Greatest Chess Master in History

Nice.  And you included one of my favorites from Stevie Nicks.  Well done. max!

Firstly, my views are in no way defined by what kind of person Fischer was, off-game. He could be the nicest guy in the planet for all I care and he would still be a coward imo to run away making excuses to avoid meeting opponents in international arena after '72.

My baseball analogy is legitimate, except for a slight change. Instead of being phenomenal on debut, this player played ok-ish in first few seasons(hitting quite a few home runs every season). Then on his 5th season, luck/hard-work smiled on him and he scored home runs in every innings. Then this coward figured he couldn't emulate it in following seasons and made ridiculous excuses and fled the scene before season 6. Now the analogy makes sense?

He has quite an impressive record, for the small time frame in which he played. But then, if every good player's only good moments are to be taken into account, like mentioned in my previous post, then every other great player(Karpov, Kasparov, Anand etc) reach mythical levels too. Heck, by that logic, even Kramnik would be a strong contender for 'greatest chess master' and at par with Fischer, since did he not beat Kasparov in WC? Sure, the chess World was split back then but it still was an impressive feat nonetheless.

Fischer has had many accomplishments, true. But so have every other great chess player. While Fischer accomplished more than them on some avenues, they have accomplished much much more than Fischer in other avenues.

If Fischer is considered a worthy nominee for 'greatest chess master' then so are Spassky, Kramnik, Aronian, Nakamura etc. Imo Fischer doesn't qualify to be 'greatest' in any time frame except maybe '60-'70 timeframe but thats just me.

Just my.... half cent, I guess? 

@Simonpal19:  We'll have to agree to disagree. Yes, it is just you.  You don't think he deserves a nomination but others disagree.  There is no way that Spassky or Nakamura can possibly considered the greatest master in history.  Spassky won the world championship on the second attempt and then lost his first title defense (yes, I know Fischer didn't defend his) and aside from holding the championship for three years, Spassky never dominated during his prime.  He was never clearly the best of his time.  Nakamura has not even qualified for a championship match.  He's never been the best of his time and if he's not even the best of his time, it goes without saying he cannot be the best in history.  Fischer was clearly the best in the world for at least a few years before he won the title.  Yes, he didn't defend it but that doesn't change how strong he was.  I chose Morphy, who had a brief career.  He was absolutely the best of his time though.  If you demand greatness over a period of many years, then you might consider Lasker (who someone has nominated).  Hard to argue with his 27 year reign as champ and his outstanding results against the strongest masters even in his 50s.

I would nominate Morphy, Andersson, Lasker, Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov

@FBloggs Nope, its just not me. Many may disagree with me but many do agree that he is overrated, 'one-time wonder'(relatively) and don't deserve to be considered for 'greatest chess player'.

Spassky failed to win WC on first attempt and couldn't hold it more than once... just like Fischer.

Spassy, apart from holding the title for 3 years, never dominated the game... just like Fischer. However, he at-least had the courage to face other opponents in international arena.

Fischer could have been best of his time but his timeframe was very narrow('67-'72 at most) and just when the time came to show the World that he indeed wasn't a fluke and had the tenacity to endure international opponents for a long period, he fled the arena making ridiculous excuses and throwing tantrums.

His not defending the title doesn't change that he was strong in chess.. true. However, it also doesn't change the fact that he probably didn't want to risk his reputation of 'American hero who beat Soviets' image by getting defeated by Karpov and thus chose fleeing and keeping his mythical imagery rather than manning up and trusting his own chess capabilities! We can never know for sure and Fischer himself is to be solely blamed for that.

I do think Lasker is a very strong contender for the 'greatest chess player'. Another one is Kasparov, who always battled with other chess greats like Karpov, Anand, Kramnik etc throughout his long and charismatic career and still came out victorious most of the time makes him one of the few unanimous nominees and a very strong contender.

I think four are solid choices but I question Anderssen because Morphy beat him convincingly in their official match and in a casual match.  Are you nominating Anderssen based on his career prior to the Morphy match?  After all, Lasker lost to Capablanca but he held the title for 27 years so he cannot be denied his place on any list of the all-time greats.

Each one makes way after some time.

I base the above on many of the brilliant games played by them when they were highly active..

I hate to not include Nimzovitch and Capablanca (as i havent studied their games that much)!!!

I didnt add Anand / Carlsen as I assume this thread focuses on the classical version of the game. Else, one of them should make the cut.... 

No, you're not limited at all.  I just pointed out that it's unfair to compare the play of today's top-tier masters with yesterday's.  Today's best masters have benefited from the continuous improvement in theory as well as the use of engines in analyzing opening variations and positions.  That doesn't mean that modern masters shouldn't be considered.  They should.  In fact, I'm surprised that no one has nominated Carlsen (I mean alone instead of on a list of four or five).  Nominate Anand or Carlsen if you want.  Either would be a solid nomination.

I think a worthy nominee is someone who was clearly the best of his time, regardless of the era.  Carlsen has been the highest rated player for years - despite having many extremely strong top-tier competitors.

I agree with you @FBLoggs. Irrespective of the era.. will add, irrespective of duration of "reign"... My top 5: 

Morphy, Lasker, Fisher, Kasparov, Anand, Carlsen

They all belong on the list.  But what if you had to choose among them?  Who gets the nod?

@JDmaverick:  By the way, I just noticed your top five includes six players.  

I agree.  Morphy and Capablanca each had amazing natural talent.  Capablanca has always been a favorite of mine.  Pillsbury was brilliant.

I took the liberty to fix the list to limit it to 5 

Seriously though, very nice list. I agree to all names, sans one.

My nod would be to Kasparov, just a teensy weensy bit ahead of the others. 

I couldnt cannot make up my mind between my favourite Anand and the one i admire Carlsen!!!!!.. A comma instead of a slash........... thats the difference.

If i were to choose only one.... It would be MORPHY !!!!! 

Hey, we don't allow censorship on this thread!  JDmaverick gets to do the elimination.  Kasparov is an excellent choice of course.  And in addition to being one of the best of all time, he's a good man who stands up for what's right.  He's got a set of balls.

Way to go, man!  Obviously I agree.

I think that's the first Alekhine nomination so far.  He belongs on the list.  On the third page of Favorite famous game, you'll find what I consider Alekhine's best game.  No doubt you've seen it.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/favorite-famous-game?page=3

Clever how I slip those plugs in, ain't it?