're picking a team, do you pick Geller over Spassky? Do you pick Geller over Petrosian? Do you pick Geller over Larsen? Do you pick Geller over Taimanov?

Taimanov had a better lifetime record against Geller:
Taimanov - 9
Geller - 8

Geller played Spassky twice in Candidate's matches - '65 and '68. Spassky creamed him. Overall results:

Spassky - 11
Geller - 5

Did Spassky "profiteer" from a roster of aging players by beating Geller so soundly?

Geller also lost a Candidate's consolation match to Larsen in 66 (Larsen 5, Geller 4). He lost a Candidate's match to Keres. He lost a Candidate's match to Korchnoi, who was clearly superior.

Geller had good results against Petrosian:

Geller - 9
Petrosian - 8
Draws - 32

Except Petrosian was the world champ; Geller never reached that pinnacle. Petrosian was *better,* clearly.

If you're going to argue that Geller was better than Fischer, you have to ask why Geller lost to the same players Fischer demolished.

Here's another idea: When Fischer beat Taimanov, Petrosian and Spassky , Geller was the opening consultant EVERY TIME. That mattered most against Petrosian. Geller was Petrosian's pal, and Petrosian was no fool - he didn't have Spassky's romantic flaws. He took every advantage available.

Nick underrates Spassky, in my view. Spassky was Tal with discipline - a much greater player than Geller. He beat Fischer more than anyone else, including Geller.

One could argue that Fischer was playing against Geller's opening preparation through three matches, even if you want to suggest (fairly) that Spassky ignored Geller's ideas at times. Had Fischer played Karpov in 75, Geller (and Furman) would have been the consultants. Karpov, despite his obvious greatness, never had an original opening idea in his life.

Surely Fischer knew through all those 71-72 matches that he was contending with Geller's opening ideas. In that light, it becomes very easy to understand why he did the one thing no one expected: he varied repeatedly from his historically narrow opening repertoire, thus avoiding all that Geller analysis.

Who's the greater player? The one who adapts, or the one who invents?

- R.

[spacious_mind]

Coming back to this topic (the Fischer v Geller argument), just to annoy Nick, and pile fact upon fact until he is forced to acknowledge his inexplicable, fastidious ways....

Let's just agree that Geller was a great, great player - clearly the best opening theorist among the Soviets (with the possible exception of Furman). Clearly top 10 in the world through the 60s. Botvinnik, a reputable authority, said Geller was number one in the late 60s. So Geller was a great player.

He was also Fischer's natural enemy - both men prided themselves on independent research. With that said, was he greater than Fischer? Can you really pick him over Fischer? I'm with Steve. Don't see it.

OK. Earlier in the thread, Nick said this about Fischer and Geller:

I think the last time they played was in in 67 and Geller beat him.

Nope. The last time they played was at the 1970 Interzonal tournament at Palma de Mallorca, when Fischer was in his championship run. Fischer won beautifully as Black, stopping a win streak by Geller. This is the famous Grunfeld game where Geller offered a draw at move 7. Fischer said, "too early," and outlasted him.

Geller, probably at his peak, came in third in that tournament, behind Fischer and oh yeah, *Larsen.*

Nick also said this regarding Fischer's stats:

6-0 against Taimanov
6-0 against Larsen
5.1/2 -2/12 against Petrosian

Those are all great results. But the Taimanov and Petrosian results are life savers. Take those away then compare his results with the Russians or if you wish keep them in there and compare against the Russians.

To me Spassky profiteered from an era where the best Russians were getting old with one seriously good younger Russian playing highly erratic with Tal. Karpov and Kasparov were not around.

Hey - if you're going to compare Geller to Fischer, you can't cherry-pick. If you say Geller was better than Fischer, you have to agree that Geller was better than SPASSKY. You have to agree that Geller was better than Taimanov and Larsen. But he wasn't.

You have to compare common opponents. You have to compare overall results, not just individual records. Chess is a competitive endeavor. Winning is first. Fischer won *more* than Geller, and Geller couldn't beat the best guys on his own team.

Throughout the Fischer era, Geller *never* won the USSR championship. His best result was probably 1966, when he came in second.

Geller's best-ever international tournament result was the 1962 Stockholm Interzonal, where he finished second, to uh...Fischer. His second-best international result was the 1970 Interzonal, where he tied for second behind...Fischer.

Let's put this another way. If you're picking a team, do you pick Geller over Spassky? Do you pick Geller over Petrosian? Do you pick Geller over Larsen? Do you pick Geller over Taimanov?

Taimanov had a better lifetime record against Geller:
Taimanov - 9
Geller - 8

Geller played Spassky twice in Candidate's matches - '65 and '68. Spassky creamed him. Overall results:

Spassky - 11
Geller - 5

Did Spassky "profiteer" from a roster of aging players by beating Geller so soundly?

