Greatest Chess Talent in History

I can't find a Lasker-Khan game in megabase.

Alekhine-Khan is 3.5-.5 in Alekhine's favor.

Capa-Khan just one game, in Khan's favor.

 if u want a specific answer to ur question ....this is the specific answer given by goldendog

                    I can't find a Lasker-Khan game in megabase.

It's doubtful you ever will.

Lasker had effectively retired from serious chess after his loss to Capablanca in 1921.  Mir Sultan Khan came on the scene in 1929 and returned to India in 1933. Lasker, after his property was seized by the Nazis in 1933, emigrated to a safer place [eventually the USA (1937) via England (1933) and USSR (1935)] and resumed his chess career in 1934 (at age 66 !) just missing Khan's brief Western chess appearance.

yes but they might have played on Chess.com :-)))

I never got the chance to study many games of the masters named - so I cannot really say! (Opinion based on the first books we have read, or hearsay, does not really matter).

So before we cast our votes - let each person also mention how many of whose games he/she has studied.

 Have you studied the Capa-Khan game??? Its given in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_Sultan_Khan

In one word - that was not an impressive game. However, from an illiterate, that was a great performance!

I'm relatively new to the game, so don't have great insight as to the relative merits of the big names....but from the games I've studied, it seems to me that Morphy and Tal were two guys that had something that would be very hard to teach.

That was my way of saying no Lasker-Khan games exist.  Lasker did win NY 1924, play in Moscow 1925, and resurfaces

Zurich 1934 (as you note). Khan's active period was "just right" to miss meeting

the great Lasker (the player Capa admired most).

So far it looks like . . .

1. Capablanca

2. Morphy

3. Kasparov, Tal, Reshevsky

6. Kahn

That should sort of round out the top 5. Still no Fischer fans huh? Even Lasker was mentioned more than Bobby to this point. I like Fischer, but then again I'm an American . . . and probably others like Capablanca were better.

Fischer worked SO hard at the game, undoubtably talented, but also hard work.

For me Reshevsky had the most natural talent, he was giving simuls at 10!

Young Reshevsky simul photos here

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/view?q=reshevsky&uname=Fersht&psc=G&cuname=Fersht&filter=1#

Without a doubt in my mind the greatest natural chess talents was Paul Morphy and Capablanca.

But Morphy was the Greatest of them all. 

Not the greatest chess player of all time...NO.  But the greatest natural talent.  No books, no teachers, no computers, nothing but a mind for chess. 

Just imagine what that mind could have accomplished in the era of Kasparov!  Also consider what he could have been if he could have studied full time without feeling he wasted his life.

This is why I think Fischer said: "Morphy was the greatest."

Fischer.  Hands down.

Capablanca

For my money, it was Morphy by a long shot.  Without much in the way of theory or competition, he beat the first Grand Master strength player he faced (Lowenthal) at age 13, and if you look carefully at the third game of his Knights-odds match with Thompson, he is playing hypermodern chess (B's at b2 & g2, P's at f4 & c4) in 1859.  His understanding of chess was around 100 years ahead of his time.  Capa and Reshevsky were outstanding in thier own right, but Morphy tops them.

The question of  "who's the best of all time?" seems to be brought up in almost every sport or competition. My question is, how can anyone possibly answer this question fairly? There are to many variables to factor in. First and foremost is that many of the players noted did not have the chance to play each other, so any real answer to this question is not possible. Secondly, you again have to use conjecture to compare the quality of opponents that each played. Were the opponents Morphy played, as strong as the opponents that Capablanca or Kasparov played? Therefore a record of dominance is only as good as the quality of opponents. Now I know everyone making an argument for their respective player will mention a great opponent and list a slew of accomplishments for that player, but again, my argument is that you cannot compare a player against history, but only against their respective timelines. The names listed above such as Capa, Morphy, Kasparov Etc. were great in their own time! what else needs to be said?

Warhorse,

I didn't ask who was the best. I asked who was the player with the MOST INHERENT OR NATURAL CHESS TALENT OR ABILITY? Thank you.

Okay

1. Capablanca

2. Morphy

3. Reshevsky, Kasparov

5. Tal

is what the polls are looking like so far. Capablanca is holding the lead, but a lot of players are citing Morphy for his ability to play the game so well without many "great" players before him to follow. Kasparov and Tal are trailing. And we got a mention of Bobby Fischer! w00t.

hahaha. 

better luck next time.

The original question was about the greatest innate talent. Something to chew on for the chess fanatic, and somewhat different from determining "the greatest."

I'd expect a great innate talent to assess complicated positions with an accuracy

and swiftness that astonishes his peers (as Alekhine was flabbergasted by Capablanca's

swiftness of comprehension). I'd also expect him to play quickly and with

apparent ease (both Capa and Morphy, check). He should be able to not only

play quickly but at the same time at a standard high enough to deal with the

best of his peers as well as dominate the 2nd tier players he meets (Capa managed this until he met Alekhine in their WC match--like Fischer, Alekhine had a talent [a genuine talent I suggest] for working hard, which counts for much in chess. Imagine if Capablanca had Alekhine's work ethic).

That's a short list but so far I think a fair one.