best players?

Alekhin is the greatest, because he is my favourite

but I think Kasparov is the ultimate best, as he had the brilliancy of a great chess player as well as the means we have today..

I would point out that kasparov lost to deep blue.  Bobby fischer would have beaten deep blue, if only by feeding it a loop that made it completely crash!

Tal died at age 56.  While that may not be particularly old, I'm not sure it could be considered young.

                  Weekly World News June 10, 1997

LOL! Where do you get these things batgirl?

That is the positively most awesome article ever.  And batgirl probably gets this stuff through means that shouldn't be discussed over the internet.

I've found in book from 1969 this interesting stuff on the theme who is the best. I hope that will be my translation at least readable ...:) Author Dimitrije Bjelica asked chess Grand Masters for their opinion about who is the chess Champion of Champions.
It's hard to answer. It's like to asking who is the best painter of all times. They lived in different times. OK, anyway, here's what they said:

Mikhail Tal:
For sure was strongest Emanuel Lasker. He made impossible behind chess table. He was great tactician, he could win lost positions.

Mikhail Botvinnik:
In my personal duels with world champions Capablanca made strongest impression on me. Maybe because he was such a natural talent.

Tigran Petrosian:
It's hard to say who is the best. There was a lot giants in chess history who deserves this title, but is hard to compare them. Rubinsteins systems are still actual. He had great ideas. Maybe he is the best.

Igor Bondarevsky:
For me is Capablanca. When I begun to play chess I liked them most and is still so.

Boris Spassky:
The best is Alexander Alekhine because is still unclear to me.

Robert James Fischer:
Have to be Paul Morphy. I believe that he could win all matches still today.

Svetozar Gligoric:
For me is only one. Paul Morphy. Because he was in his time for one class ahead of the rest.

Viktor Korchnoi:
Lasker. He was fighting in a way that I dont understand. He used to win games in openings but he found moves behind the table.

Miguel Najdorf:
This was great, unreachable Capablanca. He didnt care about chess, but he played better than all.

Bent Larsen:
Best player of all times is Philidor, because he was ahead of his time more than anyone alse.

Borislav Ivkov:
My answer is Alekhine, because he was the best.

Lajos Portisch:
This have to be Alekhine.

Lev Polugaevsky
First of all this have to be alive Grand Master. To answer on this question I have to see not only games, but Master on work. From alive Masters this is Mikhail Botvinnik.

Laszlo Szabo:
If you put all Grand Champions together it's hard to decide who is the best. I will vote for four of them: Alekhine, Lasker, Capablanca and Botvinnik

Dragoljub Ciric:
Why question like this? Fischer is the best player of all history. In modern chess which is tuffer than from Capablanca and Alekhine times, Fisher is perfect player.

Ludek Pachman:
The best is Wilhelm Steinitz, because he made a basics of modern chess, strategic chess. Also Capablanca, because he was something special.

Miroslav Filip:
This is Capablanca - for many reasons.

Larry Evans:
For me this could be Fisher if he could control some of his emotions.

Robert Bern:
The best is Lasker. because he was a great tactician, strong in defence and attack. He played good in all phases of the game.

Alberik O'Kelly:
The biggest talent is Capablanca and most successful champions are Alekhine and Lasker. Those three are the best in chess history for me.

Arturo Pomar-Salamanca:
The best was and still are Capablanca and Alekhine.

Istvan Bilek:
Best results have Alekhine. He used to play like play Tal today. They are best Champions.

Georgi Tringov:
Alekhine, because he have best results.

Fridrik Olafsson:
Lasker was most amazing person who played chess ever. He played against his opponent. Today is gratest Fisher. He dont play against opponent but he play good. He play even better than Lasker.

Vlastimil Hort:
When I look at Alekhine's games it seems to me that I see life. His games are reflections of life and that's why he is the best.

Aleksandar Matanovic:
Alekhine is meaning of chess history and the best player of all time.

Eduard Gufeld:
That's Botvinnik, because he's so long on top level and he bring in chess some scientific elements. If is chess art and sport why we measure only sport element? I think that we have to measure both. That's why is Botvinnik the best.

Gedeon Barcza:
That's Lasker, because he knew what is psychology in chess. He was fantastic tournament player and he play good in all phases of the game.

William Lombardi:
The best is Lasker, because he was excellent psychologist, but most loved is Capablanca.

Milan Matulovic:
Alekhine, because he played the best and quality of his games still isn't reach over.

Pal Benko:
Lasker, because he played real fighting chess.

Salomon Flohr:
Alekhine, but why he, you will have to ask someone else.

Lubomir Kavalek:
Alekhine gave the most to the chess game. He is the best with no competition.

Klaus Darga:
Lasker, but I don't know why.

Efim Geller:
Botvinnik, because is so hard to be genial in beetwen such a great number of excelent players for so long.

Bruno Parma:
That is Mikhail Tal.

Wolfgang Unzicker:
Probably have to be Lasker.

