Where to rank Carlsen?

Lasker when he was really old was even capable of defeating Euwe and drawing Botvinnik, that was incredible!

Spassky was a great player and must be very close to top ten, but he did after all not impress all that much (for a greatest ever top ten player, that is) outside those few years at the end of the 1960s. His two title matches against Petrosian showed that the two weren't separated by much, and both had indifferent tournament results. Comparing the position Carlsen has had in the world over the last years, with very dominating tournament results, huge lead on the rating list, repeatedly voted best player in the world, and winning his title match very clearly, I already rank Carlsen ahead of Spassky with regards to achievements.

Lasker won all the games he played against Euwe, that is not least impressive considering that the last wins came in 1934 and 1936, when Euwe was on the way to become, and had become, World Champion. This was 40-42 years after Lasker won the title himself (and was close to 70 years old).

how can you put Carlsen over Kramnik or Aronian?

I bet Steinitz never fell for Blackburnes shilling gambit 

shhhhhhhhh shshshsh!!!! 

If Carlsen were to die today he would still be one of the best ever.  

What is meant by best ever is very vague.  Do we mean played the best chess?  Then all the earliers players would be off the list because later players learned from them. 

Do we mean contributed the most to chess?

Do we mean distanced themselves from their contemporaries?

Do we mean stayed world champ (or "top rated") the longest?

All these are very different questions and people will weigh them differrently.

My top picks in no particular order are:

 Carlsen - based on playing perhaps the strongest chess according to computers, and creating some distance on the rating list between him and other players.  The fact that he won by 65% of the games in the wc is not a valid measure.  Short matches naturally lead to a higher win loss percent.  Anand needed to take risks when he was down 2 points and so its natural that there will be more decided games.   

Morphy: It's just amazing what he did in going over to Europe and freely playing all comers without any requirement of funding whatever.   And he was very dominant against anyone who dared play him.

Steinitz:  Not only a long term champion and the winner of many matches against those considered the best at the time (unlike Lasker) but also started the scientific view of chess.  

Capablanca:  If anyone was a natural at chess I think it was him.  The fact that modern computers tend to like his play is also a big plus.

Fischer:  Do I need to write anything here?

Kasparov:  I consider him one of the greats due to his long term rating advantage/torunament performances over others.  But really his amazing matches against Karpov are truly a thing of legend.  

Kramnik:   Not only do the computers tend to say he plays the best chess (neck and neck with Carlsen).  Also I admit I am not entirely qualified to say it but it seems he pretty much busted 1.e4.    He was the one who really made the berlin popular with his match against Kasparov.  He also gave another huge blow to it with his petroff defense against Leko.  But the thing with kramniks "novelties" is that they are not just minor changes in the lines.  It seems he is adopting the openings that have the longest life.   Consider the fact that Anand even went with 1.d4 against Kramnik.

Anand:  According to computers he was the most accurate in his world chess championship matches (although that does not include the carlsen match)       

Karpov:  Rose to the challenge to be able to challenge Fischer.  Sadly Fischer refused the challenge.  He and Kasparov were really seemed to be in a universe of their own during the 80s and 90s.  

There are quite a few who I really don't know enough to evaluate.  Others were left out on purpose.  But I will just say yes.  I am more interested in who played better moves rather than flashy play.   I also don't really care if someone just held on to the title for several years if they refused to play the legitimate challengers.   

Well then he should retire. He's done all there is to do. Nothing left to prove. Greatest of all time....

I don't think so. Kasparov held the title for a LONG time. Beat all comers and dominated the world of chess almost as long as Magnus has been alive. IF Carlsen can keep it together for the next 15 years and dominate over time.... then his place in history can be ascertained. As it stands now, he clearly the best in the world. AT THIS TIME. His place in history is yet to be determined. He could fold under pressure the next couple years.....

1. Carlsen

2. Kasparov

3. Karpov

4. Kramnik

5. Fischer

6. Capablanca

7. Tal

8. Alekhine

9. Botvinnik

10. Smyslov

I know someone may complain that I list Fischer ahead of Tal, given Tal's dominance over Fischer. It is hard to justify. I think its just my pro-Fischer bias, as an American, creeping in.

didnt carlsen have the most accurate play at the candidates tournament

My criteria:

* Actual game results

* Adjusted strength (in my mind - an evaluation of how well they did given what resources were available to them at the time)

* Additions to chess (what they contributed)

* Style

My picks (in order):

1. Fischer (dominated chess before computers were significantly in use, 6-0 scores against top players at that time was awesome, added a lot to chess theory especially for Sicilian Najdorf, Grunfeld, and King's Indian)

2. Kasparov (very long reign as World Champion, had highest rating until Carlsen beat him, added a lot to chess theory especially for Sicilian Najdorf, Nimzo-Indian as White, Grunfeld, and King's Indian)

3. Capablanca (very long reign as World Champion, played very well at a time without modern computers, stayed undefeated for a long time, added a lot to chess theory especially for Caro-Kann, Queen's Gambit, and other openings; also added to chess positional theory and endgame theory)

4. Carlsen (reign length as World Champion unknown, does well in tournaments and has the highest rating of all time, did not add as much to chess yet but that is because he is still young).  - Given a few years, he could overtake Capablanca.

5. Anand (won World Championships in many different formats, added a lot to Semi-Slav theory, successfully defended World Champion title against Kramnik, Topalov, and Gelfand)

6. Botvinnik (won World Championship several times, basically created the Russian School of Chess, playing style not as energetic as the above but still good)

[No explanation for the next few]

7. Karpov

8. Tal

9. Kramnik

10. Petrosian

And what will the rankings be when Kramnik regains the title?

kramnik will give carlsen a better run. I predict Carlsen wins 2-1 with 9 draws.

I predict Carlsen will have a fun time trying to break through the Berlin Wall with Kramnik.

1.Kasparov

2.Fischer

3.Capablanca

4.Karpov

5.Alekhine

6.Lasker

7.Stienitz

8.Botvinik

9. Spassky

10. Tal

I don't rank Carlsen yet, because its WAY to early.

( I also left Morphy off, because he was never WCC. Not officially at least.)

I believe that Carlsen can still achieve a greater height. This is only the beginning. What we need is a worthy opponent to sharpen him.