Geller also lost a Candidate's consolation match to Larsen in 66 (Larsen 5, Geller 4). He lost a Candidate's match to Keres. He lost a Candidate's match to Korchnoi, who was clearly superior.

Geller had good results against Petrosian:

Geller - 9
Petrosian - 8
Draws - 32

Except Petrosian was the world champ; Geller never reached that pinnacle. Petrosian was *better,* clearly.

If you're going to argue that Geller was better than Fischer, you have to ask why Geller lost to the same players Fischer demolished.

Here's another idea: When Fischer beat Taimanov, Petrosian and Spassky , Geller was the opening consultant EVERY TIME. That mattered most against Petrosian. Geller was Petrosian's pal, and Petrosian was no fool - he didn't have Spassky's romantic flaws. He took every advantage available.

Nick underrates Spassky, in my view. Spassky was Tal with discipline - a much greater player than Geller. He beat Fischer more than anyone else, including Geller.

One could argue that Fischer was playing against Geller's opening preparation through three matches, even if you want to suggest (fairly) that Spassky ignored Geller's ideas at times. Had Fischer played Karpov in 75, Geller (and Furman) would have been the consultants. Karpov, despite his obvious greatness, never had an original opening idea in his life.

Surely Fischer knew through all those 71-72 matches that he was contending with Geller's opening ideas. In that light, it becomes very easy to understand why he did the one thing no one expected: he varied repeatedly from his historically narrow opening repertoire, thus avoiding all that Geller analysis.

Who's the greater player? The one who adapts, or the one who invents?

- R.

Sure there is an argument for Geller over Fischer. I have already written several times that I am comparing lifetime work. Geller was still playing top flight chess and obtaining great results when he was 60. Fischer became a non factor when he stopped playing in 1972, at the age of 29/30.

Spassky had a + 4 record against Geller in 39 matches
Taimanov had a + 1 record against Geller in 29 matches

With Fischer, there are not that many opponents that he played 10 games or more against and a lot of these are not even top flight players.

To argue that Fischer would have beaten Karpov is a mute point since the whole world tried so very hard and in vain to create this match. Well Fischer did not want to play so the what if's are thrown out of the door. History looks at Staunton with contempt for his refusal or avoidance to play Morphy. How can you argue any different with Fischer?

Even Chessmetrics drops Fischer down to 6th or 7th place on the 15 year play List. The Keene-Divinsky and Sonas List has him in 6th place as well rating Fischer ELO 2755. Kasparov is top at ELO 2845.

Geller in this List has ELO 2720 an ELO difference of 35 that covers about 50 years of chess compared to about 16 years of chess.

So therefore on an "All time greatest" list I have no hesitation in placing Geller ahead of Fischer.

If you want to talk about a 1 Year greatest/2 year, 10 year than I wouldn't be discussing this point at all.

Regarding Spassky, Spassky went downhill so fast that it is hard to place him high on an "All time Greatest List"

Karpov +3 - 15
Ljubojevic + 2 - 4
Miles + 2 - 3
Yusupov +1 - 3
Kasparov + 2 - 2 (not bad but that was a very young Kasparov)
Polgar +2 - 5

These results came out of Warrior of the mind 2 written in 2006.

The young generation flew by Spassky.

There is no indication that Fischer would have beaten Karpov at all in fact Spassky's record against Karpov says it all, and indicates an expected defeat for Fischer against Karpov. Hence Fischer's avoidance of playing him.

Geller's opponent list is like a "Who is who" in the Chess World, whereas Fischer is a "who are they?" More than 1/2 the opponents Fischer played no one has heard of.

Even Korchnoi's record against Fischer indicates that he would have had good chances against Fischer.

Karpov's record against Kasparov especially in the early years also shows that he was a tough nut to crack.

ps... You are not annoying me at all I love debates and I wouldn't be putting this out there if I didn't fully expect to receive heated responses! It's all part of the fun!

Best regards,

[ricard60]

Who's the greater player? The one who adapts, or the one who invents?

- R.

or the one who avoids less complex or wild positions?, probably for the answer of one of each questions we will come up with a different list of players and that is why once more chess is a so marvelous game.

[Reinfeld]

Can't...resist...topic....must..post...

Nick said this:

Well Fischer did not want to play so the what if's are thrown out of the door. History looks at Staunton with contempt for his refusal or avoidance to play Morphy. How can you argue any different with Fischer?

Absolutely right. Fischer wouldn't play. Fischer didn't *want* to play. On that score, no different than Staunton. No points for Fischer.

Rotten for Karpov, who deserved the title shot. It was not fair to him. That match would have been something to see.

