Chess Trivia (for people who are people fans of Mikhail Tal)

1. Please do not Google the Answer. That is too easy!

Tal was one of the greatest players and attackers of all time. But contrary to belief, there were a few players who came out way ahead of him.

This player had a lifetime record of 8 wins and 2 losses vs. Tal in Professional Play. (I'm not sure about draws.)
This player beat Tal in Riga with the black pieces. If you know Riga, you know that Tal's home.
This player is a ->Russian<- GM who never became world champion. Despite being ranked in the top 20 for over 15 years.
Therefore: This player is Not, Taimanov, Smyslov, Botvinnik, Petrosian, Spassky Karpov, or Kasparov (obviously)
It's also not Israel Zirbal

I realize the mistype in the title. I can't change it... People are People are People.

Ok, my guess would be Keres.

Korchnoi?

I had to look it up :-(

Further pop quiz, though - Tal only actually had a net positive score against one world champion. Which one was it?

I know the answer. I can't spell his name. Nez???????

@ryan121 You are thinking Rashid Nezhimedinov, he actually isn't a Grandmaster :(

@RamblinDave @ryan121 @Sybotes @otgadka

Korchnoi is a great guess, as he prevented Lev from a Championship
Nez is a great guess as well, as he was a pupil of this player
( I pasted the bits about them below)

Paul Keres is a great guess as well, as he was a monster of that era...
Here he is:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Polugaevsky

.....Additionally, between 1950 and 1953 he trained with Rashid Nezhmetdinov.[1] Unlike many of his grandmaster colleagues, his development in chess came slowly, and he did not receive the
......
1980 cycles, when he defeated Henrique Mecking and former world champion Mikhail Tal, respectively, in quarterfinal Candidates matches, before succumbing both times in the semifinals to the eventual challenger, Viktor Korchnoi.[3]

@RamblinDave I'm guessing Fischer. Is that correct. I could Google it.

@vegan_cannibal said in #8:
> @RamblinDave I'm guessing Fischer. Is that correct. I could Google it.

Yep! Albeit entirely on the strength of the 1959 Candidates...

Here's an amazing Polguaevsky game. Stockfish says the positional rook sac is an inaccuracy, which just goes to show that engines may be good at chess, but they don't yet understand Art: