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

My name is Sergey Tandilov (formerly, Tandilyan). I live in Moscow, Russia. I am an inventor of the device for opening chakras and author of the best book for players.

The very new version of my book for players, which previous version was published on www.amazon.com under name "The easiest, safest and combined Way to open chakras (to reach Nirvana or to awaken Kundalini) providing the best results on all meaning indicators and, therefore, allowing to become the best player" several years ago, is as follows: http://store.payloadz.com/go?id=2523535

It should be mentioned that some tennis and chess academies began to use so called neurotraining (see for example http://www.elitennis.com/neurotraining.html?lang=en). While my book will provide more considerable result without use of neurotraining.

Please, pay special attention to the last paragraph of the Description (of the book).

I can send you also the scan of my diploma of folk healer as attached file. My information is the one of very qualified person.

My email: sine212@gmail.com

Magnus is considered.FOR NOW,

Fischer was a fantastic chess player. 

At his best, he was nearly 2800 strength at a time when nobody else was close. 

Fischer was almost 20 years ahead of his time, which is absolutely incredible. 

But 1972 was 45 years ago. Chess has changed. 

People talk about Fischer's technique. It was something special. But today, almost all of the +2800 crowd have shown they have at least the same level of technical skill. 

Take a look at the following game. Fischer had a difficult position as Black, and decided to trade off major pieces in the hopes of finding a draw in the minor piece endgame. This was probably a slightly dubious decision because it made Spassky's game easier to play. Spassky continuously improved his position and Fischer made more and more small mistakes until he lost. 

There's no shame in losing such a game, unless the fans are claiming that Fischer had nearly infallible endgame technique and we've not seen anything comparable since Fischer.

Well, we have. Sergey Karjakin held extremely poor positions against better opposition that Fischer faced in this game. Magnus Carlsen and Vladimir Kramnik are two other fantastic endgame technicians who would have made the win much more difficult than Fischer did. 

Here's the game, with analysis from lichess.org. Judge for yourself whether Black was the best endgame technician ever. 

And yes, I know. It's easy to find one bad game and say that this alone disqualifies Fischer from contention for GOAT. But this wasn't the only poorly played endgame Fischer had. Game 1 of the 1972 World Championship is another example, and others can be found. Which is impressive considering how few games Fischer played.

Again, Fischer was amazing. I study his games and am filled with awe. But I study the games of today's best players and recognise that the top guys are all at least as good as Fischer was in his prime, and some are even better!

Play out the game from the point where he starts trading major pieces. Fischer makes several small mistakes that end up costing him the game.

Carlsen is a rare talent. I would put him in the same realm with Fischer, Kasparov etc. As for Carlsen facing harder competition. It's true, but players these days have chess engines, databases. And most importantly, Carlsen was mentored by one of the GOAT players AKA Kasparov. Same goes for Kasparov who had Top GM's and theoreticians working for him.

Fischer had no such luxury and still rekt the entire soviet union. At his peak he is just a better player than anyone in history. I would bet if 72' Fischer had Stockfish he would've cried with happiness. In addition, his maniacal dedication and superhuman focus would've allowed him to continue study until he beat everyone.

You'd lose that bet. Anand said Fischer didn't trust computers even when they were very strong.

The historical Fischer was very strong, but taking a player out of his time is just speculation. We have enough games of all of the great players in history to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses.

sure, today's players have numerous advantages over Fischer. Fischer had numerous advantages over Capa, who had advantages over Morphy.  As a group, today's best players are the best in history. 

I really appreciate your meticulous approach to chess, but on the other hand I think you're not completely intellectually honest here.

Cherry picking 2-3 games (as you pointed out yourself) is hardly representative of one's peak strength. Zooming in on a game played at age 49 after a 20 year hiatus is even less relevant.

For all intents and purposes, those 30 games played by Fischer in the 1992 "rematch" should be excluded from any serious debate. Not because they represent an 'inconvenient truth' for Fischer's fans, but because any comparison between Fischer and other greats (based on those 30 games) would put the former at an unfair disadvantage. It's not like we could honestly compare Fischer at 49 with Karpov or Kasparov at the same age. They kept playing up to that age & beyond. 

Perhaps Fischer is the GOAT perhaps he isn't, but even the greatest player to ever walk the earth would be the shadow of his former self after a 20 years absence. The fact that Fischer did that to himself is beside the point.

I keep seeing GOAT a lot. We talking about Capricorns?

Alinfe, analysing Fischer twenty years after he first won the title is just as fair as analyzing Lasker's games, twenty years later, Capa's games, Tal's games twenty years later,  Karpov's games, or Kasparov's games twenty years later. *

All of those players were still playing world class chess. Well, I'm rounding a bit in Capa's case. AVRO was about 17 or 18 years later.

Added:

I've seen people try to discount Fischer's botched wins against Keres, Botvinnik, and Gligoric because he was too young. (These botched endgames are beginning to add up, aren't they?)

What games are we allowed to use when analysing Fischer's games?

________

*For those who don't know:

Capa played in one of the strongest tournaments in history in 1938 and finished 4th. He then played in Margate and finished second to Keres in 1939. He won the title in 1921. World War I kept Capa from winning the title earlier, and WWII kept him from playing top tournaments in his last years. He died in 1942.

Lasker held on to the world title for 27 years. He was still world champion 20 years later. In fact, Lasker played some of his best chess after he lost the title!

Tal played some of his best chess 20 years after he first won the title. He broke 2700 and had two incredibly long unbeaten streaks.

