Well my Scottish friend, since my wife is one of you, I hope I'll be forgiven for telling you i'm talking out of a horse's arse on this one....
no probs, try some mints.
Very nifty, didn't spot your misquote of my post at first.
Candidates match round 10 radjabov vs svidler ends in a draw. Gruefeld defece!
I think Botvinik was the best chessplayer of all times. He had something, which nor Fisher nor Kasparov had - simply he was winning games against stronger chessplayers. Even more, he won few matches against better chessplayers.
And the rest - they get their peak of strenght and they could only be good there. Well, Kasparov played against machines and that way made chess theme for media. Fisher was american hero in times of cold war, so it was media loud. In fact that was all, they did not nothing more special to call them greatest.
Botvinik changed chess world - it was him, who created fundations for russian school of chess. He got chess to be important. And he was known as the best, world champion for years. So he is the greatest.
Kasparov did nothing more than play a machine to gain media interest?
Are you forgetting about becoming the youngest WC in history (at that time).
Being the number 1 player on earth for 255 months / over 21 years (3 x longer than anyone else in history)
I have nothing against Botvinnik, but to say Kasparov did nothing more special for chess than play a machine for media coverage is utterly absurd.
Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais (1795–1840) was possibly the strongest player in the early 19th century.La Bourdonnais was considered to be the unofficial World Chess Champion (there was no official title at the time) from 1821—until his death in 1840.
Bobby Fischer. Por su capacidad de ataque y el equilibrio para
sostener sus titulos. Nadie pudo quitarle el record hasta su retiro
no existia un ajedrecista tan completo en todeos los tiempos.
He didn't sustain a title. He won it, spat his dummy out of the pram and then took his ball home so nobody else could play with it. You know, like children do.
A champion proves he is a true champion by defending against all worthy opponents. If you refuse to do that, you are not a champion.
@Genghiskhant So what? Was it good for chess, that Kasparov was best player for 21 years? I don't think that decides. There must be something more to call someone the greatest.
I believe it's Carlsen and I further believe we haven't seen his zenith yet.
If there's a person whose whole life and energy is poured into Chess, it's him.
the greatest is me
- World No.1 for 21 years
- Youngest ever world champion (when he won the title)
- Record for back to back tournament wins
- Broke the highest ever rating record in 1990 (only beaten by Carlsen in 2013) - that's 23 years.
- At one point he was the only one in 2800 range. Karpov was the only one over 2700 and everyone else was below that.
If, after all of this, you don't even consider him when discussing the greatest of all time, then I don't know what to say. Only someone trying to be deliberately controversial could argue his greatness.
Whether you agree he was the greatest of all time or not, to say he that he did nothing special other than play a machine for media attention (that's what you said) is just ridiculous.
What I can say is that any athlete, in any sport on the planet, can only dream of a career like he had (in their chosen field). Very few, if any, ever achieve that sort of dominance over such a long period of time.
Well said, GenghisKant. Regarding Carlsen, He has never even won the world championship so he can't even be in the conversation ... yet.
Once he's won the title (and defended it), then he will probably the greatest player ever.
I think the greatest are master computers
Well said, GenghisKant. Regarding Carlsen, He has never even won the world championship so he can't even be in the conversation ... yet.
Once he's won the title (and defended it), then he will probably the greatest player ever.
He's 22 now. Watch him when he's 30. And I seriously doubt that Anand will find any weaknesses in his gameplay this November (it's November, right?). The question whether Carlsen win the Candidates Tournament is already beyond doubt at this point. It's so wonderful ... we're living in the era of a new Bobby Fischer! 
i think its Kramnik and Anand this november because Kramnik is leading in this years Candidates being the only undefeated player.....
There is an argument for Kramnik being the most difficult player to beat, ever. Petrosioan, Capablanca, Karpov, also in the running.
I would have to say myself. My defense would be insanity.
This point may be going against the spirit of the original question, but I'm thinking the greatest player ever probably never even played chess, or found other pursuits entirely after a brief encounter with the game.
Think about it. Most people never even play this game. Of those who do, only a fraction become chess lovers (addicts). Of those, a small percentage have the raw talent to reach the top levels, and of those, a small percentage actually had the cultural, familial, financial and educational support to get there, and the willingness to work at it, while following a program that started at the right time in childhood.
If we take those percentages and extrapolate them across a world population of billions, and imagine a global culture that could have been encouraging everyone to pursue chess at the highest levels from childhood on for centuries, we would be talking about a completely different set of players at the top, throughout chess history and even today.
Of course, if everyone loved chess that much, computers might not have been invented yet, or only invented to crack the mysteries of chess before turning that computing power to items of minor importance like business or Facebook.
Most people don't play? They reckon in the UK that 70% of children play and 30% of adults. There are chess clubs in almost every primary school.
kasparov....fischer is just like Tal