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

"A number of factors should be considered when assessing Fischer's dominance [---] it's somewhat easier to be dominant [---] when the champion dictates the terms for the next title match"

Yes, but Fischer was still great :-)

I never have/would defend Fischer for his demands for the 1975 WCC. Needless to say, that's not what made him either great or dominant ;-)

I think chess is bigger now than back in the Fischerdays. Is it true? More nations are good. In the Fisherdays Sovjet alone looked larger than the rest of the world. Today stars are popping up all over the world, like the Philippines, Norway, India, USA, Tsjekkia, France, China..   and there comes up good players from the internet.    I am not good enough at chess to tell if Nakamura is better or worse than Fisher was, but i guess that the top ten today are on average better than the top five average in Fishers time.  

They are getting weaker! The reason is computers: they diminish their imagination necessary for calculations.

I have already mentioned that several times. Your memory lapse is obvious.

That "argument" is flawed anyway, and this too has been pointed out in vain... 

Here it is again... 

As of Feb 2017 - 44 players

Jan 2007 - 21

1997 - 9

1987 - 2

For years 1987 and 1997 I was generous, in that I counted all players who achieved a rating of 2700 or more at any time during that year (not just the month of January). Still, the trend is pretty obvious.

To estimate the rating inflation on the top, I pick Kasparov in 1986. He was at 2750 .  The top these days is between 2800 and 2850.  It looks like the inflation for years has been between 50 and 100. Maybe 75. I guess Kasparov must have had a strength like So, Carlsen, Caruana or Nakamura. His age was close to these top-players too.

yes

Stockfish

Indeed. It's funny but I've often compared chess to martial arts. No doubt most of you here will think of Bruce Lee. Some will think of Tony Jaa, Jet Li, or Jackie Chan. Chuck Norris too. Mostly because of their movies. Or what have you. 

But to think of Martial Arts, Bruce Lee stands out. Even 40+ years later. He never won any notable tournaments. He doesn't even have a official title to his name. And yet, most of his peers, the entirety of the community consider him, "The Greatest".

And he was American. Heh. Anyways.

I think Bobby Fischer will always be known as, "The Greatest", because of his fanaticism for his craft. His disdain for the Soviet Regime. His search for Truth on the board. 

Pundits will sometimes say, Quality is more important than Quantity and yet refer to the amount of tournaments, amount of games or the amount of time spent in succeeding years after their prime, to compare relative "strength" like in this discussion.

I doubt many people equate Bruce with Bobby, at least as far as being objectively evaluated in their respective fields. Some might argue that Fischer never defended his title, that he was a one time world champion, even that the didn't deserve the title, but after all he WAS undisputed world champion. 

Bruce Lee on the other hand never subjected himself to any form of objective evaluation. Some say Bruce knew his limits and didn't want to have his face flatten, some say he felt he had nothing to prove, yet other point to the fact that Jeet Kune Do was potentially lethal and therefore not suitable for competitions. Whatever the real reason, it's probably safe to say that Fischer did much more to prove himself as a chessplayer, than Lee did to prove himself as a fighter (not a teacher, philosopher, actor - those are different things).

i think the best chess players are the ones who had to make the theory, develop their own tactics by themselves and win against others of the same nature at world championships. They could not use engines, books or paying for trainers to help them (probably, I don't know). It seems they had to do everything themselves to become good. Hence why I think they are the best.

I mean, here's what I'll say. Kasparov has a wealth of achievements that are too numerous to list. World Champion, World No. 1, etc. Fischer on the other hand doesn't have as many. He does have the tittle in 1972 against Spassky and I believe that he could have retained it against Karpov, especially if the Cramer proposal was accepted (I think Fischer would start of losing but then regain his edge and go on a long win streak to beat Karpov). Let's not forget amazing players like Mikhail not Viktor Korchnoi, but it is fair to say that Kasparov and Fischer are better.

However, it is also important to consider dominance. In 1972, the year Fischer beat Spassky, he won the qualifiers without losing a game, until facing former World Champion Tigran Petrosian. He then easily beat Tigran to play Spassky (won by a score of 6.5-2.5). Against Spassky, he lost Game 1, forfeit Game 2, and then continued to pull out a series of wins and draws with only 1 loss in his remaining 19 games before beating Spassky in game 21 of the World Chess Championship. 

