Best Pure Chess Player: All Time

Who said that :-

We all stand on the shoulders of Giants

When referring to this sort of question ?

was it Nimzo ??

Hello folks, I hate to break in, but you all seem to love chess, so I have a favor to ask. Would any of you be willing to help teach a kid just by playing him?

My nine year old nephew loves chess. He studies it constantly. He has a picture of Kasparov siting in his room from when he got to meet him. He's won a lot of trophies, but he lost in the state finals last year, probably because his folks can't afford a personal coach for him like some of the other kids he played against. His folks put him on chess.com so he could learn because nobody in his chess club can give him a challenge. He's been published in tnchess.org. I just got back from lunch with him and his siblings and we spent a good twenty minutes of him diagramming moves to me. I understood everything, but I haven't played enough chess to give him a game.

So if you are willing to help teach a very willing student simply by challenging him to a game, his screen name is Westo1. Again, he's nine, so I know you can beat him, don't be afraid to beat him, that's the best way he can learn. Just don't cream him. I will say this much though, if you play him twice, don't try the same gameplan you did the first time because he will write down every move and figure out what you did. I'm not saying he's going to beat you the next time, I'm just saying he will study the game you played.

Ray: By posting that in this forum, are you implying your nephew is the best pure chess player?

But seriously, I'll challenge him. It would be an honor to play against somebody who was in the state finals! And you say that we can all probably beat him, but judging by his online rating, he can win against a pretty good fraction of chess.com-ers.

oinquarki, thank you. No, in no means did I mean he is the best pure chess player. I know that was a joke, by the way. I just posted it in this forum because I figured you folks might care about teaching someone.

So again, I thank you. Like I said, don't be afraid to beat him. That's the only way he's going to learn more. His dad and I can't beat him because we haven't played enough. He may not end up in up in the discussion of best chess players of all time, but he sure is going to try!

Ray

There's one thing that bothers me: this isn't a question about who was the most talented; this is a question about who would win. Certain chess greats were immensely talented but didn't study as much as others. This makes your question have two different answers. If all had today's computers and theory, those who obsessively studied would have the advantage (Fischer, Kasparov, maybe Steinitz and Alekhine); however, if all were born in 1830 I think it passes to those with the most natural talent (Capablanca, Reshevsky, probably still Fischer and Kasparov).

It's difficult to compare study habits of old and modern players, however.

Also, are all players in their absolute prime?

If all lived in modern times: Fischer, the future Carlsen, Kasparov, Steinitz, Lasker, Morphy, Capablanca (maybe)

If all lived in ancient times: Capablanca, Reshevsky, the future Carlsen, Fischer, Kasparov, Steinitz, Morphy

Capa was undefeated for about 8 years: "He was undefeated from February 10, 1916, when he lost to Oscar Chajes in the New York 1916 tournament, to March 21, 1924, when he lost to Richard Réti in the New York International tournament."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capablanca#Playing_strength_and_style

As for who was the best natural player, Capablanca must be a contender, so must Reshevsky. Not to mention Morphy. Though it has always seemed to me that Reshevsky never quite lived up to his promise. (Mind you one could say that about Capa as well, he was "only" World Champ for 6 years!).

This page gives some ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_prodigy

It's interesting to note that all these natural geniuses came from the New World!

Kasparov has shown an incredible ability to adapt to the new (computer) era in chess. He was at the top both before & after that, I think this makes him a very strong candidate for the no 1 spot in your question.

I think Kramnik would also be a good candidate (after Kasparov), he has a very deep understanding of the game, and at his best, he could take anyone.

Morphy (pure dominance with minimal effort it seems), then Capablanca (as per Morphy + Alekhine ducking him repeatedly after finally beating him). 

I wonder about about lazy Spassky...he lost to a man who studied at least 10x more than he did.  

 probably more than that...

petrosian off course

Fischer had a monumental talent for hard work, and he was always at chess. Had he been less motivated he'd have probably just been another also-ran, a very good player but not one of the chess immortals.

Portisch was another player renowned for working many hours every day on his chess.

Alekhine also was not blessed with the talent Capa had but hard work made up for a lot.

Gotta include Morphy, Capablanca, and Reshevsky as pure talents as evidenced by what they showed as youngsters and by how they distinguished themselves as adults.

 Great point... honda