Who is the Best Chess Player of All Time? First a Distinction Must Be Made.

Hey All,

In the chess world, there has always been a hotly debated question on who the best chess player of all time truly is...

You will hear various opinions on this question, and it is a complicated question. I think some of the confusion spawns from the fact that we are really debating two separate questions. So! Let me make a distinction.

See when some people see the question: Who is the best chess player of all time? Those people are really trying to answer the question: Who is the best chess player relative to their time? (Seeing as they had no computers, modern theory, and the internet)

See, when someone says: "Alekhine was the best of all time!" They really mean: "Alekhine was the best of all time seeing as how he was he was champion for 19 years, he was so much better than anyone else!"

There is no denying that currently Carlsen would DESTROY Alekhine at his peak. If we were able to warp Carlsen back in time to play Alekhine, there would hardly be a match. Chess Theory has just advanced too much for it to be close.

So, in conclusion.

Carlsen is the best player ever. Anyone from anytime at their peak would lose to Carlsen.

The question to debate is: Who is the best player of all time relative to the limitations of their time.

Each world champion...

....with except perhaps on three occasions. Morphy, Fischer and Carlsen refused to play, allowing another to reign as champ. The Fischer vs Karpov debate is a good one, but I'll stick to my guns and say Fischer would have won.

Would you say Nakamura and J. Polgar would DESTROY Alekhine? I doubt neither Carlsen, Nakamura, nor Polgar would.

Those 3 still have lots to prove. Take Nakamura. If he becomes the champion one day. I would rank him at the bottom of 50 or 100 best players. I would do the same with Polgar.

Becoming a champion for less than a month doesn't make anybody suddenly be the best of all time. Anand and Ksaparov have become champions for years and years. Yet, they regard Fischer as the best.

I personally would have liked to see what Lasker would have done in the computer era. His tactics were off the chain in one game I studied. I would not want to have to play him, especially if he knew cutting edge theory.

I feel this way about Fischer also. I can only imagine how much more efficient he could have been, being able to take advantage of computers and how he might not have lost his mind from playing himself in games too much. Who knows, he may have actually been able to keep it together and beat Karpov too. It would have been wonderful to see him make to the time of Kasparov's peak play, having 3 dominant players slugging it out.

Wow, see I would have to disagree. While Alekhine in his prime would still be considered a strong GM by today's standerdeds, I dont think he could run with anyone strong enough to play in the Candidates. I think Naka would definitly play stronger chess than Alekhine. Chess today is just of a differnt style. Today's GM play solid chess in hopes of finding a strong weakness and grinding down thier oppenent with it. I just dont think Alekhines play would stand well today.

The answer is Kasparov.

Houdini 3.0

and second best is probably Rybka 

Modern chess players lack originality and just use engine to inspire and test "new" ideas. So I won't even compare any modern players with greats like Kasparov and Fischer.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-chess-finally-dead

That's quite a preposterous assumption to make considering that in Alekhine's best year, he played computer suggested moves with the same frequency as Anand did in Anand's best year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history#Moves_played_compared_with_computer_choices).  So, unless Carlsen has memorized every single computer response to every single situation in chess, there is no reason why the raw talent, tactical ability, and calculating ability of Alekhine wouldn't be able to hold up with anybody that is as skilled as he is in those areas.

Unless you want to suggest that the computer age has led to Carlsen playing opening lines which would absolutely baffle the great players of the past and give him a huge advantage going into the middle game.  Which obviously isn't the case, as that part of the game remains very similar to the past and isn't where Carlsen generally wins in the first place.

Waht a laugh! Naka, Polgar, and Carlsen defeat Alekhine!

In 2005,^[15] Sonas used Chessmetrics to evaluate historical annual performance ratings and came to the conclusion that Kasparov was dominant for the most years, followed by Karpov and Lasker. He also published the following list of the highest ratings ever attained according to calculations done at the start of each month:^[16]

People forget that Magnus Carlsen has a much higher competition that he have beaten than let's say Capablanca. During the reign of capablanca there were around 2 billion people on this planet. The % of people playing chess was most likely lower than now, since the time was more difficult and more time was needed just to wrok to survive.

Now we have a pool of 7 billion potential competitors and due to technological progress more time per person for activities like chess.The more competitors you have, the better you must be to become Nr. 1, that's why Carlsen is the best chess player of this planet (so far).

i like kasparov's style 

I think its bean_Fis..... Uhhmm..... I mean Bobby Fischer ;)

Opening theory has changed enormously since Alekhine's time. Carlsen may be seen as comparatively "weak" in the openings but that is only because some other top players like Anand and Kramnik are so well prepared. If you look at Botvinnik's opening preparation in the 1950s he was going to move seven in his lines to find his novelties in several cases and was seen as a preparation monster in those days. I don't doubt that Carlsen knows his main lines to move 20 and past, it's just that he tries to avoid them to avoid prepared lines. In any case I think the level of the best chess players changed quite a bit the last 80 years, and it wouldn't be fair to Alekhine to compare him to Carlsen and Aronian et al in objective strength.

To say it changed "enormously" is a misconception.  Much of the theory has changed but they still largely branch off of the main lines that were created years and years ago.  You give Alekhine a team of seconds and Carlsen a team of seconds to prepare for a match, there is absolutely no reason a chess genius like Alekhine wouldn't have enough prepared openings and prepared responses (that branch off of openings he is already very well versed in) to keep within his book until the middle game.

Once both players get out of book in the middle game, Alekhine's skill speaks for himself.  Again, see where he ranks in computer suggested moves as compared to contemporary players, he ranks dead tied with Anand in Anand's best year.  

If Tal had quit chess in 1960 his results would probably be praised more in general, people have a tendency to rank players that quit early higher based on the great results they surely would have had later in their careers if they just had wanted to play :-) What Tal did the years up until 1960 was amazing, consecutive Soviet Championships, +12 in Candidates and then +5 against Botvinnik.

I've only seen this engine analysis of past title matches, where lower means better (I don't believe much in such studies though):

https://chessbase.com/post/the-quality-of-play-at-the-candidates-090413

And where is this comes from? Let's get this fact straight. The strongest competition in all time is Vienna 1882 from Chessmetric. Surprise?