Greatest Chess Master in History

There were 12 players.  Fischer finished 11/11.  That was impressive.  And his back-to-back 6-0 matches against Taimanov and Larsen in the 1971 Candidates were remarkable.

I think Fischer belongs on the list.  At his peak, he was the best in the world by a mile.  His demands regarding the Karpov match were unreasonable but FIDE still gave him most of what he wanted.  I don't think he was afraid to play Karpov.  Fischer would've won that match.  Karpov was among the best of course but Fischer was in a class by himself.  I think Fischer just didn't care.  He had won the championship and he was satisfied with that.  I think his position was that he would deign to defend his title - but only if he got everything he wanted.  Keep in mind that this is the guy who walked out of the 1967 Interzonal with a record of 7 wins and 3 draws - because he disagreed with playing conditions and the schedule.

Fischer gave  an exhibition who knows the story?

Not sure what you're talking about.

Each in their time & prime:

Greco; Paul Morphy; Lasker;

Capablanca; Fisher; Karpov; Kasparov; Anand; Carlsen.

Of These, Paul Morphy had the most natural talent, often winning brilliantly.

Lasker had the longest run, and was quite accomplished in both math and physics.

Capablanca played nearly flawless chess against all for 3 years.

Karpov, Kasparov, Anand each dominated in their time, and Kasparov did so among these three the longest.

Carlsen arguably has distilled the lessons form his great predecessors, currently dominates, and is still in his prime. 

Hopefully, in my life time Google's AlphaZero program will be available to the public and someone will come along raised on it as a sparing partner and tutoring tool who will play the game the way everyone, beginner and grandmaster alike can appreciate, brilliantly sacrificing material for long-term positional gains. 

Morphy may have had the most natural talent but Capablanca also had great natural talent.  As for Alpha Zero, I saw five of its wins against Stockfish.  It doesn't seem to play like a program.  It plays like an incredibly talented human.  And yes, it has no problem sacrificing a pawn or two for long-term positional gains.  It treated Stockfish the way a grandmaster would treat a club player.

Igor Ivanov.

Well, I had to google.  Not a good start for a nominee for greatest master in history.  Assuming the nomination is serious, how about making a case for Mr. Ivanov?

Well he did beat karpov in a tournament once. He also showed up to a tournament I'm not sure what year, drunk and lost to a 1300 level player. He was rated at 2500 at the time that's the largest margin of victory' that I've been able to find for a low rated player. He was concert also a concert pianist and a pretty remarkable guy... But he my have had a little drinking problem.

Well, that's not the strongest endorsement but we'll accept the nomination.  Maybe he's got a chance to win Would've Been the Greatest Chess Master in History (if not for the drinking problem).

Between 74 and 75 Bobby Fischer for that one year he played better Chess

than anyone that has ever lived on earth bar none. However Kasparov and Karpov lasted so much longer and won so many more games you have to put him third on the list.

Some say Carlson is the best player but what if tomorrow he says chess is a sin and never plays again then he's just another whack job just like Bobby Fischer. Only time will tell.

hergame again. Then he's a whack job just like Bobby Fischer and he goes to 4th or 3rd we just have to wait

I think you meant between '70 and '72.  Fischer never played another serious game after the Spassky match in '72 - until their rematch 20 years later.

With all due respect, this is one point where I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you.

Fischer, imo, is what you may deem a "one season wonder". Consider a young baseball player who somehow manages to hit a home run in almost every innings in his debut season. At the end of the season he realizes that he has achieved something great which he may find harder to emulate in future. So he resigns after his debut season to protect his stats and gives a ridiculous excuse for his quitting.

Fischer's demands and tantrums during '72 WC against Spassky were completely preposterous. Spassky, being a gentleman, complied with his unreasonable demands when he could have easily ignored them. Fischer won the Championship but it gave him a false idea that he could twist FIDE's arm in any unreasonable way and they would comply. The backdrop of the cold-war and the American hype of Fischer representing America's victory over Soviets in cold war simply added fuel to fire and Fischer's already great chess prowess was taken to an elevated mythical level by the American media.

