Taylor Kingston wrote (8 Nov 2006 11:15:11 -0800):

7 ... I suggest getting better grounded in chess history
7 before making blanket generalizations that underestimate
7 some very great players.

_
I am not sure where, but I think I remember reading
SOMEWHERE something somewhat like what Rob Mitchell
has written. Possibly it was in one of those books on the
evolution of chess. Reti, Coles, Euwe, and Fine all wrote
books of that sort. Fine wrote,
_
"At his best Alekhine had equals, but he did
not have any superiors. For sheer originality,
profundity, and technical perfection he was
never surpassed. He ranks among the really
great artists of the chessboard." - Fine (1951)
_
I think I remember Reinfeld as being particularly enthusiastic
about Alekhine in some of his writing.
_
Of course, one is entitled to be skeptical about all such
writing. After all, such judgments are obviously subjective
and I, at least, get the impression that some authors
oversimplify for the sake of being dramatic and interesting
to read. Also, of course, many judgments of this sort were
written before the days of Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, and
Kramnik.