How strong was Samuel Reshevsky

Based upon his game results, Reshevsky was a shade weaker than prior champions (Capablanca, Alekhine), but close to on par with Botvinnik.  He had trouble with creative play, especially with clever drawing resources, so it's doubtful he would have been a match for Tal or Petrosian.

He suffered from similar shenanigans as Fischer did later one, but his playing strength was clearly less.  I do think he'd fare well against most of today's super-GM pool, but only for the shortage of aggressive players in that pool.

From Wikipedia: 

Fischer greatly respected the older champion, stating in the late 1960s that he thought Reshevsky was the strongest player in the world in the mid 1950s. This was around the time when Reshevsky defeated World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik in their four-game mini-match, which was the top board of the US vs. USSR team match held in Moscow.

According to ChessMetrics, Sammy was several times the best in the world

Yes, Bronstein said he and other Soviets at Zurich, 1953, were directed to stop Reshevsky, even if it meant throwing games to Smyslov.  I have an article about it

.https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/soviet-cheating-in-fide-competition-zurich-1953

I think we have 2 players in Reshevsky and Fine that were not full time chess players to begin with.  So no doubt that had a lot to do with why they never challenged for the title.  But man were they good for being part time players.

Fine got his PhD at USC and went into practice as a psychotherapist

Never challenged for the title?

Reshevsky tied with Keres for third in the 1948 WCC tournament. He finished 2nd at Zurich 1953. Isn't that challenging for the WCC?

Fine finished first at AVRO 1938 ahead for 4 current, past  or future champions. Sounds like he challenged for the WCC to me.

My apologies for not being clear.  But i meant they never played a match against the WC for the title.

Fine considered himself World Co-Champion along with Keres after Alekhine's death.

I have no issue with that since both would be worthy, unfortunately its not official.

There's an issue with ChessMetrics in that activity means a player rises when others have not been playing. The second is with the 'quality' of the activity itself. ChessMetrics give you a very rough idea of how good a historic player was, but it's by no means pinpoint accuracy.

If you look at a player like Miguel Najdorf. Between July 1946 and July 1949 he was No. 2 in the world on 33 monthly lists, i.e. basically throughout that period. During that time, he mostly took part in South American tournaments where he was the best player at the time (with Gideon Ståhlberg being No. 2).

However, whenever Najdorf travelled elsewhere to play, he didn't exactly shine given his No. 2 status in the world: Groningen 1946, 4th place on 11½/19 (a whopping 3 points behind Botvinnik who won); Prague 1946, 1st on 10½/13 (not a particularly strong field on the whole); Saltsjöbaden 1948, shared 6th-8th on 10½/19 (3 points behind Bronstein who won, most of the strong Soviet players took part); New York 1948-49, 2nd on 6½/9 (1½ points behind the winner, retired pro Reuben Fine); drawn match with Reuben Fine 1949 (4:4); drawn match with Petar Trifunovic 1949 (6:6). In light of those results, it's blindingly obvious that Miguel Najdorf wasn't even close to being second best player in the world during this period. Top 10, sure, but that's about it. If we needed further confirmation, at the Budapest Candidates, April 1950, less than a year after his last No. 2 rating on Chess Metrics, he (at that point no. 5 in the world according to CM) scored 50%, once again a full 3 points behind the winners (Boleslavsky and Bronstein).

Arguably you can see a similar pattern in the case of Sammy Reshevsky, although at a higher level. He's dominant in the US, but he's never outshining the Soviets when he plays them.

Any of the retro-rating or -ranking attempts are open to criticism.  Even Prof. Elo's seminal 1978 book on the subject had its critics.

i mean, elo is not equivalent to playing strength in the first place. its equivalent to how often one wins, so its all about consistency of play over time (if u dont play well, u lose) PLUS playing strength. there is a reason why farming is a thing lol

In light of the many interesting comments in this thread, it would be great if someone created a thread in which to post Reshevsky's best games.  I'm not qualified to do so, but those of you who know him well enough to assess his greatness vs other players of his time should give the rest of us an opportunity to appreciate him. 

I think there there is chapter on Reshevsky in the book "The March of Chess Ideas." It was quite interesting. 

I print out the games of great players and keep them in a binder. When I need a break from the depression of daily life I love to play out those games on my chess board. I have sections on Tal, Capablanca and others. I would love to start a "greatest of" section on Reshevsky!

The numerical rating system Pro. Elo devised is meant to reflect playing strength.  It is meant to do so without personal biases.  That is why it is used in professional tennis, to rate Americsn college football teams, etc.

i mean, of course, but then again, that wouldve made magnus >>>>> other players, and fischer >>>>>>> petrosian and spassky, when in reality, it was more like > to >>

True, bb, mathematical ratings can be manipulated.  That's why the USCF froze Jude Acer's rating at 2399.

lol did u get offended by that? what a loser smh

am i to assume that ur like, 86 years old or something?