Milko Bobocov:
No one cross such a hard way as Boris Spassky. In Capablanca and Lasker times there wasn't so many great players.

Jan Hein Donner:
There is only one and he is Lasker.

Petar Trifunovic:
Wilhelm Steinitz gave the most to the chess game. The best tournament players was Alekhine and Lasker all in their own era. Is hard to compare as war ships from different times.

Alexey Suetin:
Alekhine, because I like his great play.

Vasily Smyslov:
I learned chess on games of Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine that's why I vote for those three.

Oscar Panno:
Capablanca and Lasker from chess history and from present time Bronstein and Tal, because they can win all when they are in top form.

David Bronstein:
Because I answering on this question on Lasker's birth day I vote for him, but on other occasions I vote for Louis De la Bourdonnais because of beauty of his chess games.

Daniel Janovsky:
Alekhine, because I've met him 1939 and I saw how he play.

Well, guys here is result who is the best of the best from 1969:

Alekhine 17 votes
Lasker 16 votes
Capablanca 10 votes
Botvinnik 4 votes
Morphy, Tal and Fisher 3 votes
Spaski, Steinitz, Rubinstein, Philidor and Bronstein 1 vote

Tartakower was also asked this once and he said:
If chess is fight, then is greatest Lasker. If is science then is Capablanca and if is an art then is the best Alekhine.

Oxigen, that is one of the best posts ever! Lasker was not in my top five and I am in a state of confusion there. I truly don't understand his games(for that matter, I don't understand many GMs games), and so I am not profound enough to comment on him. Rubenstein was soooo creative, I'm glad he was mentioned. Fischer? Who cares about Fischer... Jesus, Svidler would have destroyed Fischer...

Response to Zappafrank about Tal.

Tal is not often mentioned because he was never a dominant player like Capablanca, Kasparov, Karpov (or even Fischer from the mid sixties on excepting Spassky until the match).  Against the very top players of his time he stands with an even (Botvinnik, Geller) or substantially negative (Spassky -3, Petrosian-3, Keres -4, Korchnoi-4, and Polugaevsky on top with -6 with 25 draws in 35 games) career win-loss record.  Tal's +2 on Fischer is entirely due the 4-0 result at the 1950 Candidates Tournament against the 15 year old Fischer, those are the only games Tal won from Fischer.

Most of Tal's success relies on the "bottom half effect".

His Olympiad record is not underated because all those players were on his team.  He played board one only once (1962) taking second board prize ahead of Fischer with a draw in their game.  The rest of the time was spent on board 3 or lower.  His tournament results reflected his ability to pull more points from the lower half of the table and at least hold his own with the top half.  The same can be said the for the low boards at the Olympiads.  His style was ideally suited for getting full points from lesser tacticians but often fell short with the few  real tough guys who could match his calculation, and his erudition to grind out a draw or win more often than not.

Even his world championship is suspect because Botvinnik was in the habit of making his real defense in the rematch, that Tal lost.

He was a great player by any standard but that big historic one that requires real sustained dominance over all one's contemporaries not just brilliancies.  He is more popular, and deservedly so, than objectively great.  He finished many events undefeated unlike many tactical gamblers and qualified back into the championship matches in 1979 with a first place at the Riga Interzonal.

The player from that era who is underated is Spassky when he was fully on his game.  No one else held a +3 record over Fischer with no losses with games spread out from 1958 to 1970 over Fischer's whole career at the top.  (Spassky wins in 1960, 1966 and 1970).   Geller ended up with +2 also with his first and last games losses (1958 and 1970) but with two significant wins in 1967 against a mature Fischer.  Spassky's best games show a universal style that is both powerful and sound on a par with Fischer.  Even his match loss to Fischer, while clear and decisive, was far from the devastating dismissals dealt to Taimanov, Larsen and Petrosian.  Fischer had to make deep preparation to finally get past Spassky, as shown by the results of the games where Fischer played his regular stuff for which Spassky was well prepared, especially the game 11 where Fischer is destroyed on the black side of a Najdorf Sicilian poisoned pawn.

I don't know what J_adoubious said, but I love his name.

Jesus, for sure, but Svidler?  C'mon 

Interesting that Korchnoi seemed to have Tal's number.  I love Tal's games, but he clearly got a lot of points because he just plain rattled people.  For some reason Korchnoi was nearly immune to that.

 America sucks in chess.. lets face it, no1 is good from there (Only Nakamura and Kamsky).. and just cause it was made in USA doesnt mean it should play an American.. and Bobby fischer wouldnt have gotten a better score then Kasparov

  Some people say that if Paul Morphy returned to chess today and played our contemporary players He would come out the loser. I think it's nonsense. Who thinks like this? I Am sure no professional players. I know Morphy's games. His style of playing Was modern. His openings too. He sometimes played too riskly,but He knew strenght of his opponent so He could. On the other hand Morphy understood if You want to drawn You have to play quite but if You want to win You have to play riskly. Something for something. If You want to win You have to loss smoething. Nothing for free.

