Greatest Chess Master in History

SmyslovFan is correct because you agree with him?

You voted for Greco. Do you want to vote for Kasparov instead?

She obviously deserves to be considered the greatest master of all time? If you believe that, why did you vote for someone else?

You're right. Of course Carlsen is better than Lasker on an absolute basis. If he wasn't, chess would have made no progress over the last 100 years. That's why we're comparing masters of different eras on a relative basis.

Sure, we can compare the quality of Carlsen's play to Fischer's. That would probably tell us that Carlsen is stronger. That wouldn't be surprising because Fischer retired almost 50 years ago. We expect today's best player to be stronger than the best players of generations ago. Today's best player has enormous advantages.

Btw, as statisticians and people who have studied chess history know, playing error-free chess doesn't always mean you're the best player. For many years, a 25xx rated player had the lowest error rate of any player ever measured by chessdb.com. He was far ahead of players such as Capablanca and others. 

Capablanca taught us how to play crystal-clear chess. His games, and those of Fischer, make chess look almost easy. But just as Alekhine taught us how to compete against such a style, chaotic players such as Geller, Tal, and Korchnoi showed us how to challenge Fischer's style. 

Measuring affinity to computers' choices is only one way to measure skill. As Regan has shown though, competition gives us a reliable measure by using the Elo system. 

And yes, I've read Sonas' papers. I wonder if others have as well. He's come to agree more with Regan over the years. Sonas has pointed out that players have improved, but that is not the same as rating inflation (which is the suggestion that there's something in the rating calculation itself that raises ratings compared to players from the past). If rating inflation were real, then Carlsen would be a really poor player who is losing skill every year. and all those players who broke 2800 at some point in their past are really weak now! 

Btw, I don't agree with the way Batgirl put it, but I do agree that when measuring greatness, we aren't measuring absolute skill alone. 

I rather doubt that if Carlsen had been born in Lasker's time that he'd even have taken up chess. Each player is a product of his or her environment. If that's what Batgirl is saying, I agree. But Carlsen is miles better than Lasker ever was, despite his legendary fighting qualities. 

The problem with that approach is, sometimes players choose moves that aren't top-choice computer moves, but are still quite playable regardless.

Tal, for instance, sometimes chose dubious combinations that created a lot of psychological pressure on his opponent. 

Morphy, also, sometimes eschewed the more accurate move in favor of the more crowd-pleasing one.

Kasparov had his psychological pressure, too—maneuvering or creating tensions that were stylistically uncomfortable for his opponents to face (as opposed to always choosing the objectively best lines).

So . . . Yes, checking moves against engines is a great way to see how close to an engine a human plays—but it doesn't factor in the human element of the game.

@SmyslovFan:  That's a good point. Today's top players do quite well financially. If memory serves, Spassky received about $2500 for winning the world championship. He received the loser's share of the $250,000 purse (maybe 40%) for losing it to Fischer three years later. That purse was originally $125,000 but was increased when Fischer threatened not to play if it wasn't. Prior to the 1972 match, one couldn't make a lot of money playing chess no matter how good he was. In Lasker's time very smart people with the potential of becoming wealthy by pursuing careers in medicine and business were no doubt disinclined to pursue a chess career and barely make ends meet. I doubt guys like Carlsen and Nakamura would have even considered chess as a career in Lasker's time. I also doubt Morphy would consider a career in chess today. In order to compete with the best today, one has to devote an enormous amount of time and energy to the game. 

Right. Players will often choose to steer the game in a direction that they know will be uncomfortable for their opponents. One might make a move that isn't objectively the best - but is the best against that particular opponent. If I know my opponent is relatively weak in the endgame, I might try to simplify in order to get there - even though avoiding simplification is objectively the better strategy.

Magnus Carlsen is the best chess grandmaster in history in all formats of the game. His IQ is really wonderful, he played a draw against Garry Kasporav when he was just 10.He beats 10 players at a time in blindfold chess. Thankyou! Dont forget to send me friend request for more small and satisfactory Solutions

Carlsen is finally starting to get some respect here. That's his third nomination.

Wow! Nice to see that the point i made about anyone who is great in their own era being as good as it is possible for them to have been makes sense to people!!😁 Is great to see a post where people are debating the issue in an adult and mature way, Nice👍

Thanks. That's how we operate here. No one's opinion is more valuable than another's. Any master who was or is the best of his time is a solid candidate for the best of all time. That's just my opinion. Some have nominated masters who weren't the best of their respective eras but that's fine. Nimzowitsch wasn't the best of his time but he made great contributions to the game. Someone might believe that those contributions should be part of the consideration. Two people nominated him. Works for me.

@simaginfan:  By the way, did you nominate someone?

No, didn't nominate anyone!! I don't believe that there is a 'greatest ever'. Side point. Botvinnik. Undisputed best in the world at one time, contributed massively to the development and evolution of chess, and very highly ranked in the various historical statistics sites. He never gets mentioned in these debates. Had he retired at the top like some names often nominated, perhaps he would get mentioned!?

Oh yeah, I remember. You won't nominate anyone on principle. Botvinnik hasn't received a nomination. I think what hurts him is his record as world champion. He won the championship by winning the 1948 tournament. In his first title defense, he drew against Bronstein. He drew his second and lost his third title defenses, both against Smyslov. He won the rematch and was champion again. Then he lost to Tal but he won that rematch too and was champion yet again. And finally he lost to Petrosian. So in seven championship matches, he won two, lost three and drew two.

Yep. That's my point about retiring at the top! Many will nominate the Fischer of 1970-1972, forgetting his earlier failures to even qualify for a title match. Botvinnik is the reverse situation. Had he retired in 1948, he would obviously be viewed differently. You can't hold losing to Smyslov against Botvinnik, he said, tongue in cheek - Smyslov had Simagin on his side!! 😁

I don't think Botvinnik would've been viewed favorably if he had retired immediately after winning the 1948 championship tournament. Tournaments are not the same as matches. Matches are tougher. Fischer beat the then current champion Boris Spassky in a match. Having said that, I think refusing to defend his title against Karpov is a mark against Fischer. No matter his reasons, he failed to defend his title.

I had to google "Simagin." Why are you a fan of his? I'm not suggesting you shouldn't be; I'm just curious why. 

You had to google him!? Hmm!!!

My friend kamalakanta did a small post on him here. 

https://www.chess.com/blog/kamalakanta/vladimir-simagin-a-forgotten-hero 

Perhaps when I have the time to spare I will do a full appreciation on chess.com. What the article doesn't give is the fact that he was that in correspondence chess even world champions were in awe of him - if you can find them look for his c.c. wins against Rittner and Miliutin for example - and he was the second/trainer of choice at the peak of Soviet chess power. He did not play abroad for various political reasons, which contributes to his not being so well known in the west.

Simagin was a special favorite of Dvoretsky. He was especially known for winning minor piece endgames, including some opposite colored B endings that looked very drawing at first blush.

I'm also a fan of his Endgame technique!