No Paul Morphy is hands down even though Bobby Fischer has the highest Tourny winning percent (around 73%). Paul Morphy would give a move or a move and a piece. This was before records were kept of chess players and Morphy is more of a Urban Legend but his winning finese is unmatched.
Best Chess Player of all Time!
Sort:
We had a class B swing into town for an hour and he assured us it was Fischer. Case closed.
I would say either Petrosian or Kasparov, even though Karpov is my favorite.
which one did Magnus play it was Kasparov and won right and he played Karpov to a draw in a 20 min game if im correct.
My heart says Capablanca. My brain says Fischer. Both were stuck up geniuses. I suppose Capablanca would keep drawing against Fischer and he would get discouraged... Maybe. Maybe Fischer would have brilliant sacrifices in the opening (Capablanca didn't really play openings extremely well).
Anyways, whoever I say, there's going to be argument.
Morphy or Tal, probably Morphy because he beat all strong opponents within a year (except Staunton) and then retired
uhohspaghettio wrote:
The fact that Kasparov had no computers at first, might actually have given him an advantage. He couldn't rely on them, he had to reason things better and work them out for himself. So his chess developed organically. On the other hand, a lot of the GMs today simply know a lot of openings, endings and examples of attacks in the middle game. But they often couldn't even exploit the moves if the opponent played differently. Their play is more superficial and fake, I'm not saying it's their fault or anything.
I have no horse in this race, or, neverending argument. But, this statement sure makes a lot of sense. I mean, just think of all the forum posts that mention chess engines or programs.....and we're not playing for money!
chrisr2212 wrote:
Buzz Lightyear
True. So true.
(apologies for the image size; alas it seems to be necessary for legibility)
DavidStyles wrote:
(apologies for the image size; alas it seems to be necessary for legibility)
David, I will agree that there are many Americans that "see" things the way they choose, instead of how they may actually be. However, there are people in other countries that also choose Fischer. Me, I could care less either way, but, making a blanket statement about Americans doesn't come off well.
TMIMITW, of course it's a generalisation, but there certainly does seem to be a rather strong correlation, doesn't there?
Agree withTMIMITW.
Also, the simple comparison of highest ratings doesn't make any sense in choosing history's all time best player (not that there is any great system for doing this since it's obviously a matter of opinion).
The obvious problem is that there is the potential rating inflation issue which has been much discussed. That aside, as was noted above Fischer had a 73% all time tournament record, which I believe is the highest in history.
In addition, players like Morphy had no rating so cannot be compared to modern players. Simply judging the world's best player by how long they were world champion also doesn't work as we can see from Kasparov himself losing to Kramnik (a clearly weaker player both at the time and historically) due to his strubborness to continue to play the Berlin Wall which was obviously Kramnik's best chance to beat him.
So my point is that 1. Americans (or anyone from any country) who believe Bobby Fischer is the greatest player of all time are reasonable 2. There is never going to be a correct answer to this debate nor a perfect way to come up with who the best chess player of all time is and 3. It's great that people have different opinions about this as it's an interesting debate comparing all of the different players and styles from different eras. If you don't enjoy the discussion it's probably preferrable to simply ignore the thread rather than making comments that are negative in nature or aimed at disparaging certain points of view, especially if you are directing them at an entire nation like the US that has more members on this American based site than any other country.
My top 5 in order:
1. Fischer, Kasparov, Morphy, Alekhine, Karpov
And just one more thing, no one has ever dominated the top players in the world during a candidates cycle like Fischer did before the Spassky match beating Taimanov and Larsen both 6-0 and then Petrosian as well before dispatching the world champion from a 2-0 start (one of which was a forfeit). This is something that Kasparov never came close to doing but still, by itself, is just one more piece of information and not conclusive in and of itself
DavidStyles, I think it depends on who you ask. Many of us Yanks (I'm actually from the South) do not wear blinders; we study and admire the masters for what they have accomplished, regardless of their nationality. Each one seems to contribute something different to the game -- and we learn from them.
It is the same with pianists: who is the greatest pianist of all time? Most would say Liszt, but there are others with equally astounding abilities as performers. All of them added something unique and original to the art of piano playing.
David,
Maybe. I'm not a pollster. From what I've read regarding this topic in other forums, there are many in other countries that also perceive Fischer as the best.
Generalization? Yeah, I'll buy that. My reponse was because that was not stated in your original post.
No hard feelings. I just don't like people being lumped together by stereotypes (unless it's a funny joke!)
uhohspaghettio wrote:
^ uh, no you have it wrong. Carlsen played Kasparov to a draw (Kasparov black I think) and beat Karpov. Karpov has gone down hugely in rating and isn't half the player he used to be.
Kasparov I would say.
I will also not change my mind when someone goes ahead of his highest rating, I think Kasparov could be the best for the whole of the 21st century.
The fact that Kasparov had no computers at first, might actually have given him an advantage. He couldn't rely on them, he had to reason things better and work them out for himself. So his chess developed organically. On the other hand, a lot of the GMs today simply know a lot of openings, endings and examples of attacks in the middle game. But they often couldn't even exploit the moves if the opponent played differently. Their play is more superficial and fake, I'm not saying it's their fault or anything.
I will agree with teh use of computers and how someone's game can feel fake or mechanical. Thats why I like the older GM's favorite being Paul Morphy but when he was around they didn't have a "GM"
PianoGuy wrote:
DavidStyles, I think it depends on who you ask. Many of us Yanks (I'm actually from the South) do not wear blinders; we study and admire the masters for what they have accomplished, regardless of their nationality. Each one seems to contribute something different to the game -- and we learn from them.
It is the same with pianists: who is the greatest pianist of all time? Most would say Liszt, but there are others with equally astounding abilities as performers. All of them added something unique and original to the art of piano playing.
and all people can agree that the greatest Guitarist of all time was Jimi Hendrix
Eddie van Halen doesn't come close, though Eric Clapton, Duane Allman, and Robert Johnson do.
O man. I wish I had thought up this topic :-(
Who is the Greatest Chess Player of all time! Is it Bobby Fisher?