In 1995, twenty years after Karpov became World Champion, Karpov was rated 2775. The year before, he had a higher live rating than Fischer's all time best at 2790. (Source: http://www.2700chess.com)

Kasparov retired in 2005, 20 years after winning the title. When he retired, he was the highest rated player in the world, rated at 2812 while Anand was rated 2788.

I don't know if you're missing the main point deliberately or not, but here it is again:

All those people KEPT ON PLAYING chess after winning the title, reaching their peak, turning 30, or whatever reference point you're using. Maybe some of them didn't play every year against the best opposition available at the time, but they surely did more than browsing chess magazines and playing against themselves (which, as far as we know, is mostly what Fischer did for 20 years after winning the title). 

Not sure how many of those you mention suffered from a mental illness either.

As far as Fischer's best years (or anybody else's best years), I believe you know enough chess history to answer that yourself. 

As for the above mentioned players still playing "world class chess", you need to define what you mean. At 85 Victor Korchnoi was still playing world class chess, some might argue. Does that mean he was comparable to Carlsen though, or even with himself at age 25-35? 

A little known player who Kasparov considered to be his superior was Dr. Oska Yasako.He is without doubt the strongest chess player I am aware of when you consider he won a chess match against Kasparov 4-1

No, I get your point. I don't accept it. You are making excuses for Fischer. If you're making an argument in favor of the greatest player ever, include all the evidence. 

You seem to think that Fischer was playing at a handicap by retiring for 20 years. You're probably right. It was his choice. The choices a player makes that affects his ability to play should be considered when arguing whether he's the greatest of all time. 

Fischer himself said he had been studying and keeping sharp during his hiatus. He said that the 1992 match was for the World Championship, and he was ready to play. He thought the games counted, we should too.

Regarding Korchnoi: yes, he had tremendous longevity, but nobody would claim he was the best ever. He was never even the world champion. The players I mentioned were all world champions, and often mentioned in the discussion of the best ever. 

I chose relevant examples.

An example of an American who would benefit from your use of exceptions would be Pillsbury. He won one of the strongest tnmts of 1895, when he was only 22, and was clearly one of the best players in the world. If he hadn't contracted syphilis, he might have won the world championship. But he did contract syphilis. His potential was never fully realised.

Fischer's potential was never fully realised because he retired from chess from 1972 to 1992. That doesn't mean we should ignore his competitive games in 1992 though, or make excuses.

Fischer also claimed, among other things, that Kasparov-Karpov matches were prearranged move by move, that he was blacklisted for 20 years by the world's jewry, that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is factual. Just because he took those claims serios, should we too? 

Besides, it's not about making excuses, it's about pointing out facts and common sense. It's a fact that 15 year olds do not become world champions. Same can be said about 50 year olds nowadays. Some world champions might have been weaker than myself when they were 6 or 7. Should their games and results at that age count as evidence, too?

It takes time to learn everything needed to play fantastic chess, bu if enough work has been done the age of 22 is a vey good age. Magnus was super at 22, Wesley was, Giri is going to be. Of course the modern grandmasters mature much earlier with their huge acess to computers, databases and international strong tournaments, so it isnt fair to compare Philsbury with a modern 22 year old GM. A modern 14 year old FM is  probably closer  when we talk about the total of digested knowledge.

Those facts are facts, but not extremely far from beiing contested. It is a fact that a 47 year old and a 18 year old is up there in the competition , and may qualify for the World Champion match. I am talking about Anand and Wei Yi.  Soon Anand will become 50, and still kicking, and soon Rameshbabu Praggnanandhaa will become 14 years old and maybe competing for the world championship.

Let's put it another way:

After Fischer won the title, he didn't play again for twenty years.

After Kasparov won the title, he went on to defend it against Karpov, Anand and Short. He went on to have the second most impressive tnmt career in history, behind Karpov. He went on to play some of the most beautiful games in history (Kasparov-Topalov 1999 is often considered the single greatest game). And he went on to have the second highest rating in history and the longest tenure above 2800.

Jeff Sonas analysed the careers of all the top players and concluded it wasn't even close. By every meaningful measure, Kasparov was the greatest of all time.

Time and time again, we return to the longevity argument (since most of what you just pointed out boils down to that).

People might not precisely agree on every aspect of greatness, but they most likely agree that there's more to greatness than longevity.

Like it or not, Fischer had no contract with FIDE or chess.com concerning the number of years he should have held on to the title before qualifying for GOAT. His achievements can and should be reflected upon regardless of that. To be upset with Fischer (or downgrade him) because he was a one time champion is like being upset with Beatles for not recording more songs. Sorry but it's just silly. 

I'm not saying consistency doesn't matter, but it isn't the only thing that matters. 

And speaking of Beatles, are they less great because they recorded for only 8 years? Was Bruce Lee less of a martial arts icon just because he left us at 32? Was Nadia Comaneci's first perfect score of 10.0 less perfect because she won the olympic all-around only once? Was JFK less of a president because he spent only 1000 days in office?   

Time and again, you make excuses. Fischer didn't die in 1972. And he did play in 1992. 

Fischer was brill, did it by himself without a soviet regime behind him and without engines. unsurpassable.

Yes Anand makes old(er) players feel good about themselves, but I seriously doubt he'll ever be WC again. Yes Wei Yi's progress is freaking impressive, but meanwhile he's pushing 19 and not WC yet. There's a big difference between 19 and 15. There's a big difference between getting there and almost there.

Let's not get too carried away, shall we? Fischer doesn't need excuses, nor does he require public defenders/apologists. From time to time we need to remind ourselves that we're talking about people who by age 10 (some even earlier) could see deeper than 99% of chess.com users. In some ways we're like a bunch of highschool kids arguing whether Einstein was smarter than Hawking.