JMb, perhaps. But if we did that, Fischer would also suffer. His 2789 rating was based on five events (the Candidates tournament, and matches against Taimanov, Larsen, Petrosian, and Spassky). As we know, ratings based on matches rather than tournaments can often be misleading.
Radjabov had a +2780 rating from November, 2011 through April, 2013.
How long a span would you like to see, and with what parameters?
Just saying.
There's a dozen correct answers to the question:
For inventiveness in a game that was undeveloped at the time, certainly Morphy comes to mind. Raw talent like that is one in a million, but of course he wasn't even playing the same game Steinitz was a decade or two later, let alone the game people are playing today.
In my eyes the correct answer seems like it must be Garry Kasparov. Raw talent was there, he started very young, and has as near to an eidetic memory as anybody can claim. I remember reading somewhere he remembers every phone number he ever dialled, every address he ever went to, and every move he ever played in a game including simul games. Supposedly he hates to admit that fact about his memory, lest people dismiss his chess success as a product of his freakish mental ability and not his hard work.
The answer for me lies in the fact that Kasparov achieved chess success the likes of which has never been equalled. Kasparov is the prototypical super-GM. First over 2800, 20 years spent as world number one, several world championships (including the record for youngest ever WC before Carlsen,) and a work ethic that's incomparable. Not to mention three players he's coached sitting in the top 10 in the world today, in Naka, Vishy, and Carlsen.
Maybe in the future, it'll be Carlsen. Certainly in playing strength he's comparable, but you cannot be the greatest ever on playing strength alone. We'll see if he manages to defend his championship for a while before we call him the best ever.
Likewise, if you cannot stay at the top, you cannot be called the best ever, which is why I wouldn't say Fischer's the best. Certainly one of the most talented, and with potential to have been the greatest ever, but with only one championship before his refusal to defend it and 20 year disappearance, we can never know what might have been. He was a bright star, but he burned out far too quickly.
Still have to go with Kasparov. His peak rating of 2856 was just phenomenal.
True, Carlsen has gotten a little bit higher. But remember, when Gary did it, there were exactly 2 players 2700+. #3 Nigel Short was a mere 2650.
Today, there are nearly a hundred players rated 2700+. Even some very mediocre GM's. This means that Magnus doesn't need to win as many games, to maintain his rating. And while he still towers over the competition, he doesn't quite tower as far.
(But then again, Magnus is still young, isn't he? So who can say what his future will bring.)
"Still have to go with Kasparov. His peak rating of 2856 was just phenomenal. True, Carlsen has gotten a little bit higher. But remember, when Gary did it, there were exactly 2 players 2700+. #3 Nigel Short was a mere 2650. Today, there are nearly a hundred players rated 2700+"
Reaching 2850+ when the opposition is much lower rated is indeed difficult. Even if all players in the top ten were 2700+ when Kasparov did it (when Short was #3 at 2650 Kasparov had a rating of 2775), but that is impressive enough. Kasparov's biggest distance to #2 was 82 points, Carlsen's biggest distance this far is 74 points.
Still advantage Kasparov in those stats, even if it is difficult to say how much chess has improved the last decades, with stronger engines etc (and Carlsen still only is 23). There are 47 players rated 2700+ today so easier to get a higher rating in that respect, but the 2750+ Morozevich of Kasparov's peak days might find it difficult to perform 2750+ today.
Such comparisons are of course unfair if it is greatness that is discussed, in that field Carlsen is far behind Kasparov at this stage, but when it comes to actual playing strength I think I'd go for Carlsen.
"Kasparov's peak rating was 2851"
I guess it is the above posted live rating stats that are discussed there. But I wonder if the 2790-ish Karpov of 1994 and Fischer of 1972 really played objectively better chess than the lower rated Karjakin and Anand of today. Even if Elo ratings do not measure playing strength, but only results against contemporary opponents.
Garry kasparov
The quote feature seems broken when using smartphone or tablet in my experience, it's possible some don't use it because they use either of those devices.
Bobby Fischer, end of argument.
Bobby Fischer only managed to defeated Spassky for the first time in 1972 (the same year he quit), and he never proved that he could stand a chance against Karpov. He cowered and left the chess world before he could fully develop. Botvinnik, on the other hand, proved his dominance for four decades.