Karpov's best book (there aren't many good ones) is his 1991 autobio. He tells a sad story about when he finally understood the match with Fischer wasn't going to happen. This is long *after* the '74 championship cycle, long after Fischer's fight with FIDE. The two sides kept negotiating, and Karpov met with Fischer several times. They were one step away from signing the contract, and Fischer had the pen in his hand, and Karpov was standing there, and Fischer backed out of it.

Rather than Morphy-Staunton, I think the better analogy is Morphy-Steinitz, even though the timeframe is a bit longer.

Morphy retired from chess in 1859-60. Steinitz defeated Anderssen (barely) in 1866. Steinitz, born in 1836, was a year *older* than Morphy.

Steinitz met with Morphy, who was a bit crazy by this time. Morphy wouldn't play - wouldn't even talk about chess. Man - those games would have been something.

My personal list of best title matches that should have happened:

- Fischer-Karpov
- Morphy v Staunton
- Morphy v Steinitz
- Lasker v Pillsbury
- Lasker v Rubinstein
- Alekhine v Capablanca II


And back to Spassky. By all means, let's talk about Boris Spassky.

Spassky was a *great* player. Has it occurred to anyone that he's basically never written a book? Can you say that of any world champion since 1900?

You do not beat Petrosian because you suck. You do not win the USSR championship because you suck.

Spassky played gorgeous games. He played the freakin King's Gambit.

Nick said this:

So therefore on an "All time greatest" list I have no hesitation in placing Geller ahead of Fischer.

If you want to talk about a 1 Year greatest/2 year, 10 year than I wouldn't be discussing this point at all.

Regarding Spassky, Spassky went downhill so fast that it is hard to place him high on an "All time Greatest List"

My question - are you really measuring all-time performance?

Here are the Chessmetrics all-time rankings over a 20-year career, the longest measure:

1. Kasparov
2. Karpov
3. Lasker
4. Alekhine
5. Korchnoi
6. Smyslov
7. Keres
8. Petrosian
9. Botvinnik
10. Spassky (1960-79) - 2747
11. Tal
12. Anand
13. Polugaevsky
14. Portisch
15. Bronstein
16. Geller (1952-71) - 2730

I'll ask again - do you pick Geller over Spassky, lifetime?

- R.

P.S. - Assorted 15-year peak stats from Chessmetrics:

4. Capablanca (1919-33)
7. Fischer (1959-73)
16. Spassky (1959-73)
25. Geller (1956-70)

[spacious_mind]

Can't...resist...topic....must..post...

Nick said this:

Well Fischer did not want to play so the what if's are thrown out of the door. History looks at Staunton with contempt for his refusal or avoidance to play Morphy. How can you argue any different with Fischer?

Absolutely right. Fischer wouldn't play. Fischer didn't *want* to play. On that score, no different than Staunton. No points for Fischer.

Rotten for Karpov, who deserved the title shot. It was not fair to him. That match would have been something to see.

Karpov's best book (there aren't many good ones) is his 1991 autobio. He tells a sad story about when he finally understood the match with Fischer wasn't going to happen. This is long *after* the '74 championship cycle, long after Fischer's fight with FIDE. The two sides kept negotiating, and Karpov met with Fischer several times. They were one step away from signing the contract, and Fischer had the pen in his hand, and Karpov was standing there, and Fischer backed out of it.

Rather than Morphy-Staunton, I think the better analogy is Morphy-Steinitz, even though the timeframe is a bit longer.

Morphy retired from chess in 1859-60. Steinitz defeated Anderssen (barely) in 1866. Steinitz, born in 1836, was a year *older* than Morphy.

Steinitz met with Morphy, who was a bit crazy by this time. Morphy wouldn't play - wouldn't even talk about chess. Man - those games would have been something.

My personal list of best title matches that should have happened:

- Fischer-Karpov
- Morphy v Staunton
- Morphy v Steinitz
- Lasker v Pillsbury
- Lasker v Rubinstein
- Alekhine v Capablanca II


And back to Spassky. By all means, let's talk about Boris Spassky.

Spassky was a *great* player. Has it occurred to anyone that he's basically never written a book? Can you say that of any world champion since 1900?

You do not beat Petrosian because you suck. You do not win the USSR championship because you suck.

Spassky played gorgeous games. He played the freakin King's Gambit.

Nick said this:

So therefore on an "All time greatest" list I have no hesitation in placing Geller ahead of Fischer.

If you want to talk about a 1 Year greatest/2 year, 10 year than I wouldn't be discussing this point at all.

Regarding Spassky, Spassky went downhill so fast that it is hard to place him high on an "All time Greatest List"

My question - are you really measuring all-time performance?

