who is the best chess player of all time?

Karpov is Nothing In view of fisher And Kasparov!!

Karpov is just a defense and prophylacxus maniac!!

Kasporav ..... maybe 

I see what you mean. Morphy was fearless!

Did Karpov ever win a major tournament with 100% score ?  Did he ever win a candidates match with 100% ?  Did he ever win 20 games in a row against all GMs ?  Fischer did all these things and Fischer's peak rating is also higher than Karpov's peak rating even though Karpov continued playing for decades after Fischer quit playing .  The hatred some people have for Fischer apparently blinds them to the cold hard facts .  Fischer's peak rating was 2785 , does anyone doubt that he would have easily broken 2800 had he played a few more years ?!  It would have been difficult only because all his opponents would be so much lower rated ... he lost rating points by beating Spassky in 1972 and Spassky was #2 by rating at the time .... 

So, are you arguing that Fischer is the greatest of all time because he had the potential to be better?

You point to Fischer's incredible record, but Karpov, Kasparov, and Carlsen (just to name three others) also had truly impressive results. Should we only consider Fischer's record, or are we also allowed to look at the body of work of other great players?

And yes, Fischer was undoubtedly one of the greatest players of all time. Just not the greatest.

Kasparov and even Karpov got Computerized and and many people help for managing their thing's...

But Fisher was the alone American Hero Running toward's the top...

He is the Best!

I am arguing only that Fischer would have been the first in history to break 2800 had he continued playing , something that only a handful of players have managed to do even decades after he quit playing . Does anyone doubt that he could have easily picked up 20 more rating points had he played a few more years ? Kasparov recently mentioned " rating inflation " himself since Carlsen broke his rating record . I dont think he ever mentioned it as long as he held the record though .... 

Yea Fischer would have break all the records of rating if he had continued!!

He had The Very Unique Vision OF chess Who no one Can wonder about that!!

Kasparov was wrong when he spoke of rating inflation. And I have no clue whether Fischer could have broken 2800. He didn't. And he refused to face a tough new challenger in Karpov. No matter what you think of Fischer's ability, I suspect that even you agree he acted as if he was afraid of Karpov.

Btw, Kasparov lost rating points in one of his matches against Karpov.

Actually Smyslovfan!

Fisher put out 179 demands before defending the WC crown to karpov!

178 Demands were accepted but the last 1,

which was " draw would not be counted and the champion would have to win 9 rounds and challenger to win 10 for wining the WC/...

But the tournament official's declined!

After fischer was gone! for 10 year's Karpov got as much more advantage to be the world champion which Fischer asked!....

That makes absolutly no sense, especially considering that most GMs like Timann for example said FIscher was stronger and even Karpov himself admited it. There is no reason why FIscher shouldnt be considered the greatest chessplayer of all time.

Whether Kasparov is right or wrong about rating inflation is irrelevant to my point about him mentioning it only AFTER someone breaks his record ... it says a lot about his character . As for rating inflation I believe it does exist and apparently you do not . You obviously put more faith/importance in ratings than I do so IF Karpov was so much better than Fischer why didnt he even manage to beat Fischer's peak rating ?!  The answer is simple , either Karpov wasnt as good as you believe OR ratings are not so important as you , and others , seem to think .  I also don't believe Fischer was afraid of Karpov , he may indeed have been afraid of what the " soviets " would stoop to to insure a Karpov victory though . Ofcourse this fear may simply be paranoia which Fischer is famous for .  Fischer also expected , I believe , FIDE to succumb to his every wish after he became WC and when they wouldn't he just decided to quit .  If what Korchnoi said of Karpov is true then your support of Karpov is questionable , given your condemnation of Fischer . Ofcourse we don't know if what Korchnoi said of Karpov is true or not ... do we ?  

I really can't take seriously the "best player" lists compiled by patzers like us. If you want to know who the best player in history was... then ask a few of the best players in history for their opinion.

Bobby Fischer's list (1964): Morphy, Staunton, Steinitz, Tarrasch, Chigorin, Alekhine, Capablanca, Spassky, Tal, Reshevsky.

Anand's list (2000): Fischer, Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, Steinitz, Tal, Korchnoi, Keres, Karpov, Kasparov. In 2008, he amended his list to put Kasparov in first place. In 2012, he had Fischer back in first place.

Kramnik (2005) put Kasparov first. In 2011, he put Kasparov and Anand tied for first.

Aronian (2012) put Alekhine first.

Carlsen (2012) put Kasparov first, but added that Fischer at his peak was a stronger player than Kasparov

Chess Informant ran a large poll in 2001, and the results gave the following ranking: Fischer, Kasparov, Alekhine, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Karpov, Tal, Lasker, Anand, Korchnoi.

There was a meeting and they voted. Fischer was only two or three votes away from getting things his way.

It's a fair assessment that neither Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov, nor Tal could hold a candle to either Rubinstein, Botvinnik, Alekhine, or Capablanca.

It's hard to believe that Akiba Rubinstein wasn't included...

Yereslov wrote:

It's a fair assessment that neither Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov, nor Tal could hold a candle to either Rubinstein, Botvinnik, Alekhine, or Capablanca.

Possibly the silliest comment ever written on the site.

No, perhaps the truest. Rubinstein and Capablanca had something the newer generation didn't: raw talent.

I'd have to go with Kasparov, all in all.

I suggest you check out the games of all three.