5 Best Players of All Time

1. Kasparov 2. Fischer 

3. Capablanca  4. Alekhine  5. Botvinnik

Kramnik?

Fischer, Fischer, Fischer, Fischer and Kasparov. 

1. Capablanca
2. Kasparov
3. Karpov
4. Kramnik
5. Me

1. Kasparov

2. Fischer

3. Karpov

4. Kramnik

5. Korchnoi

In my opinion, the old "greats" could never stand up to today's champions. I have looked at the games of Morphy, Alekhine, and their contemporaries, and been able to refute many of their game-winning attacks against best play. As for the new prodigies like Carlsen, they have yet to be around long enough to show us if they qualify for this rank. From what I have seen so far, though, Carlsen is not as close as many would place him.

oh…

1.Kasparov(2851 max elo)

2.Alekhine

3.Carlsen(2837 max elo)

4.Levon(2825 max elo)

5.Kramnik(2811 max elo)

the same is true for any sport. Boxers are faster, stronger and more technical than 10 or 50 years ago. name a sport and you will see that records get broken all the time and the depth of skills is deeper. even in the olympics the distance between 1st and 5th is fractions in many events. Its based on a skill , talent and experience. This is why you cannt really compare strengths of players from different eras. You can say that those players are talented and would have performed at a high level but thats it. Why i categorized players as who changed how chess was played or viewed instead of results.

Overall, Tony, I would agree. However, there are some records that will never be broken. Cy Young's 511 victories, Walter Johnson's complete games. Jim Brown's avg. yards per carry. Byron Nelson's 11 consecutive victories. Nolan Ryan's strikeouts.

Chess is simply a different animal. As is every sport nowadays. Technology has brought us to a place where many sports are different than what they were. However, while chess is a game of skill, and, some would say, raw talent, it really doesn't compare to other sports and records.

Let me put it this way: Great chess play is like many things Jeter has done. Sometimes, a statistic does not convey what contributions have been made. This is the case with Derek. Yeah, 3000 hits, I know. But, it's many of the other things he has done that have made him great.

Perhaps it's the depth of skill that you mention that will keep some records alive.

lets not go off target but some of these records will never be broken for a few reasons. the main one being rule changes and also that the game has become more physically demanding and dynamic creating more stress on the human body. its difficult for players now to have long careers in any sport due to these stresses placed on the human body at the top level, so your right that many of those records will always stand. I also think that many chess records will not be broken either for similar reasons such as oldest world champion (not senior but WC) length of being world champion. 

Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer, Kasparov, Tal (not necessarily in that order.) Carlsen hasn't won a world championship and Kramnik's chess is about exciting as watching paint dry. The way Kasparov demolished Karpov prevents him from being in the top 5, imo. Korchnoi was beaten by Karpov in a world championship. Botvinnik's and Petrosian's style of play was dull as hell.

You should check out Kramniks book of games. they arent so boring as you might think. 

Kasparov never demolished karpov, ever! He won matches by narrow margins aborted match,13–11, 12½–11½., 12–12, 12½–11½, . In their five world championship matches, Kasparov had 21 wins, 19 losses, and 104 draws in 144 games.

far from a crushing defeat... Karpov has the best tournament performance rating of all time. his problem was well,... kasparov! When Karpov was WC he was dominate, infact he was a very active WC tournament wise. 

Check out the famous game (I think it was 16) from 1985 between K and K. Kasparov just dominated Karpov to the point where Karpov, even with most of his pieces, was in a helpless (and hopeless) position. I'm not aware of Karpov coming close to dominating Kasparov in a game like that.

Do you think Karpov would have beaten Fischer? Curious to know your thoughts on that as I've heard plausible arguments on both sides

Petrosian's cautious approach could really be seen in game 1 of the final match that would determine who played Spassky in the WCC. Petrosian, who had the black pieces, played a prepared and venomous novelty that appeared to have Fischer on the ropes but didn't follow the continuation to maximize the pressure. He chose a "safer" move and Fischer, sensing the change in Petrosian's attitude, began to play very energetically and resourcefully and won. After the game, Petrosian was at a loss to explain why he didn't follow up the novelty with the best continuation. Other GMs thought it was Petrosian's instinct to aim for a draw.

Imagine if Petrosian had beaten Fischer in game 1 with the black pieces. That may have had a psychological impact on Fischer that would have made the match closer (yes, Petrosian won the second game.)

Lol. Don't recall the final game with Deep Blue. Are you aware of Kasparov's claim that Deep Blue was cheating (actually that the programmers cheated?) You're right that my view of Karpov shouldn't be so heavily influenced by one game, but have you seen that game? It's hard not to have a distorted view of Karpov (at least for me) after seeing how badly he was beaten in that game. It's like a great pitcher who pitches a game and gives up three home runs in the first inning

Didn't say Karpov wasn't great; he's just not in my top 5. And there's a ton of baseball players in the HOF

1 Kasparov 2 Karpov 3 Fischer 4 Capablanca 5 Steinitz

apologies to Tal, Morphy, Alekhine and Emanuel Lasker

Let's not forget that Karpov didn't "win" the world championship, at least not initially. It was given to him after Fischer refused to play. Yes, he won a lot of tournaments after that and beat Korchnoi in a WCC

Karpov was always the Soviet establishment's favored son in his matches with Kasparov. Wasn't there a WCC match of unlimited duration (winner was first to win six or 10 games, draws not counting) that was aborted when Kasparov was wearing Karpov down?

Kasparov was Karpov's Nemisis. Kasparov style and opening prep created some brillant games. Karpov's style doesnt lead to brillant games as often since it just looks like someone blundered and he squeezed them to death. humans like excitment but Karpov was a great , GREAT player top 5 strength wise if anyone considers kasparov #1 then karpov has to  be in the top 10 if not top 5 because he was right there. 

I think 78' if fischer could have pulled it together then he woudl have probably won. but 82'? not sure karpov was in his prime then. the problem is that pure chess strength is not the only factor but there is a competitive factor that is just as important, nerves are just as critical as skill and Fischer lacked the emotional stablity. Most people I think were shocked he pulled it together for the one match 

He almost didn't. He had booked a flight back to the states after the brouhaha over the second game. Supposedly Henry Kissinger's phone call to him, encouraging him to "beat the commies" kept him in the match.

Can you imagine what was going through Fischer's head when he was going into game 3, down 2-0 and having the black pieces against a player he had never beaten before?

Then he plays the Modern Benoni after raising a ruckus and wins?

The moment when he walked out of game 3 must have been the happiest of his life (up to that point.)