Here are the Chessmetrics all-time rankings over a 20-year career, the longest measure:

1. Kasparov
2. Karpov
3. Lasker
4. Alekhine
5. Korchnoi
6. Smyslov
7. Keres
8. Petrosian
9. Botvinnik
10. Spassky (1960-79) - 2747
11. Tal
12. Anand
13. Polugaevsky
14. Portisch
15. Bronstein
16. Geller (1952-71) - 2730

I'll ask again - do you pick Geller over Spassky, lifetime?

- R.

P.S. - Assorted 15-year peak stats from Chessmetrics:

4. Capablanca (1919-33)
7. Fischer (1959-73)
16. Spassky (1959-73)
25. Geller (1956-70)

Hi Reinfeld,

Yes, you can argue the cases for most of the top players. I was also being a little hard for the sake of letting the forum juices flow on Fischer. Fischer could also easily make the top 10 as well. I think on my suggested List Spassky was at 18 so we are not that far off. I ranked Geller higher because he still made Candidates at old age and overall most people underrate him even though he has a fantastic record against most top players throughout his chess career. Fortune and luck plays a big part in chess too. Geller missed playing for a world championship by half a point.

In a way you can really say that most of the World Champions were really scoundrels in one way or another and almost all of them avoided playing the best opponent.

Lasker is ranked high but avoided playing Schlechter again even though the first match was a draw.
Capablanca should have perhaps played Rubinstein before he played Alekhine. In hindsight I bet he wished he had.
Alekhine never allowed a rematch against Capablanca.
Botvinnik - He was allowed rematches left right and center. Ties with David Bronstein yet never does a rematch against him.

Even in the modern era. Karpov is forced to play 1000 games (exaggerating) against Kasparov until Kapsarov finally gets a championship even though on the loss count he remained behind Karpov in their matches at that time.

Steinitz played a dozen opponents in his time yet gets a bad rap in the ratings. Lasker plays mostly weaker opponents yet gets rated at the top.

I would almost have to re-evaluate my "all time great list" and perhaps place Karpov ahead of Kasparov and Steinitz in second or third place

ps. did you notice that Capablanca is missing in the 20 year list which I thought strange since I thought that his chess career is more than 20 years. I guess that Chessmetrics is not absolutely perfect either.

Warriors of the Mind 2 that was compiled together with Chessmetrics places Tassilo von Heydebrand und der Lasa in 19th place of an "All Time Greatest" List.

Best regards,

[spacious_mind]

HI Reinfeld,

I see that I never really answered your question on Spassky. There is no question that Spassky at his best was as good as anyone. It is his rapid decline after 1972 that concerns me. Maybe he lost interest a little after all the hype of 1972. But it is this that has placed him down my rankings as well as that Karpov was so much better than him when they played.

Of course Spassky could be higher and of course Geller could be lower. But the same Geller debate could also be had for Keres and perhaps even Bronstein. Even Reshevsky, what might have been had the war not been in the middle of the career and had he been able to spend more time playing Russians on a regular basis, just as the Russian were playing each other on a regular basis. Who knows what might have been.

That's what makes it so much fun to look at all these great players all the what if's.

Best regards,

[Reinfeld]

Nick said:

ps. did you notice that Capablanca is missing in the 20 year list which I thought strange since I thought that his chess career is more than 20 years. I guess that Chessmetrics is not absolutely perfect either.

Yes, I did notice that. Makes no sense. Capablanca was active and among the best in the world from (at least) 1909 to 1938. Always in the conversation for greatest of all.

- R.

[RadioSmall]

This is a little bit of topic, but hopefully not too much since this is also a General Discussion area.

Besides dedicated chess computers, DOS chess programs and DOS Computers and old Home Computers and chess programs, I also love chess books, especially Player game collections, World Championships, US Championships, Olympiads and tournament books.

Raymond Keene wrote a chess book which discusses who is the strongest player of all time which you can see here:

http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia ... eList.html

Well since I knew I had books on most of these all-time greats, I then put this list together which might be of interest to you chess book collectors, naming the game collection books that are available. There are 5 all-time greats on Keene and Divinsky's List for which I don't have a book, two of which I will probably never get since they are out of print and really expensive but the other 3 are doable if buy a foreign language version.

I have missing.

26 - FURMAN
33 - FLOHR
43 - HORT
48 - VIDMAR -
64 - ZUKERTORT (NOT COUNTING THE 1886 STEINITZ-ZUCKERTORT WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP BOOK)

So here is a list of books based on the Keene-Divinsky All Time Great List.

KEENE-DIVINSKY ALL TIME GREAT LIST

1 - KASPAROV - GARRY KASPAROV ON GARRY KAPSAROV PART I: 1973-1985 - GARRY KASPAROV - EVERYMAN CHESS
1 - KASPAROV - KASPAROV AGAINST THE WORLD - GARRY KASPAROV WITH DANIEL KING - KASPAROV CHESS ONLINE
1 - KASPAROV - GARRY KASPAROV'S GREATES CHESS GAMES, VOLUME 1 - IGOR STOHL - GAMBIT PUBLICATIONS LTD
1 - KASPAROV - GARRY KASPAROV'S GREATES CHESS GAMES, VOLUME 2 - IGOR STOHL - GAMBIT PUBLICATIONS LTD
1 - KASPAROV - THE TEST OF TIME - GARRY KASPAROV - PERGAMON PRESS
2 - KARPOV - KARPOV'S COLLECTED GAMES: 1961-1974 - DAVID LEVY - RHM PRESS
2 - KARPOV - ANATOLY KARPOV'S BEST GAMES - ANATOLY KARPOV - B. T. BATSFORD LTD
3 - FISCHER - BOBBY FISCHER'S CHESS GAMES - ROBERT G. WADE & KEVIN J. O'CONNELL - DOUBLEDAY & COMPANY INC
3 - FISCHER - MY MEMORABLE 60 GAMES - BOBBY FISCHER - SIMON & SCHUSTER
3 - FISCHER - BOBBY FISHER – COMPLETE GAMES OF THE AMERICAN WORLD CHESS CHAMPION - LOU HAYS - HAYS PUBLISHING
3 - FISCHER - FISCHER VERSUS RUSSIANS - DMITRY PLISETSKY AND SERGEY VORONKOV - CHESS WORLD LTD
3 - FISCHER - FISCHER HIS APPROACH TO CHESS - ELIE AGUR - CADOGAN CHESS
4 - BOTVINNIK - BOTVINNIK ONE HUNDRED SELECTED GAMES - MIKHAIL BOTVINNIK - DOVER PUBLICATIONS INC
4 - BOTVINNIK - BOTVINNIK'S BEST GAMES VOLUME 1 – 1942-1956 - MIKHAIL BOTVINNIK - MORAVIAN CHESS
4 - BOTVINNIK - BOTVINNIK'S BEST GAMES VOLUME 2 – 1925-1941 - MIKHAIL BOTVINNIK - MORAVIAN CHESS
4 - BOTVINNIK - BOTVINNIK'S BEST GAMES VOLUME 3 – 1957-1970 - MIKHAIL BOTVINNIK - MORAVIAN CHESS
5 - CAPABLANCA - THE GAMES OF JOSE RAUL CAPABLANCA - ROGELIO CAPARROS - CHESS DIGEST
5 - CAPABLANCA - CAPABLANCA'S BEST CHESS ENDINGS 60 COMPLETE GAMES - IRBING CHERNEV - DOVER PUBLICATIONS INC
5 - CAPABLANCA - THE IMMORTAL GAMES OF CAPABLANCA - FRED REINFELD - HOROWITZ AND HARKNESS
6 - LASKER - EMANUEL LASKER – ALL GAMES VOUME 1: 1889 – 1903 - SERGEI SOLOVIOV - RUSSIAN CHESS HOUSE
6 - LASKER - EMANUEL LASKER – ALL GAMES VOUME 2: 1904 – 1940 - SERGEI SOLOVIOV - RUSSIAN CHESS HOUSE
6 - LASKER - EMANUEL LASKER – THE LIFE OF A CHESS MASTER - DR J. HANNAK - SIMON & SCHUSTER
6 - LASKER - LASKER'S GREATEST CHESS GAMES - FRED REINFELD - DOVER PUBLICATIONS INC
7 - KORCHNOI - KORCHNOI'S 400 BEST GAMES - VIKTOR KORCHNOI, R.G. WADE & L.S. BLACKSTOCK - ARCO PUBLISHING
8 - SPASSKY - THE BEST GAMES OF BORIS SPASSKY - ANDREW SOLTIS - DAVID MCKAY COMPANY
8 - SPASSKY - BORIS SPASSKY: MASTER OF INITIATIVE - ALEXANDER RAETSKY & MAXIM CHETVERIK - EVERYMAN CHESS
8 - SPASSKY - SPASSKY'S 100 BEST GAMES - BERNARD CAFFERTY - MACMILLAN PUBLISHING
9 - SMYSSLOV - SMYSLOV'S BEST GAMES VOLUME I – 1935-1957 - VASILY SMYSLOV - MORAVIAN CHESS
9 - SMYSSLOV - SMYSLOV'S BEST GAMES VOLUME II – 1958-1995 - VASILY SMYSLOV - MORAVIAN CHESS
9 - SMYSSLOV - MY BEST GAMES OF CHESS 1935-1957 - V. V. SMYSLOV - DOVER PUBLICATIONS INC
