truley i didnt read 9 pags of postes so im a little lost in the forum....ill just throw in my $.02...1.Lasker-Longest tenure as World Champion, continued to place ahead of Capa and Alekhine after "losing" WC to Capa, he was lazy when it came to chess if he put his all into it there wouldnt be a debate on who was/is the best ever...we would all say Lasker... 2.Kasparov-highest ELO rated for longest, most chess grammies, most TN's attributed to him, overcoming greatest rival many times (Karpov), 3.Capa-8 years without a loss a truely amazing feat of chess skill 4. Botvinik-changed the way modern players prepare for matches, long tenure as champ, could rebound off a loss with great tenacity, and beat many of the "old masters" as well as the up-starts of the newer generations, 5.Fischer/Morphy/Karpov-Fischer and Morphy didnt play long enough for me to put them in my top 4 and Karpov was bullet proof for a few years but overall play declined quickly when he came off meth, still a very good player but only a shadow of what he was.
best players?
Is you have Kasparov as #2 then Karpov has to be #3.
The charge that Karpov needed amphetamines to play may be scurrilous, but it isn't new. It's been around at least since the 1984 K vs K WC match. Lev Alburt among others has said that Soviet GMs, including himself, were given amphetamines by the chess establishment.
http://books.google.com/books?id=YeUCAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=Karpov+amphetamines&source=bl&ots=4Cqk8nKl7p&sig=M2NRHRbLqDejemN3f99vS2UU4FY&hl=en&ei=0d8mS-2AJebJlQfWv42dBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Karpov%20amphetamines&f=false
http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=6502304
http://books.google.com/books?id=CvJoV52X-TUC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=Karpov+amphetamines&source=bl&ots=j0cvV0O2-S&sig=FwvWGiAjAhaQryXUBrJs6zGIQDI&hl=en&ei=0d8mS-2AJebJlQfWv42dBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Karpov%20amphetamines&f=false
Not Botvinnik for sure. He lost more games than he won as world champ
True enough, strictly speaking of the WC match games.
He described himself as primus inter pares, so at least in that way he was realistic and modest.
But his remark about "Primus Inter Pares" was also intended to describe a permanent change in the nature of top level chess under the Soviet influence that there would be no more eras of great individuals. [snip]
Thanks for the interesting comment. I agree that the political subtext needs to be included in order for Botvinnik's remark to be fully understood.
I just don't understand why Kasparov is either #1 or #2, it's annoying, people never consider having Lasker, Capablanca, or Fischer as #1, it's always Kasparov, some people go as far as saying Karpov is next at #2. Even if he is almost always in the top five, I think JR Capablanca is underrated, same goes to Lasker.
This is what I would have...
1) Robert Fischer
2) Jose Capablanca
3) Gary Kasparov
4) Emanuel Lasker
5) Mikhail Botvinnik
are you saying that Bobby is the best? or are you saying that he was the best in a certain period of time?
The endless fun we have with these discussions is the same fun you can have with "what football team was the best all time" because it's so hard to compare a 1972 team to a 1985 team to a 2007 team. But it's fun to discuss.
The endless fun we have with these discussions is the same fun you can have with "what football team was the best all time" because it's so hard to compare a 1972 team to a 1985 team to a 2007 team. But it's fun to discuss.
I dunno if it's the same in other sports, but Hockey players have become exponentially better over the last few decades.
A pro team from the 50's would be massacred today in the NHL.
The endless fun we have with these discussions is the same fun you can have with "what football team was the best all time" because it's so hard to compare a 1972 team to a 1985 team to a 2007 team. But it's fun to discuss.
I dunno if it's the same in other sports, but Hockey players have become exponentially better over the last few decades.
A pro team from the 50's would be massacred today in the NHL.
The size and conditioning of players today is dramatically ahead of what it was in the 50s. That is amazingly apparent in pro football. The size of linemen now is crazy compared to even 25 years ago.
The endless fun we have with these discussions is the same fun you can have with "what football team was the best all time" because it's so hard to compare a 1972 team to a 1985 team to a 2007 team. But it's fun to discuss.
I dunno if it's the same in other sports, but Hockey players have become exponentially better over the last few decades.
A pro team from the 50's would be massacred today in the NHL.
The size and conditioning of players today is dramatically ahead of what it was in the 50s. That is amazingly apparent in pro football. The size of linemen now is crazy compared to even 25 years ago.
So true! Young guys today don't realize -- in the early 70s a 300lb lineman was HUGE... it was, "Whoa! that guy must be close to 300 pounds! GOOD GOD! etc." I'll bet in 1970 the average OL weighed 260lbs... you probably can't find a 260lb OL today. Most fullbacks these days could have played on the line in the 70s.
*edit* found this online, can't vouch for the accuracy but sounds right to me:
"In 1986, only 10 players topped 300 pounds in the entire NFL. This year, the Eagles alone list 18 300-pounders on their training-camp roster and the NFL's total of 300-pounders is 350."
I am totally in love with how this thread turned into how football has evolved over the ages. That totally made my day.
lasker is the best player ever...in the days before rybca and fritz he could play like a super computer when he wanted to
i present Pilsbury v. Lasker, St.Petersburg 1895
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1109097
and Euwe v. Lasker, Zurich 1934 (Almost 50 years later against a future world champ! Euwe placed 2nd in this tournament behind Alekhine)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008008
just amazng stuff, i can only sit back and stare in awe at the things Lasker could do on a chess board. for so long too, he got to play Steinitz (+26 -8 =12), Capa(+2 -6=16), Alekhine (+3 -1 =4), Euwe (+3 -0) and Botvinik (+0 -1 =3).
The people for whom cases can really be made are Morphy, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov. All of these were unbeatable in their primes. Petrosian, Tal, Spassky, Smyslov, etc. all generally lost to Botvinnik or Fischer.
Well it is hard to say who was the best couse if fischer would have lived in the same time as kasparov fischer could prepare his games with computers like fritz. That is one of the main things which annoise me when people say 'this one was best'. No, you can't compare chess players from difrent times very easy. But I think that ive you want to say some one was best than you should watch how long they were best and the impact of that person. Couse you can only compare them to the people which they played against. Couse they had the same tools toprepare there games. So I think it should be Lasker or Fischer couse Lasker was longest WC. And Fischer was more than 100 elo points(!!!!!) stronger than Spaski when they played for the world title. And at the time he won most of his games. That said I think that he deserves to be called #1 couse Ive he played his match against Karpov than who knows were Fischer would have stopped?