who do you think is the GOAT of chess(greatest of all time)

who would you pick?magnus capablanca grishuk kasparov bobby fisher

more information on how the GOAT is determined based on past and current standards.

who knows how players of past generations who are not used to current preparation tools ( computer analysis, databases, etc )  would fare in today's world.    

Some top notch past players smoking cigars, ie; World Champion Emanuel Lasker had an aura unmatched in today's world.

Is smoking allowed, as past greats do battle with todays' stars ?     not a light question, as some people can not stand smoke -- whereas those past heroes may insist on smoking.

Also, what time limits are suggested ?      Some major events of the 1800s had no time limits.     And in pre-computer days,  40 moves in 2 1/2 hours each was typical.     Past generations are used to adjournments after 5 hours.    I assume there would be no adjournments.

Lebron 

Ben "The Truth Hurts" Finegold

I like goats.

Ben is crazy good. Did you see the games he played with that woman who is ranked around 2200? She won like one game out of 20.

It depends what you mean by greatest. Do you mean the strongest player (that is, who would win the most games in a tournament of the best players of all time)? In that case, whoever the world champion is - Magnus Carlsen at the moment - is the greatest. This is simply because chess theory continually advances, so the current world champion has an advantage over the world champion 50 years ago.

Do you mean who is the most naturally talented chess player? In that case, it would be Morphy or Capablanca. If you mean who was the best for the longest time period, it's Emmanuel Lasker. If you mean who dominated the peers by the greatest margin, it would probably be Morphy, Fischer, Karpov, or Kasparov. If you mean who the greatest player in the world from a American-centric perspective that looks only at American players in a tunnel vision, it's Bobby Fischer, and no one can change the Americanophile's mind (Yes, that is a word according to Merriam-Webster, but the chess.com spell-checker doesn't like it). If you look at it from the perspective that considers the current to be the best, it's Carlsen, and the fanboy's mind is just as hard to change as the Americanophile. In other words, it's a really complicated question and it depends a lot on what you mean by greatest. In my personal opinion, if you add all the factors together, Garry Kasparov was the greatest. He dominated his peers, he was world #1 for 20 years, and he was highly talented and extremely strong. 

Or you could ask the long-winded, overly-analytical guy and get a long, convoluted, and boring response that is meant to sound smart but really sounds pretentious, and that ends with a lame joke in an attempt to sound less convoluted and boring. Oh wait...

Magnus has dominated no one. He 

Savage47, Fischer was world champion for only four years. I don't think that's enough time to say he's the goat. If he had continued that level of dominance for 10+ years, I'd agree. However, he quit early, so we'll never know if he was the goat or an anomaly. That's why I would give the edge to Kasparov. He proved that he could dominate for 20 years. Fischer proved that he was an amazingly good player prone to rage quits.

Also, Karpov would qualify as another grandmaster who dominated his peers.

"Fischer was the best player for far more than 4 years." 

No, he wasn't. He became world #1 in 1971 and lost all rating due to inactivity in 1976. That is five years as the world's best player. You can say he would have been the best player after '76 had he continued, but that is purely speculative and not grounded in facts. His successor, Anatoly Karpov, was also a tremendous player. In fact, he is frequently listed in the Top 5 and even Top 3 players. There is no way to know who would have won the world championship match. You can't just assume that Fischer would win.

"He shouldn't be punished for the political climate of the time." 

Agreed, but that isn't what I'm doing. He didn't quit because of politics, but rather because FIDE would not allow him to dictate the rules of the championship match.

"Besides, no one ever beat him." 

I'm presuming that you mean no one ever defeated him in a world championship match, since there is no question that he lost games. That is true: however, it is only true because he quit. If he had not quit, then it would have been inevitable that someone would have beaten him. The fact that he never lost a championship match because he quit before it could happen is not a claim to greatness.

In all seriousness, I am not trying to dismiss Fischer or you. I consider Fischer to be one of the Top 5 players of all time, and I do not mean to belittle you in any way. I just disagree that Fischer is the GOAT because he was only champion for four years, which, in my opinion, is not long enough to claim the title of GOAT.

I like bobby he is my favorite 

I don't believe the question can be meaningfully answered, though that won't stop people from engaging in endless (and fruitless) argument about it. Probably the best we can do is compile a short list of five to ten players and say these guys were collectively a cut above all others. Of course, there will be endless (and fruitless) argument about who makes the list, but it would still be a more meaningful exercise.

For my five (I think I said the same in another thread), I would have, from most recent:

Carlsen

Kasparov

Karpov

Fischer

Petrosian.

Why Karpov and Petrosian over Tal, Capablanca, and Morphy? Because their positional ideas have withstood the test of time (so far), unlike some of the dazzling attacks by the others.

Why Carlsen? Because of his demonstrated ability to squeeze wins out of positions that are almost drawn, against top class opposition.

Savage 47, I disagree, but I don't have time to debate it. However, I will say that you are completely wrong about Karpov not belonging into the top 5. Look into his tournament record. You'd be surprised.

Unsubscribe 

alpha zero by now I'd guess. it depends if non bots can play bullet to bots face and take easy wins. which wind direction is ur favorite. ? I like blue to.

Is that possible?

Probably Morphy for talent and Fischer for a combination of Talent/Hard work. Kasparov obviously proved it, but I assume this is speculative. Maybe you could even throw Greco in the talent one, assuming he actually played the games he showed. If he just came up with puzzles, still shows amazing talent but not the same as coming up with it under time constraints and the stress of a match.