No he'd simply use different tools to nurture his talent.
Who is the best chess player of ALL TIME?
Sort:
190493 wrote:
AlexandraThessa wrote:
Why so many comments about Kasparov and Carlsen? They are really nothing compared to giants like Karpov, Laskaer and Botvinnik..
As we've said already, Lasker could only hold his title because he refused to let Rubinstein challenge him.
Karpov? He was great, surely in the top 10, maybe even top 5, but Fischer would have beaten him according to almost all analysts both of that time and today. Even Karpov himself said so.
Botvinnik was good, but he also relied largely on the automatic rematch rule- he probably wouldn't have done so well without it.
Botvinnik won the rematch with both Smyslov and Tal. Botvinnik's second was also secretly helping Smyslov and "coincidentally" when Botvinnik played the rematch without a second he won it.
Agree on your Lasker point however and am somewhat undecided on Fischer vs. Karpov. Lasker while great in his own right barely defended against Schlechter. Fischer was a Phenom, but Karpov's astounding tournament record and when he was older his many draws with Kasparov in a match he barely lost suggests Karpov would have good chances to take the title. I'm not saying it would be the case since Fischer also has quite some achievements, his 2785 Elo for the time (and even today as Nakamura's peak is 2789) was quite impressive.
AlexandraThessa wrote:
Carlsen is not so bad player. If time travel was possible, he would be rated around 2710 in the early 90s and would be a level below Karpov and Kasparov. That's all we can say about him! Only problem is that without computers he probably would be ~2100 player back in those days.
no comments..
It's really hard to say but IMO Bobby Fischer or Garry Kasparov. I think if Bobby Fischer hadn't taken the attitude that chess was a dead game everyone would recognize him as the best to date. All he had to do was try instead of disappearing from the world of chess into madness and prejudice.
Fischer could pull a rabbit from is hat almost at will if he devoted his mind to the situation!! I guess just becoming World Champion was good enough. Goal accomplished but the problem is chess is all he really knew how to do. So he stumbled around and fell of the cliff.
personally i find it hard to pick out a single player as the best of all time.But if by best you mean strongest,then Fischer and Carlsen.If you mean greatest,Philidor and Lasker.
wmiceladen wrote:
i can't say greatest but i love some attacking chess >:33 Tal and
Nezhmetdinov
great choice wmic!
wmiceladen wrote:
i can't say greatest but i love some attacking chess >:33 Tal and
Nezhmetdinov
But how are their rook endgames?
AlexandraThessa wrote:
Why so many comments about Kasparov and Carlsen? They are really nothing compared to giants like Karpov, Laskaer and Botvinnik..
Lasker? Really? Lasker duck all the best players before he played Schlechter and Capablanca; Schlechter was a tied match and Lasker lost to Capablanca. Botvinnik in his first time to defend his title drew against a great grandmaster Bronstein, not world champion caliber,in all his matches, he will lose his match and rematch the following year. Botvinnik playing against Tal in their second match, Tal was ill and ask to delay it until he recover but Botvinnik force Tal play the match, even though Tal was ill, yeah Botvinnik is a strong world champion, he is better than Fischer and Kasparov.
AlexandraThessa írta:
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
Give him a break, you can't expect him to be the #1 player, world chess champion AND writing books at the same time.
Ahahahahaha! Do you really believe that Magnus Carlsen is writing books? That's joke of the century!!
Nay, I was just pointing out that it's truly hard to see what he contributes to the game of chess, yet, since he doesn't write books and stuff.
TheGreatOogieBoogie írta:
No he'd simply use different tools to nurture his talent.
Different tools = different results.
It's interesting to play with the idea how Magnus would play if all the games he'd studied, all the people that coached him and programs he used would simply not exist.
We'll never know, for sure.
But I say that since they're all standing on the shoulders of giants, modern chess players wouldn't be this good now without said giants.
The idea that Carlsen would be a 2100 player back in those days somehow doesn't sit so well with me..just sayin'...
golden-hathi írta:
AlexandraThessa wrote:
Carlsen is not so bad player. If time travel was possible, he would be rated around 2710 in the early 90s and would be a level below Karpov and Kasparov. That's all we can say about him! Only problem is that without computers he probably would be ~2100 player back in those days.
I can only agree Alexandra Thessa, besides its simple not possible to compare the different time periods in which they played. In addition Carlsen has not really contributed to the game like the really great players did, which is given what is already known also not impossible.
Of course Carlsen has not really contributed to the game, he is still in the middle of it. Those great contributions generally come at a later stage after first setting their path. It's ridiculous to expect today's players to make new theories while they're fully active.
Noone can say who is the greatest of ALL TIME, because the future hasn't happened yet! 
Apotek írta:
The idea that Carlsen would be a 2100 player back in those days somehow doesn't sit so well with me..just sayin'...
It's basically the same question about Morphy, just in reverse:
What if Morphy was given every tool, programs, books, games, theory we have today?
Would he be the #1 player? Or would he be 'just' a grandmaster amongst many?
No doubt both are extremely talented naturally, but technology is on Carlsen's side.
Probably they'd switch sides, and we would admire the romantic, aggressive and stylish Carlsen who beat anyone without ever taking chess seriously, and we'd have Morphy as the current world champion and #1. Who knows.
I think Bobby Fischer is the best of all time