It's all a matter of opinion... Kasparov had the highest FIDE rating of all time, but I think (and a lot of people will agree) that Fischer was best when it came to our humble game of 64 squares.
Who was?
Sort:
Some folks argue that Lasker was the best, Fischer was known to name Paul Morphy as the best. You'll never get consensus.
I read this.
Answer
It is one of three people. During the 1990s Garry Kasparov dominated the chess world. He retired in 2005 but was arguably already past his prime. Bobby Fischer entered the consciousness of the world when he defeated Spassky for the title of world champion. He stopped playing chess, then played one more match, in 1992 (which he won) and then stopped again. He was a very powerful player and many claim that he was, at his peak, the stongest player ever to have lived. Jose Raul Capablanca was a phenomenally strong player in the 1920s. He was an amazing positional player and had, arguably, a greater natural talent than any other player. There are many who claim that Capa was the greatest of them all.
For my part, I believe that Kasparov, in his prime, was the best chess player ever.
This leaves out Lasker, Alekhine, and perhaps Morphy. While Morphy has too few games Philidor has even less. Lasker was Champion of the World for 27 years, defending his title at least six times. Alekhine held onto the title of World Champion unitl his death. Kasparov, Steinitz, and Lasker all have winning percentage below seventy percent. Moreover, Alekhine had a greater winning percentage than Fischer, Capablanca, and Kasparov. No World Champion with a large number of recorded games has a better record. Players having five hundred or more professional games are easier to evaluate. By amount of winning, Alekhine was best. By number of years as the Champion, Lasker was best. By reputation, Capablanca was best.
Answer B
There are certainly a lot of statistics and reference documentation made for this question, but for me, there's only one:
It's got to be Bobby Fischer.
Two 6-0 match results vs Taimanov, Larsen
Beating Spassky in 1972 with an early 2 point advantage, and Fischer up by 4
He was virtually 'unstoppable' in his prime
A blitz demon
A superb tactician and a chess artist
If he had played Karpov, I'm quite certain he'll beat him up no sweat in his prime,
There should no longer be any question now of who's really the greatest, should there?
I only use a simple criteria: the one player who had made the greatest impact in chess history and elevated the status of a chess players to that of a real artist. Something you must see, something you must dig to appreciate its beauty, just like in any other art work.
Kasparov defeated a lot of GM's in simul play, won over chess machines, and won over champions past his prime.
But Fischer recreated the world of chess that appealed to the intellectual as well as to artistic pursuit of many people. That made chess a famous sport and as recognized and accepted as it is today. Adding to that, he also added a mystical if not an occult-like appeal to chess.
As Nytik said this about opinion.
I feel it's Fisher. Mr. Morphy came onto a scene wherein, like RR states, he simply didn't challenge anyone worthy of him. He was a prodigy to be sure, and yes, a veritable giant in chess, but I can't allot him the "best" status simply due to this.
I negate Kasparov for a similar reason - I feel he was too much a child of the computer age of chess - wherein everyone was studying games and had whole teams of people working with them, comparing notes and that.
Fisher though, Fisher was the greatest. He did it singlehandedly, before computers had too great an impact. He took on the Russians, who were using teams, by himself - sitting in his room late at night, devouring chess books as this solitary hermit artist - one singular mind conquered chess - gave his life to it, and it was Fischer.
He was the greatest chess player of all time - one man, alone - conquering the chess world. That, my friends, is the whole story. Morphy came on the scene wherein his opponents were like ripe fruits to pluck, lacking his insight, and Kasparov came on the scene when the whole process was deluged with computers and team discussion.
Fisher was in the epicenter, he was the one to arrive at the right historical moment. And he conquered.
Does anyone knows who is the best Chess Player of All time????? I have been looking for the answer but there are different statements.
Which is one is right?