Best 10 Player Of All time

I would have a bias towards older generation players because they did not have the advantage of using technology as today's generation do. It is precisely for that reasobn that I would have Capablanca as the best ever although I would have put Morphy first if he had played longer in his career. A

Secondly, Originality and innovativeness of play is a very important criteria. To come up with original ideas even in today's age of computing technology and database software and data mining and what not, to come up with new lines and making them work is indeed commendable.

Anand is there because of his achievements in such a short period of time. A young 'lightning kid' he was a child prodigy in the mould of Bobby Fischer and he held his own even against Kasparov and Karpov in their peak by winning Tournaments such as Wijk Aan Zee, Reggio Emilia, Linares, etc when he so young against them at their peak as well as his originality of ideas.

Three players who I feel are very unfortunate to miss out are Aron Nimzovitch,Tarrasch and Zukertort. Both Nimzovitch and Tarrasch added so much to contemporary chess ideas and logic and were highly original and inventive in their ideas. Zukertort is unfortunate as he was more deep and positional in his style than Steinitz and more inventive than Lasker--it was just his tendency to get nervous and his weak heart that prevented him becoming World Champion.

109 & 110 both good lists hard to argue with...#114 great reasoning and also hard to argue with....love including Zukertort, but im bias toward lasker-do you really think he was more inventive than Lasker?  i would love to know your opinion on why, supporting argument...  totally agree with Nimzo and Tarrasch...Nimzo one of my favorite players when studying games.

any way...Lasker, Kasparov, Fischer, Capa, Morphy, Steinitz, Botvinik, Karpov, Anand, Spassky...Anand might deserve a higher spot but i just like the older masters games more...the best of the rest who you might argue should be in the top 10...Nimzo, Tarrasch, Topalov, Kramnik, Bronstein, Alekhine, Tal, Petrosian, Keres, Reshvesky, Smyslov, Korchnoi...etc (I love these threads personally)

I don't understand why Alekhine is always put behind Lasker and Morphy. Alekhine was much stronger than these two players; in fact, he was probably stronger than Capablanca, too. Preference nowadays, however, is given for positional skill in both attack and defense, so I guess that isn't surprising.

Anyway, I don't think Alekhine is given the credit he deserves. And Karpov and Petrosian too, for that matter. These three players deserve to be on any player's list, but are ignored on many. I guess it's just hard to choose from all the good players out there; preference seems to be given to those players that exemplify the poster's style of play. So, here's my new list: (Biased, of course. )

1. Garry Kasparov (Very hard time deciding who goes up here, but I'm inclined to go with modern analysis.) 

2. Anatoly Karpov

3. Alexander Alekhine

4. Jose Raul Capablanca

5. Mikhail Botvinnik

6. Mikhail Tal

7. Bobby Fischer

8. Emmanuel Lasker

9. Paul Keres

10. Stienitz

I can only go 5 deep before it gets too difficult to choose:

1. Kasparov
2. Fischer
3. Capablanca
4. Steinitz
5. Lasker

After that, there's a big drop-off, IMO.  Maybe Karpov, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Rubinstein... too hard to order and compare, though.

 Gonnosuke, you should read Kasparov's books on his great predecessors. They are fascinating reading for any chess enthusiast and he goes into a lot of detail about the bad blood between Alekhine and Capablanca. Capablanca made Alekhine jump through all sorts of hoops before granting him the match so ofcourse wasnt eager to grant him another one and they hated each other. They even avoided any tournament where the other was playing. I also think Alekhine was sure he would lose a rematch to Capablanca and thats at least a big part of the reson he never gave him a rematch. However, after reading more about what went on before their match I dont blame Alekhine as much as I once did. I also believe Kramnik never gave Kasparov a rematch because he KNEW he would lose if Kasparov was really trying and he also started avoiding events in which Kasparov was playing.

OK guys, i have compiled a top player list from all our top 10 lists combined.

The formula i used was simple....10 points for no.1 down to 1 point for 10th place.

Here are the results so far, and i must say, a VERY good looking list indeed!

1. Kasparov            305 points
2. Fischer               263 points
3. Capablanca         248 points
4. Karpov               203 points
5. Lasker                139 points
6. Alekhine             134 points
7. Morphy               123 points
8. Tal                     102 points
9. Botvinnik            94 points
10. Spassky               51 points
11. Anand                 45 points
12. Steinitz               41 points
13. Petrosian            33 points
14. Kramnik              26 points
15. Korchnoi             19 points
16. Keres                  16 points
17. Smyslov               12 points
18. Topalov               6 points
    

Asyou can see, the top 3 of Kasparov,Fischer and Capablanca are head and shoulders above the rest.

