Best chess players of all time?

<ThrillerFan>

I feel you my brother...atleast your not mentioning the Knicks, their time will come, its just not NOW. Melo is too much of a ball hog sorta like Fischer was too much of a feable minded man. At the end of the day he was seeing gohsts before he kicked the bucket...sad really, so much potential, never reached it. He is only in my top five (reluctantly) because at his peak he was sharper than a razor and a real student of the game not to mention he withstood enourmous pressure taking on Spassky at that time in the cold war. Pressure busts pipes and maybe busted him too, who knows. Game recognizes game and ulitmately I put him at number #4 all time greatest because of his game. Sorta like what Patrick Ewing woulda did with his legacy if MJ wasnt slaughtering knickerbockers, who knows, maybe then he would of been elevated to best center in history of the game, but didnt have what it took. You feel me?

I am literally being as objective as possible going simply by computer analysis of moves.  Fischer played the best computer suggested moves with more frequency than anybody in history.  I really don't care about anything else, what country he was from, etc. etc.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/computers-choose-who-was-the-strongest-player-

http://en.chessbase.com/post/the-quality-of-play-at-the-candidates-090413

Are you saying he was being subjective in his choice of objective studies?

1 fisher. even though he was a d***

2 Kasparov

3 Cappablanca

4 Karpov

5 Tal

6 Carlsen

http://www.truechess.com/web/champs.html
http://www.truechess.com/web/champsdraws.html

I have never seen any serious engine analysis rank Fischer first, only the effort linked below which concludes that Spassky, Botvinnik, Euwe, Capablanca and Petrosian all share fifth place on the one-year-list. I wonder how all of them could finish totally equal, but that's not the only fascinating part of it all.

Apparently Kramnik's best year was 1992, Fischer peaked in 1968, Euwe in 1925 etc. That Smyslov played better than Karpov in the middle of the 1970s is another interesting result. Kasparov's 2001, when he won every tournament he played with crushing scores (+5 in Linares with all other participants on minus scores, for example) is still a result of much worse play than Euwe's in 1925 and Spassky's in 1980. Euwe was far from his best in 1925 and faced no top opponents. In Amsterdam he finished second behind Jaques Davidson after losing to him.

Carlsen is not included in the study, and as the above linked study suggested he is likely to be ranked first if he is.

http://www.truechess.com/web/champs.html

1. Kasparov

2. Karpov

3. Capablanca

4. Carlsen

5. Fischer

I put Carlsen temporarily at No. 4 as he is young and newly crowned WC. After 5 years. I expect he would be No.3. As for Fischer, he has a short career. He deserve a higher ranking but he did not play actively after winning the WC.

Reading both studies, I have no idea where you have decided to make the leap that only the study you posted is "serious" engine analysis as opposed to the other study.  Because the results of the other study didn't meet preconceived notions you had of when certain players were great?

Also, there is nothing to suggest that Carlsen would be first of all time.  There is analysis of a single tournament where Carlsen scored extremely well, though his play deteriorated as the tournament went on.  Nowhere from this can a leap be made that Carlsen would "likely" be the greatest of all time according to the computer.

You claimed that Fischer played the best moves according to engine analysis, but the one (personal home page) that claims this is difficult to take seriously. It declares that Euwe played much better chess in 1925 than Kasparov ever did in his whole career, and various similar things.

As for Carlsen, the mentioned analysis isn't of a "tournament where Carlsen scored extremely well", as you state, but of the Candidates 2013, where he had his worst performance in a while. His average performance has been considerably better the last years than it was there, and still his play was supposedly far better than that of any previous World Champions.

Artch   ...said it best "Are you saying he was being subjective in his choice of objective studies"?

If you look at all four of these links (great links BTW!) there is one take home big picture for me...Capablanca was a genious and Fischer was a flash in the sky. Interestingly <montemaur>'s link actually suggests this too.

