The best chess player ever

fabelhaft wrote:

TetsuoShima wrote:

Ok lets be reasonable if we want to ask who was wc the longest it was KAsparov.

If you ask who was the greatest and best, you have to say it was Fischer.

That's two wrong out of two :-)

Well the second is definetly correct

Steinitz does not get the respect he deserves because, like Morphy, he played too early and while his technique was amazing compared to his peers, a class A player nowadays can look at some of his games today and go "that's a mistake".  And it's just hard to call someone the greatest ever when you personally feel you could hang with them OTB and have a good shot at a draw ;).  It's not a fair comparison, but there you go.

So, the earliest chess pioneers will never get full credit for their chess abilities.

In terms of greatest, I stick with Fischer.  If you birthed every WC to date in complete isolation and gave them a chessboard, a database, food, water, and nothing but time and the rules of the game...then let them loose years later and had them play a tournament...Fischer would win that tournament.

He had the memory and insight, but more importantly he had the greatest will to win and work ethic.  Kasparov has always had bigger aspirations than just chess, and anything that brings him acclaim and influence can be a pursuit for him.  Carlsen dabbles in Poker, etc.  Steinitz and Lasker played in times when there were no peers of real consequence (until Capa came along and showed Lasker what raw natural talent could do in a few years vs. decades of aggregate experience).  Chess in the early days was a scholarly pursuit and sideline, not something people dedicated their lives to as they do today.

Fischer's whole life was consumed by chess even after walking away from the game.  The only other things in his mind at all were his conspiracy theories and prejudices.  The saying about the fine line between genius and madness very much applies to Fischer.

@LoekBergman

Okay - they might have overrated Korchnoi, but the fact of the matter is, Steinitz is no giant when compared to the likes of Petrosian, Tal, Kasparov, Botvinnik, Fischer, Capablanca and Carlsen, even Alekhine. Steinitz is actually a dwarf when in company of these players.

Tetsoushima

You call that Reasonable??

Fischer would get his butt kicked if he ever had to face NN!

But that is not comparing the actual players and their accomplishments, but constructing fantasy variations of them and hypothetical accomplishments. If you gave Sultan Khan and Karpov identical upbringing it is possible that Sultan Khan would do better than Karpov, but the actual Karpov accomplished more than the actual Sultan Khan, and that's why he is generally considered to be the greater chess player.

Maybe a Fantasy Lasker that didn't see chess as something he dabbled with on the side while mainly being interested in philosophy and mathematics would have beaten a Fantasy Fischer if both started from the same square and were equally dedicated to chess. Maybe a healthy Fantasy Tal would beat both. But it is difficult to talk about any certainties in such constructions.

But its Not only the quantity of accomplishments

Fablehaft u dont make the rules. If we just go by numbers why even open the thread?

If it all is so obvious "if we just go by numbers" that there isn't even anything to discuss I'm looking forward to see that "number" ranking of the ten greatest players ever :-)

Think about how fast Anand plays! He's purposely gimping himself so he doesn't crush everyone on the board!
 

Nope not true, you are just a scrub cry baby Fischer homer.

Do you even know what NN means?

Fischer could have had the assistance of many GMs if he chose to (many of them lived in New York City like him). I'm fairly certain that Evans, Lombardy, Robert Byrne, and probably others helped Fischer during his career.

And even if Fischer did do it "by himself," NO, that's not a big enough achievement for me. He only won 10 international tournaments in his career and, if I'm not mistaken, did not win any of the tournaments in his time that would today be classified as "supertournaments" (the Candidates tournaments, Piatigorsky Cup). Carlsen's tournament record blows Fischer's away, and I'm no Carlsen fan.

Fischer won two interzonal tournaments. Well, so did Larsen and Gelfand (Gelfand won his back-to-back, by the way). You want to place them in the Top 10 also?

Fischer won all 8 US Championships he competed in. Very nice. But take a look at the field in many of those tournaments! Come on now, he didn't face more than 2-3 world-class players in those tournaments. Now look at the players Leonid Stein faced when he won three Soviet Championships in four years (1963, 1965-66). No comparison. Stein also won two legit supertournaments (Moscow 1967 and Moscow 1971). Not saying he's better than Fischer, but just to point out that Fischer's tournament career leaves A LOT to be desired for someone typically ranked so high.

To me, Fischer's 20 consecutive wins is his most impressive feat. It's something chess history will never see again. But, winning a tournament (Palma de Mallorca 1970) is winning a tournament, whether by half-a-point or 3.5 points. And winning a match is winning a match, whether 6-0 or 5.5-4.5. It doesn't overcome the vastly superior achievements of other champions.

ofc i am, the majority of GMs voted for it.

alkelhine was a really good player

yes he was very good

I wonder what Houdini got to say about this.

Cut it out LMAO. Soon they will be demanding his FIDE rating.

@Savage

Did you even read the rest of my post?

@Andre_Harding: If you think that the 20 consecutive wins of Fischer are his most impressive feat, what do you then think of the 25 consecutive wins of Steinitz? Where would you place Steinitz?

Steinitz opponents were amateurs