1 topalov

2 kasporov

3 ma teacher mr hernandaz

4 me!!!!!!!!!!!

lol

1.Fischer (obviously he was an american hero and a genius at chess)

2.kasporov (In my opinion not as brilliant as fischer who made the gambit of the century winning a top level game without a queen I believe kasporov is given far to much credit though I do believe he deserves the title of second best ever)

3-10 really hard to choose so I'm not going to.

They are all good but Kasparov likes to remind everyone of any "dirt" on Fischer and this bothered me since he didnt seem to give dirt on others so much. I was lucky and my wife bought all of them for me one Christmas a year or two ago. It was VERY hard for me to not read the Fischer one first but I did manage to resist and read them in the correct order. I will probably read them all again soon.

 Morphy                                      A Genius. He understood chess ,better than the others players. The master of the positional attack for a king. He saw chess ,more generally than the others players. His style was a multi  dimensions.

His ingenuity was enormous.

Fischer                                       He was a genius too. He warked on his genius.

He was a great positional player. A discover ,like Morphy. He liked, to walk a new way. He was a looking for new routes.

Rubinstein                                  Nobody knows ,how  strong chessplayer he was? He was a neurosis. He was not able to concentrate in the time of the tournaments. He wasn't fighting with his opponents. He had to fight with his own fear. Even then, He was able to beat the strongerst players. I wonder, how strong was he ,if not his problems with anxiety neurosis?

He was a genius of positional play. He developed the chess openiengs. He was a discover. Lasker afraid him,like Staunton afraid of Morphy. He been robbed of the title by Lasker. The history fighting about championship ,is the story about froud.

Capablanca                                    Capablanca and Morphy understood the game, better than the others chessplayers.Capablanca's style of play was an uniwersal. His style of positional play, makes an impression. He was a genius.

Kasparov                                        The outstanding attacking player.

He understand the game well. He cans learn from the history of chess. He cans learn from the predecessors. He follows the Morphy's footsteps. He want to integrate ,the various dimensions of chess in his own style. He promotes the activity of chess.

Keres                                               I like his style of attack for a king.

He was able to build activity by the king of his opponent. His style was so pure.

Probably communist machine forced him to lose.

Tal                                                   He loved the risk. He playd as a poet.

His combination are impressive.

Alekhine                                           He was a coward. I'm not in the mood for writting about him.

Akibe Rubinsein was also an extremely strong positional player that many people don't even know about! His Endgame technique was almost unmatched, and his Middlegame skill was legendary. Like Ludek Pachman, however, he also knew when it was good to attack and when the attack should be broken off in favor of the Endgame. It was this judgment that placed him far ahead of many players in his time, and he was probably somewhat stronger than Lasker; in his prime.

 i agree

It's hard to say really for the old masters of over 100 years ago really set the stage for today's masters, so to compare it's very difficult, where credit should be due, it was the Russian Tsar's that gave Stientz, Lasker & co the Title of masters & at their era one had an incredible amount of brilliant players playing each other, probably the hardest competitions to date!

Wasn't Korchnoi quite solid competition for Karpov?

I agree with this.  In America we talk so much about Fischer and although he certainly deserves his due, we must not forget the likes of Paul Morphy and Harry Nelson Pillsbury who brought chess to the forefront in their time.

1. Fischer

2. Kasparov

3. Karpov

4. Alekhine

5. Capablanca

6. Lesker

7. Mikhail

8. Alekhine

9. Anand Visvanathan

1o. Teimour Radjabov

This would be more accurate I believe.

greats are great and selecting one superior to others

is dependant on chess taste let,s not shake dead

champions who are not able to deffend themselves

in grave. good luck

Hi guys,

In my opinion we must put Kasparov & Karpov side by side.  In five world championships their record was Karpov 19 wins, Kasparov 21 wins and 104 draws.  These matches will probably go down in history as the greatest chess rivalry of all time. 

Watch your backrank.

My choices:

1.Capablanca

2.Anand

3.Botivik

4.Larsen

5.Kasparov

6.Alekhine

7.Chigorin

8.Lasker

9.Fischer

10.Nimzovitch

 I'm glad ,that I not only think that Rubinstain's positional style was a legendary.

This man is a leg. I forgot to add ,that his endgame was almost infallible.

Rubinstein and Keres have many things in common. Both of them are underestimated. Both of them didn't win the title byceause of injustice. 

Rubinstein was to poor, to be able to stand to fight, for a chess crown.

Keres was forced by the political authorities, to los.

I really don't know, who was the best in that time. The political "police" promote some chessplayers ,persecuted the others.