Surpringly Kasparov's play isnt on the same level as either Capablanca or Fischer and Kraminik gets more love than you might guess too.

I think if it wasnt for Capa's loss to Alekhine he would be hard to take down from the top of the board. Even his own predecessors like Lasker (who's is arguably in the top 5 all time himself) said of Capa "he is the only chess genious he's ever known" he routinly awed his peers with his innate ability to look deeper and faster into random positions than anybody even people who were ranked just under him. Is there anything else to say about him? Kasparov and Karpov are higher on my list only because they played stronger competition more regularly. But its a tough call. I have always said Capa is my personal favorite (not just because he is Cuban like me) but because of his simplicity and intuition which BTW is the one advantage we still have over super computers (does that mean Capa would fair the best against these super computers?) but I give the top spots to the arch rivals Kasparov & Karpov only becuase the level of competition.

You can say 13 years but in the big scheme he never defended his tittle and he retired in his prime. Who does that? Not any of his predicessors or successors. I dont disrespect his run at the top, I'm only saying its a shorter run at the top than his counterparts like Lasker, Capa, Kasparov...

Not necessarily apropos of anything, but just something I was thinking about:

Imagine any of these players if you took away their closest rival.

Kasparov - remove Karpov, and little changes for him.  Karpov is the guy he overcame, he never really gave the title back, and was eventually overcome by Kramnik's superior prep, then retired.

Fischer - remove Spassky, and he still dominates the hell out of whoever he faces that year, then disappears.

Capablanca - remove Alekhine, and what happens?  Is he champion till he dies?  Does he drink too much, smoke too many cigars, take somebody too lightly, and hack up the title anyway?  Tough to tell.

Karpov - remove Kasparov, and Karpov is world champion during the most competitive era in chess history for at least a quarter century.  Amazing.  This alone is reason to rank KASPAROV #1 overall, and Karpov #2.  The only thing in the Universe keeping Karpov from being everybody's unanimous #1 of all time in a laugher of a competition is Kasparov, and Kasparov clearly had the upper hand in the rivalry.  (Even though the match score was very close.)

Once again, well said! I prefer to think that withouth Alekhine (top 10 all timer) then Capablanca would have skated by another decade of dominance. Would this then make it extremely difficult to surplant his top spot? Are we lowering Capa's rank because he didnt have superior competion? Well then lets use the computer analysis to distinguish who played clearer with less blunders or errros, well if that were the case then Capa would win that arguement as well. You can see that with the analysis in the above comments. But, Kasparov being tested by Karpov (attack master vs. positional master) and with retrospect to their number of years on the top of the board and the hight level accurate play of their peers than what Capa witnessed...you must go with Kasparov and Karpov by this virtue...but it still begs the question what would happen if we have a time machine and introduce Kasparov to Capabanca OTB. Do you assume Kasparov wins just because of his level of competion he faced or would Capa in his prime smoke him like a cigar. Saddly we will never know, but I have my oppinoin. Styles make fights...positional is the answer to attacking that is why Karpov challenged Kasparov so doggedly but that would mean Capa's simplicity and advoidance of complications would rattle Kasparov.

Until we develope a time machine NOBODY knows the outcome of said match!

Euwe may very well have played better chess in 1925 than Kasparov played in his entire career.  The only thing unbelievable about this is the preconceived notion you have that that's impossible because Euwe isn't as well hailed as Kasparov.  Actually it's very possible that for that one year Euwe played some of the best moves in the history of chess and is is borne out by computer analysis.

And there is still absolutely nothing you said to suggest that Carlsen would "probably" be best of all time.

Botvinnik, because he beat Capablanca after playing for only two years.

Tal, because he was just awesome.

yes.

Carlsen as he is better than the super grand masters of today who are in turn better than the grandmasters of yesteryear. His all time high rating shows this.  [I know I will get a lot of flack for this opinion] 

looks pretty good. Was Steinitz really that good?