10738 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Wait, Steinitz was older than Morphy?!
Yes but he didn't emerge as a great player until 1863, after Mophy's career was over.
It's always interesting to see how others reason with their lists, and as far as I am concerned I find it hard to avoid Kasparov and Lasker in the top two. No other players were so great for so long. According to Kramnik Lasker was more dominant towards the end of the 19th Century than no one ever has been since, and after that he went 30 years when he once finished second in a tournament and won the rest.
Maybe Lasker should even be first, but Kasparov did play much more and had tougher opposition than Lasker had especially maybe around 1895-1915, and faced Karpov in match after match, and to me Karpov is #3 on this list. If not for Kasparov he could have been the best active player in the world from maybe 1972 to 1997.
After those three I find it hard to rank the others, but I wouldn't place Anand or Kramnik among the next five. It's hard to say if any of them was the clearly best player in the world at any given point, while players like Steinitz, Fischer, Alekhine, Capablanca and Botvinnik had periods when they played an a different level than anyone else. So those five could come in any order on my list, but usually approximately as mentioned here.
Then around 10th place it gets even more difficult. Maybe Tal and Smyslov ahead of Anand. The latter has been a great player for many years, but looking at his results as World Champion they don't feel like something that without question includes you among the ten greatest players ever.
Carlsen is quickly closing in on the top ten if he can continue playing on this level a few more years. As it is he will probably already get the Chess Oscar for best player of the year for the fifth time in a row, and how many players could be said to have been the best player in the world five years in a row? So he might already be top ten material, but I wouldn't place him there yet.
After Fischer refused to play in WCship and had his title taken away, we had 3 great players: Kasparov, Karpov, and Korchnoi. I wouldn't say Kasparov dominated the other 2. They were about the same skill.
To gain the title, Fischer had to face Petrosian, Taimanov, and later Spassky.
Do we have any evidence how strong player Ruy Lopez actually was? He must have been a top player of his time. The opening he promoted is still dominating today.
I wonder what you would have said if it was Fischer that had scored 16-1 in wins against Korchnoi and won all those matches against Karpov. :-) As it was, when Kasparov won that last match against Karpov he was still younger than Fischer was when he won his first match.
What age has to do with chess? I wonder who is the oldest WC.
There are two reasons that Kasparov didn't win his matches against Karpov so clearly: 1. Karpov was one of the strongest players ever. 2. Kasparov was far from his peak when the matches were played. He had an Elo of 2700 when he won the title, 14 years later he passed 2850.
"Carlsen is quickly closing in on the top ten if he can continue playing on this level a few more years. As it is he will probably already get the Chess Oscar for best player of the year for the fifth time in a row, and how many players could be said to have been the best player in the world five years in a row?"
here is your answer
My refutation is confirmed that Kasparov didn't dominate Kp and Kn.
I remember from the coach MN Dan, that Elo is inflated. 14 years he gained 150 points, i.e. 11 point/year. Maybe his strength of play didn't gain much.
That put him at most at par with Fischer. He also studied computer moves, so he had huge advantage over Fischer.
So we have refuted that Kasparov's 16-1 against Korchnoi was a dominant score, and concluded that the two were the same level. Fischer on the other hand dominated Korchnoi with an even score against him, now that is more impressive in a way :-)
Can you provide the link for the record ? I know they drew 6 in London. And Korchnoi were technically won by default.
So, what is the ground for him to be #1 in the list, but 11 chess oscars? Sure he surpassed Fischer in some areas, but he is also below in other areas.
They are both great in their own ways. So, I think the list of 10 top chess players can be in any order.
Carlsen is an exaggeration, since he is below the tops in many areas. He has the highest rating, so did Fischer and Kasparov.
So, what is the ground for him to be #1 in the list, but 11 chess oscars?
There are many reasons to place Kasparov first, the 11 Oscars mean little considering that they didn't exist before 1967, and also since there was no award six years (1989-94) during which Kasparov would have won it five if not six times more.
During a ten year period from 1981 to 1991 Kasparov never finished behind another player in any event (in classical chess). Fourteen years after that sequence ended he was still #1 when he retired.
Kasparov played five very long title matches against Karpov, and of the four finished he won three and drew one to keep the title. After those 144 match games against Karpov he won his two next title matches 10-2 in wins. Ten years after his seventh title match he was still #1.
Kasparov also won ten super tournaments in a row, and was the youngest World Champion ever. Even though he faced Karpov many times in tournaments he only finished behind once in his adult career, and that was in Linares 1994. Kasparov won Linares nine times, and was always first when he participated in Wijk and Dortmund.
" Sure he surpassed Fischer in some areas, but he is also below in other areas."
In some areas? More like in most areas. Fischer won the championship and never defended it. He just walked away. Kasparov defended time and again.... and while you make the point he used computers to study, his opponents certainly did as well. Fischer was a great chess player. Worthy of being on the list. But he was a one and done champion.
yeah, because you guys only look at his above records. So why couldn't he finished Karpov in a more elegant ways? Draws after draws.
Kasparov had very nice records, but I don't think he deserves to be #1. Nothing amazes me from him.
Anyone Played 1000 Games?
by JohnLenin 2 minutes ago
is this player better then Magnus
by dashkee94 8 minutes ago
12/5/2013 - Too Many Attackers, Too Little Defenders
by mastermind_3 14 minutes ago
a way to sign off for the night?
by AlCzervik 16 minutes ago
Winning coming from a pawn down Giri-Aronian
by LoekBergman 21 minutes ago
Anand: An Embarrassing Performance
by JTLindskogHageman 27 minutes ago
My luckiest game. And puzzle for you
by SomethingStranger 36 minutes ago
Subscribing a chess engine
by Permutohedron 43 minutes ago
25th official chess.com tournament
by kohai 46 minutes ago
Based on what basis the tournament creator can removed a player
by Blkau96 47 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!