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

 Would like to point out that no one would be quite as excited about Fischer if he was from Montenegro or something like that ... 

I don't know 

Since "of all time" hasnt happened yet, the question cannot be answered.

That is probably true, but the same could be said about Russian and other ex-soviet players worshiping Kasparov...

dead thread

My personal favorite has to be Paul Morphy. 

His story reads like a script for a movie or a fairy tale. 

Learned chess at a young age. Grew up in a family of chess players, but NOT in New York. Went to Europe and conquered EVERYONE. 

Statistically ... it might have to be Garry Kasparov. (#1 in the world for like 20+ years.) Won - or tied for first - in every major tournament that he played in for a period of about 10 years. Played some of the best chess the world has ever seen. One of the most accurate players who ever lived. (etc.) 

as a note to Fischer fanes "he voted for Morphy" 

"Lasker ... didn't understand positional chess." - another Fischer quote from around the same time as his Morphy comments.
Extended discussions of Morphy have been written in books by GM Franco, GM Beim, GM Ward, GM Marin, GM Bo Hansen, GM McDonald, Garry Kasparov (with Dmitry Plisetsky), and GM Gormally. Anyone see any of them express the view that we should accept Fischer's conclusion about Morphy? There seems to be general agreement that Morphy was, as GM Fine put it, one of the giants of chess history, but that is a long way from saying that he was better than anyone playing today.
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.

yeah

Exactly what is there in 21st century chess that Morphy would not understand?

We are not in a position to know what degree of understanding Morphy would have about the chess that developed after Morphy stopped playing in serious chess competition.

"... [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. ..." - GM Reuben Fine

This is like asking who the greatest action hero is in a comic book store - are you trying to start a riot?

Fischer played creative and bold. His games are entertaining even for amateurs. However, his career was short. He gave up playing in 1973, he was then 30 years. The best players are young. Did he understand that he sooner or later would loose? In a way he was a coward. 

"The champions tournament held in 1948 to decide the next world champion ... was won by Mikhail Botvinnik with Vasily Smyslov in second place. ... The Soviet Union would, from that point until its dissolution in 1991, dominate the game at world level. Botvinnik went on ... to become the first Soviet world champion, the beginning of a continuous line of Soviet players to hold the title that was only broken for a few years in the 1970s by Bobby Fischer. ... What made the difference was the system of state sponsorship put in place by the Soviets to train and develop their chess players, ..." - The History of Chess in Fifty Moves by Bill Price

Man, we've already been there a million times.

Chess ratings aren't like meters per second, period. Accept it an move on!

They are a relative metric and can only be used to compare players from the same era. You can compare Kasparov with Short if you wish, but not with Carlsen or Fischer.

Even when comparing players from the same era the reality can be quite different from rating predictions, up to the highest levels:

- The Karpov - Korchnoi 1981 match should have been a tight struggle given their rating difference of merely 5 points. Instead it became known as the "massacre in Merano".

- By 1990, Kasparov's rating was 2800 and Karpov's 2730. He did win the match, but by the smallest margin.

- Topalov's 2006 rating was 70 points higher than Kramnik's but it was the latter who won the reunification match.

Paul Morphy. No one dominated his rivals the way he did. We can see that even his "supposed" errors were in fact often designed to bring the game to an end quicker. Never studied a chess book or database or opening theory. Had no coach nor mentor. Just a naturally born gifted player the likes this world has never seen, nor will ever see.

However, Morphy’s rivals were players in 1857-8. 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.

Carlsen-2961 Kramnik-2868 Kasparov-2816 Fischer-2775 Anand-2759 Karpov-2698 Capablanca-2664 Tal-2636 Spassky-2619 Smyslov-2618 Botvinnik-2602 Euwe-2547 Alekhine-2547 Petrosian-2543 Lasker-2498 Morphy-2409 Steinitz-2323

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

Lawson's Morphy biography indicated that Morphy acquired a few chess books in 1853. Lawson included a report of a Maurian quote:

"... During the two years that we remained at college together, Morphy played a considerable number of games with me at odds gradually diminishing as I improved. ... Mr. Morphy had the following Chess books with him, the only ones, as far as I know that he ever possessed until the New York Chess Congress in 1857. Horwitz and Kling's Chess Studies, which he pronounced a very good and useful book for students, although not free from error; the B. Vols composing the collection of Kieseritzky's La Regence, and Staunton's Chess Tournament. ..."