Greatest Chess Talent in History

brandonQDSH,

My apologies! However, to sound argumentative, I feel my earlier statement still holds true. How can you assess  "MOST INHERENT OR NATURAL CHESS TALENT OR ABILITY" with anything other than a personal preference? As an example, can you honestly tell me that anyone on this site has scientific evidence that Paul Morphy had more natural talent? Yes, he learned without the convenience of modern aid, but using that statement almost implies that players who did not learn this way were or are incapable of the same thing. Again, you can only judge a persons "Natural Chess Talent" based on the timeline and the opponents they played.

1. Capablanca, Morphy

3. Reshevsky

4. Kasparov

5. Tal

With a nod here to Alekhine and a nod there to Fischer. Will Morphy pull ahead because of his ability to play at the highest level without anyone to learn from? Or will Capablanca's insanely ridiculous chess career win everyone's approval? Or will someone come out on top?

Warhorse, maybe there is a way to objectively determine who's the best natural talent, and maybe there isn't, hence the idea of an open discussion :p

Morphy.

He is credited with laying the foundation of modern style play.  Fischer said he was the best (and Fischer is known to STUDY if nothing else).  He defeated chess grandmasters of the time with ease.  In fact, Morphy frequently refused to play grandmasters unless they took pawn and move handicaps because the games were so lop-sided.  If you can do this with just your natural talent, you've definitely got something.

Someone said earlier that there were no chess books in Morphy's time.  This is untrue.  The earliest chess book known is Juegos Axedrez, dados y tablos, written in the 13th century.  There were DEFINITELY those who studied before Morphy's time.

As for Capablanca, he became World Champion at the age of 32.  Morphy at the age of 15.  By the time Capablanca learned the game it was steeped in modern-style ideals - something Morphy shaped with nothing but his innate ability in his teen years.

I just want to give an analogy:

Newton was great in his own time - he discovered the laws of gravitation, etc. What had Einstein to do to grab the crown? Theory of Relativity - which is 1000 times more complicated than the laws of gravitation. Many put Newton and Einstein on the same pedestal - but is that really fair? Fermi had no less (mathematical) talent (in fact such a genius has not yet been born) than both of them put together, but very few people remember him to even consider him in the same category. So the earlier the person is, the flashier he appears among the surrounding ignoramus, and the later the person is born, his talent is paled in comparison to the surrounding geniuses.

We make the same mistake when we see the games of olden days and today - the games of today have reached far greater perfection than those of yesterday.

If Morphy were reborn today, he could not win so many games with such combinations - modern positional play suffocates the most ardent combinational tactics.

Hence I agree with Warhorse, our judgement will be always flawed by the colored spectacle of time - old is always gold!

but if morphy was born today with his same TALENT, could he not learn these modern positional play AND still have his amazing tactical ability?  This is not about best player, but best talent.  Certainly Kasparov could beat a Morphy from long ago, but it doesn't mean he has more talent.

Well.....erm.......he was a nazi.......and then tried to deny it.......can you blame them?

I'd have to say Alehkine, just because I enjoy a good deal of his games, and his drunk stories always make me laugh.  His hilarious alchoholism aside, his terrifying tactcial prowess will forever stun me.

I also like Capablanca for the reasons I'm sure everyone likes him:  He was a genius of Chess, his comprehension of the game was practically unmatched.

Tal also gets a spot for being a wild attacker, and a risk taker.  None of his games have ever bored me.

Morphy also gets the spot, because a lot of his games are my favorites on Chessgames.com.  What can I say?  The guy has awesome combinations.

Akiba Rubinstein is pretty awesome for his endgame prowess, despite his mental condition.  Despite never making World Champion, he is one of the few I felt deserved it.

Fischer is also there, mostly because of his drive for Chess.  "Chess is Life", you simply don't get more attached to something than that, and the results were obvious.  Granted, he was a jerk to people and a bit paranoid, but he was one hell of a player.

These are my choices.

I would say there is a good chance that there are/were many unknowns out there who as master players in their own right never competed in public.

