Who was the all time best

Reb overstates the issue with Lasker, but Lasker had two long periods of inactivity.

In terms of longevity, Lasker's predecessor was the best player from 1866 to 1894. However, people tend to forget this because the title "world champion" wasn't put into common parlance until 1886.

Regarding Fischer's remarkable result in the US Open in New York, Lasker had a perfect score in a major New York tournament, Capablanca had a perfect score in a New York tournament, and Fischer had a perfect score in New York. Fischer's result was indeed remarkable, but it hardly sets him apart as being one of the all-time greatest. All it really did was show that he was clearly the best player in America as early as 1963.

Regarding Fischer's winning streak stretching from the Interzonal through the first game of the Candidate's Final, WOW! Absolutely, it was one of the most amazing feats in chess history. But it's not the longest such streak. Steinitz had an even longer winning streak that included a world championship match!

Still, Fischer definitely belongs in the conversation. He's one of the top five players of all time. I just place Kasparov ahead of him.

 he played white u fool

 and it was the best match i know of

JRR spent a lot of time playin poker and drinkin absynthe in the night so his chess sufferd

Whoa whoa there...no need to bring Mrs. Capablanca into this, bless her dead rotting body.

Now let's go over your post...

Is 9-7 a beat down?  Because that is Capablanca's lifetime score against Alekhine Skywalker.  

How about 1-6?  Because that is Alekhine's record against Capablanca except for his one-hit wonder against Capablanca, and of course that commie scumbag Alekhine was too pansy to man up for a rematch...your own logic against other one-hit wonders like Tal.

If it takes an average of 11 games to net 1 victory, that is hardly a beat down, but I'll grant that as "opinion"  

I don't recall Spassky "waiting" an additional 3 years to play Fischer when he could have won legitimately by forfeit.  He went out of his way to acquiesce to Fischer's demands.   I guess that means that 2 of the 4 examples are "excepted", making them no longer exceptions.  Of course, we can neglect the fact that those commie cheaters in those matches (Smyslov, Tal, Botvinnik) were playing each other so the cheating wouldn't have mattered since they are all "Russians".  

And those former champs who didn't play under FIDE rules who cherry-picked their opponents and waited years for serious matches?  I guess they are legit non-commie cheating scumbags.  Funny how that pillar of freedom in chess, that intellectual cold war icon Bobby Fischer refused to play under the established FIDE's anti-commie cheating rules and then he refused again when he had to man up against another commie cheating scumbag 3 years later...a scumbag that actually ended up playing in many title matches and started losing when he stopped cheating which I guess was still before the USSR dissolved...your commie cheater argument makes less sense than any of my rambling and I gave you several reasons why rather than state it so.  My logic is flawless without reference to the mother of [chess] god, capablanca, another commie scumbag (he's cuban).   

I guess Steinitz did not revolutionize chess because of my nonsensical rambling.  Sorry Wilhelm, I have ruined your legacy.  My bad.   

When Capablanca lost the crown with him he was sick and still played him since the tournament was already set up. 

"Did you realize that Alekhine had six teeth extracted in the middle of his match with Capa?"   really ? 

So, you are now saying Alekhine had teeth problem and not Capablanca health ; is like politics different view of the same event.

Sorry, raul, I forgot...Alekhine is a nazi scumbag.

Raul72 are you angry ?...   If you read the book "The king" will learn more about Capablanca. Lasker is one of the best. But (my opinion) the 3 best of best are :

Capablanca (1), Fischer (2), and  Kasparov (3). That is for result, creativity and brilliance. 

 Well, you said he was a communist, a nazi, ---if you keep throwing things against the wall, eventually something is going to stick!  Unfortunately, your time has expired. We have some lovely parting gifts for you at the door and please dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Bye Bye

I have found that most of the comments about Fischer completely misrepresent his contributions to chess. Many here claim he was some great attacking monster, that his chess was full of brutal and brilliant sacrifices and so on. Yes, he was good at attacking, yes, he had an unquenchable desire to win (when he finally made it to the board), but his greatest strength was the apparent simplicity of his game. You just won't find him making speculative sacrifices. He was far more like Capablanca than Alekhin. 

Here's the move that I think typifies his play as well as any he ever made.

Graham Burgess wrote of this position, 

This is one of the most talked-about moves in chess history. It looks extremely unnatural to exchange off the strong, beautifully-placed knight for Black's bad, awkward bishop. Yet it wins the game quickly and efficiently. Is there something wrong with the principles that would lead many players not even to consider such a move?  Not really. Nine times out of ten (if not more frequently) it would be wrong to excange a good knight for a bad bishop. ...Speelman explains the logic as follows: "...although it was 'bad', the bishop was holding together the black position. After its exchange, the white rooks can show their paces in a way which was not possible before." To put it another way, Fischer transformed the advantage of the superior minor piece into the advantage of greater rook activity. Given that the rooks have plenty of targets, this is a good trade. Nevertheless, the move came as a complete surprise to the assembled grandmasters in the press room, with the impulsive Najdorf immediately criticizing it as a mistake. (The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games (1998) p.348)

I don't know how many different ways I can say that Fischer was great. Fischer was great. 

He wasn't the greatest ever.

Whoa whoa there...no need to bring Mrs. Capablanca into this, bless her dead rotting body.

Now let's go over your post...

Is 9-7 a beat down?  Because that is Capablanca's lifetime score against Alekhine Skywalker.  

How about 1-6?  Because that is Alekhine's record against Capablanca except for his one-hit wonder against Capablanca, and of course that commie scumbag Alekhine was too pansy to man up for a rematch...your own logic against other one-hit wonders like Tal.

If it takes an average of 11 games to net 1 victory, that is hardly a beat down, but I'll grant that as "opinion"  

I don't recall Spassky "waiting" an additional 3 years to play Fischer when he could have won legitimately by forfeit.  He went out of his way to acquiesce to Fischer's demands.   I guess that means that 2 of the 4 examples are "excepted", making them no longer exceptions.  Of course, we can neglect the fact that those commie cheaters in those matches (Smyslov, Tal, Botvinnik) were playing each other so the cheating wouldn't have mattered since they are all "Russians".  

And those former champs who didn't play under FIDE rules who cherry-picked their opponents and waited years for serious matches?  I guess they are legit non-commie cheating scumbags.  Funny how that pillar of freedom in chess, that intellectual cold war icon Bobby Fischer refused to play under the established FIDE's anti-commie cheating rules and then he refused again when he had to man up against another commie cheating scumbag 3 years later...a scumbag that actually ended up playing in many title matches and started losing when he stopped cheating which I guess was still before the USSR dissolved...your commie cheater argument makes less sense than any of my rambling and I gave you several reasons why rather than state it so.  My logic is flawless without reference to the mother of [chess] god, capablanca, another commie scumbag (he's cuban).   

I guess Steinitz did not revolutionize chess because of my nonsensical rambling.  Sorry Wilhelm, I have ruined your legacy.  My bad.