You don't know what you are talking about. Fischer was not interested in continueing chess. He was about to stop playing against spasski too if his demands were not met. Fischer played all the greatest players at his time, and beat all of them. No one stood a chance, and he got bored, i guess.
Well that's a bit untrue, though.
I'm not dissing Fischer, as I think he was one of the best players, but still, the smoke's bigger than the fire.
First of all, Tal beat him, several times, and secondly, he didn't really have that much of an opposition.
Let's face it, Spassky wasn't that much of a challenge for him; he was a rather mediocre world champion, and never near to those that came before and after him.
I wonder what would have happened if Fischer played someone like Alekhine or Capa.
Spassky would take care of Euwe, Alekhine, or Capablanca quite handily. Chess progressed a lot since their day and Botvinnik's school greatly advanced chess understanding.
No real competition? Fischer's competition consisted of Larsen, Geller, Petrosian, Korchnoi, Botvinnik, Gligoric, Benko, Reuben Fine, Smyslov, Reshevsky, and Najdorf just to name a few.
As for best of all time Carlsen, his peak rating and the quality of current top level competition is quite telling. And he's still not done improving.
@SmyslovFan, it's probably more useful to compare ratings over a span of time, not just the peak rating. Calling Radjabov the 8th best player of all time is pretty ridiculous.
I would have to disagree from a purely objective (as opposed to relative to one's peers) standpoint. Radjabov, if he were to travel back in time and face Capablanca or even Spassky during their primes, he would convincingly defeat them in a set match. We speak of players such as Alekhine and Capablanca being great, and they were, but how do you think Alekhine would fare against Grischuk's infamous Hedgehog or Ruy Lopez technique! Modern players simply have too many advantages and some math was done with comparing computer evaluations of past players’ moves compared to today.
In Warriors of the Mind Raymond Keane puts Tigran Petrosian well below Lasker and Capablanca (not to mention that Fischer's real life peak was well above 2690) so I don't put any stock in that system.
http://www.chess.com/blog/SamCopeland/how-strong-were-fischer-and-morphy
Sums it up nicely.
Radjabov wouldn't "convincingly beat Capablanca in a match".
As great as Capa was, he was not able to adjust to the Dynamic chess of the Soviet School. There's a reason that Botvinnik-Capa at AVRO 1938 is considered one of the greatest and most important games of all time.
We saw that Capa, for all his brilliance, had a very difficult time when faced with the likes of Alekhine and Botvinnik. He would have no clue how to handle the wild and ultra-precise lines that today's players use every day.
Kasparov wrote a book showing how chess was revolutionized after Fischer. We're living in the golden age of chess where at least 10 of the top 15 players of all time are still active!
Capablanca was 50 when AVRO took place. He would be dead 4 years later because of health problems.
"Radjabov wouldn't "convincingly beat Capablanca in a match""
If Alekhine could do it in the 1920s it wouldn't be surprising if top players of the 2010s could do it.
What excuse do you have for Capa's failure in 1927?
Same as Alekhine's in 1935. They both liked to party a little too much.
What excuse do you have for Capa's failure in 1927?
Same as Alekhine's in 1935. They both liked to party a little too much.
Checkmate!
Please one more utterance obout Morphy.
He played before there were chess clocks. He used roughly one hour per game to 8 hours for his opponent. A miracle he scored so well as he must have fought boredom.
His strongest opponent was probably Anderssen. He scored a 4 to 1 win ratio. Compare to Steinitz, who only had an even ratio against Anderssen.
Fischer (and Anderssen in his day) said he was the best player to have played- Fischer said this in 1964 and in 1970.
Not saying he was the best, just one in the mix. As Euwe said of him, we will never know for sure but he has to be considered.
That's likely the answer to the question- we may never know.
Please, quote Fischer accurately. He said Morphy was the greatest chess genius. He did not claim that Morphy was the best player ever. Fischer knew better than just about anyone that genius alone isn't enough to be the best player in the world.
Please, quote Fischer accurately. He said Morphy was the greatest chess genius. He did not claim that Morphy was the best player ever. Fischer knew better than just about anyone that genius alone isn't enough to be the best player in the world.
Good point, well made.
@SmyslovFan, it's probably more useful to compare ratings over a span of time, not just the peak rating. Calling Radjabov the 8th best player of all time is pretty ridiculous.