21107 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?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
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!
Keres?! Come on, he never even held the WCC title!
Asked for '' best '' not most titles ?
Paul Keres one of the best-players of all time & goes in my top 5.
All right, so how was Keres better than Tal or Alekhine or Lasker?
We never know now since war intervened in the middle that period of history...
He did have some fine games with Alekhine.
I admire Keres as much as anyone, but Alekhine was one of his worst opponents. Alekhine had 5-1 in wins and all their games were played 1935-43 when Alekhine was between 43 and 51 years old and had passed his peak. Of course Keres also improved later but was top ten at Chessmetrics throughout that period and did win AVRO 1938, so he was already a very strong player even if Alekhine was a difficult opponent for him.
People saying, "Carlsen" are about 15-20 years premature. He's an enormous talent, but he hasn't even participated in a world championship yet. In fact, he didn't feel ready to face an aging Anand at this time and let this championship cycle pass him by and go to Gelfand.
He said it had to do with FIDE changing the rules and deciding the Candidates in a knockout. Of course you may be right that it was an excuse because he "didn't feel ready to face an aging Anand", but I don't think it's a fact.
Anyway, no one is suggesting that Carlsen is one of the greatest players ever achievement wise at 21. But it's definitely possible that the Carlsen of 2009-12 has been playing better chess than Anand and Kramnik even if he hasn't won as many titles since he is so much younger.
Yes Alekhine was '' thorn-in-side '' for Keres. But a benchmark of brilliant players is the new lines/theories they introduce to the game. True of Fischer,Kasparov,Keres,Karpov & many others mentioned here :)
I do agree that Carlsen's talent is innate, natural & brilliant. No question he is most exciting player around currently.
what if i post a pic of a chess player?
"Does a top 5 OF ALL TIME refuse to stake his claim as champion because it's a knockout tourny? What ofther criteria should we use than achievement in chess?"
Well, Fischer, Kramnik and Anand refused to participate in many cycles for all kinds of reasons but that doesn't necessarily make them weaker than players that top the rating lists today. I don't think Carlsen can be said to be playing worse chess than he does because he didn't participate in the knockout. If it's a question of career achievements it's obvious that Carlsen can't be compared to Karpov, if it's a question of playing strength he might be about the same level. It's difficult to compare but chess evolves and Carlsen is winning the Chess Oscar for best player of the year for the third time in a row for 2011 and that's an achievement in itself considering the competition from players like Anand and Kramnik.
People saying, "Carlsen" are about 15-20 years premature. He's an enormous talent, but he hasn't even participated in a world championship yet. In fact, he didn't feel ready to face an aging Anand at this time and let this championship cycle pass him by and go to Gelfand. He has much to prove; especially in match format.
It's difficult to say who the best players of all time are because each generation learns something from the previous one. If you're talking about natural or innate talent; then Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Carlsen are excellent picks.
'Best' players? We need to define what we mean by 'best'. If we mean 'strongest player irrespective of time' it naturally favors modern players who know more than earlier players. So 1.Kasparov, 2.Karpov, 3.Fischer, 4.Anand, 5.Kramnik.
who says Kasparov in first place its wrong, i say Fischer. The best player of all times. 3 reasons: Mindgame( was the reason why he won in iceland and was the first chess american player to be worldchampion, defeating the russians). second reason: Strong figther against u.s. politician. 3 reason: Wow, dream games that he did against his opponents...FISCHER PLAYS LIKE FISCHER, THE REST PLAYS CHESS!!
Sure was but takes two. One of Fischers greatest ever games was against Keres:
Robert James Fischer vs Paul Keres, Zurich 1959
by ThrillerFan a few minutes ago
Report SPAM here (Not cheating, Not abuse, ONLY spam)
by wanmokewan 2 minutes ago
Why do people get chess.com to socialize?
by 1hey 3 minutes ago
Tactical issues- how can I fix this? Please help!
by izzijaaz666 4 minutes ago
In TaMilNadU%%09829791419";[LoVE$%VasHikAraN@#Specialist In HyDerAbAd
by VeeDeeVee 5 minutes ago
10/24/2016 - Bishop Be Gone
by Vini_itj 6 minutes ago
World Championship 2016: Predict and win 100 TROPHIES!
by izzijaaz666 7 minutes ago
Which book helped you the most in your chess improvement?
by ThrillerFan 8 minutes ago
Moves understandable only by gods?
by 0110001101101000 10 minutes ago
if Fischer played in 75, could Kasparov have defeated him in 1984?
by izzijaaz666 13 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
Try the new Chess.com!
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!