Best 10 Player Of All time

Gumpty u chose Staunton? Really? The guy who dodged Morphy and never won a tournament?

Must be an english thing, but it looks like you bumped Morphy for him, what a rip off.

the "killer" Kasparov gave 2 short draws with white pieces in his match with Kramnik when trailing in the match! Some "killer" !  LOL  I cannot imagine Fischer ever doing such a thing !

 Yes my cat! Can't you read?

I wonder how you would feel, then, if you ever played Kasparov OTB with the Black pieces? I don't think he would offer you a draw.

Kramnik is also a very good positional player (AND one of the strongest, if not the strongest, in the world), so I'm not surprised if Kasparov drawed with him sometimes.

Fischer was a great player, to be sure, but no one was as good as Kasparov. That's a fact; just look at the highest rating ever.

 Daniel, have you even looked at the two short draws Kasparov gave with white to Kramnik ? I suspect not so, as usual, you dont know what you are talking about. The whole point seems to have gone over your head, again, not a surprise. Let me explain it for you. The whole point is that in a match that you are losing you do NOT give draws with white in like a dozen moves ! And certainly you dont do this when you are a "killer" in chess. Fischer, ofcourse , played to win with both colors more than any other player with the possible exception of Larsen, who also detested short draws. Also, in one of the games in question Kasparov was slightly better , so why would such a great "killer/fighter" give a draw ? How many games did Fischer draw in under 20 moves in his match with Spassky? I doubt he had many 20 ( or less) move draws in his entire career.

Perhaps you have also neglected to look at the highest rating in all of chess history? Let me make it more clear for you to understand:

1851 Kasparov, Garry

This is the ultimate obelisk of playing strength so far. Was that Fischer's rating? 

 There is rating inflation in FIDE Daniel. If you add 100 points to Fischer's top rating ( for inflation ) his best would have been 2885 . Ofcourse if you believe there is no rating inflation then you must think all the 2700s are better than Spassky was at his peak of 2680 ? Spassky never broke 2700. There are 30 players or more over 2700 today.

i'd add another 1000 points to that, daniel.

 Excellent List!

 Fischer wasn't a loser...come'on!

My top ten:  Capablanca.  Karpov.  Kasparov.  Fischer.  Tal.  Botvinnk.  Alekhine.  Morphy.  Spassky.  Geller.

 It's so true, there are people out there with brilliant minds, that never get a chance to be discovered and pursue chess the way THE POLGARS (lol) DID...

It's true in other sports as well, but MOST TRUE IN POKER.

You will never EVER know the best poker player, because the game dictates it to remain unknown, for $ reasons...

magneto!  ( you know....the guy from the x-men movies)

Since Garry has the highest rating to date, Reb, he is the best player to date. There is no "rating inflation" in chess, and telling yourself there is will not make Bobby Fischer any greater than he was. Fischer was a great player, but Kasparov was greater. If you want to argue with ratings and what every other GM says, then so be it. Talk to them. At least they know that Kasparov was the strongest player in history, even if you don't believe it.

 Kasparov never won 24 in a row in top competition.

Steinitz's streak is 25 games, not 28, and this includes  beating the remainder of the field of a regular tournament--and fully half of them are no-names.

Fischer's streak begins at the end of the Interzonal (the final tournament to decide Candidates--so a high quality bunch)= 6 games (or 7 if we include the game where Panno resigned after one move)

Then 6-0 vs. Taimanov, a very good player (former USSR champion).

Then Fischer 6-0 vs. Larsen, who is a *great* player.

Fischer 1-0 vs. Petrosian. Former World Champ.

19 or 20 games is a row vs. top competition, most of it elite.

No one can compete with Fischer in this.

 Well Daniel,

Since you place so much importance in rating AND dont believe rating inflation is a fact this simply means that all of the players today over 2700 are greater than Tal ..... is this what you are admitting ? This would include players like Polgar and Dominguez and Carlsen......is this what you truly believe ?

If mere ratings determine greatest and strongest, why idolize Petrosian so much? This would mean there are a hundred players around today that are better than him.

And why place Petrosian above Fischer, Daniel? His rating is more than 100 points lower and Fischer beat him in two matches with a combined score of 9.5-3.5. That's a crush.

I'm shocked -- shocked -- that after 87 posts, no one has mentioned Akiba Rubinstein. You can argue where he belongs in the pantheon of greats, but considering some of the other names that have been tossed out (like Fine) surely Rubinstein has to be mentioned.

What was Tal's peak rating anyway ? I know it wasnt even close to Fischers and maybe even less than Spassky's which was about 2690  or so but Spassky also never broke 2700.

If I'm not mistaken, there is an inflationary aspect built into the modified Elo rating system. Could someone more mathematically astute than me opine on this?

If I understand correctly, over time, ratings will as a whole go up, so you have to take that into account when you compare two players from different eras. But for coevals, there should be at least some number of ratings that indicate relative strength at a particular time.