9 - SMYSSLOV - VASSILY SMYSLOV WORLD CHESS CHAMPION - ALEXANDER LIEPNIEKS & JACK L. SPENCE - VAIDAVA
10 - PETROSIAN - PETROSIAN'S BEST GAMES OF CHESS 1946-1963 - P. H. CLARKE - G. BELL & SONS LIMITED
10 - PETROSIAN - TIGRAN PETROSIAN HIS LIFE AND GAMES - VIK. L. VASILIEV - ISHI PRESS INTERNATIONAL
11 - MORPHY - PAUL MORPHY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CHESS THEORY - MACON SHIBUT - CAISSA EDITIONS
11 - MORPHY - MORPHY'S GAMES OF CHESS - PHILIP W. SERGEANT - DOVER PUBLICATIONS INC
12 - POLUGAEVSKY - GRANDMASTER PREPARATION - LEV POLUGAEVSKY - ISHI PRESS INTERNATIONAL
13 - GELLER - THE APPLICATION OF CHESS THEORY - YEFIM GELLER - EVERYMAN CHESS
14 - TAL - THE LIFE AND GAMES OF MIKHAIL TAL - MIKHAIL TAL - EVERYMAN CHESS
14 - TAL - COMPLETE GAMES OF MIKHAIL TAL 1960-1966 - HILARY THOMAS - ARCO PUBLISHING
14 - TAL - COMPLETE GAMES OF MIKHAIL TAL 1967-1973 - HILARY THOMAS - B. T. BATSFORD LTD
14 - TAL - SELECTED GAMES OF MIKHAIL TAL - J. HAJTUN - DOVER PUBLICATIONS INC
14 - TAL - ATTACK WITH MIKHAIL TAL - MIKHAIL TAL & IAKOV DAMSKY - EVERYMAN CHESS
15 - STEIN - LEONID STEIN MASTER OF RISK STRATEGY - EDUARD GUFELD & EFIM LAZAREV - THINKER'S PRESS
15 - STEIN - LEONID STEIN MASTER OF ATTACK - RAYMOND KEENE - HARDINGE SIMPOLE PUBLISHING
16 - KERES - PAUL KERES: THE ROAD TO THE TOP - PAUL KERES - THE AMERICAN BATSFORD CHESS LIBRARY
16 - KERES - PAUL KERES: THE QUEST FOR PERFECTION - PAUL KERES & JOHN NUNN - THE AMERICAN BATSFORD CHESS LIBRARY
16 - KERES - KERES' BEST GAMES OF CHESS 1931-1948 - KERES/REINFELD - DOVER PUBLICATIONS INC
16 - KERES - GRANDMASTER OF CHESS THE COMPLETE GAMES OF PAUL KERES - PAUL KERES AND HARRY GOLOMBEK - ARCO PUBLISHING
17 - BRONSTEIN - THE SORCERER'S APPRENTICE - DAVID BRONSTEIN & TOM FÜRSTENBERG - CADOGAN CHESS
17 - BRONSTEIN - 200 OPEN GAMES - DAVID BRONSTEIN - DOVER PUBLICATIONS INC
17 - BRONSTEIN - THE MODERN CHESS SELF-TUTOR - DAVID BRONSTEIN - EVERYMAN CHESS
17 - BRONSTEIN - SECRET NOTES - DAVID BRONSTEIN AND SERGEY VORONKOV - EDITION OLMS
18 - ALEKHINE - ALEXANDER ALEKHINE – MASTER OF ATTACK - ALEXANDER RAETSKY & MAXIM CHETVERIK - EVERYMAN CHESS
18 - ALEKHINE - ALEXANDER ALEKHINE 'S CHESS GAMES 1902 -1946 - LEONARD M. SKINNER & ROBERT G. P. VERHOEVEN - MCFARLAND & COMPANY INC
18 - ALEKHINE - MY BEST GAMES OF CHESS VOLUME 1 1908 – 1923 - A. ALEKHINE - DAVID MCKAY COMPANY
18 - ALEKHINE - MY BEST GAMES OF CHESS VOLUME 2 1924 – 1937 - A. ALEKHINE - DAVID MCKAY COMPANY
18 - ALEKHINE - MY BEST GAMES OF CHESS VOLUME 3 1938 – 1945 - C.H.O'D ALEXANDER - DAVID MCKAY COMPANY
19 - SOKOLOV - SOKOLOV'S BEST GAMES - IVAN SOKOLOV - CADOGAN CHESS
20 - BOLESLAVSKY - ISAAK BOLESLAVSKY - JIMMY ADAMS - CAISSA EDITIONS
21 - PORTISCH - SELECTED GAMES OF LAJOS PORTISCH - EGON VARNUSZ - ARCO PUBLISHING
22 - RESHEVSKY - SAMUEL RESHEVSKY - STEPHEN W. GORDON - MCFARLAND & COMPANY INC