    In my opinion Paul Morphy was the best chessplayer in the chess history.

He was a scientist and a Poet, a mathematician and a Magician.

    Who else?

Bobby Fischer He understood Morphy's style more than others players.

Capablanca and Alekchine. They Are children of Morphy style too. I don't like Alekchine byceause he was a coward but he was a chess genius too.

Kasparov.

In my opinion these people Are the best players in history.

Morphy, Bobby, Capa, Alekchine, Kasparov.

Except for maybe Steinitz almost every chess champion has appreciated Paul Morphy's play.  I remember reading an article about Karpov and his desire to play like Morphy. Lasker gushes when speaking of Morphy in his Manual of Chess.  Alekhine in his article Defending Morphy from his Defenders and Kasparov in his book My Great Predecessors praise Morphy.  And, almost all of them saw Morphy's play in their own... even Steinitz.  

So, if Morphy were brought to Life, taught current Chess Theory, and played the current crop of masters would he do well?  Steinitz, Alekhine, Lasker, Fischer, and Karpov thought so because they thought that Morphy could adapt.  Steinitz pointed out that Morphy's play was already evolving toward Steinitz's scientific approach and had Morphy continued to play he would have been the leading light in chess among his contemporaries (Note: Steinitz was one of those contemporaries).  Alekhine credited Morphy's artistry.  Lasker Morphy's fighting spirit, Fischer Morphy's accuracy, and Karpov saw Morphy's tremedous end game technique. And for those reasons, they believed Morphy would still be champion.

Mike      

The only thing about Morphy today is that he would have to be tougher psychologically.  Morphy, Steinitz, and others had a big advantage of having significant superior insights into a crudely understood game ahead of the crowd as well as native ability.  No one will get such a big edge in this way again, all the major discoveries have been made, future progress will be in much smaller increments and what little there is will be incorporated into the general practice of grandmasters almost overnight.  (and then there are computers)  Morphy's attitudes about chess playing, not chess itself, may be only a function of his social position and era.  If not he would not last long in professional chess in our time. Today there is a literal army of talented, hard working and very objective chess professionals with near-instant access to all developments in the game where in Morphy's day there were mainly a few gifted amateurs, a flawed and sparse literature, limited availability to current master games, and many important aspects of the game that were not yet understood and to the extent they were understood they were not respected.  When Steinitz came out with "positional" play he was labeled cowardly, Andersson would have done better if he had aimed at closed games or unconventional novelties, as he did by opening 1.a3 against Morphy to won, before returning to what was expected and losing, too much the gentleman for his own good (Lasker certainly would not have played into his opponent's strength in this way).  Today's Morphy would encounter no such gentlemen and have to deal with chess as a cold blooded highly technical sport not as Caissa's lofty chosen one.   If in today's world, Morphy the chess player grew into something different than Morphy the man of the 19th century he would undoubtedly be among the high ranking players at the least.  Otherwise he would crack under the pressure as he did in the 19th century possibly without even making a real appearance at the top first.  Morphy in late life was nuttier than Fischer, our modern Morphy could not afford such personality defects.  In this hypothetical exercise we might distinguish between bringing a young adult Morphy from the 19th century, give him time to catch up and raising him from infancy in out time to become a completely modern chess master with his talent and personality.  In the first case, I do not think he would make the jump, too many attitudes about chess and society plus his aversion to anything but an open game would prevent it.  In the second case we may well get a new world leading player assuming that the personality defects that destroyed him in his time are not so serious that they prevent him from realizing his full chess potential today in the hotter pressure cooker of today's professional scene.

I thought that Fine and Lawson presumed that Morphy's madness arose in part from his frustration at having no new challengers of his equal in the thing in which he excelled and being a failure at anything but chess with the social stigma of being seen as a "professional chess player."  In today's world that's not a stigma and so Morphy's madness might not have occurred or at least been delayed for several years.  And given the challenge in chess of stronger players, he might have stayed longer in competitive chess.  As for the pressure cooker of contemporary life, from what I'd read Morphy was a bit of a loner and social outcast according to Frederick Milne Edge (who may not be the most reputable source and might have caused the rift between Morphy and Staunton) and so Morphy might have fit in nicely with some of the modern competitive chess  players whom Karpov described as "doing nothing but live alone in a room, drink a glass of milk for a meal, and analyze chess games all day."    

Mike

Today Morphy would be driven to madness by constantly losing to Rybka 

adolf andersson or paul morphy

I don't think that morphy would have any psychological disadvantages.  In fact, i think the opposite would happen.  Whenever he lost, he could just challenge whoever he was playing to  a duel!  Because he lived in the 19th century, he would actually know how to duel, as opposed to most contemporary chess players.  He would intimidate the other players so much that they would lose.

Can you cite where Fine and Lawson express these as reasons for Morphy's so-called madness or where Edge despicts Morphy as a loner and social outcast?