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

"Philidor second? Are you kidding? Fischer could have beaten Philidor blindfolded. lol"

I don't remember who it was that said that Philidor was the strongest player in the world with a margin of 200 Elo for 50 years, but I think it was Larsen that ranked him as the greatest ever.

Greatness isn't about who's the best player. The best player in history is either Kasparov or Carlsen.

Philidor was the best player in the world for about 40 years. He literally wrote the book on how to play the game, and taught generations how to play positional chess. 

Yes, Philidor deserves to be second. 

Fischer COULD have been the greatest, but as you admit, he retired from chess rather than become the greatest. 

Karpov and Fischer are just about tied in my mind. I could easily have reversed those two. Karpov's accomplishments as World Champion were unrivalled until Kasparov came along. Fischer played only one world championship match, and no serious games from 1972-1992. Capablanca is definitely one of the greatest players ever. But consider the arguments for each of those above him. To me, they all have slightly better credentials as greatest ever. Alekhine put a HUGE dent in the Capa myth.

Fischer haters are always calling anyone who appreciated his chess an idol worshipper.

"8. Carlsen (the best player ever, but needs to do more as champion)"

what does this even mean? and if he needs to do more as champion, how come Fischer precedes him?

Lists are meaningless mental onanism.

Difficult to call Carlsen the best ever as he stands on the shoulders of chess engines, not like the players of bygone eras.

He was only the best of his era, because nobody else was above 2200 back then.  lol   He deserves an honorable mention, but certainly not the #2 rank of all-time.  I'll give him #22.  That's the best I can do.  lol   Realistically, I'd bet that the top 5 players in the world right now could all beat him, easily.  

yes, these discussions always tend to draw super mega shallow statements that don't actually mean anything from both sides and are almost always based on personal preference and not truth (which doesn't even exist to begin with).

A boring who's got it bigger game.

I mean it's pretty known that fabelhaft and smyslov don't particularly like Fischer so you got 'em in these threads trying to rationalize their dislike, then you got reb and others who worship him and it's the same lalala inverted ...

YAAAWN

please don't spoil the fun of all the windbagging, jadoubovich.

If you want a list of the ten best ever, it's nice and objective. Greatness isn't about who's objectively best. 

Here's a list of the 17 best chess players ever, based on their single highest performance level:

Live ratings:

Weird, Maxim Vachier-Lagrave is listed 7th at 2819.3, on July 28, 2016, but he didn't show up when I copied the list here.

Trying again:

Banners

I give up. For some reason, it won't let me post the most up to date rating list, but instead it shows the ratings as of 2015.

ELO ratings can be manipulated in certain circumstances.

For example;- Claude Bloodgood who was on death row and could only play inmates he taught the game and by postal chess had the second highest US rating after Fisher.

yes, Fischer is. and it is obvious. I am not Fischer fan, I am Spassky fan and I think Spassky could have been as good as or better than Fischer if he took chess seriously after 1970. but Spassky would not have been as great as Fischer. Kasparov? Fischer single handidly was fighting against the greatest imperial army ever while Kasparov was fighting with an army behind him yet Kasparov did not present us a demonstration that was near to Fischer.

Fischer fought against the greatest imperial army ever ! Single handidly he defeated those barbaric and cruel Ruskies.

He also invented the toaster, egg poacher, microwave oven and the CROCK POT.

I think we can move Carlsen up to top four. He is collecting supertournament wins every year and has already now won more than 25. Kasparov has 40. Carlsen already at the age of 26 has been showing some long  term dominance, staying more or less on top of the worldranking since he was 19, steadily rated 2800+. If he beats Kasparov in the WC match we should rank him top three.

And if he loses to Karjakin?

Greatness should not be simply a matter of record, win,losses and draws. There are/have been, so many highly skilled players capable on their best days of beating any title holder.This should not take away from their legacy.

That's precisely one reason he's so low down on my list, mdinnerspace. Carlsen has only beaten one person in World Championship matches. Lasker and Steinitz both did more.

If Carlsen does win against Karjakin, it would make sense to make him #4 on this list.

Fischer could have been the greatest ever, but only if he had defended his title against both Karpov and the next generation. Kasparov, Philidor Steinitz, and Lasker all defended the title against two generations of great players.

Bobby Fischer lost 89 of 948 games in his career. Other games were played,

but if results were deemed unworthy of being included in statistics at this database,

then they were not what we would call "losses by Bobby Fischer in his career".

Fischer lost very close to 1 in 10 games in his career. Greatness?

Are we comparing entire careers or each player at their peaks?   If it's their peak, Fischer wins, hand down.  If it's for their entire career, then Kasparov would be #1.  During Fischer's amazing 20 game winning streak, one could speculate that he would have beaten anyone during that streak.  Including Kasparov, Carlsen, Morphy, Capablanca and Lasker, back to back.  Nobody can prove differently.  As it turned out, the only one who could beat Fischer, after 1970, was Fischer himself.   Well, Petrosian and Spassky eventually won a couple of games, but Fischer still easily won the matches.   Was he a great World Champion and a role model for all future chess players?   No, definitely not.  But that's not the question that we are answering here.

When I consider who's greatest I try to consider everything about their play. Fischer was definitely great. Many people consider him the greatest because of what he might have accomplished. By that standard, Pillsbury or Stein should be on their lists of all-time greats. 

I judge players by what they actually accomplished, not what they could have accomplished.