Well, on one hand, it's hard to dispute a perfect record! But I know nothing about Greco's opponents -- were they the best players of his time? Or just some guys down at the coffeehouse?
I think in the more modern era, Steinitz is the pretty clear choice. He invented modern strategy, and just ran circles around his contemporaries -- who were pretty good players in their own right.
Actually, I don't mean he's one of the greatest chess playes ever, I'm just saying he was probably the greatest chess player ever when compared to other players of his time. He did checkmate someone in eight moves in which he set a pretty nasty bait. here it is:
There is no reliable source that says he went 72-0 against the best players (or even good, or that he even did it at all) of his time.
And alots of his games are most likely compositions.
Really? then go on google and look up the chess games of Gioachino Greco and look at them.
Morphy.
That's also a good choice, considering he won 85.2% of his games (that includes playing Adolf Anderssen in some games).
Really? then go on google and look up the chess games of Gioachino Greco and look at them.
That's not a reliable source.
The usual list of suspects is Greco, Philidor, Morphy, Steinitz, and Fischer.
Kasparov isn't inferior here he just had Karpov standing close to him.
Silman says:
My impression is that Greco was further ahead of his contemporaries than any player who came after him. He was clearly of grandmaster strength at tactics, his openings were (for his time) cutting-edge, and his play in open positions was world-class. Yes, he took liberties which would not stand up against stronger opponents, but I think that he was well aware of his opponents’ failings and thus had little or nothing to worry about – he swung the bat freely in an effort to create classic mates and attacks that no doubt amused him.
He had solid positional skills too. In the first game above, his capture away from the center (11...dxc4) was very astute, and in the second game he was more than happy to play for the win of a pawn (although, even then, he ended up with a strong king’s-side attack).
Moving forward, I feel that Philidor may have been the best of his time, but other players were close (and Greco would have slaughtered everyone of Philidor’s day, including Philidor). Labourdonnais was extremely strong, but that was 200 years after Greco’s reign. Even so, in my opinion Greco would have given both Labourdonnais and Morphy a stern challenge. In the modern age (starting with Steinitz), Greco would have needed to pick up many new tricks to compete, but I think that talent like his would have blossomed in any period.
Greco was a man in an age of chess children. There never was, and never will be again, a player so far ahead of his time.’
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter62.html#6319._Quiz_question
Really? then go on google and look up the chess games of Gioachino Greco and look at them.
That's not a reliable source.
If that's not a reliable source, then does that mean the sources of players like Morphy or Steinitz are also not reliable, after all they died before computers were invented.
I would say Greco was good in his time, probably the best for another 100 years after he was dead..
but thats when Chess openings, etc.. started kicking in, peopel started learning those, and then they got stronger, right now, with Kasparovs Knowledge he could probably murder Greco (You have to admit it..)
I would say the best ever to live was Fischer and Kasparov.
You ask about the greatest player in their own time...Nobody held the world championship longer than the greatest champion of them all: Emmanuel Lasker. You might want to take a look at my thread from a few weeks ago at:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/the-greatest-of-all-of-the-champions
Lasker is the man who invented many of the modern themes still employed in alot of todays modern openings. As Soltis pointed out in his excellent book "Why Lasker Matters", Lasker was creating all kinds of theortical novelties at move 4, 5, and 6, staking out the territory that remains vital to the modern game. This, unlike players of the current and previous generation that often time don't have to have an original thought until 15, 20 or even 25 moves into a game.
Lasker was still a force to be reckoned with into his 60's. There is no one to compare with him and his longenvity except nowadays in Victor Kornchoni.
We also have Smyslov who was a Candidate at age 62.
We also have Smyslov who was a Candidate at age 62.
Smyslov was champion for 2 years, Lasker was champion for 27 years.
Nuff said.
I don't know what you're on about.
You mentioned Korchnoi as a senior achiever and I appropriately added Smyslov.
Nuff said. Word. Etcetera.
I would say Greco was good in his time, probably the best for another 100 years after he was dead..
but thats when Chess openings, etc.. started kicking in, peopel started learning those, and then they got stronger, right now, with Kasparovs Knowledge he could probably murder Greco (You have to admit it..)
I would say the best ever to live was Fischer and Kasparov.
I agree wid U!
Greco ws not @all a gud player!
WARNING: Please do not try Greco's Game @home. It will spoil ur chess career.
Fischer without a doubt
cool
Okay, this choice is easier than if I had asked who is the greatest chess player of all time. Any way I just wnat your opinion to whether I'm wrong or not about my choice of Gioachino Greco who went +78 -0 =0 which is a perfect record, he lived in the 17th century.