Who is the greatest attacker in chess history?

One difference between Fischer and Petrosian was that Petrosian often seemed quite happy to draw against strong rivals, while Fischer was more likely to fight tooth and nail in every game regardless of who he was facing over the board.  Leko also seems quite happy with a draw as a result.

In general, I think the players who fight for every half point tend to be attackers, eg. Judit Polgar, Alexander Morozevich, Nigel Short, etc.  I'm not sure where Korchnoi fits in though.  He was a bit materialistic too, but quite the fighter.  Maybe we could class him as a counter-attacker.

its funny how kasparov talked about his game with korchnoi. korchnoi wanted so much to grab the pawn but he know it was bad, and later under pressure he couldnt hold it anymore and grabbed the pawn and lost.

Anyway thank you very much for your input

Mikhail Tal tells a funny story about Petrosian.  Paul Keres and Petrosian were playing their last of four games in Curacao Candidates 1962.  Keres played a few moves, and offered a draw.  Petrosian declined, but then on the 14th move, "because of inertia," Petrosian offered a draw.  Keres demanded that Petrosian make a move, and as soon as Petrosian played 14...a5!, he realized that White had no good response.  It was too late though, because Keres now accepted the draw offer.  A joke made the rounds that when Petrosian was determined to draw, there was no power alive that could force him to win!

lol

nezhmidionov was the most attacking most people are just naming world chmpions

but nming wrld champions is kinda rght

If you want a less famous attacker, there is always Emory Tate.  Here he is beating a young Fabiano Caruana.

Mikhail Tal

That's just the way it is 

Tate beating GM Akobian.

I think someone mentioned Albin Planinec a bit earlier.

Or there's Sergio Mariotti:

I think Vitolinsh was mentioned a bit earlier too.

Being a fighter, winning with an attack, and being an attacking player are 3 different things.  In fact one of the few ways to win a chess game is to attack the king in the middlegame, every GM you look at is going to have examples of mating attacks. 

I think many of these posters misunderstand.

I think attacking players usually aim for mate early on in their games, while positional players are more likely to accumulate small advantages a la Steinitz.  In general, positional players probably have fewer games that end in a mating attack.

Willingness to sacrifice material is probably another way of differentiating the two.  Players who sac tend to be attackers (although some sacrifices may be defensive or for more quiet positional goals).

i totally agree with riga

I think one of the defining characteristics of a 'classical' or 'positional' player is that with the Black pieces, their first goal is to 'equalize.'   'Aggressive,' 'combinational' or 'dynamic' players try to unbalance the position with Black to create winning chances.

Positional players tend to play quiet or solid defences like the Petroff, Caro-Kann, Ruy Lopez Berlin, Nimzo-Indian, Queen's Indian and/or Queen's Gambit Declined Tartakower.

Fischer, on the other hand, specialized in the Sicilian Najdorf and King's Indian Defence, the darlings of most modern attackers from Bronstein and Tal through Kasparov, Topalov and Judit Polgar.

When Fischer was younger, one of his favourite players was David Bronstein, and he clearly got along pretty well with Tal, going to visit him in the hospital and all.

Sacrifices, attacks, positional play, endgames, tactics... these are all one in the same for professional players... they're just different tools in their skill set they use to win.  Every GM is going to consider sacrifices and attacks and endgames through the course of a game.  Positions dictate which ideas work, you can't attack from any position just because you're an attacking player.  And you can't win with slow play aiming for the endgame from any position just because that's supposedly your style. 

I think beginners get the wrong idea because they're only able to do one of these things, and so every time they win a game it's because it's in that style.  GMs will do what's necessary in the position.  Hell even strong class players do this (or try to anyway).  So for one thing, showing a game with a mating attack is completely pointless.  The GM did that because that's what worked in the position.

Where you may have an argument is with the openings.  But even in openings there are a broad range of variations that lead to all out attacks or not.  Fischer went against modern opinion and would take the poisoned pawn in the najdorf and hand white a lasting initiative/attack being happy to defend.  This is not the style of an attacking player.

But even so, this is not my opinion.  Fischer was never known as an attacking player as such.  Obviously he attacked brilliantly in some games, but he is rememberd for his technical and clear style of play and great endgame skill.  Whether you're aware of this or not doesn't change facts.

but they arent facts just because you say so. He was famous for his opening novelties and his imagination. Ofc he was a good endgame player and played really good endgames... 

And ofc if he were not an attacking player he wouldnt have played the sharp lines against the sicilian and the most attacking sicilian the najdorf as black. And what  logic is it to not take a pawn because you are an attacking player??? i mean you see a move that you think is good and you dont play it because you are an attacking player?

He was ofc also famous for his love of chess and for his fight till the last pawn.

Exactly!  And in truth, I haven't played over enough Fischer games (and I'm not good enough at chess anyway!) to form a solid opinion about Fischer strengths, style, weaknesses, etc.  I'm just repeating the commentary I've heard on Fischer back to you.  So please, don't take my word for it, go ask stronger players or look up articles/read a book about Fischer for yourself.

Again... exactly!   It's definitely a well respected option in that opening to not take the pawn.  It's also an option to take the pawn.  These are the situations that define a player's style... when there is a fork in the road which do they choose?  To take the pawn means handing white an attack and yes it's a crazy complicated position that's way over my head, but I do know black must be able to defend and it's white who gets to attack.  Attacking players like to have the initiative, they aren't going to grab pawns and defend, they'll sacrifice and attack.

Carl Schlechter was the greatest attacking player of all time!

He didn't beat just no-name players in great style, he beat no less than Wilhelm Steinitz in under 25 moves!

Take a look at this great attacking game by Schlechter! He must be the greatest attacking player of all time! 

Note: Although I really do like Carl Schlechter's games, I do not really consider him one of the great attackers of all time. I'm just showing that a few great attacking games do not make someone the greatst attacker of all time. Every grandmaster has a bunch of great attacking games, especially when they are young players.  The mark of a great attacker is being able to consistently attack and win against even the very best players in the world. The honour of the greatest attacking player goes to Kasparov, who was able to attack and win almost on demand against everyone he faced, including the great defenders, Petrosian and Karpov.