Who is the greatest chess player of all time ?? Bobby Fischer ??

Here's a good article on this subject... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history    

My opinion ? (Thanks for asking.)  Greatest overall - Kasparov.  Best at their peak - Fischer & Morphy, with Capablanca & Kasparov close.  Most underrated - Lasker & Botvinnik.  

Certainly Fischer is one of the candidates for greatest player ever.Kasparov too,clearly.I would say,these two for sure.Carlsen is probably the strongest ever but clearly needs more time to claim greatest ever.Capablanca and Lasker would be my next two choices I guess.Capa for being the unsurpassed genius that he was,and Lasker for being the most successful of all world champions.So,Fischer,Kasparov,Lasker,Capablanca in no particular order.

Maybe Fisher and Kasparov are the best, but look out for Magnus Carlsen. He is only 24 , already on top of the world, and he is going to be better, and there are other talents coming up too.

Fischer's 14th on the all-time list. That's really impressive given the huge improvements in chess in the last 40 years.

Nice joke SmyslovFan!I always thought you had a great sense of humor.

How many sports have a record holder from the 1970s still in the top 20 scores of all time?  That really does show how great Fischer was. His fanboys claiming his best from 40 yrs ago is still better than the best today is the joke, but it's not very funny.

We,Fischer fanboys are grateful to you sir SmyslovFan,for allowing Fischer to be the 14th greatest player of all time.We are only curious what would be your take on such mediocre players as Lasker and Capablanca..Perhaps top 3000?Thank you again for enlightening us!

Jesse Owens was one of the greatest sprinters of all time. But Owens wouldn't even qualify for the Olympics with the times he posted. That takes nothing away from his greatness. But today's sprinters have all surpassed him. That makes sense considering how much more today's sprinters train, and how much more efficiently they train. 

Same with chess. Capa was amazing. But he just would not be competitive in today's chess scene. 

I think you , and many others , rely far too heavily on ratings .  Not everyone today who is higher rated than Fischers peak are actually better than he was .  Aronian is the defending champion of the current Tata tourney and yet has  not managed a single win after 8 games .  No way in hell Fischer would be winless after 8 rounds at his peak in any of today's modern elite events ... 

It has to be Tal

What about Spassky?

A great human being and a chess genius.

Reb, I think you rely far too much on your memory of a golden era and not the objective measurement that is available to us. Repeated statistical studies have shown that elo reflects skill. That may not have been Elo's original intent, but it has worked to be almost as accurate as a clock. Garry Kasparov only started talking about rating inflation when he was surpassed by Carlsen. If you take a look at the records for highest ratings, Fischer was a bit like Bob Beamon in the long jump. He held the record from 1972 until Kasparov came along. Kasparov held the record until Carlsen came along. 

Yes, Carlsen is better than Kasparov. And yes, Kasparov is better than Fischer. 

Hikaru Nakamura is ranked 11th all-time with a highest rating of 2794.4 while Fischer's was 2789.7. That means that if there had been a match between the two when they were both at their peak, it would have been really close. Statistically, there's no real predictive difference when players are rated within 10 points of each other. But Nakamura is ahead of Fischer on the all-time list. 

The top 7 on the all-time list, Carlsen, Kasparov, Caruana, Aronian, Anand, Kramnik, and Topalov, all have highest ratings that are statistically significantly higher (more than 25 rating points) than Fischer's. 

So while Fischer is ranked 14th on the all-time list, it's possible to argue he may have been able to compete with some of the others above him. But the top 7 have all proven themselves to be stronger than Fischer. 

Today's elite events actually improve the skills of the top players. They get to play other elite grandmasters several times a year. Fischer never competed in a tournament where all his other competitors were +2700 strength. We have no clue how he'd do. He might have collapsed, as he did early in his career when first faced with tough competition. Remember, it took him years of competition before he beat his first Russian GM. For all of Fischer's greatness, even you will admit that he was somewhat fragile, especially after a loss. 

Fischer was great. When I was in high school, I studied all of his published games. I loved his chess analysis, which was extremely objective. I especially enjoyed My Sixty Memorable Games which was co-authored by Larry Evans.  He pointed out his own flaws and worked to improve them. I also followed the exploits of Mark Spitz, Carl Lewis, Frank Shorter, Olga Korbut, and other great athletes. They hold a special place in my memory.

Today's athletes are better.

Carlsen :)

Agreed! Tal is one of my all-time favorites!

Lol, please, save this propaganda for the engine-watchers.  Fischer would crush these kids, as would Kasparov, Capablanca, Alekhine, Tal, Petrosian, and Lasker.  All these moderns do is mimic a computer (running no less on incorrect algorithms).  These noobs have no fight in them whatsoever, and their patience is completely absent.  With egos too big to actually play until the # (it is the name of the game afterall), they're too busy searching for a match to the "correct" move.  They wouldn't even be able to handle Lasker and Tal's smoke in their eyes, let alone their combinations, planning, and understanding of something more than a memorized opening.  They would need a hell of a lot more than a Red Bull to get out the woods into which these old masters would take them. 

I would like to point out how both Karpov and Kasparov struggled against Tigran Petrosian , a player that never broke 2700 and Fischer crushed in 1971 . Petrosian has an equal record against both , and this after he was demolished by Fischer .  Ratings are only a " guide " and a barometer of recent results , they certainly should never be considered as accurate a measuring device as the clock .  I believe most people would agree with this .  Fischer was more than 100 points higher rated than the #2 guy during his prime so there were no " elite " events for him to pad his rating with . If all the top guys today played in some of the larger open events their ratings wouldnt be so bloated . How often does the highest rated player win the tourney ?  I know for a fact that its not all the time from following chess for decades and from my own tourney experience .  I dont think anyone doubts that Fischer would have broken the 2800 barrier had he continued playing , he only needed 20 rating points to do so .  Inflation is real and one of the best cases to prove this is the case of GM Kevin Spraggett who was a candidate in the mid 80s . When he was a candidate his top rating was under 2600 but he only broke 2600 after the age of 50 a few years ago .  I personally asked him about this and if he believed he was a stronger player today than in the 80s and he just laughed and said ofcourse he is weaker now than in the 80s but that rating inflation is very real ....  

Those kids Fischer would crush, are you talking about So, Caruana and Carlsen? Magnus played a draw against Kasparov in Reykjavik when he was 13, and I think that was before the computers became superior.

Dont underestimate the kids.

Hahaha,Giri bringing down a whole Soviet empire of Monsters,like Tal,Petrosian,Spassky,Botvinnik,Smyslov,Korchnoi,Stein,Bronstein,Keres,Geller,Polugayevsky,etc.Truly hilarious,hahaha!

SmyslovFan - You made some strong points however you cannot compare players from a different era. Imagine Bobby Fischer being born same year as Carlsen. With his talent he would be in the top ten at least, if not nr.1 ...