Greatest Chess Master in History

This is not the first time Tal has been mentioned here but it is his first nomination.

@jazis:  This is one of Tal's best.  Feel free to post your favorite.

That's funny.  When I posted the above game, I was thinking that I was on my other thread, Favorite famous game.  But that's okay.  Posting games works here too.

I know what everybody's thinking.  "Hey, Bloggs, how about giving us the link to your other thread?"  Okay, okay!

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/favorite-famous-game

Capablanca is the greatest player ever, only 46 loses in his chess career; that is remarkable! Capablanca was a hard man to beat, he understood chess well, it was second nature to him. Keres is the only one to have a plus score against the great Capablanca and it was only by one game, even Botvinnik in his greatness his score with Capablanca was even, Fine is even score and the young GMs couldn't get a plus score against Capablanca. Fischer, Carlsen, Karpov and Kasparov were lucky never to play against the great Capablanca, he would of taught them a lesson.

Anyone who was the best player of their own era has achieved all that it was possible for them to do - all other comparisons are pointless!!😁

True greatness is a player setting new grounds, their ideas and concepts is so far from what is norm among the strong masters; Capablanca's games are truly amazing and very modern even for our times; Carlsen, Alekhine, Fischer, Smyslov, Karpov Botvinnik and other GMs study Capablanca's games to get better in positionally and in the ending: Look at W: Atkins vs. B: Capablanca game London 1922, how Capablanca was able to squeeze a win, it is a positional masterpiece.

I remember reading many years ago that Capablanca lost only 35 games in his career.  Maybe he lost 46.  This is his first nomination.  I think he was second only to Morphy in natural talent.

I have no clue what "natural talent" means.

How many times did Capa defend his title? What was his win-loss rate against top ten players? Compare that with others, and the "invincible" reputation that Capa gained doesn't look quite so invincible. In fact, Lasker begins to look a bit better in that light. Apart from the World Championship match, which Lasker didn't even want to play, Capa and Lasker's head-to-head record was even. Capa played fewer games than any world champion other than Fischer, and failed to defend his title. Capa played far fewer elite events than any world champion before or since. Sure, Alekhin avoided a Capa rematch, but Capa got outplayed in a long match at the height of his powers. 

I should be clear: Capa's best games are sparkling gems. I'm not criticizing his brilliance. I'm criticizing the Capa mystique, which was built on very few games played at the highest level. He tended to crush weaker opponents, but Alekhin taught us how to play against such an opponent. Capa was absolutely brilliant, and many, many masters view his games as close to perfection. But that was in part because his opponents let him play that way. Lasker, Alekhin and Botvinnik all showed how to fight such a player.

Added: Capa's record against Rubinstein, Lasker (excluding the world championship match), Alekhine (from the World Championship match on), Reshevsky, Fine, and Botvinnik were all even or negative.

Capa did have winning records against Euwe, Keres, Reti and Nimzo. 

But Capa's record against the best players wasn't as stellar as his reputation would suggest. 

In terms of natural talent, we need to be careful. In all likelihood, the most natural talented chess person isn't a famous one. Not everyone has the opportunity to devote his life to chess.

One could argue that it's pointless to even compare players of the same era. There's not always a consensus and even when there is, it doesn't affect anything. All that matters is winning matches and tournaments. But people will make those comparisons nevertheless. And people will compare masters of different eras. The point is that it's an interesting discussion. There doesn't need to be a point beyond that.

I agree Morphy very gifted but lack common sense; Maurian was a very strong amateur but Morphy always played odds against Maurian. Maurian has a plus score against Morphy. If Morphy played even against Maurian, it be Morphy with giant plus score not Maurian. 

 Morphy announced that he will play against anyone odds, right, try to do that with Steinitz, Chigorin, Winawer, Andersson, Paulsen, even Barnes and many 19th century masters, he lose every games. 

Capablanca was more level headed and he adjusted as chess trend was changing; he was able to keep up with the younger grandmasters; I don't think Morphy would of done that. Botvinnik and Fine could not have a plus score against the great Capablanca. Botvinnik and Fine speak with great admiration towards Capablanca, they testify how great he was.

In natural talent the best chess player is Vishy. He would have schooled Capablanca in his sleep. 

Come on. You know what natural talent is. I don't think there's any question that Morphy had great natural talent. Chess wasn't his profession and he didn't devote his life to the game as Fischer and others have. He had an innate ability and an understanding of the game that was well ahead of his time. But this is not about the most talented master in history; it's about the greatest master in history. I nominated Morphy, not because of his natural talent, but because of his domination of the greatest masters of his time - and his superior understanding of the game. Whether his domination resulted from natural talent or years of preparation is neither here nor there.

Capablanca was one of the best of his time but his results in matches and tournaments don't support the claim that he was the best. He may have been the most talented but that doesn't matter. Capablanca won the championship by defeating Lasker, who was well past his prime (and as you said, didn't even want to play). Then he lost his only title defense six years later.

I agree but as I've said, this is about the greatest master in history, not the one with the most natural talent.

Again, we're not ranking players according to natural talent.

I've read that Morphy was a great natural talent. I've also read that he studied the game relentlessly, played with his family all the time, and took the game very seriously. 

I've read that Capablanca corrected his father when he was just a boy of four or five (depending on the version of the story). 

I've read about the amazing feats that Reshevsky performed as a boy. 

I've read how Keres learned to play from studying newspapers. 

I've read how Fischer learned to play from his sister when she bought the game to pass the time as a latch-key kid. 

I've read how Kasparov was blowing masters off the board from an amazingly young age, but wasn't allowed to show his talent to the public until he was older.

I've read about Carlsen's amazing talent as a child. 

How is one to say who was the greater "natural talent"? Isn't hard work and loving the hard work that goes with chess part of what makes up a "natural talent"? 

In other sports, Tiger Woods showed off his talent not by being the best golfer at a certain age, but by his undying desire to play at all times to improve. The Williams sisters certainly had talent, but part of that talent was the desire to work hard. Same with Jordan, Bird, Gretzky, and so on. 

"Natural talent" isn't measurable, except by results. And hard work is part of that "natural talent". There's no way to separate the two!

You're right that natural talent isn't measurable.  Only results matter and as I've said, whether those results came from natural talent or years of preparation is irrelevant.  By saying that I believe Morphy had the most natural talent among the great masters, I'm not suggesting that masters should be compared on that basis instead of on performance.

I'll probably regret asking this but why do you say Morphy lacked common sense?