Now, when trying to determine the chess G.O.A.T, we have to look at the time they played in, what they had available, as well as how advance chess theory was. Looking at older players (Morphy, Capablanca, Lasker, and Alekine) we have to compare the factors above. Morphy played in the 1840s and dominated anyone who dared play him without question (this much anyone can agree on). However, there was a lack of as much chess theory that Morphy had, as opposed to the other three in consideration. Capablanca was one of the most brilliant chess players. He played with finess, and dominated (World Champion from 1921-1927). Alekhine was the fourth World Champion, but couldn't be considered the best of his time as Capablanca was the clear master. Lasker was a master at the game, playing beautifully, but was 10 years behind Capablanca, as when Capablanca was in his prime Lasker passed his and therefore had no real rival. While I think if Morphy had the theory available to Capablanca, he would have beaten him (he was brilliant), it can however be seen as the clear winner here (just want to point out, we're not going by talent alone, but also by accomplishments. If given theory, Morphy could be the best ever, but he didn't have access and a lack of accomplishments bring him down).

Looking today, we have Magnus Carlson, Sergey Karjakin, Vladimir Kramnik, and Vishwanathan Anand. I think everyone here can see Carlson is clearly the best, with Anand boasting the second best resumeé, and arguably a tie for the best playing style with Carlson. Kramnik is a former World Champion, so for that reason alone he goes ahead of Karjakin (who lost to Carlson in the championship this year). Magnus Carlson is considered the best of today.

All that is left to determine is who is the best of the 1970s-1990s. And there, I think it's Fischer. And this is for two pivotal reasons. Fischer understood the game better than anyone. His talent, and creativity make his games some of the most fun to watch, with almost every player I know aspiring to play like him. His theory was solid, and his style was engaging. He played chess like an art. Now, I understand that some believe that it's not about the art, it's about winning, but chess is war. And if Sun Tzu said (wrote down) anything, it's the Art of War (a book for those who don't know). And Fischer did that. He made chess an art. My second reason would be he dominated. He dominated the game. In his era, where the Soviet's controlled chess, and where Spassky had grandmasters doing all the grunt work for him (finding the good moves, exploring various lines, etc.), Fischer did that himself. And the still beat the most brilliant mines collaborating. Kasparov didn't use computers, like Fischer, but almost lost to a twelve year old Magnus Carlson (who made a stupid bishop blunder that forced him to draw). Fischer was a picky SOB who was an asshole but played amazing.

So when we return to the question of who is the chess G.O.A.T I have to say Fischer. Looking at the candidates, Fischer, Capablanca, Carlson, and Kasparov (honorable mention just because he's that good) I say Fischer. His playing style was superior to Capablanca, and his fundamental understanding of chess was better. Capablanca pioneered chess, exploring openings and became one of the best ever with his accomplishments. Kasparov dominated and is arguably the best of all time. Carlson still has more to prove, but with computers to help him, he has to take his game to a level never seen before to overtake Fischer, Kasparov, and Capablanca.

My top 10:

1. Fischer

2. Kasparov

3. Capablanca

4. Karpov

5. Lasker

6. Botvinnik

7. Alekhine

8. Carlson

9. Morphy

10. Anand

Honorable Mentions in order of Preference:

1. Petrosian (he could easily be top 10, I just chose Carlson, Morphy, and Anand ahead of him, however this is very debatable)

2. Kramnik

3. Larson

4. Steinitz 

5. Smyslov 

Oh for the days when men wore iron and ships were made of wood. Everything was better then.

I absolutely agree @CrystalChessless. Morphy dominated at his time and he is either my favorite or second favorite of all time, behind Fischer. Tal and Nmze(something, first name Rasheed), are 4th and 5th for their entertaining chess.

We could compare great physicist to GM, so Capablanca is Einstein (Fisher obviously cannot be Einstein). 

Morphy did lose games.

I think the usual perception is that one did not play a game "perfectly from beginning to end" if one lost.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/who-was-the-best-world-chess-champion-in-history

"... Morphy became to millions ... the greatest chess master of all time. But if we examine Morphy's record and games critically, we cannot justify such extravaganza. And we are compelled to speak of it as the Morphy myth. ... [Of the 55 tournament and match games, few] can by any stretch be called brilliant. ... He could combine as well as anybody, but he also knew under what circumstances combinations were possible - and in that respect he was twenty years ahead of his time. ... [Morphy's] real abilities were hardly able to be tested. ... We do not see sustained masterpieces; rather flashes of genius. The titanic struggles of the kind we see today [Morphy] could not produce because he lacked the opposition. ... Anderssen could attack brilliantly but had an inadequate understanding of its positional basis. Morphy knew not only how to attack but also when - and that is why he won. ... Even if the myth has been destroyed, Morphy remains one of the giants of chess history. ..." - GM Reuben Fine

It is perhaps worthwhile to keep in mind that, in 1858, the chess world was so amazingly primitive that players still thought tournaments were a pretty neat idea.