theres a precocious junior who is dazzling folk in his local park with his chess i will get a clip , Fischer may no longer be the greatest american chess player but judge for yourselves
Who is the greatest chess player of all time ?? Bobby Fischer ??
Sort:
"Realistically, I'd bet that the top 5 players in the world right now could all beat him, easily"
The top 100 today would of course all beat Philidor, as well as Steinitz, but if that makes them greater is another question.
fabelhaft wrote:
"Realistically, I'd bet that the top 5 players in the world right now could all beat him, easily"
The top 100 today would of course all beat Philidor, as well as Steinitz, but if that makes them greater is another question.
Maybe the author of the OP should define "greatest" then.
"I mean it's pretty known that fabelhaft and smyslov don't particularly like Fischer"
That's the label you get when you don't agree with every "Fischer is the greatest ever hands down no discussion case closed!"-post :-) But I rank him around #5 on the greatest ever list. I just don't think he did enough to merit a higher ranking, while Lasker often is underestimated. 1895-1924 he won every tournament he played, with one exception, when he was second. And that was after winning the World Championship.
People complain about Lasker not defending the title against the strongest opponents in title matches (did Fischer?), but see how clearly a 55-year-old Lasker won an exhausting top tournament over 20 rounds like New York 1924 ahead of Capablanca and Alekhine. That was when he was more than 25 years older than Fischer was when he retired. If Fischer could have been clear first ahead of Kasparov and Karpov or Anand in a 20-round top tournament in 1997 is something to speculate about if one wants, but Lasker one doesn't have to speculate about. It's enough to look at the actual results, one doesn't have to rank him based on results he might have scored if he had played and won more.
JeffGreen333 wrote:
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.
About peak-strenght Fischer was very high, maybe the same as Carlsen ? I dont know? Fischer and Carlsen were/are extreme supertalents. I dont think Carlsen has peaked yet. There is more to come. Kasparov had both great peak, and a longlasting superstrenght.
Carlsen has it all. Great physics,memory, calculation,skills, stamina and winner instinct on par with sovjetskij charachter. I dont think the world ever have seen a more complete chessplayer. He has no weaknesses. It is very difficult to beat a genious with no weaknesses.
Yes, I'm sure that Carlsen will be included more and more in this discussion, as time goes on. Especially, as the generation that grew up idolizing Fischer starts to die off.
JeffGreen333 wrote:
Yes, I'm sure that Carlsen will be included more and more in this discussion, as time goes on. Especially, as the generation that grew up idolizing Fischer starts to die off.
I hope the Carlsen- Karjakin match will be something with historic quality. It has potential. 
Both Carlsen and Karjakin has good physics and a fine age. They are 26 years old and have already been GMs for at least 13 years. Its the first time ever so young GMs with so much strenght and experience meets for the big match.
About Fisher-Idolizing. I havent read enough of his games. This debate is fine, because it encourages me to read more of his and the other mentioned top-players games.
SmyslovFan wrote:
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.
Thats a pity. If you jugded me for what I could have accomplished if I hadnt quit chess in 1976, then I could have been judged very, very high
Keep in mind, that many of us middle-aged and older Americans started playing chess because of Bobby Fischer. When I was a kid, back in 1972, I was intrigued by chess sets that I saw in store windows. However, it wasn't until Bobby Fischer was playing in the World Championship that kids started bring chess sets to school and playing during recess. That's when chess really took off like a rocket, here in the United States. Then, I begged my mother to buy me a set for my birthday. So, we grew up on Bobby Fischer, the undefeated Miami Dolphins, Secretariat, Muhammed Ali and classic rock music. They're part of our life. So, there will always be Fischer fanatics in the USA, until our generation dies off.
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
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.
Thats a pity. If you jugded me for what I could have accomplished if I hadnt quit chess in 1976, then I could have been judged very, very high
Me too. I probably could have become an FM or IM, if I had taken lessons when I was 9 years old and stuck with it. However, I had lots of other interests in life. Girls, sports, music, girls, the stock market, video games, girls, sitcoms, traveling, girls. Did I mention girls? lol
Nov 3, 2016
0
#792
"Always be Fischer fanatics" Very true.
But during the height of the craze, was it really about the chess?
It was the height of the cold war. Fischer himself refused to play the Russians or participate in the top tournaments. He had to be "persuaded" to uphold America's honor, it's superior political doctrine.
Chess incorrectly is associated with "being smarter" . I think the chess craze was just as much about this "we are are smarter than them" then anything to do about actually playing the game.
mdinnerspace1 wrote:
"Always be Fischer fanatics" Very true.
But during the height of the craze, was it really about the chess?
