In the whole history of chess one and only one
chess player had played championship matches
against more than one **incumbent** champion.

Wlod

"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski" wrote

In the whole history of chess one and only one
chess player had played championship matches
against more than one **incumbent** champion.

Wlod



Wlod,

I can think of two, actually. Botvinnik and Anand.

1958 Smyslov-Botvinnik
1961 Tal-Botvinnik

1995 Kasparov-Anand (PCA)
1998 Karpov-Anand (FIDE)

Best regards,
Tobi

"Tobi Usher" wrote in message
i.nl...
"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski" wrote

In the whole history of chess one and only one
chess player had played championship matches
against more than one **incumbent** champion.

Wlod



Wlod,

I can think of two, actually. Botvinnik and Anand.

1958 Smyslov-Botvinnik
1961 Tal-Botvinnik

1995 Kasparov-Anand (PCA)
1998 Karpov-Anand (FIDE)

I think also Alekhine.

Matt

"mdamien" wrote


I think also Alekhine.



You're perfectly right, Matt. How silly of me to forget him.
So now we have three of them: Alekhine, Botvinnik and Anand.

1927 Capablanca-Alekhine
1937 Euwe-Alekhine

1958 Smyslov-Botvinnik
1961 Tal-Botvinnik

1995 Kasparov-Anand (PCA)
1998 Karpov-Anand (FIDE)

Who else did I forget?

Tobi

I think when Lasker played Capablanca he (Lasker) if I am correct was not the
official World Champ.I believed Lasker had given up the World Championship
prior to that match.

"Etj718" wrote

I think when Lasker played Capablanca he (Lasker) if I am correct was not
the
official World Champ.I believed Lasker had given up the World Championship
prior to that match.

You are correct. Lasker did resign his title to Capablanca in 1920, but when
in 1921 a match took place after all, Lasker was nevertheless regarded as
the incumbent champion and Capa as the challenger. As I see it, Lasker's
abdication was in fact nullified by the agreement to play the match.
It would be rather strange to regard Capa as the incumbent and Lasker as the
challeger trying to regain the title he had voluntarily resigned. However,
if you do take that view, that would make Lasker the fourth name on our list
(having played against the incumbent champions Steinitz in 1894 and
Capablanca in 1921).

Any historians out there who can shed more light on the legal status of
Lasker's 1920 abdication and the 1921 match?

Tobi

Tobi Usher wrote:


I can think of two, actually. Botvinnik and Anand.

But noone who was actually lying down at the time?

--
Anders Thulin http://www.algonet.se/~ath

Lasker was nevertheless regarded as
the incumbent champion and Capa as the challenger. As I see it

It would be rather strange to regard Capa as the incumbent and Lasker as the
challeger

I do not disagree.Just trying to add another name to the list.I personally
would have regarded Lasker as the Champ and Capa as the favorite.

On 18 Nov 2003 14:12:29 GMT, (Etj718) wrote:

I think when Lasker played Capablanca he (Lasker) if I am correct was not the
official World Champ.I believed Lasker had given up the World Championship
prior to that match.

You believe incorrectly.

It is true that Lasker attempted to "resign" his title in favour of
Capablanca. But both Capablanca and the rest of the chess world
rejected attempt. Lasker was certainly universally recognized as the
only World Chess Champion at the start of the match with Capablanca.

_
"Lasker surprised the chess world by resigning his
title in favour of [Capablanca]. ... the chess
world ... wanted a match. ... Lasker decided to
give the chess world what it wanted. He did,
however, insist that he had resigned the title in
Capablanca's favour, and he, Lasker must therefore
be considered the challenger. Both players issued
statements to that effect, which were promptly and
very reasonably ignored by all." - Hartston

I would imagine that details about what was written at
the time could be found in Edward Winter's book about
Capablanca.