Who was the all time best

I remember your style, I remember your pic, I remember your name, I remember your profile, but I can't seem to remember your user name.

Nakamura recently said that he's now focusing solely on "classical" chess, and that his blitz skills has dimnished severely as a side effect of this.

Not even Nakamura claims that he's the nr 1 Blitz player anymore.

i can still like him! his skills have "diminished", and he still almost beat carlsen 23.5 - 16.5.

I thought carlsen did well in the blitz section (better than Aronian?  I have no idea) but got 2nd because of his poor performance in the blindfold section.

Anand is still so damn impressive though, I wonder how long he can maintain his super-high level of play (he got 2nd or 3rd right?).  I really hope this next WC match is great despite Carlsen being a wimp about it.

Wafflemaster, you are confused, the World championship in blitz is not the same as the amber tournament.

Ivoryknight, ofcourse you can still like him, a 7 point lead is rather decisive though, in other words, Nakamura wasn't close to beating him.

Oops.   Yeah, I was thinking of the amber tourney.

I still like Anand though!

 "@raul72, Fischer americanized chess, not revived it." That is an ignorant statement! Fischer revived chess all over the world. Because of Fischer kids in Russia were taking up the game. People all over the world were discovering chess because of Fischer. I really dont know how we can have an intelligent discussion when you dont seem to know that much about the Fischer era. 

Tal never made the front pages of newspapers---month after month. He never got the entire planet interested in chess. Do you know what a one hit wonder is?  It's a guy who has one major hit and lives off of it for the rest of his life. Let's go back to the Fischer era and look at a one hit wonder.  Robin Day had a smash hit in 1958 "Rockin Robin".  He lived off of that song for decades and never came close to repeating it. He was a one hit wonder!

About Capablanca you say---"He himself said that he didn't even own a chess set, although that may have been not true."

Capablanca said a lot of things that were not true (IMO). Man if you believe the story he tells about learning how to play---I got a bridge I'll sell you cheap.  In his first defence of his title he goes down pretty hard---Alekhine doubled the score on him 6 to 3. And yet you say he was the all time best---that is very argumentable.

You say I was arguing for Fischer? In one of my recent post you will notice I called him the biggest prick ever. What I was arguing was the stupid things said about Fischer like your statement that Fischer Americanized chess. That is pure ignorance.

You ask what did I mean by  by "reading too many comic books"?  t was meant to be a put down but if you didnt take it as such--it wasn't much of a put down was it?

Kasparov, would have loved to of seen Kasparov in his prime vs Fischer.

Jose Raul Capablanca is the best. Alekhine sed that.

Why I have no point if I won 2 days ago.

 Unfortunately, he said that on hearing the news that Capablanca had died. Why couldnt he have said that while Capablanca was living? People tend to say nice things about people they dont like upon hearing they have died. Perhaps Amigo, after we have shuffled off this mortal coil---people will say nice things about us 

Hello every one ,lets try to be good sportsman & keep out the trash talk,chess is a classy sport so lets all show class & respect one anothers opinions.No need for insults & put downs ,so far we have all had a lot of good conversations & many good observations about past & present chess players in history etc.Regards

When Capablanca lost the crown with him he was sick and still played him since the tournament was already set up.  Then after he lost his crown until the moment of his death he wanted a match that Alekhine never accepted to have.  

Capablanca will forever be the king of chess.

Check Fisher's comments of him.

calzadilla, that's not exactly how it happened, and Capablanca had quite a few opportunities for a rematch. Capablanca wanted better circumstances as the challenger, than he was willing to give as the champion.

It was both players fault that a rematch never happened.

You are correct...but we have also been deprived of many great matches, maybe the best of all time with Fischer vs Karpov, or Fischer vs Kasparov...all Bobby's fault...

do we have the game notation of this game/match?

Capablanca didn't get beaten that badly...6 to 3 sounds like a doubling but you are all forgetting the 25 draws.  They were equal nearly 75% of the time on that match for Capablanca.  Alekhine won less than 20% of the games.  And most damning of all is Alekhine's avoidance of the rematch.  

The only reason Euwe, Smyslov, Tal, and Spassky are one hit wonders is because they defended their titles quickly, rather than waiting a decade or two.  Botvinnik got crushed by Petrosian who had close games with Spassky, who eventually won, got crushed by Fischer and later by Karpov who Fischer refused to play and who barely lost to Kasparov who had the advantage of youth and learning from Karpov's games, and Kasparov of course got SHUT OUT by Kramnik who got crushed by Anand who sucks against Kasparov but that was the pre-champ Anand.  Spassky really suffers on this one, because he could have beaten Fischer on forfeit by not acquiescing to Fischer's demands and then said "yeah he hasn't yet beaten me, that's why he is a little whiny b!+c# about these petty demands" and people would have to accept that Spassky was the legitimate champion for at least a second term. 

If skill level of a commentator mattered in determining who was the greatest ever, then no one but a bunch of 2780+ could decide if Kasparov or Fischer is better...which may be correct in theory but there'd be too few of them and they have their deeply personal biases working against an objective opinion.

Newer champs have an inherent advantage against the old.  Does anyone think Kasparov NOW can beat Anand.  Even Carlsen (who is no Anand...yet) said that there were many things he could do that Kasparov couldn't, yet he still can't win a world championship with these old-timer champs and former world champs.

I believe Steinitz revolutionized chess more than anyone.

And making the daily news doesn't make one a great chess player...perhaps a good marketer (or not).   

If you are implying that Fischer wasnt a great chess player you clearly dont know what you are talking about...... 

No, he was great.  But how would you or I know apart from the testimony of others and our inability to decipher his plans prior to his ability to execute them?

You are merely better than 99% of other tournament level players.  Fischer was way better than that.

 Lets go over some things in your post. You dont think 6-3 is a beatdown? Its like you win one and I win two. You win one and I win two. You win one and I win two. I'm beginning to feel so sorry for you that I want to write your mother and say---I'm sorry I'm kicking your sons butt---but thats chess. Mrs. Capablanca your son can always say he was sick---in fact I think he did! 

I'm sorry friend but 6-3 is a beatdown.

You say---"The only reason Euwe, Smyslov, Tal, and Spassky are one hit wonders is because they defended their titles quickly, rather than waiting a decade or two." 

Of Course the laws of FIDE (Euwe excepted) dictated when they must play otherwise they would have waited two decades to play---them cheating commies scumbags!

The rest of your post is non-sensical rambling and deserves no comment.