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

Magnus could bring down the whole empire of monsters. I dont think Giri is old enough yet. Magnus is stronger than only his own creativity. He have read loads of classic and modern games and remembers everything, on top of that he is a supercalculating genious.

If Capablanca had all those games in his head, he would have been a hard task for Magnus. But he hadnt. Those games wasnt played yet.

Magnus is something like Capablanca, with tons of GM games added in his visualisationbank. Capablanca had probably less than 10 000 GM-games in his memory. 

"Petrosian has an equal record against both , and this after he was demolished by Fischer"

Fischer was -2 against Petrosian until his late 20s in the 1970s while Kasparov was -2 for a part of his teens (after blundering away two wins) and then won their last games, from his later teens. In 1982 Petrosian was less than 100 Elo from the #1 spot while he was 140 points from it ten years earlier, so Kasparov didn't play too badly against him, getting winning positions in all four games they played 1981-83 even if he only won the last two in the end.

We are not talking Carlsen and Kasparov here.If you read one of my previous posts I mention that Carlsen is probably the strongest ever.We are talking about some rather moronic list that compares players of 2015 with Fischer in 1972.Thankfully,people are not quite so naive to believe that Giri is better than Capablanca or that Topalov is better than Fischer.These claims border on the ridiculous.

Apotek, what's ridiculous is to think that there hasn't been significant progress in chess since the 1930s. Capa was brilliant, but since his time, chess has gone through several revolutions! Capa did poorly against the new young dynamic Soviet players such as Botvinnik in the late 1930s, and chess has changed dramatically since his day. 

Back in Capa's day it was possible to play all sorts of opening trash and survive. The following game is one Capa's 100 best games ever, not some random game but one of his classics!

Capa was great. But as Kasparov pointed out, his legendary technique abandoned him when he was pressured, as in the Alekhine match and against some of the young guns of the Soviet school, such as Botvinnik.

Btw, here's a link to an interview with another fan of Fischer. Again, I too think Fischer's chess was great! As the interviewe stated tho, Fischer's "methods were a bit dated... he had fallen behind."

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/dec/02/vishy-anand-small-talk-interview

In my opinion I would have to say Kasparov or Morphy.

There is something especially ugly and small -minded about a person trying his best to show geniuses in  a bad light..I guess anyone who knows chess history will now realise that you are basically someone  who takes particular pleasure in putting down the true chess giants.I wonder why..Anyway,the fact is that these Giants were the dominant players of their era,unlike Giri,Topalov,and the rest.And however hard you may try to distort and misinterpret the facts,you will only convince yourself and some trolls..And by the way,don't write such things as "I too think Fischer's chess was great!"It is so blatantly obvious that you don't mean it!

When facts and logic are against you, attack the person making the argument.

Yes,Yes.The greatest payers of all time are:Topalov,Nakamura,Caruana,Giri,Grischuk,Anand,Aronian.

There is a difference between best of all time and greatest.

In terms of raw chess skill, yeah, those guys are better than the World champions from 50 years ago.

If Kasparov saw farther than his predecessors it is because he was standing on the shoulders of giants. That's also true of today's players.

In terms of which players had the greatest influence, then Philidor, Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Nimzo, Capa, Rubinstein, Alekhine, Euwe (the last true amateur to be world champion), and all of the world champions from the past have had a greater impact on chess culture than today's young players. 

But, the conversation in this thread has focused on who is the best player of all time, not who had the greatest influence on the game. The best player of all time is Magnus Carlsen. None of the world champions from 50 years ago are in the top ten. 

Reb was right to point out that Fischer ushered in the age of professional chess. Since Fischer's day, it has become possible for grandmasters to make a living playing chess. 

Although Euwe and Botvinnik showed the importance of having a relatively small repertoire, Fischer revolutionized how openings are studied. After Fischer retired,chess saw a major revolution in chess openings (see Kasparov's books on the subject to see some of the effects of that revolution). Since then, there have been more revolutions in chess theory. About 15 years ago, the best players were trying to play the deepest lines imaginable. Now, Carlsen is showing that as White, you can play almost anything and get a playable position. 

Fischer also raised the level of technical chess, perhaps even more than Smyslov had. Karpov raised that even more. Today, even though adjournments are a thing of the past, endgames are being played at an even higher level than during Karpov's reign. Endgame theory has gone through a sea-change with the advent of tablebases. Just about any elite tournament will see an endgame arise where the two players start playing nearly perfect chess when there are fewer than 6 pieces on the board because they studied the tablebases. 

All this shows the tremendous influence of past players, but also why today's players are better than the giants of the past.

I suggest you perhaps read the title.It says Greatest player of all time.

And sorry to disappoint you,but with the exception of Carlsen,today's players are not better than the giants of the past.

Fischer is the best of all time.  the USCF magazine had an article about it in like 2k3. 

My arguement againt Fischer is the obvious:  Once he became champion he just quit.

Carlsen wasnt in the picture yet at that time of publication, if anyone cares.  The main contenders then were Fischer and Kasparov (and morphy...muthafukas)

If anyone cared to look, it was when Nakamura was a rising childhood star.

Well as hungry child said,Fischer and Kasparov are widely considered the pinnacle of chess.For Carlsen to earn a place next to them,I would argue that more time is needed.My feeling however is that Carlsen is so special and unique that over time he will prove himself to be one of the greatest ever.

I have no qualification to judge carlsen.  I havent even looked at his games that close. 

But in my correspondance games here, there are players I follow for opening moves.  Carlsen?  He just seems to play random stuff in the opening.  I wonder how it is to have to compete against him (at a level I cant even comprehend).

I'll open a blog about this sometime, about how I wanted to follow carlsen  (as white) after '1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6' -- You can go into scotch or spanish, or play Bc4 (as white...italian game? idk). 

What does carlsen do?  All 3...arg

Yes, the title of the thread says one thing. The vast majority of the +300 posts discuss another. I'm glad you noticed that I was highlighting that discrepancy. 

Gotta go with Kasparov.

Would say Fischer, but he quit too soon.

Magnus is the greatest chess player of all time followed by Kasparov.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but with modern developments in theory and computers and such, if Magnus played Bobby Fischer or Kasparov in their primes, I suspect he would have plus scores on both of them.