https://www.chess.com/forum/search?keyword=best+player+of+all+time
Who was/is the best GM of all time
Sort:
Aug 22, 2017
0
#2
gingerninja2003 wrote:
Garry Kasparov.
this
It is impossible to name just one.
In terms of strenght probably Magnus Carlsen can be the best, but how good would be Carlsen if he lived 70 years ago when there were no computers and very limited access to information?
How good would be Alekhine if he lived today and used all the material that is available?
Smyslov
Fischer*, cmon ppl
Aug 22, 2017
0
#11
When you consider the greatest in any sport, and compensate for the advantages of modern times, I think you have to look at how much each player dominated his time. Bobby Fischer's domination of chess in the late 60's and early 70's was unprecedented and never repeated.
That kind of domination is extremely rare. It's like Babe Ruth hitting 60 home runs in 1927 when no other major league baseball team had a team total of 60 home runs or Wayne Gretzky scoring 92 NHL ice hockey goals in 1981-82.
Kasparov.
Kasparov.
Aug 22, 2017
0
#15
A most excellent question! Just when you think the forums are dead and nobody is ever going to post a never-seen-before topic, a beautiful thread like this appears! Thank you. I love the fact that the very first post even answers the question but still allows for the opinion of others. I can but trust other answers will be taken into consideration and pondered. Who knows what deep insight might come from this thread. I simply cannot wait. Following this thread. Thanks again.
THe problem with this question is that the answer depends almost entirely on whatever arbitrary criteria one applies to the definition of "best."
For example, if one defines best as "the player who most dominated the competition of his era" then there are strong cases to be made for players like Morphy. If one defines best as "the player who most advanced chess praxis and knowledge" then Lasker is a likely candidate. If one defines best as "the player who most changed the way the game is played" then considerations go to players like Alekhine. If one defines best as "the player whose play corresponds most closely to what computers define as the correct moves" then Carlson is the likely winner.
I could go on, but you get the idea. How we define best is an arbitrary choice, and that choice defines the answer a priori. It is a discussion where the participants can't really present an argument that doesn't assume its conclusion (which is a logical fallacy in argument).
We all have favorite players that we can argue as being the best for one reason or another, but ultimately we are arguing opinion.
Kingpatzer wrote:
THe problem with this question is that the answer depends almost entirely on whatever arbitrary criteria one applies to the definition of "best."
For example, if one defines best as "the player who most dominated the competition of his era" then there are strong cases to be made for players like Morphy. If one defines best as "the player who most advanced chess praxis and knowledge" then Lasker is a likely candidate. If one defines best as "the player who most changed the way the game is played" then considerations go to players like Alekhine. If one defines best as "the player whose play corresponds most closely to what computers define as the correct moves" then Carlson is the likely winner.
I could go on, but you get the idea. How we define best is an arbitrary choice, and that choice defines the answer a priori. It is a discussion where the participants can't really present an argument that doesn't assume its conclusion (which is a logical fallacy in argument).
We all have favorite players that we can argue as being the best for one reason or another, but ultimately we are arguing opinion.
Vasily Smyslov
bobby fisher