Who is the greatest attacker in chess history?

I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm simply informing you.  It makes no difference if you disagree with me or not.

yes ok that was childisch my medication one game more or not. 

yes waffle you are disinforming me thank you

but you see all games tal won were before 1960.. then fischer crushed tal

well i thought it was a full game but you are right he had to be hospitalized, still tal only beat fischer when he wasnt at his prime

i didnt know thank you

but what about bled in 61? tal was healthy there, wasnt he?

The same could be said of Fischer's victories over Tal. 

Tal was pretty much never healthy. Something that makes his achievements all the most astounding. 

Here's Fischer sacing a bishop then knight to break through to Panno's king.

He plays an entirely positional game until move 30, and then finally decides to execute the final breakthrough. Nxh7 doesn't even need precise tactical calculations - 2 pawns and an attack for a piece with his position should easily be enough compensation.

Capablanca (I hope nobody claims he is not a positional player) also sacrificed material to breakthrough.

Riga - Thanks for posting the winning line on the Fischer-Byrne match.  The double sac of the rook and then bishop - a breathtaking finish. 

[COMMENT DELETED]

Bobby Fischer!

Albin Planinec.

Consider the following game:

-Izmet

Morphy, in my opinion.

Also, if you read through interviews, many of the players mentioned in this thread (Capablanca, Fischer, et cetera) have said Morphy was superior to themselves.

Morphy had a secret weapon that not every knows about, though: he had an eidetic (photographic) memory.

Rashid Nezhmetdinov he schooled Tal so many times he became his coach.

Averbakh said Nezhmetdinov could kill anybody.

With all due respect to everyone who has relevant knowledge on the subject, not only does my Chessmaster game catergorize Bobby Fischer as an aggressive attacker, but the majority of all of the breakdowns of his games I have remembered seem to express aggression and attacking. He was depicted as assertive and as one to impose his will on his opponents. I realize opinions can certainly vary and that from certain angles, things can look differently than they are. I don't ever recall any player other than Petrosian( in my mind one of the greatest attackers) or Karpov who was regarded in anyway dominant, who wasn't an aggressive attacker. In hindsight, Karpov always seemed to take a backseat to the dominance of the aggressive attacking Kasparov.

Kasparov. He learned from his predecessor's and he had a patented tension/ pressure filled style.

well  he had ofc not a photographic memory as the other pointed out. he just new about development the other didnt, ofc he also didnt play perfect enough for a photographic memory i would assume, yeah he would beaten me every time though but his game was still very unsophisticated in my view, compared to more modern players. yes im a patzer but thats just my opinion and that might or might not be wrong. even so there is still tremendous beauty in many of his games how the pieces harmonize.

 

Second calling Fischer just a classical player is a bit unfair for the greatest player ever together with kasparov. Fischer might be not called an attacking player, more of a best moves player. But he definetly was more of an attacking player then just a classical player. but then again what do i know i shouldnt judge as im just a patzer, but that is my opinion.

whats a classical player anyway?  

but gruenfeld, kings indian, najdorf, pannov botvinnik attack and that he is not so good against the french i mean definetly making it seem to the average patzer that he was an attacking player and that you shouldnt feed the trolls and i spend too much time on forums