Lady-in-Red wrote:
HMM HMM????
Haven't we forgotten someone?
Oh yes ; Lasker.
best chess player of all time
Sort:
BruceBenedict wrote:
Markle wrote:
BruceBenedict wrote:
Got to be Boris Gelfand. Scoreboard.
You are joking right? Gelfand is a LONG way from being the best ever.
Chess is ever evolving. New training techniques and computer analysis of lines have taken both game prep and positional as well as tactical understanding to places in today's game that they've never been before.
Ergo, the best of right now is inevitably and invariably going to be the best of all time.
And with Gelfand handing Anand his ass and a pancake yesterday to take a decisive 4-3 lead in the world championship match, it was clear to anybody with a clue that Gelfand must, ergo quid facto pro, be the best of all time.
QED.
Today, however, it's Anand who's the GOAT. The winds of fate are fickle.
Once again, I suggest you reference scoreboard.
Well i guess i must be one of those people that doesn't have a clue. 4-3 is not a decisive lead and winning one match don't mean squat. You are actually telling me that Gelfand is the best player ever over Fischer Karpov Kasparov Tal etc. put him in a match against these guys and you will see who gets their ass handed to them.
paul and bob
I think Bob's over rated.
BruceBenedict wrote:
And with Gelfand handing Anand his ass and a pancake yesterday to take a decisive 4-3 lead in the world championship match, it was clear to anybody with a clue that Gelfand must, ergo quid facto pro, be the best of all time.
Once again, I suggest you reference scoreboard.
Nah, not at all. A current champion could be say a 2800 elo in terms of strength and a prior champion, say someone like Fischer might be something like 2900 when accounting for the 'natural' inflation of rating points adjusted retroactively. Just because Fischer is no longer champion or even alive doesn't make him no longer the best ever or someone else either, such as Capablanca.
In other sports it is quite common to measure athletes based on how they did against their peers in their time frame. And using that measure players like Fischer and Capablanca beat everyone easily that they encountered.
I still think its Bent Larsen.
Forgacs!
"Bazooka Joe" Cunningham. He lives about a block from me. I can never beat him. Nobody can. Come to Illinois, I bet you can't beat him. Yes, he looks like Bazooka Joe from the bubble gum.
I think one of the most impressive players I've seen, and he definately isn't the best because he died young before the opportunity to challenge for the championship, is Rudolf Charousek. Amazing games he played.
Fischer?? kasparov?
BruceBenedict wrote:
I would agree with you, except that you are wrong.
I disagree. 
In fact, I can prove you are wrong. It is exactly because of the computers and the increased database of games and positions that a player today can rely on this knowledge rather than pure chess talent to win. A player today could have an amazing memory and memorize a lot of these combinations and easily win against tougher opponents. In the past, the players had to use more raw chess talent, like Capablanca and Morphy.
Therefore, the players today are more likely to be less talented than the previous champions, though not necessarily so. The all-time best could just as easily be someone alive today or more likely someone already dead.
Viktor Korchnoi
Capablanca or Morphy
pfren wrote:
thezenofchess wrote:
BruceBenedict wrote:
I would agree with you, except that you are wrong.
I disagree.
In fact, I can prove you are wrong. It is exactly because of the computers and the increased database of games and positions that a player today can rely on this knowledge rather than pure chess talent to win. A player today could have an amazing memory and memorize a lot of these combinations and easily win against tougher opponents. In the past, the players had to use more raw chess talent, like Capablanca and Morphy.
Therefore, the players today are more likely to be less talented than the previous champions, though not necessarily so. The all-time best could just as easily be someone alive today or more likely someone already dead.
That's the most ignorant comment I've read since the Trojan War.
You simply forget that conditions have changed for EVERYBODY, not just a few select.
I dunno about that . What he said is true to some extent.
pfren wrote:
That's the most ignorant comment I've read since the Trojan War.
You simply forget that conditions have changed for EVERYBODY, not just a few select.
Red herring. I never said the conditions only changed for a select few.
Paul Morphy : the standard of his play was so far ahead of his contemporaries is the basis of my claim on his behalf. By all accounts that I have read it appears that the man was not only a gifted chess player but he was also academically gifted (lawyer, ability to speak languages fluently). Put Morphy in to any era and I reckon he would be as dominant as he was in his time.
I'm gonna go ahead and include myself on this imaginery list. I think I stand a chance. No, I think I'd win easily.
pfren wrote:
That's the most ignorant comment I've read since the Trojan War.
Well, there was also the guy who said that Morphy played like a C player. Or the one who called Anand an "idiot."
Seriously, it's pretty tough to out-dumb some of the bozos around here...
Maybe a first place tie with Robert James Fischer and Gary Kasparov.
With Capablanca, Karpov and Alekhine trailing very close behind.