22 - RESHEVSKY - RESHEVSKY'S BEST GAMES OF CHESS - SAMUEL RESHEVSKY - DOVER PUBLICATIONS INC
23 - YUSUPOV - ARTUR YUSUPOV: OVER 100 VICTORIES SPANNING HIS CAREER - ARTUR YUSUPOV - THREE GIRLS PUBLISHING
24 - KHOLMOV - RATMIR KHOLMOV - ADAM CORNELIUS BERT - CHROMO PUBLISHING
25 - AVERBAKH - AVERBAKH'S SELECTED GAMES - YURI AVERBAKH - CADOGAN CHESS
26 - FURMAN - MISSING - MISSING - MISSING
27 - BELYAVSKY - UNCOMPROMISING CHESS - ALEXANDER BELYAVSKY - CADOGAN CHESS
28 - TIMMAN - JAN TIMMAN STUDIES AND GAMES - JAN TIMMAN - CADOGAN CHESS
29 - LARSEN - LARSEN'S SELECTED GAMES OF CHESS 1948-69 - BENT LARSEN - G. BELL & SONS LIMITED
30 - TAIMANOV - TAIMANOV'S SELECTED GAMES - MARK TAIMANOV - EVERYMAN CHESS
31 - VAGANIAN - RAFAEL VAGANIAN: OVER 100 VICTORIES SPANNING HIS CAREER - RAFAEL VAGANIAN - THREE GIRLS PUBLISHING
32 - KOTOV - ALEXANDER KOTOV - YURI AVERBAKH - ISHI PRESS INTERNATIONAL
33 - FLOHR - MISSING - MISSING - MISSING
34 - LJUBOJEVIC - LJUBOMIR LJUBOJEVIC - MILAN BJELAJAC - ZOFI SERVICE
35 - NAJDORF - NAJDORF: LIFE AND GAMES - TOMASZ LISSOWSKI, ADRIAN MIKHALCHISHIN & MIGUEL NAJDORF - B. T. BATSFORD LTD
35 - NAJDORF - YOUNG NAJDORF - TOMASZ LISSOWSKI - THE CHESS PLAYER
36 - SZABO - MY BEST GAMES OF CHESS - LASZLO SZABO - PERGAMON PRESS
37 - GLIGORIC - THE CHESS OF GLIGORIC - DAVID N. L. LEVY - WORLD PUBLISHING
37 - GLIGORIC - I PLAY AGAINST PIECES - SVETOZAR GLIGORIC - BATSFORD CHESS LIBRARY
37 - GLIGORIC - SVETOZAR GLIGORIC COLLECTED GAMES - COLIN LEACH - CAISSA EDITIONS
38 - FINE - LESSONS FROM MY GAMES - REUBEN FINE - DAVID MCKAY COMPANY
38 - FINE - REUBEN FINE: A COMPREHENSIVE RECORD OF AN AMERICAN CHESS CAREER 1929-1951 - - MCFARLAND & COMPANY INC
39 - HUEBNER - DR ROBERT HÜBNER 60 SEINER SCHOENSTEN PARTIEN - M. VAN FONDERN & P. KLEINE - BEYER VERLAG
40 - ANDERSSON - GRANDMASTER STRATEGY – WHAT AMATEURS CAN LEARN FOM ULF ANDERSSON'S POSITIONAL MASTERPIECES - JURGEN KAUFELD & GUIDO KERN - NEW IN CHESS
41 - SEIRAWAN - CHESS DUELS – MY GAMES WITH THE WORLD CHAMPIONS - YASSER SEIRAWAN - EVERYMAN CHESS
42 - EUWE - FROM MY GAMES 1920 – 1937 - DR MAX EUWE TRANSLATED BY FRED REINFELD - CHELTENHAM PRESS LTD
43 - HORT - MISSING - MISSING - MISSING
44 - RUBINSTEIN - THE LIFE & GAMES OF AKIVA RUBINSTEIN VOLUME 1 – UNCROWNED KING - JOHN DONALDSON AND NIKOLA MINEV - RUSSELL ENTERPRISES INC
44 - RUBINSTEIN - THE LIFE & GAMES OF AKIVA RUBINSTEIN VOLUME 2 – THE LATER YEARS - JOHN DONALDSON AND NIKOLA MINEV - RUSSELL ENTERPRISES INC
44 - RUBINSTEIN - RUBINSTEINS CHESS MASTERPIECES 100 SELECTED GAMES - HANS KMOCH - DOVER PUBLICATIONS INC
45 - MECKING - HENRIQUE MECKING LATIN CHESS GENIUS - STEPHEN W. GORDON - THINKER'S PRESS
46 - MAROCZY - MAROCZY'S HUNDERT SCHACHPARTIEN - B. KAGAN - SCHACHVERLAG B. KAGAN
47 - STEINITZ - WILLIAM STEINIZ – SELECTED CHESS GAMES - CHARLES DEVIDE - DOVER PUBLICATIONS INC
