WHO IS THE GREATEST CHESS PLAYER OF ALL TIME? Defend your answer...

Sort:
GenghisCant

Yeah, so because he lost 8.5 - 6.5 to Kramnik (one of the top players of recent times) without winning a game, we should ignore all his successful defenses. Ignore that he was ranked no.1 for 20 years. Ignore all the records he still holds.

The post doesn't merit any argument. Wether you agree that he was the greatest off all time or no, to say he shouldn't even be on the list of possibles, for this reason alone, is just stupidity.

Admiral_Kirk
GenghisCant wrote:

Yeah, so because he lost 8.5 - 6.5 to Kramnik (one of the top players of recent times) without winning a game, we should ignore all his successful defenses. Ignore that he was ranked no.1 for 20 years. Ignore all the records he still holds.

 

The post doesn't merit any argument. Wether you agree that he was the greatest off all time or no, to say he shouldn't even be on the list of possibles, for this reason alone, is just stupidity.

Indeed, Fischer lost every single match against Karpov in just his second WC match.

MOON_DREAMN

Jose Raul Capablanca Embarassed

no_time_to_think

http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4003455   this is a computer-aided study which favors kramnik to be the greatest..but, in my opinion, greatest chess player of all time can not be accurately determined by computers, for the very simple reason that chess palyers are human beings, thus psychology plays a big role in during actual play.. for that reason, i consider fischer was an expert in using psychologing in chess..just what he did and proven in their 1972 match with spassky..

pdve

once again, Alexander Alekhine. It's no surprise that his book Alehine's best games has a foreword by Garry Kasparov

Admiral_Kirk
ktoredes wrote:

http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4003455   this is a computer-aided study which favors kramnik to be the greatest..but, in my opinion, greatest chess player of all time can not be accurately determined by computers, for the very simple reason that chess palyers are human beings, thus psychology plays a big role in during actual play.. for that reason, i consider fischer was an expert in using psychologing in chess..just what he did and proven in their 1972 match with spassky..

You mean when he made outrageous demands and pouted like a little baby if they weren't fulfilled?

falcogrine

yup, that is some good psychology by Fischer.

kazarand

kasparov obviously

ajian

Anand

no_time_to_think

petrosian-fischer 1971 candidates tournament : 2.5 - 6.5, petrosian managed to win only one game and 3 draws against fischer..

admiral_kirk wrote: You mean when he made outrageous demands and pouted like a little baby if they weren't fulfilled?

-maybe that's part of it!!besides, he is the current champ that year so he has the reason to demand..his only demand which was not favored by FIDE was that draws should not be counted as 0.5 points,but, rather, he and karpov will go on and play until one of them will manage to have 10 poits to claim the title. No particular number of games .if they will have a 9-9 score, thus, the champ should reclaim his title...and i think its a fair condition by fischer..

On his 1972 match with spassky:

game 1: it should have been a dead draw,,but, he obviously trapped his bishop.

game 2: spassky wins by default.fischer never showed up.

game 3: grandmasters and chess enthusiasts were surprised of his 11th move i think in benoni defense 11.....Na5, which according to grandmasters was completely against theory.

Game 6: fischer first move was 1. c4, which he never played before.. the game was called by many as "Game of Placid Beauty" -- 

 Psychology was indeed a tool by fischer to win  his games. and i believe,even the grandmaster, and even karpov himself, knows that fischer will win in their 1975 match.

bobbyDK

Bent Larsen based on personality which Roman pointed out in a video.

AndyClifton

If you like exceedingly conceited personalities...

nameno1had

I would rather see a thread made called " What are the prerequisites that a player must have to be called the greatest player of all time " ?

If we were able to construct the epitome of the perfect player in thory and then see what candidate fits, it would be perhaps easier than just arguing over who we think it is from our biased nature.

ThrillerFan

The other problem with there being no prerequisites is that people assume that just because you were or weren't world champion that that qualifies or disqualifies you.  World Championship is a match.  You have an off match, and you aren't WC.  It's like professional sports. Tyronn Lue (yeah, who was he?) has an NBA championship ring from winning the NBA finals in 2001 against the Philadelphia 76ers as a member of the 2000-2001 Los Angeles Lakers.  Patrick Ewing, a long time Knicks center and brief member of the Supersonics late in his career has no rings.  He made the NBA finals in 1994 and 1999, but lost them both in 7 games each, the first to Houston, the second to San Antonio.  Does that make Tyronn Lue a better basketball player than Patrick Ewing?

Making that point clear, I think you could argue any of the following as being the best ever, and it's more along the lines of the best tactician, best positional player, best endgame player, etc.  I think you'd need to have 100 round robins between the following 8 players each during their prime to figure it out (700 games, 50 with each color against each opponent).  The 8 candidates in my opinion would be:

1. Mikhail Botvinnik

2. Mikhail Tal

3. Tigran Petrosian

4. Victor Korchnoi

5. Anatoly Karpov

6. Garry Kasparov

7. Vishwanathan Anand

8. Magnus Carlsen

AndyClifton

lol

falcogrine

I like how you don't include Fischer, that will upset some people!

AndyClifton

And a few others as well...lol

nameno1had

@ ThrillerFan

Yeah, you perfectly understand where I am coming from. Is Randy Brown a better basketball player than Charles Barkley or Carl Malone ? I'll actually be surprised if anyone even knows who Randy Brown is...He has 3 rings and neither of those two hall of fame players got one. Some people are going to complain that it is an apples to oranges comparison because, we are comparing team sports to an individual's ability at a game. Although, you did compare individuals' abilities, they will likely try to tear down your logic because, it lends credence to the idea that a non champ could have been better than a champ.

For example, the first few WCC's could possibly be looked at as inferior players, in terms of skill compared to players who won a championship later, but in the context of their era, they are just as good or better. The subjectivity of it all is difficult to get around, in an attempt to get to the bottom of it all, but I think you have to start some where.

TheOldReb

I guess its your Fischer hatred that makes you leave him off that list ?  I mean considering what he did to Petrosian , and you include him on the list ... Undecided

nameno1had

Capa also...