Carlsen is the best. If you go to any website, you can compare ratings. I compared and it said that Carlsen has a higher rating, not higher than just Fischer, but higher than anybody else in the whole entire world.
What that website didn't tell you is that ratings suffer from inflation over time (especially the rating of top players). Look no further than Viktor Korchnoi. He achieved his peak rating of 2695 in 1979 (age 48). Twenty eight years later he had dropped by merely 66 points. Ask yourself this: what's more likely, that a 76 years old guy (even one as good as Korchnoi was) is nearly as strong as he was in his prime, or that ratings inflate over time? Another telling example: Karpov achieved his peak rating in 1994, nearly 10 years after losing the title, and well past the age when most players reach their prime (43).
So yeah Fischer 1972 rating was pretty astronomical. So much so that it took 20 years for somebody to surpass it, even with the help of rating inflation.
To me Kasparov and Lasker are the only serious candidates, while Fischer disqualified himself from the discussion by quitting already in his 20s after one title match (and that against one of the "minor" World Champions).
I think we need to distinguish between the most consistent/having the longest career and the strongest. One guy can be the fastest man on the panet for one year, and another can be a split second slower for 10 years. That still doesn't make the latter better than the former, strictly speaking. It's true that Fischer gave up chess voluntarily, but what if he died in a car crash at age 30, would that still disqualify him in your eyes? Heck, Paul Morphy is another contender and never even became world champion.
I'm curious why Carlsen's name isn't mentioned? - He is by far the highest rated player of all time. - He still holds that record and is an OUTSTANDING player. - I don't believe Fischer, or especially Viktor are better.
Carlsen is the best. If you go to any website, you can compare ratings. I compared and it said that Carlsen has a higher rating, not higher than just Fischer, but higher than anybody else in the whole entire world.
What that website didn't tell you is that ratings suffer from inflation over time (especially the rating of top players). Look no further than Viktor Korchnoi. He achieved his peak rating of 2695 in 1979 (age 48). Twenty eight years later he had dropped by merely 66 points. Ask yourself this: what's more likely, that a 76 years old guy (even one as good as Korchnoi was) is nearly as strong as he was in his prime, or that ratings inflate over time? Another telling example: Karpov achieved his peak rating in 1994, nearly 10 years after losing the title, and well past the age when most players reach their prime (43).
So yeah Fischer 1972 rating was pretty astronomical. So much so that it took 20 years for somebody to surpass it, even with the help of rating inflation.
To me Kasparov and Lasker are the only serious candidates, while Fischer disqualified himself from the discussion by quitting already in his 20s after one title match (and that against one of the "minor" World Champions).
I think we need to distinguish between the most consistent/having the longest career and the strongest. One guy can be the fastest man on the panet for one year, and another can be a split second slower for 10 years. That still doesn't make the latter better than the former, strictly speaking. It's true that Fischer gave up chess voluntarily, but what if he died in a car crash at age 30, would that still disqualify him in your eyes? Heck, Paul Morphy is another contender and never even became world champion.