47 - STEINITZ - WILLHELM STEINITZ, CHESS CHAMPION A BIOGRAPHY OF THE BOHEMIAN CAESAR - KURT LANSBERGER - MCFARLAND & COMPANY INC
47 - STEINITZ - THE GAMES OF WILLHELM STEINITZ, FIRST WORLD CHAMPION - SID PICKARD - EVERYMAN CHESS
48 - VIDMAR - MISSING - MISSING - MISSING
49 - BERNSTEIN - COMBAT: MY 50 YEARS AT THE CHESS BOARD - SIDNEY BERNSTEIN - ISHI PRESS INTERNATIONAL
50 - NIMZOVITCH - ARON NIMZOWITSCH: ON THE ROAD TO CHESS MASTERY 1886-1924 - PER SKJOLDAGER AND JORN ERIK NIELSEN - MCFARLAND & COMPANY INC
51 - BOGOLJUBOV - BOGOLJUBOV – THE FATE OF A CHESS PLAYER - SERGEI SOLOVIOV - CHESS STARS LTD
52 - SHORT - NIGEL SHORT: CHESS PRODIGY - DAVID SHORT - FABER AND FABER
52 - SHORT - NIGEL SHORT WORLD CHESS CHALLENGER - RAYMOND KEENE - OWL BOOK
53 - TARRASCH - THREE HUNDRED CHESS GAMES – DREI HUNDERT SCHACHPARTIEN - SIEGBERT TARRASCH – TRANSLATION SOL SCHWARZ - HAYS PUBLISHING
53 - TARRASCH - TARRASCH'S BEST GAMES OF CHESS - FRED REINFELD - DOVER PUBLICATIONS INC
54 - PILLSBURY - PILLSBURY'S CHESS CAREER - P. W. SARGEANT AND W. H. WATTS - DOVER PUBLICATIONS INC
54 - PILLSBURY - HARRY NELSON PILLSBURY A GENIUS AHEAD OF HIS TIME - ALEXANDER CHERNIAEV - OM MEDIA
55 - SCHLECHTER - CARL SCHLECHTER ! LIFE AND TIMES OF THE AUSTRIAN CHESS WIZARD - WARREN GOLDMAN - CAISSA EDITIONS
56 - MARSHALL - FRANK J. MARSHALL'S BEST GAMES OF CHESS - FRANK J. MARSHALL - DOVER PUBLICATIONS INC
56 - MARSHALL - FRANK MARSHALL UNITED STATES CHESS CHAMPION A BIOGRAPHY WITH 220 GAMES - ANDREW SOLTIS - MCFARLAND & COMPANY INC
57 - ANDERSSEN - MASTER OF ATTACK – THE CHESS GAMES OF ADOPH ANDERSSEN - SID PICKARD - PICKARD & SON PUBLISHERS
58 - CHAROUSEK - CHESS COMET CHAROUSEK - VICTOR A. CHAROUCHIN - SCHACHFIRMA FRUTH
58 - CHAROUSEK - CHAROUSEK'S GAMES OF CHESS - PHILIP W. SERGEANT - DOVER PUBLICATIONS INC
59 - CHIGORIN - MIKHAIL CHIGORIN – THE FIRST RUSSIAN GRANDMASTER - ALEXANDER KHALIFMAN & SERGEI SOLOVIOV - CHESS STARS LTD
59 - CHIGORIN - MY LOVE AFFAIR WITH TCHIGORIN - A. E. SANTASIERE - CHESS DIGEST
60 - TEICHMANN - RICHARD TEICHMANN - JACK SPENCE - THE CHESS PLAYER
61 - JANOWSKI - DAVID JANOWSKI ARTIST OF THE CHESS BOARD - ALEXANDER CHERNIAEV AND ALEXANDER MEYNELL - HARDINGE SIMPOLE PUBLISHING
62 - DURAS - THE COMPLETE GAMES OF OLDRICH DURAS - J. KALENDOVSKY - THE CHESS PLAYER
63 - BLACKBURNE - BLACKBURNE'S CHESS GAMES - EDITED BY P . ANDERSON GRAHAM - DOVER PUBLICATIONS INC
64 - ZUKERTORT - MISSING - MISSING - MISSING

Well I hope this is not too far off topic.

Best Regards,

Nick

This has NOTHING to do with Computer Chess at ALL!!!

[spacious_mind]

This has NOTHING to do with Computer Chess at ALL!!!

Hi Mr Small,

Thanks, I am glad that you took the time to read the content.

I was hoping that these posts are G rated but If you think it not suitable for younger children, then please inform the Broadcast Owners.

All the best to you and your family