Well i think itz gary kasparov for sure!!
best players?
Sort:
Okay, first off, ELO rating doesn't mean much. Second, there is no 'best'. We will never know who was/is greatest.
Third, it's Morphy. 
i agree with shagrath! Kasparov is one or maybe the best of them all in terms of course in playing chess and popularity. Try to checkout chessdom and see how Kasparov beat Karpov in their game in Valencia, Spain 2009.
I think you'll find it's a modest Englishman called ErrantDeeds, he just doesn't like publicity 
1. Kasparov
2. Karpov
3. Botvinnick
4. Alekhine
5. Capablanca
Nov 30, 2009
0
#8
tryst wrote:
1. Kasparov
2. Karpov
3. Botvinnick
4. Alekhine
5. Capablanca
hey, I agree with you mostly, but you just went too far. Capa 5th? something is wrong here.
Nov 30, 2009
0
#9
He went 8 years without losing, and he gets to be below the drunkard?
It is tough to put either one 5th, but, Alekhine beat Capablanca for the World Championship, so...
And what is wrong with being a drunkard?
Fischer's 20 grandmaster victories in a row without a draw or a loss is pretty hard to beat. Sure, they say his level of chess in the 1992 rematch with Spassky wasn't all that outstanding, but don't forget, he pretty much walked away from the game after 1972.
Don't we have a forum post like this that pops up every week or so?
Nov 30, 2009
0
#14
nqi wrote:
Don't we have a forum post like this that pops up every week or so?
well, this site is about learning, and I asked a question.
tryst wrote:
It is tough to put either one 5th, but, Alekhine beat Capablanca for the World Championship, so...
But Capablanca had a not insignificant plus record against Alekhine. I don't have the figures on which won more top-class tournaments.
WCh isn't the only measure of chess greatness, otherwise Rustam Kasimdzhanov would be considered one of the greatest ever...
Nov 30, 2009
0
#16
BadgerBully wrote:
Fischer's 20 grandmaster victories in a row without a draw or a loss is pretty hard to beat. Sure, they say his level of chess in the 1992 rematch with Spassky wasn't all that outstanding, but don't forget, he pretty much walked away from the game after 1972.
Forget about what Fischer did in 92' vs Spassky... he was nothing like he was leading up to (including that 20-0 vs. grandmasters) and during that 72' World Championship match. At his best he should be top five easy.
If you look at Chessmetrics website.. it showed that Fischer was the best for one year only, and Kasparov was the best for more then 10 years. Fischer may have been good at one point, but he went insane and quit chess for 20 years while Kasparov kept going strong and never gave up, if Fischer kept playing chess for atleast 5 more years, i would have maybe changed my oppionion (that is if fischer was doing good during those years), but Kasparov managed to be good for soo long.
Fischers top of his game (his best year) = 2881 rating
Kasparov top of his game (His best year) = 2879 rating
They are both really tight.. but like i said, Kasparovs time it was much easier to study.. meaning harder opponents, and Kasparov went on to be dominant for more then 5-10 years, while Fischer, only 1 year.
Here is the website
http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Introduction.asp?Params=1840AASSSSSWS000000000000111000000000000010100
From the chess metrics website, i would say..
1. Kasparov
2. Fischer (although he could be lower, but then he had the strongest rating according to chessmetrics, but in Kasparovs time, engines were used, there were computers, people were stronger due to this, but Kasparov did excellent even though people were good past fischers time).
3. Emanuel Lasker (Im surprised.. he and Jose Capablanca were REALLY close)
4. Jose Capablanca
5. Mikhail Botvinnik (He did really good, better then Lasker and Capablanca, but once again he was only good for 1 year, like fischer, then he quit)
http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Introduction.asp?Params=1840AASSSSSWS000000000000111000000000000010100
Here is Paul Morphies peak avg rating
| #66 | Paul Morphy | 2737 | 1859-Jan through 1859-Dec |
Who knows.. but with just 1 year.. you really cannot tell.. to be so good you must be good for years.
Fischer was somewhat of a chicken.. he refused to play Karpov, he lost a Championship (due to not playing under conditions he wanted), he quit chess when he was at the prime of his life..
All those show signs that he was afraid of continuing.. i believe that he knew he wouldnt be able to hold his brilliancy and decided to quit while he was still good, so he can look good.
Nov 30, 2009
0
#19
"Mikhail Botvinnik (He did really good, better then Lasker and Capablanca, but once again he was only good for 1 year, like fischer, then he quit)"
huh?
@Serbian Chess Star:
"5. Mikhail Botvinnik (He did really good, better then Lasker and Capablanca, but once again he was only good for 1 year, like fischer, then he quit)"
You need to read the Wiki on Botvinnik. Saying Botvinnik was "good for 1 year, like fischer. then he quit" ... is crazy-wrong. He's pretty much the opposite of Fischer, he kept losing the title and winning it back. He was world champ three times and held the title quite a few years in all. And many people believe his actual peak as a player came during WWII, when he could only play in Soviet Championships (which he dominated). He was also a pioneer in computer chess.
Who was the best player in the history of chess? would it be Paul Morphy? J.R. Capablanca? Mikail Tal? Garry Kasparov? Anatoly Karpov? Magnus Carlsen? Or should it be said that Bobby Fischer was the greatest? Please tell me who was the greatest chess player of all time, and why. to start things off, I think that it would be J.R. Capablanca, because of his unbeaten streak of 8 years. However, I like Garry Kasparov b/c of his record for the highest ELO rating in history. I would love all of your opinions. Thanks!!