It was the height of the cold war. Fischer himself refused to play the Russians or participate in the top tournaments. He had to be "persuaded" to uphold America's honor, it's superior political doctrine.
Chess incorrectly is associated with "being smarter" . I think the chess craze was just as much about this "we are are smarter than them" then anything to do about actually playing the game.
As kids, we didn't know the political story behind the match. All we knew was that an American was winning the WC. It got everyone into chess, where previously we were just about sports and rock music.
Nov 3, 2016
0
#794
"Altough It is not proven yet, I consider myself as the greatest chess player of all time." i have nothing to lose or nothing to gain by considering myself as the greatest chess player of all time.yeah i know i just wasted my ten minutes posting stupid things here, but who cares ... you also wasted 15 minutes minutes reading my post.
"Play the opening like a book, the middle game like a magician, and the endgame like a machine." – Spielmann
Paul Morphy is the greatest chess player in all times
play_like_a_machine wrote:
"Altough It is not proven yet, I consider myself as the greatest chess player of all time." i have nothing to lose or nothing to gain by considering myself as the greatest chess player of all time.yeah i know i just wasted my ten minutes posting stupid things here, but who cares ... you also wasted 15 minutes minutes reading my post.
"Play the opening like a book, the middle game like a magician, and the endgame like a machine." – Spielmann
Well, since you lost a game to a 1027 rated player, I'm pretty sure that you're not the greatest player of all-time. lol
Nov 3, 2016
0
#797
Jeff Green wrote:
As kids, we didn't know the political story behind the match. All we knew was that an American was winning the WC. It got everyone into chess, where previously we were just about sports and rock music.
I had been playing about 5 years then, 1 or 2 tournaments, Began postal play . Sure Fischer sparked a great deal of positive interest. Admit it though! Chess was cool because people thought you were smart. A good thing. Nowadays people know you play chess and they think "Geek" !
mdinnerspace1 wrote:
Jeff Green wrote:
As kids, we didn't know the political story behind the match. All we knew was that an American was winning the WC. It got everyone into chess, where previously we were just about sports and rock music.
I had been playing about 5 years then, 1 or 2 tournaments, Began postal play . Sure Fischer sparked a great deal of positive interest. Admit it though! Chess was cool because people thought you were smart. A good thing. Nowadays people know you play chess and they think "Geek" !
I actually learned how to play during or right after the '72 WC match. Everybody already knew that I was smart though. I got straight A's in school and was in the gifted program, so I didn't need to prove anything. I just loved strategy board games and chess was the best one ever. When I learned how the knight moved, I was hooked for life. lol Now, I prefer bishops and rooks over knights though.
Nov 3, 2016
0
#799
The knight moves 1 square horizontal or verticle and then 1 square diagnal in either forward moving direction.
In Reb's mind, anyone who does not make Fischer God and declare him the greatest player of all time must be a Fischer hater.
I agree with all the points Reb made about Fischer. Fischer's accomplishments on the chess board inspired generations of chess players. I still rate Kasparov as greater than Fischer, mostly due to what he accomplished as world champion. Kasparov's biggest gaffe was creating the PCA. Even he admits that now.
But Kasparov dominated a much more competitive era than Fischer did. After Fischer left the scene, there was Karpov, Korchnoi, and just about nobody else. Petrosian, Keres, Tal, and Spassky were all getting long in the teeth and Mecking, Ljubojevic and others of the next generation weren't of the same quality.
Kasparov's domination spanned two or three generations of great players. Fischer dominated for about five years.
I recognise Lasker's greatness. He was a tremendous fighter, except in his match against Capa. But as many have pointed out, he cherry picked his opponents and didn't play enough World Championship matches.
Capablanca's chess is still used by chess teachers around the world. His technique was brilliant, until he got punched in the mouth by Alekhine. Alekhine showed how to defeat Capa.
Botvinnik deserves more praise than most Americans are willing to credit him.
My tentative list of the 10 greatest chess players (which could change tomorrow) is
1.Kasparov
2. Philidor
3. Morphy
4. Steinitz (the guy who created the World Championship)
5. Lasker
6. Karpov
7. Fischer
8. Carlsen (the best player ever, but needs to do more as champion)
9. Capablanca
10. Botvinnik
Others who deserve special mention include: Kramnik, Anand, Rubinstein, Nimzowitsch, Tal, Alekhine, Petrosian, and of course Smyslov.
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.
I think the above list is excellent. The only "problem" I see, is having to choose between Karpov and Alekhine. Somehow, it seems unfair to exclude either player as both are clearly outstanding World champions, who proved their worth by closely competing against two of the best players of all time. On the other hand, removing any of the above 10 does not feel right. So I propose to make it "the 12 greatest of all time, adding Alekhine and perhaps Anand.