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

Sort:
AnnChess2

JpTaladua wrote:

Bobby Fischer is considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time 

Stockfish 8 is the greatest. Houdini 5.1 close second.

mcris

Those are ches programs (apps).

turk505
AnnChess2 wrote:
JpTaladua wrote:

Bobby Fischer is considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time 

Stockfish 8 is the greatest. Houdini 5.1 close second.

Meanwhile, Komodo sits crying in the corner

turk505

I'd say even though Tal might not have been the most accurate player, he was the best as far as you consider chess as an art form

AnnChess2
mcris wrote:

Those are ches programs (apps).

Nothing in the title of the topic suggested only biological and human players should be considered. If only they are taken into account, the thread should be 

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

 
fabelhaft

"Morphy's accuracy is superior to any nameable player to come after him. The man played every game perfectly from beginning to end"

No:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history#Moves_played_compared_with_computer_choices

 

 

fabelhaft

"Deep Blue Vs Stockfish would be interesting to see"

Deep Blue was good for its day and around 2700-2750 level. But Stockfish is many hundred Elo stronger.

https://www.quora.com/What-was-Deep-Blues-Elo-rating

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/rating_list_all.html

 

 

maverick82d

Well, Fischer is the most known name in chess, that's for sure.

mcris
AnnChess2 wrote:
mcris wrote:

Those are ches programs (apps).

Nothing in the title of the topic suggested only biological and human players should be considered. If only they are taken into account, the thread should be 

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

Those programs are not "chess players". They are chess-playing programs. See the difference?

turk505
airborne53 wrote:

Well, Fischer is the most known name in chess, that's for sure.

In 'Murca at least. I'm sure there are bigger names in Russia

alinfe
SmyslovFan wrote:

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

Again, a mix of irony and straw men.

The fact that humanity as a whole seem to better itself over time does not exclude the possibility that once in a while certain individuals are so exceptional that they stay head and shoulders not only above their peers, but above their successors as well (for some time at least).

At his peak, Fischer was 125 Elo points above #2. Today, that's the gap between Carlsen and #32. After he retired, nobody in the world had a rating above 2700 for 3 years (1973, 1976, 1977), and his record 2785 rating stood for almost 2 decades (17 years to be precise). Even today, almost 45 years after his retirement, a player boasting Fischer's peak rating would be placed #6 or #7. Whether you believe in rating inflation or not, these facts are indisputable and speak for themselves. 

Add to that his victory margins at the 1970 Interzonal, candidates matches and world championship, and it would seem that Fischer at the very least earned the right to be shortlisted among those worthy of being labelled "ahead of their time". 

MickinMD

Those of us that were in our 20's by the time Fischer played for the World Championship had gone through nuclear air raid drills when we were little kids - some getting so scared they peed their pants while "ducking and covering," had lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis, and were learning friends or relatives had been killed in Vietnam and were likely to be drafted when we complete high school or college.

The Cold War was just starting to recede from it's heights and the Soviet chessplayers were known to pre-arrange ties in round-robin tournaments to keep non-Soviets out of the championship cycle - Fischer's and others objections were why it was changed to knockout matches.

So when Bobby Fischer went up against Spassky, to Americans this was truly St. George vs The Dragon, Superman vs Lex Luthor, and your favorite football team vs all others all rolled into one!

Even though his behavior was an embarrassment to us. he represented too much not to be idolized.  His incredible candidates matches victories and his 0-2 start in the Championship Match, only to soon get back to being invincible, so wowed everyone that, to this day, it's hard for those who lived through the 1972 match to imagine anyone better than Fischer as a chess player.

Of course, his awful behavior and hate messages and the fact he really stabbed American Chess in the back by not helping promote it after he won the title - becoming a recluse - are things that occurred AWAY from the board.  So his play is still admired.

The big thing in his favor as greatest is how far above any other player he was.  It's like Babe Ruth's 60 home runs in 1927: it was more than most other teams' total home runs!

DjonniDerevnja
alinfe wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:

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

Again, a mix of irony and straw men.

The fact that humanity as a whole seem to better itself over time does not exclude the possibility that once in a while certain individuals are so exceptional that they stay head and shoulders not only above their peers, but above their successors as well (for some time at least).

At his peak, Fischer was 125 Elo points above #2. Today, that's the gap between Carlsen and #32. After he retired, nobody in the world had a rating above 2700 for 3 years (1973, 1976, 1977), and his record 2785 rating stood for almost 2 decades (17 years to be precise). Even today, almost 45 years after his retirement, a player boasting Fischer's peak rating would be placed #6 or #7. Whether you believe in rating inflation or not, these facts are indisputable and speak for themselves. 

Add to that his victory margins at the 1970 Interzonal, candidates matches and world championship, and it would seem that Fischer at the very least earned the right to be shortlisted among those worthy of being labelled "ahead of their time". 

Those numbers tells two stories, or maybe a mix of them.

1:  Fisher was more dominating at his top than Magnus is.

2:  The level for the average top ten is higher in the Magnus era.

If Fischer was teleported from his best days until current time he probably would have huge problems with top en the first year, but would adapt after a while, and maybe play at Magnuslevel.

turk505
CrystalChessless wrote:

No one alive today beats other GMs 6-0, Fischer did just that.

 Because 1) They've gotten a hell lot more accurate and 2) ALL THE GODDAMN DRAWS

fewlio

Guys guys guys...once the computers became stronger than humans, we entered a new era.  The new era is forever separated from the old era.    It's like baseball records in the pre and post deadball eras...really a differently game.  Because having computers to analyze openings and positions changes everything (and unfortunately takes creativity out and makes memorization more and more important)

Abhinsome
fewlio wrote:

Guys guys guys...once the computers became stronger than humans, we entered a new era.  The new era is forever separated from the old era.    It's like baseball records in the pre and post deadball eras...really a differently game.  Because having computers to analyze openings and positions changes everything (and unfortunately takes creativity out and makes memorization more and more important)

 yea... its sad that computers have taken over chess. fischer said this in iceland before his death, and for once, his mentally insane self said something kinda right. Chess isnt a good game (i disagree with this part) because you have computers doing everything. He said chess was bad because there was so much theory that it wasn't about creativity anymore. he said chess was bad even when he played but he didnt realize because he was too obsessed with winning. And yea, what he said is kinda true. Carlson has a huge advantage getting Stockfish to tell him what the best lines are in any given position. 

Abhinsome
Abhinsome wrote:

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.

just wanna clarify that these are in order of entertaining chess styles,  but NOT the best players

najdorf96

Indeed. Technically, I wasn't comparing Bruce Lee to Bobby Fischer as far as contributions, personality, or as individuals. 

  Simply as a "brand". That for whatever reason, they are always in the conversation when talking about G.O.A.T.  There will always be naysayers, pundits saying this or that to underscore their greatness. 

Bobby_Fischer_Wins

Bobby Fischer considered Paul Morphy as the greatest chess player of all time

SmyslovFan
Bobby_Fischer_Wins wrote:

Bobby Fischer considered Paul Morphy as the greatest chess player of all time

This was Bobby Fischer being a provocateur. He chose an American over other more obvious choices. It's an impossible question to answer who was the greatest genius in chess history. But as Max Euwe and just about every other student of chess history has pointed out, chess has progressed over time. Chess players learn from the past and improve on it. As a group, today's chess players are the best in history. 

Kasparov and Carlsen are the two best players by rating, but Kasparov maintained that mark of excellence longer than Carlsen. For now, I believe that Kasparov is the best player ever, but I expect Carlsen to eclipse his mark at some point (not just the highest rating, which Carlsen has already achieved, but consistently best as well).