Greatest Chess Master in History

What do you consider an official WCC title? The World Chess Federation didn't organize a world championship until 1948 (yes, NINETEEN forty-eight), so everyone up to and including Capablanca and Alekhine were unofficial by that measure.

Very good point, blueemu!

Fischer was always a strange character. His focus on winning the championship might have kept him from going off the deep end. 

Are you sure that was the only condition FIDE rejected? I know FIDE accepted most of Fischer's demands but rejected at least that one. That was a ridiculous demand that could not be accepted.

As I've said, I think Fischer essentially retired after winning the 1972 match. He didn't play a single official game after winning the title. I don't think he wanted to come out of retirement to play in 1975. That could be why he made so many demands, including that one. Perhaps he wanted to make it nearly impossible for FIDE to agree to his terms so he would have an excuse not to play. 

Lasker and Capablanca signed an agreement to play a title match. The contract stipulated that if Lasker resigned the title, Capablanca would become champion. They were free to stipulate whatever they wanted but that didn't mean the chess world would recognize Capablanca as champion. Lasker later announced his resignation. However, Capablanca was able to secure financing for the match and Lasker agreed to play - but he insisted that Capablanca was the champion and he the challenger. One could argue that Capablanca became champion when Lasker resigned but I think most considered Lasker's resignation null and void when he agreed to play the match. Lasker lost the match and thus the title to Capablanca in 1921.

As for Fischer, it's true that he didn't lose a championship match - but that's only because he refused to defend his title! As I said, it's an easy trick to be undefeated if you don't play.

 @Path2GrandMaster:  That's another vote for Morphy. He and Fischer lead with 8 each.

Exactly. An official governing body isn't necessary when the champion is universally recognized. Lasker was the undisputed world champion. He won the title from Steinitz, who had been the undisputed world champion. Those two are as "official" as any post-1948 champion. There was no official title in Morphy's time. He's recognized as the unofficial champion because he was clearly the best of his time.

It's surprising that Lasker has received just one nomination. He was world champion for 27 years! And Steinitz hasn't gotten a nomination even though Nimzowitsch and Tal have received two each and Euwe and Keres, one each. I'm not knocking those four but none was dominant in his time. Stenitz was the undisputed world champion from 1886-1894 but some have argued that he became the unofficial champion when he defeated Anderssen in 1866. Furthermore, Steinitz was undefeated in match play for 32 years! 

@FBloggs
People vote for players they know. Most of forum members in this topic are english speakers (firstly americans), so Morphy and Fischer are first and second. It is expected. For example I know just a few games played by Morphy, Lasker or Steinitz. If you would open topic on German language, then Lasker und Steinitz would be in list. If I should open topic on Russian, then first would be Kasparov, and Botvinnik would be in list.

@MitchFabian. You are correct on all points, IMHO. In Russia, Botvinnik is and was a chess 'God', in  the same way as Morphy and Fischer in the U.S.A., but with greater political power!I 

As you remember since 1948 to 1972 only soviet players became a champion. And a challengers was soviet too. So Botvinnik is known better then Petrosian or Smyslov, but he is just one of the champions of soviet golden era. He is also known as a founder of chess school and a cybernetist.

Fischer is known in Russia as troublemaker who took "our" crown! It was time of cold war, it was a shame and pain. 

There were a comic song "Honor of chess crown" about a worker, who is prepearing to play with Fischer. His coaches was a footballer, a boxer and a cook. He also played cards and billiard with Tal.

For me the main event of chess is battle between 2 great K. In modern time interest in Russia is very low. In 2016 people in Russia waited for Karjakin become a new K, but he did not.

I was part of the Fischer generation in the US too. But unlike many of my compatriots, I have studied every single World Championship match game, including the McDonnell-LaBourdonnais matches. 

If you only study "My Sixty Memorable Games" and the Fischer-Spassky match, you will be exposed to some fantastic chess. But when you put it in an historical perspective, you will see what a revolution chess went through in the years *after* Fischer retired.

Fischer's greatest contributions were his philosophy of chess (play crystal clear chess as White, and be willing to take all sorts of risks and accept all poisoned pawns as Black), and his insistence on making chess a profession where the top players can actually make a living by playing elite events.

Those are truly great accomplishments. But he also bears responsibility for robbing us of a decade of great chess by petulantly refusing to play after he won his title. Those who argue he had nothing to prove seem to forget that he never played the other great player of the 1970s, Anatoly Karpov. 

Fischer was great, but he was not the greatest.

You're probably right. Obviously this isn't a scientific survey. If it was, there would be many more Russians than Americans voting and my guess is Kasparov would have the most votes. As for me, I'm more familiar with Fischer's career and games than Kasparov's but that's mostly because I became too busy to pay much attention to chess after the mid-1970s.

Chess has never been very popular in the US. The popularity of the game spiked during the 1972 match of course but I'll bet the average American at the time could only name two professional chess players - Fischer and Spassky.

Fischer won the match but he did not represent America well. I think his petulant behavior and unreasonable demands turned off a lot of Americans. I would bet Spassky was well liked among Americans because he was a gentleman.  

I nominated Morphy but I think Fischer is a solid choice for greatest master in history. However, he would be a terrible choice for greatest champion. He was probably the worst champion in history. He won the title and for all intents and purposes, immediately retired. Not only did he refuse to defend his title, he didn't compete in a single event as champion. Every other champion, official or unofficial, that I'm aware of continued to compete after being recognized as champion.

I don't argue that Fischer had nothing more to prove after winning the championship. I've speculated that he may have retired because he believed he had nothing more to prove. You've got to keep in mind that Fischer stopped playing in 1972 - two years before Karpov won the Candidates. I doubt anyone thought that Karpov was a threat to Fischer in 1972. By the time Karpov became the official challenger, I don't think Fischer had an interest in returning to competition. 

Spassky's first nomination. There are still some champions that haven't been nominated.

Come on, people! Let's have some nominations.

It's been a while since I posted the current standings.

Current standings: 

Paul Morphy:  8

Bobby Fischer:  8

Garry Kasparov:  3

Magnus Carlsen:  3

Aron Nimzowitsch:  2

André Danican Philidor:  2

Mikhail Tal:  2

Emanuel Lasker:  1

Igor Ivanov:  1

Alexander Alekhine:  1

Vishy Anand:  1

Paul Keres:  1

Max Euwe:  1

José Raúl Capablanca:  1

Gioacchino Greco:  1

Boris Spassky:  1