Top 30 chess players of all time

He's not done,but he should be in the top 10,for sure.

"why would Fischer's stunning record disqualify him from considerstion"

To me Fischer's stunning record doesn't disqualify him from consideration, it is rather what he didn't do that disqualifies him.

It is easy to say that he won all tournaments he played from December 1962 with a couple of exceptions, but he played his last tournament in 1970 and even though he won a couple of them very impressively that year, can you list the three strongest tournaments he won from December 1962 up until then?

Monte Carlo 1967 was rather strong, but without Petrosian and Spassky, and Fischer won 0.5 ahead of Smyslov. I don't even know what would be the second strongest tournament he won those years, but it would be a much weaker one. According to Chessmetrics the top three would be completed by the US Championships in December 1962 and Vinkovci 1968, and none of Fischer's opponents were close to top 10 in those tournaments.

To me it just isn't much to build some "greatest ever" case, if you complete it with his not winning any match outside 1971-72, quitting chess in his 20s, etc.

If its possible to edit the title to : "TOP 30 chess players before our time" it would help.

And what about Zukertort? I read one of his games recently, and it was absolutely fantastic.

I disagree!

Its not a few briliant games that make an all time great (then Paul Murphy would've been right up there all the time), but the ability to play consistantly for a long time.

Fischer was most definitely a great chess player of his time and defintely deserve to be in the top five. But because of the relatively shorter duration of the time played chess (compared to others), in my opinion he should not top the list.

Without any order, i think top five chess players in any list would be Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Capablanca and Lasker. 

"Is Nezhmetdinov on anyone's list? Have you seen any of his games? Can you attack like that in chess?"

What does being able to attack like Nezhmetdinov or not have to do with not ranking him as one of the 30 greatest players ever? He played a few Soviet Championships and usually finished in the lower half (-7 score in 1959, -6 in 1961 etc). Ranking him ahead of players that at some point was best in the world is difficult regardless what playing level one has.

TAL!! How is Karpov and Alekhine above Fischer!!! Crazy! I'd also feature Magnus and maybe put Magnus on there somewhere...

Philidor, Lasker, Carlsen. By the way, most conspicuous absences from the list IMO, Philidor, Morphy, Reti, Nimzovich, Bogoljubov, Polgar. 

Where's Nimzowitsch?

Nice to see Geller recognised. He had a plus score against Fischer.

All time great can be all time peak, and Fisher is competing there (along with Tal. Morphy, Carlsen , Kasparov), or all time long term dominance (Kasparov). I have not read enough games to decide.

Magnus have read those games, and he holds Fisher as the peak and Kasparov as the long term all time high. Magnus is good enough to understand.

About the brilliance of Morphy. To play that  brilliant you need your opponent to allow it. Morphy wouldnt be able to shine so fantastic against Giri and Karjakin. They are playing far too tight and defencive. But if he timetraveled to us, he could have had fireworks of games against Nakamura, which is a lot more fun and risktaking player, and a true firework himself. I would love to see a timetravel tournament with Kasparov, Fischer, Tal, Morphy, Nakamura, Carlsen, Alekhine, Capablanca and Rubinstein (timed at all those players peak).  Karjakin is fantastic too, but not as entertaining as those I mentioned. Actually I hope Carlsen wins WC , allowing for a firework with Nakamura the next time.

Kasparov

Karpov

Anand

Lasker

As long as Capablanca, Petrosian, Spassky, and Botvinnik are included im good.

Great list, OP. And two good ideas not to include currently active players that always attract emotive comments from fanboys, etc., and to make the list with a decent number of players, i.e. 30 instead of only 5 or 10. While my list (as anyone's inevitably would) would be different in terms of the order of players, my substantive points of difference would be as follows:

(1) I would place Petrosian higher up. Surely he must be higher than Euwe at the very least.

(2) I would also feel queasy about having Capablanca at 7, though if there are 6 players better than him, they are those you have chosen.

(3) I'd also have Rubinstein higher than where you have him, though where exactly I'm not too sure.

(4) Finally, I think Flohr is worth a place on your list. Maybe not near the top, but certainly somewhere on it.

Just to add that I fully agree with you about Bronstein deserving a high place on such a list. I'm also heartened to see you've included Polugaevsky who in my opinion deserves more credit than he gets.

You lost me with Carlsen.

Nigel Short was better than some of the patzers listed at the bottom!

As long as Botvinnik is in I'm good. Not flashy but an amazing scholar of chess and contributor to the development. Also World Champ 13 times!

Off hand, I'd put Botvinnik & Steinitz lower, Keres and Spassky much higher (above Botvinnik). Tarrasch much lower. Otherwise, the rest seems supportable to me.