Best Pure Chess Player: All Time

Yes.. this question has been mulled over a thousand times. I do have a twist to it though (which could also have been mulled over a thousand times too... just have not seen it yet).

I've read in several posts that the later Grand Masters (e.g. Karpov) had the advantage of knowledge gained from the previous masters so would generally get the nod over those that were considered the best of past times (e.g. Morphy, Lasker, etc.).

But what if we could equal the playing field? What if Karpov had been born in 1830 for example and played Morphy in the 1850's?...hmm? Of course, we can go the other way... What if Capy also had the advantages of computers etc etc and played Kasporov...?

In other words, with things being equal... advanteges of computers and past knowledge... either everyone has it.. or nobody does...who would be the best pure chess player of all time?

Bracing for impact....

With these conditions, I'd go for the legendary Paul Morphy.

I like Morphy too... but do give considerable consideration to Fischer... his genious plus his pure will and preperation for a match. Could you imagine... Morphy vs. Fischer.. 10 games...  

Capablanca at his peak didn't lose for..was it four years? I'd go for him.

 4 years undefeated vs. the top players of his day... good argument. Fischer's 20-0 including 6-0 candidate matches was also impressive.

This is even more unanswerable than the basic "best of all time" question.  Morphy is a very poor choice however -- because he never developed his chess, his strength is even more unknown.  Because the question has in place too many unknowns to begin with, again the best answer would have to be a modern player as they have professoinally pursued their skill (regardless of technology) and come out on top against peers who have done the same, we therefore have a better estimate of their ture potential.  Any player who has done less has a greater unknown potiental and is a poor guess.

Of course there is no right answer in any case, and it's perfect for fans to shout out the name of their favorite, but if you want to try for the best statistical chance of correctness, IMO one of the worst answers is Morphy 

 A very reasonable argument..orangehonda. Morphy did retire from chess early so we will never know what might have been. But, in Morphy's defense... without developing his chess... he destroyed all those who had already "developed" their chess. Something to consider.

There's probably some humble, small town chess genius out there that we've never heard of.

Alekhine, after the booze lol.  :)

Capablanca, because he kicked everybody's butt, despite the fact that he studied probably less than any grandmaster in history. He definitely studied less than any other world champion. And it was an eight year undefeated streak, not four, if I remember correctly.

 Have you read up on Spasky's study skills..? lol

No, I haven't. Is there any thing important I should know?

 Here at chess.com... they a series of short segments call Fischer vs. the Russians. Part 7 or 8 talks about Spasky and his preperation or lack of preperation before the match with Fischer. Check it out.

As always, Capablanca. 

I have a feeling you may be half right.

Transfer the top guys of today back to his time, and he would be my favourite. But I'm not so sure it works the other way round. Would the notoriously lazy Capa today be able to put in the hours needed to perform at top level?

How about a Capa that has just been beaten by Alekhine and wants revenge, he might work hard

Possibly Howard Staunton or Philidor.

 I stand corrected--between 1916 and 1924 he never lost a game. Alekhine said of him "He had unsurpassed endgame technique. Neither before or since have I ever seen such flabbergasting quickness of chess comprehension." Fine wrote" His speed of play was incredible...What others could not discover in a month....he saw at a glance" Praise indeed from two players who were up there with the very best. Lasker avoided him for ten years and Aleckine avoided him like the plague when he became World Champion.

wow... now those are some awesome indepth posts.... very informative...

keep 'em coming..

Future posters.. please read the first post to understand the angle at which THESE posts have been.... well posted...lol

I read the article, but I still say Capablanca. Reshevsky would be second.

Maybe Carlsen would be in the top few somewhere. Even though he studies often (now with Kasparov!), he has remarkable chess intuition and a sort of "feel" for the right move.