Originally posted by greenpawn34
Schakuhr - practically hits the nail with his post.
Capablanca played these games that are easy to understand and
write about - though producing his games OTB is a different matter.
Alekhine & Morphy are everybody's favourite, their breath taking
combinations make their games a joy to play over again and again.
Fischer and Kasparov (and Tal) a ...[text shortened]... fault because we keep buying
the same books with the same games by the same players.
You make many excellent points.
Botvinnik is the one that makes the least sense to me. He is the father of modern chess, in my opinion, the first to apply scientific methods to its study. Anyone who plays the French, the Caro-Kann, even the King's Indian owes him a huge debt of gratitude, for it was he that gave them new life.
Smyslov was probably the best endgame player (an often ignored phase of the game) after Fischer. I have a book by him with his games that all lead to interesting endgames.
I would consider Petrosian one of the true geniuses of the game, if for no other reason than his approach and style was so unique. I believe it was Tal who once said it was easier to win the Soviet championship than win a game against Tal.
I agree that these three players (I really don't know enough about Euwe) don't get enough attention because their styles weren't as exciting as their rivals. It takes a little work to appreciate their contributions to the game, but it is worth it.