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

GRANDMASTER ARE NOT BETTER TODAY BALONEY THEY DEPEND ON BLITZ CHESS AND FAST TIME CONTROLL TO WIN GAMES THE QUALITY OF CHESS GOES DOWN THE TUBES IF YOU HAVE CAPITALIST AND AND AMATUER SHADY CRONY CAPITALISTS OVERSEEING CHESS EVENTS BECAUSE THE BUSSINESS TYPE CAPITALISTS HAVE BEEN INFLUENCING THE ATMOSPHERE OF CHESS BY ATTRACTING MEDIOCRE CHESSPLAYERS AND WHO CHESS PLAY SPEED CHESS AND BLITZ CHESS QUALITY OF A GAME OF CHESS GOES DOWN THE TUBES WHEN CORRUPT YES MEN PLAY ONLINE IN COLLUSS ION WITH THE BUSSINESS OWNERS OR OWNER OF THE SITE TO GET UNKNOWN IDENTITIES TO SANDBAG AND LOOSE TO PLAYERS WHO ARE NOT CONNECTED TO THE ONLINE GAME ESTABLISHMENT CHESS SITES ARE STARTING TO TURN INTO RIGGED CASINO RACKETS RUN BY CRONY MOBSTER CAPIALISTS LIKE TH THOUSANDS OF RIGGED ONLINE GAMES LIKE ARMY MEN STRIKE VIKINGS WAR OF CLANS AND AND ANY TYPE OF PSUEDO ONLINE STRATEGY MOBILE GAME THEY ARE RUN BY SOCIAL SPOILED CHEATING HACKING THUGS AND THESE GAMES SHOULD BE REGULATED NOT BY ANYONE THE OWNERS OR DEVELOPERS HAVE HIRED BUT BY A GOVERNMENTAL REGULATED SYSTEM NOT A CRONY TRUMP ATMOSPHERE

IF ANY BUSSINESS CAPITALIST WHO HAS VOTED REPUBLICAN OR FOR TRUMP CHESS WILL BE CONTROLLED BY THE CAPIALIST AND TURN INTO A CLASS SYSTEM BASED NOT ON SKILL BUT YOUR PRO CAPITALIST VIEWS

IT HAS BEGUN BY SPEEDING UP CHESS TOURNAMENTS

Sure...

 Komodo  is the strongest , at the moment.

Play me in a Simul on Chess.com 3pm CET Saturday 3 June. 60/60 and all challenges welcome. Rated or unrated. Do not care. No rating caps no paramaters. Streaming Live on Twitch! https://www.twitch.tv/thenextmove

According with your link, Komodo is world computer chess champion. We are talking here about human chess.

this stats are any helpful for any mortal or what?

Dont forget the Simul today at 3pm CET right here on chess.com. Live commentary on twitch at https://www.twitch.tv/thenextmove Only 3.5 hours to go!

the greatest was Kasparov

His score against Karpov was: Kasparov had 21 wins, 19 losses (not counting draws), so pretty close. Then he left FIDE and played with chosen players: Short, Anand. Then in 2000 lost to Kramnik, not winning a single game of the match. Also in 2003 he lost a match against Karpov. Not so great.

You are not being serious, are you? :-) To begin with, Kasparov's score against Karpov was 28-21. It was 28-15 after the 1984/85 match. Kasparov was only 21 then, and he was more than 150 Elo below his peak when he won the title in 1985. How was Short a "chosen" player? Short won the FIDE qualification to play Kasparov (after beating among others Karpov in Candidates matches). Anand also won a Candidates qualification, going 10-1 in wins in the matches, beating Kamsky (won had beaten Kramnik 3-0) in the final. It is correct that he lost to Kramnik, then he played a four game rapid match against Karpov in 2002 (not 2003) and lost, even if it is questionable how that would be more relevant than the dozens of matches he won in classical chess (or the rapid match in 2009 where he won 3 of 4 against the same Karpov). 

But Karpov was one of the greatest players ever, so no shame in not beating him in every game.

You are totally misinformed:

1. The score against Karpov is on Wikipedia " In their five world championship matches, Kasparov had 21 wins, 19 losses, and 104 draws in 144 games."(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov#World_Champion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Karpov#Rivalry_with_Kasparov)

2. Both Short and Kasparov were out of FIDE when they played their match. Same thing about the match with Anand, it wasn't under FIDE auspices.

bobby fisher is a genius for a short time period, exactly for 1 year, he had the biggest elo rating for that period of time. but in chess, each player has his own style and his tactics, for example, my favourite chess grandmaster is Alexander Alekhine, a russian genius, but of course Kasparov, and M.Carlsen are the greatest of our age

bobby fisher is a genius for a short time period, exactly for 1 year, he had the biggest elo rating for that period of time. but in chess, each player has his own style and his tactics, for example, my favourite chess grandmaster is Alexander Alekhine, a russian genius, but of course Kasparov, and M.Carlsen are the greatest of our age

Since you are claiming that Kasparov handpicked Short, not that Short qualified for their match, I think it might be relevant to point out that Short qualified for their match by winning the FIDE qualification. He wasn't handpicked, he was the legitimate challenger. Anand too wasn't handpicked but won the qualification. Kramnik, on the other hand was handpicked, and look how that went :-)

Carlsen's score against Nakamura isn't 0-0...

Yes, Kramnik was also picked in spite of Shirov, who won the qualifying match with Kramnik. Bad choice of Kasparov, he lost the WC title...

It was a bad choice to pick Kramnik. But maybe also a sign of self-fulfilling prophecy. Kasparov had declared that Kramnik would be his successor, gave him the match, and then lost it while playing the worst chess of his career, even taking draws in the opening with white while behind in a short match. But if you play so many title matches (8 in 15 years for Kasparov) you will sooner or later play badly in one of them.

From FIDE standpoint, Karpov was WC until 1999, when he refused to defend his title in FIDE knock-out tournament, won by Khalifman.

From FIDE standpoint he lost the title in 1985, then he lost a few more title matches against Kasparov, and lost to Short in the Candidates before the 1993 match. When the FIDE World Champion Kasparov and the FIDE Challenger Short played their title match outside FIDE, the latter arranged a title match of their own between the losers in the Candidates, which was won by Karpov. But I don't think anyone else than FIDE considered him as World Champion ahead of players like Kasparov, who had beaten him in their title matches, or Short, who had beaten him in the Candidates.