Thus came '75 and Fischer probably realised that this time he wasn't playing an old nemesis of his whose moves he have extensively studied. But rather a new, younger, sharper opponent who may actually beat him. Thus his demands/excuses became more and more irrational and bizarre(iirc at one point he demanded Karpov would have to beat him 10-8 to claim victory!) and FIDE almost gave in to this blackmail!! Thankfully common sense prevailed and his unreasonable excuses/demands were ignored.

The main reason I think Fischer doesn't fit the tag of 'greatest chess player' is that he failed to play consistently in international arena for a long period of time and whenever given the opportunity, tried every excuse in the book to wiggle out of it.

Imagine if Spassky had only played in '66 and then quit. Or better yet, Karpov had only played in international arena till '74-'81. Would we probably not have hailed him as the 'greatest chess player of all time' ahead of Kasparov and others? However, since he wasn't cowardly and continued to play even as younger, stronger players with more refined tactics emerged, we saw how chess evolved as a game and his successors' evoled stratgies. This transformed Karpov from an "unbeatable chess machine" to a "great chess player with human flaws". 

Today we all consider Karpov to be a great player but rarely anyone considers him over Kasparov etc.

Similar thing would happened if other great players all had left their games in their primes: Kasparov('86-'00), Anand('95-'99), Judit Polgar('95-'98) etc. Wouldn't they seem similarly mythical and 'unwinnable' as Fischer?

If Fischer continued playing, maybe he would have attained even higher achievements. Or maybe he would have shared Karpov's fate. I personally believe it is the latter.

The fact is, we can only speculate. And the one person whom Fischer has to blame for his inability to pit wits against other international players for long timeframe is none other than himself.

This is why I think Fischer, who is undoubtedly a great chess player, doesn't qualify for being 'great chess master in history'. He simply failed to prove that he had the mettle, ability or courage to face top opponents over the course of 10-15 years.

Just my 2 cents 

GM Vladislav Tkachiev's claim to fame:

got so drunk he fell asleep at the board & lost. 

the man's man.

GM Anton Kovalyov's claim to fame:

heeded the call of the gypsy

ex-FM Boris Ivanov's claim to fame:

brought platform shoes back into fashion and brought cool to chess, and the only master who admitted he actually inhaled.

untitled aron nimzo's claim to fame:

brought leg day back to chess workout when he introduced the box jump after losing to saemisch.

these are the real movers & shakers of the chess world - not kasparov or morphy or capablanca

Good grief, man! This is a forum thread, not a doctoral program. Dissertations are neither required nor encouraged.
I'll respond relatively briefly. Your young baseball player analogy is off base (that really was an unintended pun). The year 1972 was hardly Fischer's debut season. He was 29. He won his first of eight US Championships at age 14 and then became the then youngest GM in history at 15. He won many very strong tournaments, including interzonals by impressive margins. He won the 1970 Interzonal by 3-1/2 points, then in the 1971 Candidates, he beat Taimanov 6-0, Larsen 6-0 and Petrosian 6.5-2.5. And finally the next year he beat Spassky 12.5-8.5 (one of Spassky's points came from Fischer's forfeit in the second game). Prior to the championship match, Fischer's rating was 120 points higher than the field. I'm sure no one before or after him (including Carlsen when his rating peaked some years ago) has been rated nearly that much higher than his contemporaries.
His refusal to defend his title is a valid reason for not considering him the best but it's not a valid reason for not even including him among the nominees. The title of the thread is Greatest chess master in history - not Greatest world champion in history. The fact that he chose to retire instead of defending his title doesn't change his many accomplishments.
I have contempt for the man. He was a dispicable person. He applauded the 9-11 attacks on the US. But this thread is about people's opinions regarding the best chess master in history.
By the way, thanks for not putting your five cents in.  

@Simonpal19:  Keep in mind that I chose Morphy, not Fischer.  I just think the latter is a solid nomination.