Paul Morphy, Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov.
Magnus Carlsen is just starting out, he hasn't done near enough to be considered in the "greatest of all time" league yet. Ten years from now, if he's still on top, then by all means give him consideration.
"how can you leave out Fischer...?"
Because he played one single title match (against Spassky), was the best player in the world for less than five years, and won maybe six-seven international tournaments in his career. All of that far from what Kasparov, Lasker and Karpov accomplished.
While I added Fischer to my personal list, I can see your point. I think he did enough to squeeze into the third spot. But just barely. And I can certainly see why some may not agree. He was one hell of a chess player, but ranks very low on the WCC list. Won it, then walked away never defending the title.
"how can you leave out Fischer...?"
Because he played one single title match (against Spassky), was the best player in the world for less than five years, and won maybe six-seven international tournaments in his career. All of that far from what Kasparov, Lasker and Karpov accomplished.
While I added Fischer to my personal list, I can see your point. I think he did enough to squeeze into the third spot. But just barely. And I can certainly see why some may not agree. He was one hell of a chess player, but ranks very low on the WCC list. Won it, then walked away never defending the title.
No matter what his record was for champion matches or whether or not he defended his title, just on raw talent alone and the people he destroyed along the way (whether it was tournament or not), winning %, that run of dominance he had at his peak (the 11-0 tournament, the 20 straight wins, etc.) is enough for me.
Tal had a 4-4 record against Fischer. I have a 1/2-1/2 record against Tal.
Perhaps the top three should be Fischer, Tal and myself?
Neither Morphy nor Andersson faced sufficiently strong opposition to show whether or not they were truly great. They were far above their own contemporaries... but that's not saying much.
Now its just getting silly. Someones going to say Zukertort, Tarrasch, or Botvinnik before long >>.
All world champions are the greatest during their respective times.
Morphy, Andersson, Alekhine. Hard to argue with that.
(But maybe Capablanca needs to get a mention somewhere.)
"how can you leave out Fischer...?"
Because he played one single title match (against Spassky), was the best player in the world for less than five years, and won maybe six-seven international tournaments in his career. All of that far from what Kasparov, Lasker and Karpov accomplished.
While I added Fischer to my personal list, I can see your point. I think he did enough to squeeze into the third spot. But just barely. And I can certainly see why some may not agree. He was one hell of a chess player, but ranks very low on the WCC list. Won it, then walked away never defending the title.
No matter what his record was for champion matches or whether or not he defended his title, just on raw talent alone and the people he destroyed along the way (whether it was tournament or not), winning %, that run of dominance he had at his peak (the 11-0 tournament, the 20 straight wins, etc.) is enough for me.
And it was enough for me as well. He made my top three list. But I can see the argument of those that don't include him. It's close.
Tal
Kasparov
Morphy
I say Morphy because, although Fischer, Kasparov, or about any modern player could probably beat him, Morphy was so far ahead of his time that he was nearly unbeatable in his day. (Can you tell I favor aggressive players?)
Disagree, it goes Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov. Carlsen still needs to do more to be considered the greatest.
+1
In his day, Morphy was not considered a brilliant attacking player.
His off-hand games were brilliant. But in his tournament games, he tended to use a very dry, technical style that bored and offended the fans of the day.
Thats what I like about them, they were both dominant in their eras, however when they faced off Morphy completely demolished andersson. Modern GMs like kasparov and carlsen lose quite a lot as Morphy hardly ever lossed. He was completely dominant. Like fischer said, he would probably defeat any GM alive today as he has got those chess skills that just cannot be taught.
Morphy lost 2 games out of 11 against Andersson. You think Andersson could have taken 2 games off of Carlsen, Kasparov, or Karpov?
And any list that includes Kasparov really needs to have karpov in it too. if you look at their records battling for the WCC they were very very close to each other, even after some 100 games. I think there was 1 or 2 games seperating their scores in WC matches.
1.Kasparov
2.Karpov
3.Capablanca
Botvinnik, Kasparov, Carlson
Kasparov, Tal, Morphy(I personally think Tal was better than Fischer, just my opinion)
.. won maybe six-seven international tournaments in his career...
Ten, including one =1st but not including the Sousse Interzonal where he withdrew while leading.