Is Magnus Carlsen Greatest Chess Player of all Times?

To early to tell.

Here's an interesting article by GM Danny Gormally called "Could Carlsen have beaten Capablanca?".

 I agree with this, I have always thought about it this way.

I think this is true not just of chess, but of just about every field, for several reasons: the newer generation stands "on the shoulders of giants", increased strength of general competition, people start at an earlier age, more books and learning materials, a greater sized pool of players.

Put in reverse: send any of our top 10 players back in a time machine to the 1920's, and I say they become world champion.

Well of course modern players would win if they were transplanted back 80 years...in their brains, they have instant ready-made analysis that they studied from the old masters' games. It's like bringing a machine gun to the American Revolutionary War or saying Schwarzkopf is a better general than Napoleon because his 1991 U.S. army would destroy Napoleon's army of 1810.  

On equal footing (how about chess960?), I'd say Capa and Morphy would be tough to beat OTB based on their level of dominance given their relative lack of "preparation".  

 Well its exactly like the army example, yes. Everything is better in todays army...generalship, equipment, training, technology, standards for being a soldier. Mostly its because of what we learned from previous generations.

And of course openings are a big part of it but I meant more than just the openings. I think Capa would fare comparatively better in chess 960 than in classic chess, but I think he would still lose to the best of todays players.

The answer is that no one knows. 

Your rating only indicates how good you are compared to other players who have lived during your lifetime.

Since my previous post calling Kasparov the GOAT, I have learnt more about other players and I now consider Fischer the greatest. 6-0 6-0 6-2.5 - 'nuff said.

I just hope they don't give you tenure.

6-2.5 is a strange scoreline.

Boy, that Fischer sure was a wizard.

It's his biggest claim to fame. An endgame player so fine, that he was able to screw a full point and a half out of some positions.

Carlsen Breaks Chess Rating Record! Enough said!

Not, it isn't.  It never is.

Have you ever in your life seen a thread where "Enough said" or "Nuff said" or some such variant was the final sentence in it?  Be serious.

if Kasparov is still the best, how come he can't beat Carlsen now?

Kasparov is getting older. Time for new generations.

When Kasparov has the same age on carlsen he was so dominating in the board, and almost none can beat him on chess.

kasparov doesnt compete anymore, we have no idea if he could beat carlsen or not.

Accounting for rating inflation and some other factors it is possible fischer is still the greatest of all time.

Though personally i MUCH prefer carlsen.

This sort of topic comes up frequently in sport.

In my opinion, to be considered  'The Greatest Player of All Time' you would need to take a player's career into consideration. Tournament wins, titles etc etc.

Is he the greatest player on the circuit today? Sure, why not. He quite possibly is the strongest player out there at the moment but to be considered the greatest of all time he needs to be consistant and he hasn't had time to prove that yet.

You can compare this with other sports.

Golf - Tiger woods was phenomenal and well on his way to Nicklaus' record. Now it's in doubt if he will ever make it.

Football - Ronaldo (Brazil) came on the scene and automatically every spoke about his ability and how he could possibly be the greatest of all time. What happened to him? I mean he was great but, regardless of the career he had, few people would list him in the greatest category today.

Mike Tyson - Phenomenal fighter who maybe could be considered the best pound for pound fighter of all time (19 fights, 19 knockouts at one point) but his career was short. Compare this to the achievements of Ali, for example, and there is no doubt who had a better career and bigger fights against more solid opponents. The heavyweight division was much more competetive back then.

The point is that lots of young up and coming players / fighters / athletes break through with huge promise, break a record or two and then never quite reach their potential (or maybe other people's expectations). When considering who is the 'Greatest of all Time' you need to consider more than 'Well, he would beat him right now if they played.' That doesn't mean much. With any sport people get older, less active, their ability fades over time.

In my opinion, breaking the rating record is brilliant, but does that overshadow things like Kasparov being ranked world number 1 from 1986-2005? Three times longer than anyone else in history.No, probably not YET. If Carlsen can keep it up and and add a few more achievements to that list over the coming years then this becomes a more realistic argument. For now he is just like the other young sportsmen I named above (and many more in other sports)- Showing great promise, breaking some records, looking like he could really be something special...but...so many that do fail in the long run.

To put Carlsen up there as the best of all time so soon is extremely short sighted and shows no understanding of what a career in any sport actually means. Consitency is key.