Best chess player ever

It's an on-going thread joke to mix up the names.

Fischer....without a doubt, a complete chess genius.

He is greatest of all time because he was farther ahead of his contemporaries than anyone else ever has been.

Definitely Fischer..

Possibly, Mikhail Raul Alekhine.

ticktock: When it comes to being farther ahead of their contemporaries, I don't think Fischer comes in first.  Of course, I'm talking about pre-20th century chess, so opposing competition needs to be factored in, but, irregardless, by these terms, Phillidor and Morphy were absolutely beastly.

Kasparov is my favorite.. I like Carlsen too but i think he's too childish..

I tend to do that to people. Sorry.

I guess it is Jose Raul Capablanca in the end. And that's beceause he had this great chess sense, which was quite unique. He did little study over the opening theory and he simply figured out which was the best move to play in a given position. Also, he rarely lost in the endgame, he was an endgame giant and endgames in chess means hundred times more than openings in my opinion. He has positive scores with almost every other player including Alekhine who took his title, but chess is not just about the world champion! Jose Raul lost very few serious games in his entire career and this says to us pretty much about his exreordinary abilities.

Lasker said: "I've met many chess players, but only one chess genius: Capablanca."

I also like Fischer, Kasparov or Lasker and Alekhine A LOT, but my vote goes to Capablanca.

PS: some sources say he didn't even spend so much time with chess, and that he thought baseball was closer to him.

The following comes from chessgames.com database. The database isn't anywhere  near complete, but it's pretty darn good:

Morphy  Overall record: +221 -48 =32 (78.7%)
Fischer  Overall record: +451 -88 =249 (73.0%)
Capa Overall record: +336 -46 =257 (72.7%)
Alekhine  Overall record: +1072 -251 =490 (72.6%)
Lasker   Overall record: +353 -95 =178 (70.6%)
Kasparov  Overall record: +922 -161 =859 (69.6%)
Botvinnik  Overall record: +514 -131 =419 (68.0%)
Steinitz  Overall record: +422 -181 =128 (66.5%)
Karpov   Overall record: +1136 -362 =1460 (63.1%)

I selected 9 great players and ranked them by overall results based on cg.com's database. The overall percentage doesn't necessarily mean what it might appear since there are many variables and considerations not taken into consideration.  But what catches my eye, and there are also certain, non-obvious reasons for the variations, are the win/loss/draw ratios. For instance, Karpov drew around 50% of all his games. Steinitz 17.5%, Botvinnik about 40%, Kasparov 44%, Lasker 28%, Alekhine 27%, Capablanca 40%, Fischer 33% and Morphy 8.5%. 

It does, I think, give us something to ponder.

Players were exponentially more reckless when you get as far back as Morphy's era, and the fact that there just weren't that many good players back then makes it just another speculation. Seriously, there aren't that many time periods where you would truly only be able to say there were about 5 good players (ok, exaggerating a little!).

I was told there would be no math!

Chessgames.com gives half credit for draws in calculating winning percentage. If you consider just wins and give no credit for draws, Morphy stands out (73%) followed by Fischer (57%). From this perspective, the ordinal position of other players change too. This is similar to batgirl's observations.

I still enjoy Capablanca's games the most.

Except. . . by ignoring draws, a certain undertone is missing.  But, then again, in looking at the figures one has to remember that often draws were tossed out in tournaments (as if the game was never played) and the game replayed to a conclusive end. This was the case in the First American Chess Congress.

Rashid Nezhmetdinov

The only reason he has not become a GM is because he's a Tartar - his playstyle is just amazing.

I like Paul Morphy, from what I hear Kasparov was a sore loser, Fischer was a chess addict who didn't really have a life aside from chess and I don't know much about the others...

MUCH better yet, look at Rod Edwards Edo historic ratings site.

I am gonna say Morphy simply because he played for recreation and if he ever put as much training into the game as todays masters who knows what levels he could have achieved!

B

HA thats funny if morphy studied...CAPABLANCA was the one who didnt study. if your gonna go with "potential talent" capablanca is the capahouse way to go!

Once an old man invited both capablanca and alekhine to a theater. both agreed, and at the theater, it is said that capablanca never took his eyes of the chorus, and alekhine never took his eyes off his pocket chess set. If youre gonna go with "he played for recreational purpoueses only" capa is the capahouseway to go!

paul morphy

Mikhail Tal! The king of the sacrifice.