Reading all the postings I got the desire to study the games of the masters named - I am posting the links in case anybody else is interested. Give me an year and I will be able to give my educated opinion on this topic :

Games of Paul Morphy:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=16002

Games of Emanuel Lasker:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=19149

Games of Mir Sultan Khan:
http://www.chessgames.com/player/mir_sultan_khan.html

Games of José Raul Capablanca:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=47544

Games of Alexander Alekhine:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=10240

Games of Samuel Reshevsky:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=11209

Games of Robert James Fischer:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=19233

Games of Garry Kasparov:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=15940

Games of Mikhail Tal:

http://www.chessgames.com/player/mikhail_tal.html

I would think of Capablanca and Fischer  

By my counts, the polls so far are approximately

1. Capablanca and Morphy are almost tied, maybe Capablanca is still leading. 

3. Reshevsky

4. Kasparov

5. Tal

6. Alekhine

7. Fischer

So far this is sounding about right. I didn't know Fischer studied so much. I thought he had more innate talent. I would have guessed he and Kasparov were about equal. Was Fischer just another Lasker-esque player?

Tal, is the best because I am an agressive player.

This is all wrong everyone should know the biggest/stribgest chess player ever was me without any doubth...

No one actually knows Morphy except for some wild games every chess database as :) And Fisher was a nazi so not that many choices :) Kasparov is too good to be in the same category with other humans lol So the real fight is between Reshevsky and Capablanca (Tal does not matter since he was drunk ) I must say, for me the best "innate" ability as to be Reshevsky, a child prodigy, Capa was not that great as a kid, but as he grow older so did is abilities, and that suggest that a learning proccess was envolved

How about Alekhine, who took the title from Capablanca, then lost it to Euwe, then took it back again.

Once again, how do you measure Natural Talent and how do you compare this indefinable talent across decades, let alone centuries? 
Deschappelles seems to have been one of the quickest studies ever born while Blackburne was as natural a chess talent as ever existed.

Capablanca learned chess at the age of 4 while watching his father play two games against a friend.  He deduced the rules by simply watching two games!  Then he accused his father of winning the third game by cheating -- by moving a knight like a bishop.  He then proceeded to boast that he could beat his father, and promptly proved the boast.

JOSE RAUL CAPABLANCA
- according to Em. Lasker (from Lasker's Chess Magazine Feb., 1905)

     "A young and promising player has been found by Mr. A. Ettlinger, of the Manhattan Chess Club, in the person of Jose Raul Capablanca, of Cuba. Master Capablanca is now sixteen Years of age and is a pupil at the Woodycliff School, of South Orange, N. J.
     "Youthful precocity is ascribed to the young player which antedates that of any other exponent of chess known to history. It is related that at the age of four and one-half years while watching his father and a captain of the Spanish Army playing chess he laughed loudly at a critical point in the game and upon being questioned as to the merriment he reluctantly told his father that the last move was not in accord with his ideas of correct play. Analysis of the position proved that the move was not a good one and that it compromised the position. He had learned the game by watching his father play. He only played occasionally after this until he entered the school at Mantanzas when he was eight and for two or more years averaged two games a week. The civil war in Cuba interfered with his school life and during the two years of 11 to 13 he was able to devote a large share of his time to a study of the game. While he was eight years of age he played with Golmayo, Vasquez, Delmonte, Paredes, Gavilon, and Fiel, the young player receiving odds, and making good scores, and frequently winning games at even against the last four. In a match of four games against Juan Corzo, considered the strongest player in Cuba. according to this report, no decision was reached. In a further match of ten games Capablanca won four and six were drawn. Corzo won a later match from the young player These battles were contested when he was twelve years of age."

Jose Raul Capablanca. No doubt.

I have already posted that I believe Morphy was the most natural talent.

I cannot say Fischer belongs in this category since he did a lot of study and worked at his game until, at age twelve, "I just got good."  I reject Alekhine because he developed later in life, and Kasparov because of his coaches--Botvinnik, Tal, and Petrosian.  We will never know how far Garry would have progressed on his own, and why I consider him a manufactured legend.

But Capa belongs in this forum--if Morphy wasn't the most naturally gifted player, than it was Capa.  Reshevsky has been mentioned (and rightly so), as well as Sultan Khan (!), but nobody mentioned Dr. Rueban Fine.  He is another player who got to master strength "without having read a chess book."  Co-winner of AVRO 1938 (a tournament to decide who would challenge Alekhine for the World Championship) with Paul Keres (who won on tie-break) and invited to the World Championship tournament of 1948, Fine was an outstanding GM who beat the best in the world.  It's possible that because Fine decided to pursue a career in psychology and not chess that he is largely forgotten today.  But for a natural player, it's hard to pick against Rueban.

tal, definetly tal.